Board Thread:Event Community Discussion/@comment-28069733-20170514083426/@comment-1637496-20170514094752

Tsubakura wrote: There were issues with the previous approach and admins/moderators of other KC communities identified the same, thus we had a group discussion on what is the correct way to approach this topic and move forward. We concluded that the entire community should take part in this because this is something we will use, and we need the majority of the folks to agree on the standardized abbreviation to hold a degree of legitimacy within our community. Glad to read that good sense prevailed.

I'm going to reply to some of the points raised in the previous thread while I was snoring:

Vcharng wrote: I don't, I distinguish them by feature and by the fact that DEs are restricted by London Treaty and PFs are not (regardless whether the USN still take the treaty into consideration in 1942 or not, this is how they are defined under the treaty nonetheless)

Also the definition talks about how a ship is "designed" to have, so as long as DE was designed to be able to carry torps, they are DD varients regardless of those torps being removed or not later on. This applies to the 20-knot criteria as well, Evarts-class was designed to sail at 24kt, so even if some of them ended up going only 19kt, they are still restricted by the treaty. Strictly speaking by London Treaty definition Zara would become a capital ship and the same applies to any cruiser that was deliberately designed with a design standard displacement above 10,000 long tons, including for instance the wartime Baltimore class. The London Treaty is relevant to the genesis of the kaibokan, which were conceived in the early 1930s while Japan was still part of the Treaty and ordered while the Treaty was still in force elsewhere, but with the outbreak of the war even the remaining Treaty members announced its suspension, making it only relevant as a loose legacy for ships based on pre-war designs, it wasn't an all important design consideration for new designs like the destroyer escorts.

IMide wrote: Second, Destroyer Escorts are not destroyers, with one of the main differences (at least at the time) being having a much slower speed. You're thinking of Escort Destroyer, which is DDE. If you're thinking of the Matsu and Hunt they don't have the same speed of the postwar fleet destroyers (Fletcher and Gearing) conversions classified as DDE. At 27 knots they fall somewhere in between slower destroyer escorts and faster fleet destroyers.

Vcharng wrote: Yes, battlecruiser is CC according to USN, but no one is using that symbol (not even the USN as they don't have one of their own), BC is way more oftenly used. Another reason to object CC is that CC means that battlecruiser is a varient of cruisers, which is incorrect. Either by treaty or by common sense, it's a varient of battleships instead. If anything else by role they replaced armoured cruisers, initially they were even designed armoured cruisers.