Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 7:50:02 GMT -6
It's suddenly occurred to me.. Regarded as the most influential figure in Royal Navy history after Nelson, surely the British would have built a ship of some significance after the WW1 First Sea Lord?
Or is his name still not "up there" compared to other admirals that have obtained overwhelming tactical victories?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 26, 2017 10:39:22 GMT -6
Jackie Fisher was not the most well-liked man in the British Royal Navy so not naming a ship after him was probably based on that issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 11:22:43 GMT -6
Okie. I thought it'd be change with time, but perhaps not.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 26, 2017 12:33:20 GMT -6
Okie. I thought it'd be change with time, but perhaps not. No, after the Jutland disaster they had to put the blame on someone for the thin armor and bad propellants, so Fisher was it. It was the same with Jellicoe and Beatty. Jellicoe was responsible for fighting the battle and the Naval war with Germany exactly as it should have been fought with the new technology. But it wasn't the result after Trafalgar that the nation expected nor the one that the Ministry of Defense had made popular. Military's always find some to put the blame on, for the organizational failures. The same happened after Vietnam, trust me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 14:15:36 GMT -6
Well, tbh I started with thinking for another name for a what-if Admiral class battlecruiser and it came to Fisher. "Should not be Fisher" duly noted.
But looking at current affairs instead of naming another Queen Elizabeth, surely there could be other choices. But I digress...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 26, 2017 14:59:32 GMT -6
Well, tbh I started with thinking for another name for a what-if Admiral class battlecruiser and it came to Fisher. "Should not be Fisher" duly noted. But looking at current affairs instead of naming another Queen Elizabeth, surely there could be other choices. But I digress... Well, how about the Gard class named after the Naval architect who Fisher commissioned to design the first battle-cruiser. |
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 26, 2017 16:44:32 GMT -6
Generally speaking, with the exception of monarchs I don't think the RN named vessels after living persons. Fisher passed away in 1920; by that point all four of the Admiral-class battlecruisers had been named (and all except Hood cancelled). The G3 battlecruisers and N3 battleships were never assigned names before being cancelled; the next ships to come up would have been the Nelson-class ordered in 1922. After that, Britain would not order any more capital ships until the KGVs in 1936; the last two units were originally slated to be named Jellicoe and Beatty but were renamed Anson and Howe while under construction (possibly due to the lingering stigma of Jutland).
On top of that, while Fisher was certainly an innovator he never commanded a fleet in combat against a peer-state opponent; to this day there's more of a divide in the RN than say, the USN between combat commanders and technical personnel. Hyman Rickover, a comparable officer in the USN (both in terms of technical innovation and in controversy), has had two SSNs named after him.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 27, 2017 10:50:26 GMT -6
Generally speaking, with the exception of monarchs I don't think the RN named vessels after living persons. Fisher passed away in 1920; by that point all four of the Admiral-class battlecruisers had been named (and all except Hood cancelled). The G3 battlecruisers and N3 battleships were never assigned names before being cancelled; the next ships to come up would have been the Nelson-class ordered in 1922. After that, Britain would not order any more capital ships until the KGVs in 1936; the last two units were originally slated to be named Jellicoe and Beatty but were renamed Anson and Howe while under construction (possibly due to the lingering stigma of Jutland). On top of that, while Fisher was certainly an innovator he never commanded a fleet in combat against a peer-state opponent; to this day there's more of a divide in the RN than say, the USN between combat commanders and technical personnel. Hyman Rickover, a comparable officer in the USN (both in terms of technical innovation and in controversy), has had two SSNs named after him. The naming of ships seems to be political and historical for almost all nations. I don't know if there is any rhyme nor reason to it. |
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 30, 2017 12:07:42 GMT -6
Generally speaking, with the exception of monarchs I don't think the RN named vessels after living persons. Fisher passed away in 1920; by that point all four of the Admiral-class battlecruisers had been named (and all except Hood cancelled). The G3 battlecruisers and N3 battleships were never assigned names before being cancelled; the next ships to come up would have been the Nelson-class ordered in 1922. After that, Britain would not order any more capital ships until the KGVs in 1936; the last two units were originally slated to be named Jellicoe and Beatty but were renamed Anson and Howe while under construction (possibly due to the lingering stigma of Jutland). On top of that, while Fisher was certainly an innovator he never commanded a fleet in combat against a peer-state opponent; to this day there's more of a divide in the RN than say, the USN between combat commanders and technical personnel. Hyman Rickover, a comparable officer in the USN (both in terms of technical innovation and in controversy), has had two SSNs named after him. The naming of ships seems to be political and historical for almost all nations. I don't know if there is any rhyme nor reason to it. I believe the webcomic Schlock Mercenary spelled it out in one of the in-universe Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries - "Maxim 16: Your name is in the mouth of others; be sure it has teeth." Now, the question is whether the "others" are the enemy, or the people handling naval construction appropriations ... |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 3, 2018 8:39:00 GMT -6
Okie. I thought it'd be change with time, but perhaps not. No, after the Jutland disaster they had to put the blame on someone for the thin armor and bad propellants, so Fisher was it. It was the same with Jellicoe and Beatty. Jellicoe was responsible for fighting the battle and the Naval war with Germany exactly as it should have been fought with the new technology. But it wasn't the result after Trafalgar that the nation expected nor the one that the Ministry of Defense had made popular. Military's always find some to put the blame on, for the organizational failures. The same happened after Vietnam, trust me. I am still thinking if he was right or not. The basic ideas was correct and the end product Hood was correct too as her sinking was not fault of her design as her armor was practically on par with QE class battleship and she was prototype of all fast battleships. There are a lot of common knowledge that HMS Glorious and half-sisters was bad I cannot see a prove of it. Just thought. What should be ideal ship to hunt Germany cruisers (Deutschland, Admiral Hipper etc.) in Atlantic? Frankly I do not know economy view of these ships but it seems to me that these ships with a little large displacement than German ships would be ideal hunter-killer cruiser, especially with their range and speed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2018 12:20:01 GMT -6
As I often side with the underdogs my own wonder is what it would take for Germany to fight Britain given the latter's vast resources, other than the conclusion that it is a lost battle as soon as it starts. But I should probably go to the Hearts of Iron games or something similar for that:D
|
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Jan 4, 2018 3:00:39 GMT -6
Well, tbh I started with thinking for another name for a what-if Admiral class battlecruiser and it came to Fisher. "Should not be Fisher" duly noted. But looking at current affairs instead of naming another Queen Elizabeth, surely there could be other choices. But I digress...
You might try Robert Blake (a Parliamentarian Admiral who is sometimes considered the father of British naval power), Prince Rupert of the Rhine (he had an active career after the restoration), Edward Boscawen, George Rooke (captured Gibraltar), or Edward Hawke (one of the more famous admirals of the 7 Years War).
If you are feeling inclined to rehabilitation, you might try John Byng or Robert Calder, though neither are plausible by IRL standards. You could even try Edward III due to his command of the Battle of Sluys.
Apologies if you have already considered them. Having done a Soviet and a Dutch mod, I find figuring out who gets what type of ship named after them really fun. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 15:32:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 16, 2018 17:35:38 GMT -6
are you going to publish the mod? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 7:11:31 GMT -6
I still have some stuff to do. Like uncensored german flags and some more data edits.
|
|
