peter tilbury Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Why was it called the Maltilda? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patboy Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 MALTILDA or MATILDA ? Twin sisters ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 After a cartoon character, Matilda the Duck. Someone watching Matilda I waddling and wobbling across rough terrain in its trials saw a similarity, somehow. More birds: Finns called T-34 as "Sotka", or Scaup in English. That was because one soldier thought that apart from missing a funnel, it had similar silhouette as the tug boat he had worked on, with that name. And then there was the Guderian's Duck, PzJgr IV. I don't know who came up with that one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 And of course the Stuart was renamed 'Honey' by the Brits. The story goes that the new Stuart was being put through its paces before an assembled group of tankers. One enthused soldier loudly exclaimed "That's a real honey!", which probably some chuckles out of his compatriots. The name Honey stuck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: And of course the Stuart was renamed 'Honey' by the Brits. The story goes that the new Stuart was being put through its paces before an assembled group of tankers. One enthused soldier loudly exclaimed "That's a real honey!", which probably some chuckles out of his compatriots. The name Honey stuck. I thought the honey was the Grant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Lee/Grant Stuart/Honey Ronson/Tommy Cooker Wildcat/Martlet (Martlet?!? WTF were they thinking? Not really a name to conjure shock and awe is it?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: (Martlet?!? WTF were they thinking? Not really a name to conjure shock and awe is it?) I've always wondered about that myself. Neither was it consistent with the usual practice of giving aircraft names that alliterated with the name of the manufacturer. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Originally posted by Ant: I thought the honey was the Grant. The Honey was the Stuart. The Grant was the Lee. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: (Martlet?!? WTF were they thinking? Not really a name to conjure shock and awe is it?) I've always wondered about that myself. Neither was it consistent with the usual practice of giving aircraft names that alliterated with the name of the manufacturer.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: (Martlet?!? WTF were they thinking? Not really a name to conjure shock and awe is it?) I've always wondered about that myself. Neither was it consistent with the usual practice of giving aircraft names that alliterated with the name of the manufacturer.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Yeah, I get all that (although I thought it was "Matelot" for Jacktars, not "Martlet"). I just think they suck as names 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 They had to use "Osprey" because the truer appelation - "Deathtrap" - was already taken by Agatha Christie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screaming Flea Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Was the "Stuart" named after the dashing Confederate Cavalry commander J.E.B Stuart?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarker Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Then there is always that icon of sleek design and outstanding maneuverability...the Brewster Buffalo. Of course the name is somewhat apt as it did look and fly like one. ISTR the Brits tend to name things by class. Everything of the same class has a name starting with the same letter. After a while you run out of cool names that way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Yeah, I get all that (although I thought it was "Matelot" for Jacktars, not "Martlet").Yeah. My dictionary gives 'martlet' as an alternative name for the martin, a small European swallow. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Originally posted by Private Bluebottle: ...the "Osprey" - which afterall, is an Eagle...Hawk, not eagle. It's a fish eating hawk, which to be generous does I suppose lend it a slight littoral aura. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Beginna Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: Yeah, I get all that (although I thought it was "Matelot" for Jacktars, not "Martlet").Yeah. My dictionary gives 'martlet' as an alternative name for the martin, a small European swallow. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 The unfortunate Buffalo was, of course, not such a bad aircraft - within limits - add in hundreds of pounds of extra guns and armour to any standard WW2 fighter and see what happens to it - IIRC Fw-190G's and Me-109G's suffered the same problems when gun pods, armour and rockets were fitted. The F2A did very well in Finnish service, and I read somewhere that the Aussies used a striped down one to simulate a Zero when testing their domestic a/c. