Shipbucket Ranting thread

I would give the colonies subforums within their current nation's folder.

For instance there's no reason to have Burma and Myanmar when Burma should just be a subfolder of Myanmar, etc.

CSA under USA, etc. Do it from a purely geographical standpoint so there's no bitching from "patriotic" idiots et al.

Yes sub-folders would be good as the Vic ships are really dispersed through the Aus ships

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:

I've got a rant, one directed at Golly. <_<

Why are you using the Russian Designations for the Russian ships in the archive when Russian Designation are complete & utter gibberish and change with ship's class? I try to find say a Russian Destroyer, unless I know the actual class name of the specific ship I'm looking for, I have to look through all the images just to find it.

I've been told it's cause they're Russian Ships, but quite frankly, that's a bullshit reason. This is a Western site, using English, catering to a western populous.

Use Western Designations please... I'm going insane trying to find the right Russian Ships.

That's easy. There's no such thing as a post-WWII Russian destroyer. The only time you see them described as destroyers is in western writings. And really, is a designation that was invented in the late 19th century really that relevant?

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Quote:

Becouse Western ship designation system is illogical mostly, and doesen't correspond at all into system that doesen't use it. Soviet ship designation system for soviet era ships is one of the most clearest, logical and simple naval ship designation system that there has ever been used in any navy. I could translate the prefixes and their abbrevations, but Im not lingvistically educated enough to do it, and its not commonly aknowledged practice in case of translations.

The system is easy to use, simple to use, and idiomatic to use. Only reason not to use it is becouse of ignorance, lazyness and complete arrogant disrespect towards the ships in question. I've never spoken, written or read russian, but I have also never have any proplems to use and know about the designation system nor had any proplems to actually pay some attention to it and learn to understand it.

As an example, destroyers are always called eskadreniee minonotzsie (sic! finnish transliteration) EM... and from Tsarist navy to Soviet Navy, all from Pr.1 to 56 are been called EMs, but only revival of the designation, and therefore destroyers in Soviet navy was the pr.956. Many ships between them, (pr. 56 variants, 57, 61 and even 1135) have been called destroyers (and cruisers and frigates even), when they have not been such ships. A large missile ship or large ASW is not a cruiser, its large missile ship or large ASW ship. Not only that its competent designation for the ships and their purpose, its most cruisal for anyone who wants to:

Know about the ships
understand the ships
or categorise the ships

to learn away from the false western designation frames that places ships in "wrong" or illogical categories causing false impressions, expectations and disapointments about some ship. Why compare a large ASW ship to an american nuclear powered fleet AAW escort (that they still stubournly calls a cruiser) and enjoy the comprasion triumph to the western side in terms of capabilities when similar win would have been achieved when comparing a minesweeper to an ASW corvette.
The first step in actually understanding and gaining knowledge of Soviet and Russian ships is to learn what the ships actually are, what they are called. Without that basic knowledge one cannot futher try to understand of why they are made that way and how do they work.

This proved out to be more of an counter rant of the general ignorance and cultural-arrogance that still prevails in too many people.

Btw, does anyone have a link to a site that explains the designations in English?

I was under the impression that all the Russian/Soviet ships were organized by Project numbers? And that all you had to do was lookup the Project number on another site to find what you're looking for?

Quote:

Btw, does anyone have a link to a site that explains the designations in English?

oh you kids and your internet

if something is not in some site, it cannot be used

But, no, I have not encountered such site. Then again, Ive never encountered any site about american or even finnish ship designation systems but its never been a reason for me to not to know them, nor not to use them.

I can draft up a list of them for the casual viewers if the whole thing poses inbearable handicaps to someone.

Quote:

Thats a one way to use, but the project numbers are project numbers... they are mere chronological classing of ship classes or individual ships, but its not tied to any particulary logical way to the given classifications of ships (though there are some random similarities in some cases of the project numbers assigned to same category of ships, like in submarines and but the similarities are more tied to all ships in some spesific naval programs or relate to the numbers of similar ships in previous naval programs, and in those cases only in superficial level)
Its best to used about ship class designations when someone has memorized all of the 1000 or so numbers to his mind

Is it bad that after reading this discussion on various ship class designation methods I am considering creating my own unique system for Grays Harbor?

That could be an interesting, and possibly frustrating, project.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

It would certainly be interesting. Though I think it's going to be hard in your case since the post-war* ships we've seen so far have all been designed with USN designations in mind.

*I don't know if there was a WWII equivalent in your universe, but you know what I mean.

I frankly couldn't care less if Western designations are illogical. It's been like that for 50 years, and yet it's still the standard of the world. I've looked up all the designations for Russian ships, stopped counting at 79 different designations, and there was still 20-30 more left on the list! That's just way too much.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

Shipbucket

Who is online