- Location
- Mountains of Appalachia
Good catch and shows that I need to do my homework before speaking. Well done.
Belated Battleships (KanColle) [REHOST]
- Thread starter theJMPer
- Start date
Good catch and shows that I need to do my homework before speaking. Well done.
- Location
- Minot, North Dakota
100+ years of naval history is too much for anyone to keep straight in memory only. I've lost track of how many mistakes I have made on this thread.
Nicholas
No longer teaching battlethings on a battleship
- Location
- Ashore again
- Pronouns
- He/Him
@theJMPer
Alongside this:
You gotta watch the latest stream. The father of the guy being interviewed started World War Two on Helena, and after it was sunk he became the D.C. officer on USS White Plains where he was in the Battle off Samar.
Alongside this:
You gotta watch the latest stream. The father of the guy being interviewed started World War Two on Helena, and after it was sunk he became the D.C. officer on USS White Plains where he was in the Battle off Samar.
- Location
- Vancouver WA United States
You know I've never understood their reluctance to reuse the name. We give names to new ships that used to belong to a ship that was sunk. We've given the names of all the BBs that were present that day to submarines that currently serve. (Oklahoma and Arizona the exceptions. I don't count Utah since she was a training ship) In some cases there have been two successor ships that both shared the name of a ship sunk in one of the World Wars. The Brits in particular are brilliant with that and not just with their navy. (There were two Lucania's in Cunard's fleet. Both met their end in the wars) so I don't see any reason to not name another ship after Arizona. I get sentiment and all that but come on! It's been almost 80 years! It's almost like the Navy is afraid of the name. They treat her like she's sacred. She's just another ship that was sunk in war. Period. Giving another ship the name Arizona isn't going to dishonor the one that's laying at the bottom of Pearl Harbor.
Last edited:
Skywalker_T-65
Writer with too many ideas.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- Plural/They/He/Her
Arizona is sacred. She's never been 'just another ship', not since she sank. How many other sunken ships have memorials? Royal Oak doesn't, even though she was sunk in a surprise attack and is sitting at the bottom of Scapa. The clear difference there is that Britain and Germany were already at war. Surprise it may have been, it was still a military action by two powers at war.
Ari, and to a lesser extent Utah, are not the same. They're (in a lot of ways) not even the same as Maine. Maine may have sunk in a harbor from what was (presented as) an attack (but was actually an accident) but there's a difference in it. Ari has always been the symbol of Pearl Harbor. She always will be the symbol of the attack. Be it the pictures/video of the explosion, the image of her burning in her blood-oil, or the image her charred and collapsed tripod mast. She's not just a ship anymore.
Hasn't been for a very, very long time.
That's why the Navy doesn't really want to reuse her name.
Ari, and to a lesser extent Utah, are not the same. They're (in a lot of ways) not even the same as Maine. Maine may have sunk in a harbor from what was (presented as) an attack (but was actually an accident) but there's a difference in it. Ari has always been the symbol of Pearl Harbor. She always will be the symbol of the attack. Be it the pictures/video of the explosion, the image of her burning in her blood-oil, or the image her charred and collapsed tripod mast. She's not just a ship anymore.
Hasn't been for a very, very long time.
That's why the Navy doesn't really want to reuse her name.
- Location
- Mountains of Appalachia
There's a further factor into this. What are the battles that made the modern US Navy?
If you look at the list of battles commemorated on the stadium at Annapolis, the vast vast majority are from WWII. Before WWII the USN had victories but nothing that resonated the way Pearl Harbor, Midway, Guadacanal, and Leyte Gulf did. In a very real sense WWII, especially the Pacific, is as foundational to the USN as Trafalgar is to the Royal Navy.
Of the ships that served in WWII, Arizona and Enterprise are the two most symbolic. Arizona is the symbol of Pearl Harbor, the Day of Infamy, and of the dreadful cost of the war and American unpreparedness. Enterprise is the symbol of American defiance and response, the one ship that stood alone against Japan and refused to sink no matter what the IJN threw at her until the tide turned.
Arizona was hallowed in her death, and is never replaced because of that. Enterprise is hallowed by her life and deeds, which is why it has been Navy policy to have the Big E in the fleet as the symbol of American might.
Missouri is placed where she is as the symbol of the war ending in total victory as she watches over Arizona's grave.
- Location
- I thought you had the map?
Exceptionally well said. U.S.S. Arizona is a symbol of one of the most defining moments in American history, and of a day when we learned we could no longer just sit here assuming that we had nothing to worry about and we were safe because we had oceans to either side of us.
