Jump to content


What's in a name?


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 21:07

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 5183 battles
  • 7,324
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Posted Image


Those of you who have been following my writings and activities either in the Hatch or on the forum in general should have figured out by now that I’m more cynical than most. I don’t normally subscribe to the common consensus just because it’s common consensus, I prefer to see a primary reference, or at least a direct connection to one. However, even I will break that rule on occasion. There are some things which, though I’ve never seen anything definitive, I will accept at face value just because it’s the way it’s always been known for generations and who am I to say different? One of these stipulations is the fact that American tank names like “Sherman” or “Hellcat” never received War Department/Army Ordnance approval. Well, I’ve just received another lesson on assumptions. Actually, the same lesson I’ve had before, I just keep refusing to learn from it.

If you are one of the folks who watched Operation Think Tank Episode 7, the first segment of the afternoon session, you will know that the question was asked “where did the names of tanks come from?” An entertaining fifteen minutes or so was spent discussing this matter. Here’s the Youtube link. David Fletcher got us off to a good start, he saw the original document which started the whole “General Lee, General Stuart” etc business. But there is a proviso: He is very specific that the word “General” was not to be used. Somewhere along the line, “General” got added, but nobody seems to know where. Ken Estes points out a post-war document in which the US Chief of Ordnance is asking why we don’t routinely name things in a similar manner to “Sherman” or “Pershing”. This is the document in question:


Posted Image



On the German side, “Hetzer” and “Brummbar” get a fairly definitive slating, and pretty much everyone is in agreement that there was no US recognition of names like Sherman, Jackson etc until Chaffee, with some hypothesis being given to the influence of modellers, or simply post-war recognition, even though there were occasional instances of official US use such as a reference in a US Intel bulletin in early 1944 to Panther being “similar to our own General Sherman”

Turns out there is, at least for the American side, a bit of a problem.

Posted Image

Some very knowledgeable wrong people.


It is known that it is often impossible to prove a negative. Well, we can now at least somewhat disprove it with a positive. I mentioned in my article about the Archives how they’re a bit of a mess and you end up sortof diving into boxes at random. Sometimes you find something unexpected and interesting. I’ll just put the first document up.

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


There are a couple of things to note, here.

Firstly, of course, this is only a proposal document. Secondly, the only “British” name on the list is “Priest”. Thirdly, you can see the official sanction being proposed for the first “General” name, with “General Pershing”, with the naming of tanks after general officers as a policy being proposed.

Other points of interest: It is a proposal for future US naming only. It specifically points out that if the British already have a name for something and the US name is different, the different names should be retained. The impetus for this appears to be the aircraft industry which makes some sense: Britain and the US often had differing names for aircraft (eg Kittyhawk/Warhawk) , while the US didn’t give its ground equipment names to cause confusion with in the first place.

I am certainly amused by the ‘available’ names. Artillery, Small arms and aircraft armament, it says, are the ones to be named after highly lethal animals. Artillery get big animals, small arms small animals. Exactly how “Sloth” meets the definition of “highly lethal animal” I’m not sure. I certainly couldn’t take any weapon named “Baboon” seriously, regardless of how vicious the real animals are.

The last notable is the proposed name for the 90mm Gun Motor Carriage T71. This is the vehicle which would become standardized as the M36 tank destroyer. As an alternative to blaming the model companies, it has been proposed by various sources (usually on the web) that the reason “Jackson” came out as a common name is because it was the British name for the thing, and followed with British naming convention of civil war generals. I never took much stock in this: The British never used the vehicle, so why they would name it anything at all to begin with? Of course, no authoritive references are provided.

Oh, and the turnaround for responses to be received was 8th May, six days after the memo was sent out to begin with. A reasonably short suspense in the days before email.

But wait! There’s more.

Further digging (Actually, the next file) provided the following document from November 1944. Note now that the verbiage has changed to “the list of names […] has been adopted and will be used in public information released”

Posted Image


Posted Image


Some things are immediately obvious.

Firstly, we now have a reasonably definitive answer to the question of putting “General” in front of the tank names: For some reason we’d always been assuming it was the British that gave us the common term “General Sherman”, but it seems it was the US Army that started it. No indication of “Lee” or “Grant”, though. Presumably because by that stage they were pretty much gone from US inventory and there was no point in wasting any ink over them.

Secondly, we now have an answer to the “Jackson” question. That, too, was the US Army and unlike Sherman or Stuart, it was a name selected by Ordnance as it wasn't in use with the troops. There is no explanation of the change from Black Jack to General Jackson, but since Pershing’s nickname was Black Jack, if there was already a Pershing vehicle perhaps it was viewed as duplication. “Hellcat” is getting official sanction as well, so Buick’s PR team has been proven totally awesome. That the Army would accept the Hellcat name (as well as Bazooka, Long Tom and others) already in use instead of trying to enforce a change to fit with a naming convention and add confusion was a rare bit of common sense.

Now, you’ll note the bit in brackets at the very end about not using nicknames in official documentation. I wouldn’t read too much from this, as it’s a policy basically in effect today. You will rarely find Army documentation such as a field manual which refers to the M60 or M1 as anything other than M60 or M1. (Though, granted, the TM says “General Abrams” on the cover), and in any case, a policy forbidding the use of nicknames does not deny the actual assignment of nicknames.

There is one very obvious and disappointing omission here, however, that being the 3" GMC M10. I have never been a supporter of the name “Wolverine”, and though it’s commonly stated on websites, I have seen no War Office documentation to support the proposal that it was a British name. Further, it fits in with neither the British policy on naming US tanks, nor on their policies of naming artillery pieces after the clergy or the letter “A.” Even “Achilles” didn’t show up as a name until very late in the war. Now, that said, there are two reasonable arguments in favour of the name. Firstly, a wolverine is arguably an animal of some lethality and so would fit in with the idea of it being the name for a US artillery piece, as a gun motor carriage. However, the assignment of “General Jackson” and "General Scott" indicates a classification for naming purposes of a motor carriage as a tank, so a “General” name would presumably have been selected. The other possibility, which I have seen nothing to confirm, but similarly cannot disprove, is that it is a name given by the Canadians, who tended to name all their vehicles after animals. Even their M4 Mediums were named “Grizzly” so they evidently had no issues with going their own way.

The last thing I’ll say on the subject of names right now is to direct your attention to this excellent post on the forum, describing the rationale behind the naming of Japanese tanks in the war.

So there you have it. Ordnance did officially assign “General” names to its tanks during the war, including the M36. I was one of the people sitting up on the stage, confident in the fact that our pronouncements were correct. As far as anyone knew at the time, they were. The important thing is that as new information comes available, we do not stand on our pride, accept that we were wrong, and then do what we can to redress the misconceptions.

Oh, by the way, in addition to my Facebook page, I'm starting up a Twitter feed.

Kankou #2 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 21:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 3418 battles
  • 9,424
  • Member since:
    09-16-2012
Interesting as usual.

I am also honored you gave a mention to my post on the Japanese naming system. Thank you.

ForcestormX #3 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 22:07

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 10291 battles
  • 10,871
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011
Fascinating. Also surprising.

So, worth the read.

Xlucine #4 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 22:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 7502 battles
  • 7,373
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
Neat article - although I can't help but wonder which musical instruments are commensurate with the destructive characteristics of rocket artillery*. Didn't know Brummbar was in the same category of name as hetzer either.

*inb4 bagpipes

Vollketten #5 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 22:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 25331 battles
  • 6,771
  • [SSGS] SSGS
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011
I can see why 'Sloth' would be unpopular-it hardly inspires trust in the troops or fear in your enemies.

'Walk away slowly for you lives!, there's a sloth moving ponderously towards us!'

and musical instruments? seriously?

Tuba is a dreadful idea. I assume it came from the idea of the Organ gun at some point but I wouldn't like to have asked for fire support from a battery of 'harps' or 'violins'. Pleased they binned that as a bad idea.

What General do you think they would have chosen for the 'Wolverine' then?

