Board Thread:Event Community Discussion/@comment-28069733-20170514083426/@comment-32000657-20170514103452

"I would really never use the people of 4chan as a basis to deciding matters, especially since they don't really know anything about history."

Harsh. And I beg to differ.

Personally I have no issue with using PF but I do have issue with making up with your own hull classification for an entire class of ships that doesn't exist in the hull classification codes. At least take it from an existing class, not come up with your own.

And again, I propose to add a feature in the viewers to allow people to change the abbreviation to whatever they fancy, among the possible choices, at least until Tanaka adds new ships down the line that may confirm or reject the other choices. I propose this because I have no reason to believe that in the possibility that some time in the future the classification decided on is proven wrong, the English community as a whole would be willing to change it to the "right" classification. This suggestion would help mitigate such a scenario.

Vcharng wrote:

I'll also answer some questions from the prior thread:

IMide wrote: And even if you're right, are you saying that everyone is fine with treating aircraft carriers as a type of cruiser? If they're fine with CV for aircraft carriers I don't see why they can't be fine with CC for battlecruiser. Just because it has a C in front doesn't automatically make it a cruiser. Similarly, having a D in front doesn't make it a destroyer. DE was even renamed Ocean Escort later on." CV don't have an alternative, but CC does, and battlecruisers came from a different type of cruisers than WWII "cruisers", light or heavy (armored cruiser vs. protected cruiser). DE as a ship category was renamed in 1975, that's the problem.

DE IS a destroyer "varient", period.

IMide wrote: And since DEs without torps did exist, there's no reason why the kaiboukan can't be compared to them." Did you not read the discussions earlier? Destroyer varient without a torp is no big deal for the USN, but not for the IJN. Being able to carry WG42 is NOT the core feature of a CAV, but being able to carry torpedoes is, for a Japanese ship. And those were still cruisers. Battlecruisers and light cruisers both came from armoured cruisers (with CCs focusing on damage and CLs focusing on becoming smaller and lighter), and heavy cruisers came into being as an intermediate of both. DE as a ship category was phased out in 1975, but by then the term "Ocean Escort" had already been in use for decades. And yes, I still cannot agree with you on DEs being a destroyer variant. I've read the conversation earlier and nothing tells me that DEs are variants of DDs, like DDEs are. As the classification expanded, some ship classes started to become their own thing. Cruiser Voler is just the most prominent example by far.

I can easily agree with you that a destroyer variant without a torp is a no go for the IJN. The point of contention is whether the DE is one to begin with.