Kaga class Battleship? (EXCUSE ME KAGA??) Are you day dreaming? your the second ship, did you forgot that you have a dead sister?
YOUR A TOSA CLASS 410MM BATTLECRUISER ALONG WITH YOUR SCRAPED DEAD SISTER TOSA!!!!!!
Jezzzz... now we even get more worst than Psycho Haruna....
Actually, Kaga was supposed to be the first ship of the Kaga-clss Battleships, western sources usually get it wrong because Tosa was laid down first and then got scuttled after the naval treaties.
Actually, Kaga was supposed to be the first ship of the Kaga-clss Battleships, western sources usually get it wrong because Tosa was laid down first and then got scuttled after the naval treaties.
Actually, Kaga was supposed to be the first ship of the Kaga-clss Battleships, western sources usually get it wrong because Tosa was laid down first and then got scuttled after the naval treaties.
Remember, different navies use different systems to determine ship gives its name to class - she's both a Tosa- and a Kaga-class BB, depending on which reporting system you want to use. As long as it's consistent, it really doesn't matter if you use 'first launched' or 'first laid down' or anything, really.
So no, Western sources don't 'get it wrong', they're just using the USN system, not the IJN one; it's really not that big a deal as long as you know which system is being used.
Remember, different navies use different systems to determine ship gives its name to class - she's both a Tosa- and a Kaga-class BB, depending on which reporting system you want to use. As long as it's consistent, it really doesn't matter if you use 'first launched' or 'first laid down' or anything, really.
So no, Western sources don't 'get it wrong', they're just using the USN system, not the IJN one; it's really not that big a deal as long as you know which system is being used.
That's fair, it's just that most people will see the USN system and assume that anything else is wrong. There are also some weird cases like the Astoria/New Orleans class just to make things confusing.
Remember, different navies use different systems to determine ship gives its name to class - she's both a Tosa- and a Kaga-class BB, depending on which reporting system you want to use. As long as it's consistent, it really doesn't matter if you use 'first launched' or 'first laid down' or anything, really.
So no, Western sources don't 'get it wrong', they're just using the USN system, not the IJN one; it's really not that big a deal as long as you know which system is being used.
halseyttk said:
That's fair, it's just that most people will see the USN system and assume that anything else is wrong. There are also some weird cases like the Astoria/New Orleans class just to make things confusing.
Actually it's fairly universal convention across all navies to set ship's precedence and class name based on which ships got authorized to be built first, getting name and hull classification first, regardless of it's actual start (keel laying) or launching or commissioning. Both USN, IJN, RM, and probably other navies use(d) this convention. This makes sense since ship and class-naming is mostly non-technical decision not directly related to the actual shipbuilding and often decided far in advance of the actual physical works.
The "problem" is that most of the released information we currently have are released from USN records and a lot of publications are based off of that. They of course couldn't have known what exactly was going on during each of their adversaries' ships procurement process for obvious reason, so they instead name the class after which ships they were aware of its existence first. For most of the case, it ends up with either which ship is laid down first if the building navies is open enough to allow for observer, or which ship is revealed first during launching for the more secretive navies. Ship's name is also often only publicly announced during launching, so that's one other reason for different classing by outside observers. Worse still, if they don't even know the name (or if it's too difficult) then they just assign a codename instead.
That's why in USN they have New Orleans-class instead of Astoria-class, Lexington-class instead of Saratoga-class, Colorado-class instead of Maryland-class (even tough Maryland was laid down more than two years before Colorado), there's also a lot of other mixed cases. They know exactly what they was called in the paperwork leading to the order to build the ships.
On the other hand, for ships of foreign navies, the USN call Andrea Doria-class instead of Caio Duilio-class because for the USN (and other observers) that's the ship which the name is revealed first. Other example is the Myōkō-class. The first ship of the class seen by outside observer is Nachi during 1928 Naval Review, so for a moment the class was known in the west as Nachi-class. Later after the war somehow the more commonly used name for the class shifted to Myōkō, with the commonly quoted precedence between the sisters as Myōkō-Nachi-Haguro-Ashigara. That's still not quite right since the (imperial) authorization order (and order used by internal IJN documents) is Myōkō-Nachi-Ashigara-Haguro.
In this case, the first ship to get authorized (as the battleship) was Kaga, likewise the class of would-be-battleship should be called as Kaga-class. If you browse Hiraga's archive of its preliminary design (123), it was always called Kaga-class. It's just that because the hulk from the class that was declared first for disposal in compliance of Washington Naval Treaty was Tosa, the west name the battleship class after her instead.
In the end they just decide to name others' ship classes from whatever they know at that moment. Even if it doesn't fit their own system, they won't get to such length (if at all) to ensure the order as if it would be under their own system. No one would bother backtrack through old intel/recon to figure out which ship is laid down first, much less snooping their paper trails.
I agree that this is just mostly semantics and nitpicking, but I do wish some of the confusing name/naming scheme to be resolved. It's just feel better (for me personally) to call a ship with the name their "owner" actually call them. Of course it would also reduce some confusion and some unnecessary petty argument.
I do however, despise US' codename for Japanese aircrafts
@Brightlight - I was preserving the wordplay (to match the visuals in the first panel) hence "It has come to a head", meaning "Reach a turning point/become a crisis". (Not 'it has come to my head')
@Brightlight - I was preserving the wordplay (to match the visuals in the first panel) hence "It has come to a head", meaning "Reach a turning point/become a crisis". (Not 'it has come to my head')
I simply cannot stay on the waysides,This has come to a head.
Kaga's Minor Damage 1 line; Literally written as "it came to (my) head", meaning "I've become angry."To have someone raise their hand against my precious kouhai...CRUSHHaruna-san.Has arrived.Kaga-class Battleship, First Ship, Kaga,
