Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Naval vessel naming conventions
Message-ID: <11149@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 Nov 89 05:03:21 GMT
References: <11070@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 16
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: gersh@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (John R. Gersh)
>... destroyer types ... became cruisers overnight. This was done,
>officially, better to reflect their missions and capabilities. I have
>a sneaking suspicion that there was an additional reason: With the
>retirement of WWII-era "real" cruisers, there was a rapidly-shrinking
>pool of combatant commands available for Captains...

Another possibly-significant consideration is that with the normal
inflation of ship sizes with time, modern "destroyers" are often just
as big and just as heavy as WW2 cruisers... if not nearly as well armed.

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu