Military word of the day
- Thread starter Occam
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2,493
- Points
- 940
Perhaps suggesting a fix.......Occam said:rly:
I don't know who wrote that definition, but it needs work!
- Reaction score
- 2,493
- Points
- 940
Ahhh, I thought you were dismayed by the obvious absence of a comma after "Vessel," given the presence of the modifier "which."
Clearly, it must be either a non-restrictive clause -- "A Destroyer Type Vessel, which uses Helicopters...," or a restrictive clause -- "A Destroyer Type Vessel that uses Helicopters..."
:rules:
Clearly, it must be either a non-restrictive clause -- "A Destroyer Type Vessel, which uses Helicopters...," or a restrictive clause -- "A Destroyer Type Vessel that uses Helicopters..."
:rules:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Journeyman said:
Restrictive, because not all destroyers are DDHs!
Nice to see someone else who knows the difference, in a world where English is going so quickly to the dogs.
Pusser
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 530
N. McKay said:
Yes, it's restrictive, but I have to say it requires further modification as a form of the verb "to be able to," needs to be inserted. A DDH is a destroyer that can operate a helicopter. There are plenty of DDHs out there that do not currently carry helicopters, but they are still classed as DDHs because they have all the necessary fittings (flight deck being the big one, among others).
Of course in Canada, the point is currently moot because all of our destroyers are DDGs! :nod:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
When I was a youngling (14ish) , I recall being told it was Destroyer, Destroyer Escort (DDE) Destroyer, Destroyer Helicopter (DDH). I wish I could remember the circumstance, but I do clearly remember the explanation as being sort of logical as typical military nomenclature. Just a memory, not food for an argument.
Pusser
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 530
DDH, DDG, FFH, CVN, SSBN, SSK, etc are not abbreviations or acronyms per se (i.e. the letters don't necessarily stand for specific words in a specific order). They are simply codes used by NATO to designate different types of vessels. I'm guessing the system came about in the early days of computers when there was a requirement to keep the number of characters used to a minimum. Although some letters do seem to correspond to specific words (in English), that is not always the case. For example, I don't think a "YAG" is a "yard auxiliary, guided missile."
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,468
- Points
- 1,010
Suggest you look up this site, even though from the US: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.htm
As you can see, DDH only means "Destroyer with an assigned Helicopter"
And DD is a general designator for "Destroyer" in use since 1921. That is all.
As you can see, DDH only means "Destroyer with an assigned Helicopter"
And DD is a general designator for "Destroyer" in use since 1921. That is all.
- Reaction score
- 4,411
- Points
- 1,160
Pusser said:
Is this (at least part of) the explanation? And is the two letter designation DD, FF etc, related, in some way, to old two letter designation like CB = battle cruiser and CL = light cruiser?
Sorry, I've strated out of my lane, but the origins of acronyms and terms (like unified vs. integrated and combined vs. joint) interests me ... a little bit.
Pusser
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 530
E.R. Campbell said:
I would have to say that this is the best explanation I've seen on the subject. The system obviously has roots that are older than I realized. I was always told that it was a NATO coding system (and it is now), but can see that it has its roots in the USN (surprise, surprise).
As for FF, DD, etc, my understanding is that two-letter codes are used for ships that have no other defining features (rare nowadays because DDGs are way cooler than DDs). In other words, a DD is simply a standard destoryer, but a DDG is a guided missile destroyer. One interesting thing is that these designations can change, The IROQUOIS class ships were originally DDHs, but after a refit, became DDGs. This is despite the fact that they are still helicopter capable (DDGs are way cooler than DDHs).
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 280
Agree. By this def, does the following hold true? - Does this mean a DDH not carrying a helicopter is no longer a DDH...and it no longer has a primary weapon?
Pusser
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 530
Pat in Halifax said:
I don't think so. Due to a shortage of helicopters, we've often had ships that did not regularly carry them. We didn't change their designators (they kept their "H"), presumably because they were still capable of carrying helicopters and could have one assigned if required.
Think about it. A DDG doesn't become a DD when all its missiles have been fired. It's not like Air Force 1, which isn't called that when the US president is not on board (i.e. it's just a plain old jumbo jet).
Similar threads
