Board Thread:Event Community Discussion/@comment-28069733-20170521154728/@comment-1637496-20170526003709

Tsubakura wrote:

Well, there has been something that is bothering me for a while. The USN PF tonnage was generally much larger, but is backed up with quite a lot of sources, while USN DE is similar in tonnage, but packs much more punches compared to the Kaiboukan. I still believe PF to be the lesser evil out of the 2, but it doesn't change the fact that I believe both of them to be wrong. As the ship cards display Escort, the best case scenario would be to find the middle ground which literally represents Escort, hence "EE" was brought up.

However, now we have a japanese document in which states that its EV. Mind you that during 1947, Japan was still occupied by the US and I consider any post-war documents right after a war has ended to be more accurate than the ones used by the ONI for example.
 * Faceplam* are we still going over the whole tonnage thing? No American light cruiser displaced 5,500 tons at standard load, even the smaller ones were 40% heavier (Ohama class), does this not make Kuma a CL? Tonnage is a function of shipbuilding techinques, accomodations, seaworthiness, range, endurance and many other parametres, even contemporary destroyers can range between a 6,800 tons Akizuki and a 14,500 tons Zumwalt, the former is closer to a large frigate while the latter is in what normally is considered cruiser tonnage range, but nevertheless they're both classified as destroyers.

EV is not accurate because it's not a formal classification, it was mentioned in a previous thread that it's an informal abbreviation for Escort Vessel, it was never used for any American or foreign vessel in official documents. For all intent and purpose it's no different from calling a kaibokan DE in an informal context (the Army-Navy magazine that I brought up before).

Tsubakura wrote:And why exactly must we stick to the USN classification to the last detail? I mean, we're already even using BB, while its officially CC. While the majority of the classifications are USN, it does not mean we are forced to settle with either DE or PF in this matter if we know full well that both choices have problems associated with historical accuracy. Using USN classification is merely out of convenience if anything. EV is literally a perfect fit on the Kaiboukan which are labeled Escort, its not even a made up one unlike "EE". Now, if only you would actually stop trying to insist on using USN classifications to settle this matter. Eh? What ship should be classified CC? There's no battlecruiser in this game at the moment, the Kongos had been already reclassified as fast battleships, the thing is that there's no "fast battleship" classification in the USN (and the game doesn't actually differentiate between fast and slow batteships, the cards of both types say just "BATTLESHIP", so much for using them as reference), but that was a case where we can't help making up abbreviations, the kaibokan's case is different, there's an historical abbreviation that was actually used and there's currently no real reason to not use it ourselves, except for your obnoxious and huge ego that kept dragging this matter way beyond the point where it should have been left to rest.