'Gunboat' to 'Gun Destroyer'

[sketchley]

OK... going back to the first post: we are presented with 砲艦.

砲艦 literally translates as Gunboat. However, 艦 by itself translates as warship. (砲 translates as gun.)

So, we can go for a literal translation of "Gun-warship."

I think another angle to look at it is the English abilities of the game design staff. Let's be honest, their specialty is game design. Excusing my the rudeness of my assumption... but perhaps they merely applied the name because it looked cool, or it fit the role the ship takes, but isn't a literal translation of the Japanese term used.

Another thing to consider is that just as Japanese words don't translate or fit easily into English words, the same is true of the reverse process. It's highly possible that the people involved with the game didn't like the nuances associated with such English terms as gunship, gunboat, and monitor. Instead, they felt that the nuances attached to the Japanese translation of the word destroyer best matched their vision of the ship.

[Akilae]

For instance the Japanese word for Submarine is Sensuikan which literally translated reads "War Ice Ship" I have no idea how to get submarine out of that, but thats what it is. Better yet, translate Cho Jikuu Yousai and see what you get, I guarantee its not Super Dimensional Fortress.

Well, somebody already pointed out Cho Jikuu Yousai, but the submarine one lept out at me, so:

Sensuikan = 潜水艦 (submerge water ship)

Choujikuuyousai = 超時空è¦å¡ž (super dimensional fortress)

Also:

kan = 艦 (ship)

senkan = 戦艦 (war ship)

hence:

houkan = 砲艦 (which does indeed mean gun ship)

Edited September 11, 2006 by Akilae

[sketchley]

It was bothering me too about that (just too lazy to follow-up on it.)

æ°´ (water) and æ°· (ice), though very similar, are quite different.

One could also translate 潜水 as 'dive.' So it could be interpreted as 'diving ship.' Nevertheless, correction = good!

[Akilae]

Actually, is it not possible the reason for the name "Gun Destroyer" be the same as the "Guided Missile Destroyer"?

Guided Missile Destroyer (DGG) = Destroyer with missiles

Gun Destroyer = Destroyer with REALLY BIG gun

Count in the destroyer's jack-of-all-trades role in the modern navy, and I think that sums up the Macross pretty well.

[Mephistopheles]

Destroyer wouldn't quite be correct as destroyers are escort ships used for defensive purposes.

[David Hingtgen]

If you want to get into the etymology of the name:

The full name is SUBMARINE destroyer. As in, they are designed to destroy submarines. That is still a defining capability of theirs, but the name is shortened to simply "destroyer" as sub-hunting is just one of their many roles now. It also goes along with their escort duties---frankly, what is the point of assigning a smaller, weaker ship to escort a heavily armed, heavily armored ship that's going off to fight similar heavily armed and armored ships? Because it can't take care of itself? No. Because ANY ship is vulnerable to submarines, but not many can fight subs. So they need dedicated anti-sub escorts---thus, submarine destroyers.

It doesn't help that what the US calls a destroyer generally disagrees with the rest of the world, and that frigate has changed from "the largest ship after a battleship" to "about as small as it gets yet still considered a warship and not a patrol boat".

See the 1970's for ships being changed from destroyers to frigates, frigates to destroyers, destroyers to cruisers, etc. It's pure politics what stuff is called---most of it came because of various perceived "gaps" with the Soviet navy--none of which existed, it simply looked that way depending on how you name and classify ships. It's still purely political what ships are called. Ask the British about their "through-deck cruisers".

And compound that with the problem that "submarine destroyer" is named for what it destroys, but "missile destroyer" is named for what it destroys with...

[Maxtype]

Yeah,I always thought it was funny that the AEGIS-type "cruisers" are built on the same hull type & size as Spruance Class Destroyers.I guess a BILLION Dollar(or more)cost ship just couldn't be a Destroyer.

[David Hingtgen]

They were destroyers until the political climate made it sound better to build "larger" ships, and cruisers are bigger than destroyers. A billion dollars is a LOT for a "mere destroyer"---but to get a big cruiser for that kind of money? Deal! It's all about what you can convince congress to fund...