Misfire42 #6 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 22:46

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 7870 battles
  • 4,144
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012
So, since the M36 is being renamed, will the M8A1 be changed to Scott since the M8 motor carriage is also mentioned in the document? Am I getting this confused with something else? Did anyone actually use the name Scott?

The_Chieftain #7 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 22:50

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 5183 battles
  • 7,324
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Actually, I had heard the name 'Scott' used for M8 before, but very infrequently.

Glaber #8 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 22:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 20919 battles
  • 2,720
  • [NUGGS] NUGGS
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011
What about tanks that have numbered naming... that were not given a name.

(Like how it stated in one of the documents that a proposed name for the T26E1 was "General Pershing," but what if a name was not proposed to the T26E1, would it stay T26E1 in game?)

KaiserWilhelmShatner #9 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 23:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 6202 battles
  • 2,309
  • [LONER] LONER
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
I can only imagine what the next line after the Abrams would be named.   Political Correctness will see that it goes to no one deserving of the honor.  You can count out and Southern Generals, any womanizers, and duelists, and slave owners.  Hell, just name it the M3 Politically Correct.  That will be sure to inspire fear in our enemies.

CdtWeasel #10 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 23:21

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13274 battles
  • 797
  • [ARBOK] ARBOK
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011

Vollketten, on Dec 05 2012 - 22:23, said:

and musical instruments? seriously?

Tuba is a dreadful idea. I assume it came from the idea of the Organ gun at some point but I wouldn't like to have asked for fire support from a battery of 'harps' or 'violins'. Pleased they binned that as a bad idea.

Bazooka and Calliope would be the source of that inspiration as they are both instruments.


Ghost and Phantom are in the listing of possible animal names.  Does this mean the Army believes in ghosts?

hiipanda #11 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 00:38

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 32305 battles
  • 519
  • [MAHOU] MAHOU
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011
So is the t92 going to have its named changed to black dragon?

ohsi #12 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 00:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 23524 battles
  • 5,825
  • [LINCN] LINCN
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011
This is new to me. I always believed that the "General" name came from the British, and that the other nicknames were chosen by the crews. Nice find!

Aesir #13 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 01:28

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7678 battles
  • 961
  • Member since:
    12-03-2010
"United Nations"?

The document is referring to the Allies, right?

The_Chieftain #14 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 01:31

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 5183 battles
  • 7,324
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Yes

Aesir #15 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 01:37

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7678 battles
  • 961
  • Member since:
    12-03-2010
Is that a term that pops up a lot in these sorts of documents, or was the term interchangeable then?

Chopa #16 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 01:39

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21813 battles
  • 450
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011
Loved it! Especially the bit about Sloths and Baboons. I can see US tankers streaming over the Canadian border rather than getting posted to a Sloth or Baboon troop.
   Shame they never fielded the T95...What a great candidate for the name of "Giant Ground Sloth".

Zulnex #17 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 02:17

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7067 battles
  • 258
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
Fantastic and interesting read as always. Many thanks and keep up the splendid work The_Chieftain.

Killertomato #18 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 02:54

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 4500 battles
  • 773
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
That's it, from here on out the M21 is now and will forever be the Tuba.  :Smile_glasses:

Zergling #19 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 03:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 16684 battles
  • 4,681
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011
Very interesting article Chieftain.

The note about aircraft weaponry further explains names for various air-launched missiles, like Sidewinder, Sparrow, Falcon, Shrike, Phoenix. Even the surface-to-air MIM-23 received a similar name with 'Hawk'.

There's more of a break from those standards in recent times though, with the AIM-120 just named 'AMRAAM' but more commonly nicknamed 'Slammer'.


Amusing name: the AGM-119 'Penguin'... not sure if the Penguin could ever be considered a fearsome bird-of-prey ;)
I guess they get a pass on that one though, as it is a Norweigen missile adopted by the US Military.

The_Chieftain #20 Posted Dec 06 2012 - 04:04

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 5183 battles
  • 7,324
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Hawk was one of those clever acronyms. "Homing All The Way Killer".

Of course, like many, I suspect they figured out what they wanted the acronym to be first, and then found words to suit.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users