Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

#2 NOT! for the purest.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> #2 NOT! for the purest. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
#2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 6:23:40 PM   
fodder


Posts: 1855
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline
Name this one.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 7:38:27 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18244
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
It's clearly an LCVP. Duh.

_____________________________


(in reply to fodder)
Post #: 2
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 7:40:37 PM   
fodder


Posts: 1855
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

It's clearly an LCVP. Duh.


What it is is not the question. Name it is.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 7:42:28 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18244
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
LCVP-281?

_____________________________


(in reply to fodder)
Post #: 4
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 7:45:00 PM   
fodder


Posts: 1855
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

LCVP-281?


Sorry, it's not the LCVP-281. Take a hint from the two other NOT for the purests and try again.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 5
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 7:45:36 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8626
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

It's clearly an LCVP. Duh.


I don't think so.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 6
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 7:51:20 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8626
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: fodder


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

LCVP-281?


Sorry, it's not the LCVP-281. Take a hint from the two other NOT for the purests and try again.


I think it's a Design 381 FP. Specifically "Design 381 (officially Vessel, Supply, Diesel, Steel, 177')" Might be a Design 330-D as well.

US Army vessels, some USCG.

"The Army had a number of small oceangoing vessels generally classed as "Freight and Passenger Boat" (FP), redesignated during the war to "FS" for "Freight and Supply" as apparently was the "FT" category. To confuse the issue, the designation was purely functional. It was applied to many small vessels of widely different designs and to converted merchant vessels with no similarity at all to the "standard" designs. There are also a number of small Army vessels with similar function, different designations and designs:"

http://patriot.net/~eastlnd2/rj/fs/fs.htm

Scores of each design were built, all identical.

The one you're showing might be the base hull form from which USS Pueblo (AGER 2) was constructed/converted.




_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to fodder)
Post #: 7
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 7:58:30 PM   
fodder


Posts: 1855
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: fodder


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

LCVP-281?


Sorry, it's not the LCVP-281. Take a hint from the two other NOT for the purests and try again.


I think it's a Design 381 FP. Specifically "Design 381 (officially Vessel, Supply, Diesel, Steel, 177')" Might be a Design 330-D as well.

US Army vessels, some USCG.

"The Army had a number of small oceangoing vessels generally classed as "Freight and Passenger Boat" (FP), redesignated during the war to "FS" for "Freight and Supply" as apparently was the "FT" category. To confuse the issue, the designation was purely functional. It was applied to many small vessels of widely different designs and to converted merchant vessels with no similarity at all to the "standard" designs. There are also a number of small Army vessels with similar function, different designations and designs:"

http://patriot.net/~eastlnd2/rj/fs/fs.htm

Scores of each design were built, all identical.

The one you're showing might be the base hull form from which USS Pueblo (AGER 2) was constructed/converted.




Well, I'd say you did ID the class of ship. Thank You. But that is a purest answer. This is a NOT for the purest question. Take a hint from the two other NOT for the purests and try again.

Remember I'm looking for the name of this ship.

< Message edited by fodder -- 12/18/2012 7:59:23 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 8
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 8:04:05 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 1626
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
U.S.S. Reluctant

(in reply to fodder)
Post #: 9
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 8:05:25 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
USS Hewell

(in reply to fodder)
Post #: 10
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 8:06:47 PM   
fodder


Posts: 1855
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

U.S.S. Reluctant


Yes, it is the U.S.S. Reluctant. (AKA) AK 601 or the Bucket!

_____________________________


(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 11
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 8:08:34 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 1626
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
I may be an idjit on errata, but I know my movies

(in reply to fodder)
Post #: 12
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 8:09:43 PM   
fodder


Posts: 1855
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I may be an idjit on errata, but I know my movies


Got some more for you.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 13
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 8:10:28 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18244
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
Wait...there are two vessels afloat in your picture. Is the one in the foreground not LCVP-281?

_____________________________


(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 14
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 8:13:09 PM   
fodder


Posts: 1855
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Wait...there are two vessels afloat in your picture. Is the one in the foreground not LCVP-281?


I'll have to get the disk and check hold on.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 15
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 8:14:08 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
So on photo AKA-601?
Well then answer is USS Hewell shown as USS Reluctant.

< Message edited by btbw -- 12/18/2012 8:16:06 PM >

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 16
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 8:20:58 PM   
fodder


Posts: 1855
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Wait...there are two vessels afloat in your picture. Is the one in the foreground not LCVP-281?


In the movie they are just LCNs no numbers givin.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 17
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 8:23:17 PM   
fodder


Posts: 1855
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

So on photo AKA-601?
Well then answer is USS Hewell shown as USS Reluctant.


No not AKA just AK it's a made up name for the movie.

_____________________________


(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 18
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 9:37:54 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8626
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: fodder


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

U.S.S. Reluctant


Yes, it is the U.S.S. Reluctant. (AKA) AK 601 or the Bucket!


Hollywood is incorrect. Weren't any of these USS-anything. They were Army and Coast Guard vessels. A "USS" is by law a "national ship" and has certain rights and duties under law and treaty. Armies don't run national ships.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to fodder)
Post #: 19
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 9:54:08 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18244
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
They were Army and Coast Guard vessels. A "USS" is by law a "national ship" and has certain rights and duties under law and treaty. Armies don't run national ships.


Yer right about "USS" being a prefix for USN flagged ships.

But WRT the 'national ship' duties and rights-are you sure about that?

FDR's Executive Order # 9054 (http://www.usmm.org/fdr/wsalaw.html) suggests certain rights and duties under law (executive order) that appear largely indistinguishable from USN ships' rights. The establishment of the WSA seems to treat all available such shipping with the same broad 'nationalized' brush.

That's my read, but then again, I'm no legal wonk.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 20
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 10:11:26 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8626
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
They were Army and Coast Guard vessels. A "USS" is by law a "national ship" and has certain rights and duties under law and treaty. Armies don't run national ships.


Yer right about "USS" being a prefix for USN flagged ships.

But WRT the 'national ship' duties and rights-are you sure about that?

FDR's Executive Order # 9054 (http://www.usmm.org/fdr/wsalaw.html) suggests certain rights and duties under law (executive order) that appear largely indistinguishable from USN ships' rights. The establishment of the WSA seems to treat all available such shipping with the same broad 'nationalized' brush.

That's my read, but then again, I'm no legal wonk.


The Executive Order specificaly exlcuded

"except

(1) combatant vessels of the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard; fleet auxiliaries of the Navy; and transports owned by the Army and Navy;"

So what was the legal status of an Army transport wich was not a commisioned ship--a "USS"?

Good quesiton. Certianly their crews individually were subject to the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. But was the ship itslef accorded the rights and duties of a commissioned national ship? Don't kinow without research. I'd say no, else they woudl have been USS vessels.

The official US Navy hisotry site sez:

"A Note on Navy Ship Name Prefixes

The prefix "USS," meaning "United States Ship," is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission. Before commissioning, or after decommissioning, she is referred to by name, with no prefix. Civilian-manned ships of the Military Sealift Command (MSC) are not commissioned ships; their status is "in service," rather than "in commission." They are, nonetheless, Navy ships in active national service, and the prefix "USNS" (United States Naval Ship) was adopted to identify them. Other Navy vessels classified as "in service" are simply identified by their name (if any) and hull number, with no prefix.


Into the early years of the 20th century there was no fixed form for Navy ship prefixes. Ships were rather haphazardly identified, in correspondence or documents, by their naval type (U.S. Frigate ____), their rig (United States Barque ____), or their function (United States Flag-Ship ______). They might also identify themselves as "the Frigate _____," or, simply, "Ship ______." The term "United States Ship," abbreviated "USS," is seen as early as the late 1790s; it was in frequent, but far from exclusive, use by the last half of the 19th century.


In 1907 President Theodore Roosevelt issued an Executive order that established the present usage:

In order that there shall be uniformity in the matter of designating naval vessels, it is hereby directed that the official designation of vessels of war, and other vessels of the Navy of the United States, shall be the name of such vessel, preceded by the words, United States Ship, or the letters U.S.S., and by no other words or letters.
--Executive Order 549, 8 January 1907.


Today's Navy Regulations define the classification and status of naval ships and craft:

1. The Chief of Naval Operations shall be responsible for ... the assignment of classification for administrative pur- poses to water-borne craft and the designation of status for each ship and service craft. ....
2. Commissioned vessels and craft shall be called "United States Ship" or "U.S.S."
3. Civilian manned ships, of the Military Sealift Command or other commands, designated "active status, in service" shall be called "United States Naval Ship" or "U.S.N.S."
4. Ships and service craft designated "active status, in service," except those described by paragraph 3 of this article, shall be referred to by name, when assigned, classification, and hull number (e.g., "HIGH POINT PCH-1" or "YOGN-8").
-- United States Navy Regulations, 1990, Article 0406.


Some, but apparently not all, other navies also use prefixes with their ships' names. Perhaps the best known of these is "HMS" (His or Her Majesty's Ship), long used by the Royal Navy. In earlier times this was also seen as "HBMS," for "His Britannic Majesty's Ship." British Empire/Commonwealth navies used their own versions of this, inserting their own nationalities, such as HMCS for Canada, HMNZS for New Zealand, or HMAS for Australia. The Royal Saudi Naval Forces also use "HMS." Argentina uses "ARA" (Armada de la Republic Argentina); the Philippine Navy identifies its ships as "BRP" (Barka ng Republika ng Pilipinas). The Imperial German Navy used "SMS" (Seine Majestäts Schiff); the World War II Kriegsmarine does not appear to have used a prefix, but the modern Bundesmarine uses "FGS" (Federal German Ship). India and Israel both use "INS" to mean Indian Naval Ship or Israeli Navy Ship. Lebanon and Tunisia, on the other hand, do not use any nationality prefix."

