Author Topic: Military word of the day  (Read 7096 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Occam

    needs a vacation.

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,944
Military word of the day
« on: April 05, 2011, 17:35:16 »
Quote
Military Word Of The Day
Military Term #437 of 944:

DDH
:
Destroyer, Helicopter. A Destroyer Type Vessel which uses Helicopters as its primary armament.

 :orly:

I don't know who wrote that definition, but it needs work!




Offline Journeyman

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 193,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,666
  • Frustration at idiocy ends more threads than logic
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2011, 17:39:05 »
:orly:

I don't know who wrote that definition, but it needs work!
Perhaps suggesting a fix.......
Far from an apprentice, but not yet a master.

"Je suis trop honnête pour être poli" ~Louis Scutenaire (1905-1987)

Offline Occam

    needs a vacation.

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,944
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2011, 17:47:39 »
Perhaps suggesting a fix.......

How about "Destroyer, Helicopter"?

If anything else needs to be added, it would be "may carry an embarked helicopter".

Offline Journeyman

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 193,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,666
  • Frustration at idiocy ends more threads than logic
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2011, 18:05:44 »
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:


 ;)
Far from an apprentice, but not yet a master.

"Je suis trop honnête pour être poli" ~Louis Scutenaire (1905-1987)

Offline Strike

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 81,122
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,669
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
    • The Home of the Salt, Lilly, Winstall (Wincentaylo) & Blouin Family Tree Website
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2011, 18:59:57 »
I didn't realize helicopters were considered armament.  I know they can CARRY armament but, unless you're talking kamikaze action, would really be considered armament.
Don't piss me off.  I have two older brothers, work with a bunch of men, and I can kick their asses!
BOOT TO THE HEAD!
#32 | Rank: 313 | Cbt Exp: 31,112,572 | Msns: 5,279

Offline Occam

    needs a vacation.

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,944
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2011, 19:07:01 »
I didn't realize helicopters were considered armament.  I know they can CARRY armament but, unless you're talking kamikaze action, would really be considered armament.

What she said.   ;)

While I have a healthy respect for those who fly thousands of parts in close formation, I wouldn't really call them "armament" in the same sense as a 5"54 round or a Sea Sparrow.

Offline Occam

    needs a vacation.

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,944
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2011, 22:11:46 »
Well, whaddya know.  You can edit Military terms.  I learned something new today and I'm taking the rest of the day off as a reward.   ;D

Offline N. McKay

  • Mentor
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 11,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,259
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2011, 10:55:15 »
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..."

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.

Offline HavokFour

  • Civilian
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,329
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 403
  • Altera Merces
    • VidyaGamez - Online Streaming Community
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2011, 10:29:59 »
I didn't realize helicopters were considered armament.  I know they can CARRY armament but, unless you're talking kamikaze action, would really be considered armament.

Think lawnmower.

 ;D
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." — Edmund Burke

Offline Pusser

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,607
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2011, 15:23:33 »
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.

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:
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline eurowing

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 19,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 257
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2011, 00:21:59 »
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.
Played with RC Airplanes in sandboxes

Offline Occam

    needs a vacation.

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,944
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2011, 03:43:51 »
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.

Well, that makes sense, until you run up against DD, FF, SS or BB classes....and Destroyer, Destroyer sounds a little redundant redundant.   ;)

Offline Pusser

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,607
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2011, 10:56:21 »
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."
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 13,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 542
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2011, 11:04:42 »
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.

Online E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,358
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2011, 11:06:33 »
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."


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.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Pusser

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,607
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2011, 11:32:08 »

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.

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).
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 15,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 469
  • There's no NAVY in Ottawa!
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2011, 20:49:05 »
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?
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Offline Pusser

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,607
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2011, 11:13:13 »
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?

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).
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline Donaill

  • Member
  • ****
  • 600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 112
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2011, 12:10:07 »
CSED

Continuously
Supporting
Every
Department

 >:D
Siol Na Fear Fearail agus fior go bas

Offline Pusser

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,607
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2011, 19:29:50 »
I think it's more like, CSE:

Constantly
Sleeping
Engineer

They usually only wake up (when kicked) to fix the projector.  >:D
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline Donaill

  • Member
  • ****
  • 600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 112
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2011, 20:11:07 »
I think it's more like, CSE:

Constantly
Sleeping
Engineer

They usually only wake up (when kicked) to fix the projector.  >:D

No need to get abuisve. :p
Siol Na Fear Fearail agus fior go bas

Offline Pusser

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,607
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2011, 22:12:33 »
No need to get abuisve. :p

It's as gentle a kick as one sailor can give another. ::)
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline Donaill

  • Member
  • ****
  • 600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 112
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2011, 09:43:07 »
lol Navy love.

Futility : Having a list of "priorities" become usurped by a new list of "priorities" only to get flack for not completing the first set of "priorities". My head hurts now.  :2c: :facepalm:
Siol Na Fear Fearail agus fior go bas

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • "Look, I don't know if shooting penguins will help the environment or not. But I do know that the decision shouldn't be in the hands of people who just wanna kill for fun."
  • Directing Staff
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 65,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,430
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2011, 12:17:58 »
BOHICA
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." 2007 winning entry, Texas A&M University - most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

DISCLAIMER - my opinion may cause manginal irritation.

Offline Navalsnipr

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 53,198
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 801
Re: Military word of the day
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2011, 12:41:11 »
I think it's more like, CSE:

Constantly
Sleeping
Engineer

They usually only wake up (when kicked) to fix the projector.  >:D

You mean CSED

Combat
Supply
Engineering
Deck

We support all departments!
-----------------------------------
Don't Run, You'll just die tired.
CF Sports Hall of Fame - Combat Shooting
CF Elite 50
Queen's Medal for Champion Shot (RegF) - 2009
#30 | Rank: 325 | Cbt Exp: 34,897,860 | Msns: 4,355