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Ahh the old choice between performance and blowing up when anyone looks crosswise at you. The Buffalo sacrificed the first to avoid the second. Kind of like an anti-Zero. One of the strangest things about combat is that weapons considered by one country to be a flop (the P-39 for instance) can be the darlings of another. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq): One of the strangest things about combat is that weapons considered by one country to be a flop (the P-39 for instance) can be the darlings of another. The P-39's biggest problem was its lack of a supercharger, which severely limited its operational ceiling. On the Russian Front, the fighting tended to take place at low altitudes anyway, so for them that ceased to be a handicap. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Hey, if you want a vehicle name that produces shock and awe, my vote goes to "Valentine"! What man has not shuddered at the approach of that accursed holiday! I've heard three separate theories on why Valentine was named Valentine. Either bacause the blueprints were submitted to he government on Valentine's day, or one of the designers was named valentine, or it was a conglomeration of the company name which was something like 'Vauxhal-on-Tyne' or something like that. If you think the Brits had naming troubles, it seems Russian nicknames were often related to pretty wildflowers or tiny songbirds! :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Malan Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 A bit of info here: British fighters alliterating with the manufacturers name is a coincidence, or a thing with the manufacturers, I don't think it was an official theme. Some did it (Gloster did it for a while: Grebe, Gamecock, Gauntlet, Gladiator, but then Meteor, Javelin - post war. Fairey did it a lot: Flycatcher, Firefly (twice!), Fox, Fulmar). Others didn't do it after the 1920's, but both the BoB main contenders just happened to have alliterative names (Hawker Hurricane, and Supermarine Spitfire. Look at their others (Hawker: Fury, Osprey, Nimrod, Demon, Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest). Supermarine - well OK, they didn't do any other pre-war fighters, but did Walrus, a flying boat. Tanks varied a lot. Early ones were not always named (A9, etc). Cruiser, and successors (sort of medium to anyone else) were C mostly when they did name them (Crusader, Cromwell, Comet). Infantry tanks were all over the place (Matilda I, and II - completely different of course, Valentine, Churchill - not a cruiser just to be tricky). US tanks were after Generals (Sherman etc), but where Sherman Firefly came from is anyone's guess Since then, for some reason, all UK tanks have been C (Centurion, Chieftan, Challenger) Navy practice with Destroyers was to name in alphabetical classes - started at A late in the nineteenth century, got to L or M by early WW1, more or less finished alphabet by the 1920's, and restarted. H, J, K were just pre WW2, but the Tribal class was a theme rather than a letter (there was a ww1 tribal class - interesting aside, ww1 tribals Nubian and Zulu each suffered significant damage from mines IIRC. They joined the back of Nubian to the front of Zulu, and called the resultant ship Zubian).WW2 got through to late alphabet again, and restarted at A. Got to about D and more or less abandoned letters Larger ships were always themed - Towns or Counties for Cruisers etc. There are enough capital ships names in the RN history for all significant ships to use historic names (having 100+ ships of the line in c1800 tends to do that for you!) Modern RN Destroyers and Frigates tend to be mixed. There was an A class in the early 80's, a Duke class now, but then the Weapons class has mostly used B letters, thus catching both (Broadsword, Battleaxe). The later batch are C and Towns/counties (Chatham, Cumberland, Cornwall, and Cambletown). I think these days they try for as many themes as possbile in few ships! Not sure what this has to do with anything! (Sorry - got carried away!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Naming things. Now here's a topic with something for everyone: poet; grog; pedant: everyone can have a view. Those American counsins with a penchant for criticising our British names might first reflect upon the modern practice of naming tanks after generals and helicopters after Indian (Native American?) tribes. I am looking forward to the M1A1 Arnold (for Benedict Arnold - that truly loyal patriot) and the UH1 Arranamappohoataxical (or similar). Mind you the Royal Navy seem to have lost their way slightly. A matelot wrote in to the papers to complain about the wussy names given to modern ships... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Carrying on with the RN's naming of ships during WW II, there was the Flower class of corvettes, was there not? And some other ASW ships, and I forget whether they were corvettes or frigates, sorry, named after castles and rivers. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.