It was originally DDG 47 Ticonderoga, DDG 48 Yorktown, 49 Vincennes, 50 Valley Forge. Then they decided to call them CG's, so they were "renumbered" or whatever. And then the Burke class picked right back up at DDG 51, right after "DDG 50" Valley Forge. If you ever wondered why the Ticos start at 47 instead of 42 (the last Virginia class is CGN 41) that's why---they were originally DDG's, and the last one was DDG 46. And of course, the majority of CG's were actually built as Destroyer Leaders (DLG, DLGN)...

[sketchley]

Easy way to clear this up:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=ja&lr=&...on&ct=title

Personally, I like the first definition. However, my understanding of the ship in question is that it fulls both the rolls of gunship AND escort, when needed. Let's be honest, there are times the Zentraedi won't be able to use the main gun of the ship, and will need it to defend (the escort role) capital ships in the fleet that are bigger.

Edited September 24, 2006 by sketchley

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

If you want to get into the etymology of the name:

The full name is SUBMARINE destroyer.

Isn't it Torpedo Boat Destroyer? I mean, when it started, not now.

[David Hingtgen]

Not AFAIK. Maybe it switched, but I sure don't know which was first.

PS--going by that googled definition, US destroyers are the exact opposite. It says "fast, but long-endurance". Well, the Burke class is quite slow with a very short range--but it's our main destroyer! Now, Spruance class fit the bill, but a lot of them are gone now, and going, with more and more Burkes coming. "Destroyer" REALLY doesn't have a good definition, much less one that is consistent.

[sketchley]

"Destroyer" REALLY doesn't have a good definition, much less one that is consistent.

Agreed!

The only real que we have to take, in regards to Macross, is to look at the Japanese Marine Self-Defense Force, and the vessels called 'destroyer' in their fleet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Maritim...rce#JMSDF_Fleet

It should be mentioned that due to Article 9 in the Japanese Constitution, they are only allowed to have weapons of war that are defensive in nature. However, don't be fooled by that, as the Japanese have some of the largest destroyers on Earth, and some of them would be classified as different (heavier?) classes of ships in different navies. Thus, adding some weight to the political element in the naming of ships destroyer or otherwise.

Edited September 25, 2006 by sketchley

[Maxtype]

Isn't it Torpedo Boat Destroyer? I mean, when it started, not now.

I think you are correct.This is talking late pre-Dreadnought era to just before World War I.I believe it had to do with gasoline engines powerful enough to drive Torpedo Boats to 25-30 kts. and steam torpedos large enough to threaten Battleships.

[Akilae]

Except in WWI one tactic was using massed destroyers to rush dreadnaughts and launch torps... lots of them... happened at Jutland I think.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Not AFAIK. Maybe it switched, but I sure don't know which was first.

AFAIK, the first Torpedo Boat Destroyers appeared in the late 1880s to 1890s. Thats before submarines became a serious threat to the capital ships so I would think Torpedo Boat Destroyer was how the shortened 'Destroyer' eventually came about.

Edited September 25, 2006 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Maxtype]

AFAIK, the first Torpedo Boat Destroyers appeared in the late 1880s to 1890s. Thats before submarines became a serious threat to the capital ships so I would think Torpedo Boat Destroyer was how the shortened 'Destroyer' eventually came about.

That would be the pre-Dreadnought Era.HMS Dreadnought is considered the 1st "modern"battleship-all biig guns & heavy armor.Actually,Battleships should be called "Michegans" because USS Michegan was designed and finished BEFORE HMS Dreadnought.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

That would be the pre-Dreadnought Era.HMS Dreadnought is considered the 1st "modern"battleship-all biig guns & heavy armor.Actually,Battleships should be called "Michegans" because USS Michegan was designed and finished BEFORE HMS Dreadnought.

Nope, the IJN Satsuma was designed with all homogeneous main armament before the Dreadnought but the Japanese could not get their hands on enough barrels so it ended up with a mixed armament.

Still, its fair that Dreadnought claims the title over Satsuma and Michegan (both designed before Dreadnought). Dreadnought's advance wasn't just homogeneous main armament. She had the steam turbines too.

Edited September 26, 2006 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Maxtype]

I just looked up "Dreadnought" on Wikipedia and you are right.I stand corrected on the Michegan Issue but I still believe that Destroyers started out as Torpedo Boat Destroyers.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

II still believe that Destroyers started out as Torpedo Boat Destroyers.

I am pretty sure of that myself.