In past eras, being a national ship was an important legal distinction becuase it was a vessel of the sovereign and thus needed no letters of marque to take prizes. Prizes also belonged to the sovereign after legal due process through the prize court. A non-national ship without Letters of Marque was a pirate, a bad thing to be.

National ships also were under military law and discipline. Courts martial and not civil suits for ill-behavior. National ships could in some navies press crew where the same behavior in a non-national was kidnapping. A national ship could incur debts in foreign ports in the name of the sovereign; merchant ships could not. A national ship was rendered honors and returned them (in most cases; the USN was and is picky); a non-national ship came and went quietly. And so on.


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 21
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/18/2012 11:32:23 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8162
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: online
Just an aside to this discussion, while I thought it was cool Star Trek recycled names of sea going ships, I always had a problem with them using the USS designation. They should have changed that because at that point the United States was part of the Federation. The ships should have been UFPS or something like that.

The origination and proper use of the USS designation is interesting. I knew bits and pieces, but I've never seen it spelled out.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 22
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/19/2012 12:05:14 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8626
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Just an aside to this discussion, while I thought it was cool Star Trek recycled names of sea going ships, I always had a problem with them using the USS designation. They should have changed that because at that point the United States was part of the Federation. The ships should have been UFPS or something like that.

The origination and proper use of the USS designation is interesting. I knew bits and pieces, but I've never seen it spelled out.

Bill


Back when I was a minor Trek geek (1970?) I read a book on the making of. I think there was a debate on the prefix and they decided to use USS for a US audience who knew it had something to do with ships, but to say in the show bible it meant "United Star Ship."

Or something. It was the 60s.


< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 12/19/2012 12:06:00 AM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 23
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/19/2012 2:07:05 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 19481
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
They were Army and Coast Guard vessels. A "USS" is by law a "national ship" and has certain rights and duties under law and treaty. Armies don't run national ships.


Yer right about "USS" being a prefix for USN flagged ships.

But WRT the 'national ship' duties and rights-are you sure about that?

FDR's Executive Order # 9054 (http://www.usmm.org/fdr/wsalaw.html) suggests certain rights and duties under law (executive order) that appear largely indistinguishable from USN ships' rights. The establishment of the WSA seems to treat all available such shipping with the same broad 'nationalized' brush.

That's my read, but then again, I'm no legal wonk.


Some, but apparently not all, other navies also use prefixes with their ships' names. Perhaps the best known of these is "HMS" (His or Her Majesty's Ship), long used by the Royal Navy.

warspite1

Out of interest - Sweden uses HMS too - Hans / Hennes Majestäts Skepp

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 24
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/19/2012 3:03:17 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8626
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
They were Army and Coast Guard vessels. A "USS" is by law a "national ship" and has certain rights and duties under law and treaty. Armies don't run national ships.


Yer right about "USS" being a prefix for USN flagged ships.

But WRT the 'national ship' duties and rights-are you sure about that?

FDR's Executive Order # 9054 (http://www.usmm.org/fdr/wsalaw.html) suggests certain rights and duties under law (executive order) that appear largely indistinguishable from USN ships' rights. The establishment of the WSA seems to treat all available such shipping with the same broad 'nationalized' brush.

That's my read, but then again, I'm no legal wonk.


Some, but apparently not all, other navies also use prefixes with their ships' names. Perhaps the best known of these is "HMS" (His or Her Majesty's Ship), long used by the Royal Navy.

warspite1

Out of interest - Sweden uses HMS too - Hans / Hennes Majestäts Skepp


To me a warship without a prefix is only half-dressed.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 25
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/19/2012 3:10:30 PM   
catwhoorg


Posts: 638
Joined: 9/27/2012
From: Uk expat lving near Atlanta
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

To me a warship without a prefix is only half-dressed.


As ships are female, doesn't that make it more interesting ...

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 26
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/19/2012 4:27:23 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 19481
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

To me a warship without a prefix is only half-dressed.


As ships are female, doesn't that make it more interesting ...

warspite1

As with real females..it depends on the ship

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to catwhoorg)
Post #: 27
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/19/2012 4:55:39 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8626
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

To me a warship without a prefix is only half-dressed.


As ships are female, doesn't that make it more interesting ...



They aren't in Russian . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to catwhoorg)
Post #: 28
RE: #2 NOT! for the purest. - 12/19/2012 6:59:48 PM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1277
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
i think i've a memory of an "HMS Reluctant" somewhere in fiction, but can't nail it down.

anyhow, cheers for Mr. Roberts, & Ensign Pulver too.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 29
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> #2 NOT! for the purest. Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.105