- Location
- Vancouver WA United States
I operate more on logic than on sentiment boys. Arizona sank that day. She's decommissioned. The name's open. We have a Missouri. And if it wasn't for the Washington Treaty we would've had a metal hulled Constitution as well. Who is not just sacred but practically the United States in ship form! Why not an Arizona.
It's not that I don't get that she's sacred. (She is.) I've been to Pearl and stood on the memorial. But wouldn't it be a better way to honor both the ship and the men by keeping the name alive?
Sandy River DL
(Verified Destroyer Leader)
- Location
- Lake Michigan
- Pronouns
- Her/She
The name is too closely tied the the Day of Infamy to be reused for now. Maybe we'll get a new Ari in the 2040s, but I doubt it.
- Location
- Vancouver WA United States
You never know. A new war is a pretty good way to get names circulating.
Exactly, you just made my point. What makes Arizona so special? And technically, we were at war. Japan sent a declaration. Not our fault we couldn't decode it quickly enough. Even if we weren't it still doesn't make much of a difference. Look at Titanic. There have been multiple proposals to launch a new ship with that name. Arizona hasn't even gotten one proposal. So Americans are just being overly sentimental and a bit hypocritical. (regular sentiment I can understand but this is over the top) The latter because there is now a ship in the US Navy that was built with WTC steel and named USS New York. If Americans can build a ship not just named but practically part of a far more recent disaster, why not build one from 80 years ago?
And I'm looking at this from a historians perspective here. I am American and can understand to a degree the sentiment surrounding Pearl Harbor. But a historian needs to remain unbiased so I am. That's why I sound so harsh about this. I'm trying to be sensible, not sentimental. If you want me to be sentimental I have this to say in that regard: Just let the old girl rest in peace! Quit holding onto past that's not more than a rusted hulk now. Let. It. Go!
Last edited:
Leafninja91
The man that makes the impossible real.
- Location
- The Great White North
Taffy 3 is coming to Kantai Collection! USS Gambier Bay (CVE-73) is being added today!
Old Iron
Admiral Unfun
- Location
- The Southwestern Deadlands of America
Hmm...
There may also be a measure of risk associated with granting the name Arizona to a new ship, at least for now. I don't really mean risk of damage or loss (that's a given for a warship), but more risk of scandal and embarrassment. And that risk may be too great to chance in the current climate for the Navy. Just a theory though.
While I personally still have a lot of reservations about launching a new Arizona, I think we'll probably see one once we see a shift in mindset towards the more distant past in those who make these proposals.
People see the disasters of different eras with different eyes over time after all. And the demands of what drives, rallies, or stirs the memory of humanity one day may change the next.
Arizona will always be sacred. For now, she sleeps and we do not call out her name lest we disturb her mourning rest. One day, we shall. One day...
Perhaps when she has dried her tears, she shall be ready once more.
There may also be a measure of risk associated with granting the name Arizona to a new ship, at least for now. I don't really mean risk of damage or loss (that's a given for a warship), but more risk of scandal and embarrassment. And that risk may be too great to chance in the current climate for the Navy. Just a theory though.
While I personally still have a lot of reservations about launching a new Arizona, I think we'll probably see one once we see a shift in mindset towards the more distant past in those who make these proposals.
People see the disasters of different eras with different eyes over time after all. And the demands of what drives, rallies, or stirs the memory of humanity one day may change the next.
Arizona will always be sacred. For now, she sleeps and we do not call out her name lest we disturb her mourning rest. One day, we shall. One day...
Perhaps when she has dried her tears, she shall be ready once more.
Aaaaaand 3 February 2017 until someday in 2025, when PCU Enterprise CVN-80 gets commissioned.
Now, if you include PCUs, then yes, that gap is cut down to six months, not long enough to warrant mention, but you specified a USS Enterprise.
My guess is that the Navy would consider it disrespectful to Ari's survivors to even propose reusing her name until the last of them passes away; while she was technically stricken from the Naval Register in 1942, it's a common myth that she is still considered to be In Commission even today, and at this point, it'd be a lot easier to explain after the last people who actually remember World War Two from personal experience are gone. The steel Constitution that we were going to build before the Washington Treaty was signed is a bit different, as the wooden one has a nickname that had entered the popular culture so much that even non-naval types know what you mean when you refer to "Old Ironsides," allowing the Navy to officially change her name to USS Old Ironsides to clear the way for it. (It was then changed back in the 30s, once it became clear that we weren't going to build any battlecruisers. The name was not unprecedented, either; in the mid-19th century, we had a steam frigate named New Ironsides in her honor.)
USS New York LPD-21 is a special case; she is officially named for the state of New York, and is an exception from the normal naming system in two ways (state names are currently reserved for submarines, and LPDs are generally named for US cities). The name was granted after a special request by the governor of New York after 9/11, as he wished to see the name on a surface ship, and honestly, shouldn't have been approved (as USS New York City would have fit the naming scheme, and was free, with the submarine bearing that name having been decommissioned). The use of WTC steel in her is widely overstated; she uses 6.4 tons of steel salvaged from the WTC as part of her stem bar (a component of the bow), out of 24,900 tons of steel in her--so little as to be merely a symbolic gesture.
- Location
- Vancouver WA United States
It's not so much reusing the name but more that Arizona has been covered in Memorials since she went down. Plenty of other ships have gone down in both world wars with far greater loss of life and under arguably more tragic circumstances and yet not nearly as coveted or sacred as Arizona is. Take for example Lusitania in World War I and Wilhelm Gustloff in World War II. Neither have had their name reused also neither have been as lauded as Arizona has been. So it's really more the question of "why Arizona and not anyone else" that really gets me irritated when the sentimentality over Arizona get to this point. Sorry I didn't explain it better before I'm not usually very good at explaining myself.
Last edited:
Old Iron
Admiral Unfun
- Location
- The Southwestern Deadlands of America
No worries. I run into the same thing myself at times.
I would wager it comes down a perfect combination of timing, circumstances, the nation, and people. Perhaps if that iconic image of Arizona burning had never been taken, the bombing and her fate wouldn't have resonated so strongly? Or if it hadn't been America that suffered the incident? It's... an interesting study I bet to see why it is that she is so revered.
Harry Leferts
Suave Shadow Cabal Kaiju
Er, that's actually false. Japan never sent a declaration of war until the next morning. What Japan did send was a declaration that they were pulling out of negotiations as to them the US was not arguing in good faith... And it wasn't as Roosevelt wanted Japan to go to war with them as he wanted the US to enter WWII. As an example, one of the sticking points was that the US wanted Japan to leave China entirely, period and end of story, before it would even consider negotiating the lifting of the oil and scrap steel embargo which it had put onto them. Since Japan really, really needed the resources from the places it took especially with the embargo...
- Location
- Vancouver WA United States
One that historians, psychologists, politicians and others have tried to understand for decades. Maybe it's something we might never understand. At least not fully.
Hawaii wasn't even the real target. Japan just needed the oil fields south of the Philippines. So the Philippines were the real target. And America wasn't nearly as keen to fight for them as popular depiction believes. (McArthar only wanted them back because he got his butt kicked there) so when you think about it. Why attack Hawaii at all? Disable the Pacific Fleet and all I get but if the Phillipines really weren't going to provoke the Americans as some in Tokyo believed they wouldn't, attacking Hawaii almost seems like a waste of time. Whatever it was, Japan did it and stirred up one hell of a hornet's nest doing so.
Last edited:
Harry Leferts
Suave Shadow Cabal Kaiju
Japan figured that by attacking Hawaii and destroying the Pacific Fleet there while invading the Philippines, the US would back off and sue for peace. At the same time, they were also invading parts of the Aleutians/preparing to. Yamamoto did want the I-400 Submarines at this point, but they were still not done as he believed that the best fit would have been to hit the Panama Canal and thus prevent the US from bringing in the Atlantic Fleet as well. They were utterly wrong, but still.
That said, Japan did expect that if they tried to take those oil fields by avoiding the Philippines that the US would try and stop them.
Nicholas
No longer teaching battlethings on a battleship
- Location
- Ashore again
- Pronouns
- He/Him
As a historian, let me tell you this is impossible. There is no chance anyone can completely remove themselves from their biases, and trying to do so only makes them much more obvious.
What real historians do is acknowledge their biases, so that other real historians know their analysis may be slightly flawed in this specific circumstance. It's not held against them because, again, everyone has biases. What most certainly is held against someone is when they claim to be completely unbiased and then proceed to give extremely biased arguments. By that point it's not discussion but mere hypocrisy.
TLDR The moment I read this line I stopped bothering to read your argument, because I knew nothing more of substance would be said.
As to your question of why we don't name more ships Arizona, it's for the same reason why we'll never name a new building "World Trade Center". The name has been solidified as part of the American lexicon inexorably tied with the attack on Pearl Harbor and has been officially unofficially retired. That's that.
Besides, sailors are a superstitious lot, yes? How would you like to be assigned to a ship whose name you know very well from grade school as the one that exploded and killed half her crew? Seriously, the Arizona exploding and the atomic bomb are the before and after pictures that every American grade school uses when teaching about World War Two.
