Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26091970-20150604000724/@comment-24332640-20150927175830

I think people don't like distinguishing things by capitalization because a lot of people are too lazy to capitalize properly anyway...

That said, it was mentioned earlier in this thread (can't remember by whom, too long...) that while the code ACV was used to refer to 'auxilliary carriers' that is kind of an obsolete designation that was essentially replaced by CVE. In which case I don't really have a problem with re-using it...ACV (for 'armored carrier' now) seems like the simplest, most intuitive choice. Is it correct? No. Are any of the suggestions here correct? No. The whole problem is that there is no USN code for armored carriers in the first place.

And if we don't want to reuse another code that already means something else then we shouldn't be using CVB either. The only choice would be to make up something totally new, which I guess is where the CVR suggestion came from but I don't find that very intuitive.

Vcharng wrote: ...so you are telling me that in 1940, the USN planned the CVB-41 (later named Midway)...

Fun fact: Midway was not designated a CVB until a few months after her completion. For the first few months of her life and certainly throughout her entire construction she was simply designated a CV. It was only later that people decided that her size warranted a new designation. It certainly wasn't because they suddenly realized she had an armored flight deck, seeing how she was designed with one in mind from the very start.