- Location
- Minot, North Dakota
There may be a little bit of diplomatic politics involved. Apparently Japan didn't let Missouri dock there. How would they handle a newly minted nuclear attack sub USS Arizona? Or Oklahoma or Utah?
Logically, there's no reason not to use the names. But logic doesn't run the world, nor should it, by itself. The Navy may wait until all the survivors and dependents have passed away. Every ship name is a political decision. Some names and ships wouldn't draw much attention. Utah might not draw that much commentary. Naming a new Arizona would have a lot of people writing letters to representatives and senators, some for it and some against.
Its unlikely the navy is going to take an action like that when there are so many names available.
Remember, we used to have an SSBN named for Robert E Lee. Imagine how well that would go over in today's political world.
I'm sure the debate happened back then too. I expect there were admirals who wanted to name new battleships Arizona, Utah, And Oklahoma. Those names may have replaced our well loved Iowa names. But others probably saw it from the point of view of how will it look to sail these new ship past the remains of their namesakes which still contained the bodies of their crew. Which argument is right? Neither. And both.
Logically, there's no reason not to use the names. But logic doesn't run the world, nor should it, by itself. The Navy may wait until all the survivors and dependents have passed away. Every ship name is a political decision. Some names and ships wouldn't draw much attention. Utah might not draw that much commentary. Naming a new Arizona would have a lot of people writing letters to representatives and senators, some for it and some against.
Its unlikely the navy is going to take an action like that when there are so many names available.
Remember, we used to have an SSBN named for Robert E Lee. Imagine how well that would go over in today's political world.
I'm sure the debate happened back then too. I expect there were admirals who wanted to name new battleships Arizona, Utah, And Oklahoma. Those names may have replaced our well loved Iowa names. But others probably saw it from the point of view of how will it look to sail these new ship past the remains of their namesakes which still contained the bodies of their crew. Which argument is right? Neither. And both.
Axslashel
I am a pessimist not a realist.
- Location
- Land of the Midnight Sun
But there is in fact a new building named "World Trade Center". Sure the name is "One World Trade Center" but still.
Harry Leferts
Suave Shadow Cabal Kaiju
Oh, and Musashi is getting a new look:
20 Inch Guns (yes, the same as the A-150s) and now Jersey won't be able to make cracks about her not wearing a shirt.
20 Inch Guns (yes, the same as the A-150s) and now Jersey won't be able to make cracks about her not wearing a shirt.
Skywalker_T-65
Writer with too many ideas.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- Plural/They/He/Her
We do have a new Utah.
That said, the closest to a new Okie was Oklahoma City, not Oklahoma. For much the same reason as Ari, that I already explained and others have done so as well. The situation here is so dramatically different than any other ship that it doesn't bear comparisons.
Lusi was sunk while at war. Royal Oak was sunk while at war. Any attempts to make a new Titanic are entirely, entirely, publicity stunts trying to play off her (in)famy. You don't see a new Olympic or (better example) Britannic being plugged because they aren't as famous.
Arizona is forever the symbol of Pearl Harbor, the Day of Infamy, surprise attacks that killed thousands...so on and so forth. There is no logic here, it's all emotions and those emotions are not going away.
(for the record, I'm the first one generally to complain about naming. The Old White Guy club that our carriers are now, the obligatory Big E aside, bugs me because it means legacy names like Ranger or Hornet or, yes, Sara...are less likely to show up.)
....I need to write another Eurobotes snip one of these days. Also, Yoshinori or not, it is H E R E S E Y for Mushi to be wearing proper clothing like that
That said, the closest to a new Okie was Oklahoma City, not Oklahoma. For much the same reason as Ari, that I already explained and others have done so as well. The situation here is so dramatically different than any other ship that it doesn't bear comparisons.
Lusi was sunk while at war. Royal Oak was sunk while at war. Any attempts to make a new Titanic are entirely, entirely, publicity stunts trying to play off her (in)famy. You don't see a new Olympic or (better example) Britannic being plugged because they aren't as famous.
Arizona is forever the symbol of Pearl Harbor, the Day of Infamy, surprise attacks that killed thousands...so on and so forth. There is no logic here, it's all emotions and those emotions are not going away.
(for the record, I'm the first one generally to complain about naming. The Old White Guy club that our carriers are now, the obligatory Big E aside, bugs me because it means legacy names like Ranger or Hornet or, yes, Sara...are less likely to show up.)
....I need to write another Eurobotes snip one of these days. Also, Yoshinori or not, it is H E R E S E Y for Mushi to be wearing proper clothing like that