You dislike Centuri Nomenclature!!! What about EA

[Hugbiel]

The term "destroyer" does, indeed, descend from the term "torpedo boat destroyer," [zap] Modern destroyers also perform [zap aussi ] in addition to the "tradtional" roles of the type.

So, a destroyer in ACtA should have [zap]

Mostly true but may not be exact from someone who don't knew this stuff : I'm a french speaker but I'm pretty sure that not the case in the sentence
" I'm <insert the name of a super-villain here > the DESTROYER !!!! "
With descriptive terms like this the same problems may arises as with the term dreadnought.

You are right but you implies that the nomenclature of today's fleets apply to B5's fleets, witch is probably true from an human point of vue but AFAIK not certain so technobabble evolution may be used as an explanation.
My point is that today's ships classification is an technical language about somethings peculiar and then may not be followed for description of an SF setting. But of course that would be surprising in future near as B5 ( 22XX )

 

[Spideredd]

don't get me started on this...
<rants incoherently for five minutes, much finger waving>
... and a dreadnought is meant to be a huge battleship.
At least they have their carriers (almost) correct.

 

[Chernobyl]

from wikipedia

There are at least three possible explanations of the origin of the name "tank". One is it first arose in British factories making the hulls of the first battle tanks: the workmen were given the impression they were constructing tracked water containers or tanks for the British Army, hence keeping the production of a fighting vehicle secret.[1] Another is the term was first used in a secret report on the new motorized weapon presented to Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, by British Army Lt.-Col. Ernest Swinton. From this report, three possible terms emerged: "cistern", "motor-war car", and "tank". Apparently "tank" was chosen due to its linguistic simplicity.[2] But perhaps the most compelling story comes from Winston Churchill's authoritative biography. [3] To disguise the device, drawings were marked "water carriers for Russia." When it was pointed out that this might be shortened to "WCs for Russia," the drawings were changed to "water tanks for Russia." Eventually the weapon was just called a tank.

for fans of historical fiction, Harry Turtledove uses a similiar situation in his "great war" series, the tanks in that timeline wind up getting called "barrels".

Chern

 

[harikaridog]

Many, many years ago at a UK B5 Convention, I asked JMS about the naming convention of the Omega as a destroyer (looking back I cannot believe how anorak that was)...however his succinct answer was..."that it sounded 'cool' "........what better reason.

:lol:

 

[Locutus9956]

don't get me started on this...
<rants incoherently for five minutes, much finger waving>
... and a dreadnought is meant to be a huge battleship.
At least they have their carriers (almost) correct.

The Nova WAS a huge battleship in the earth minbari war.

And the other thing is the term dreadnought was aplied to it by AoG in B5Wars. And in that game it cost nearly tiwce what an Omega did and had a TERRIFYING amount of firepower....

 

[harikaridog]

don't get me started on this...
<rants incoherently for five minutes, much finger waving>
... and a dreadnought is meant to be a huge battleship.
At least they have their carriers (almost) correct.

The Nova WAS a huge battleship in the earth minbari war.

And the other thing is the term dreadnought was aplied to it by AoG in B5Wars. And in that game it cost nearly tiwce what an Omega did and had a TERRIFYING amount of firepower....

Yup thats true, indeed in early fluff fiction from AOG they were referred to as gunships......The original Dreadnaught was a innovative and revolutionary warship in 1906 mounting an unprecendented amount of Large Guns compared with its predecessors...so I think here they got the naming convention just right for the Nova.

Just as some interesting background regarding the naming of ship types,

Pre 1906 the Battleships (full name Line of Battle Ships) were not much bigger than cruisers, but they were better armoured and usually carried 4 x 10" - 12" guns and a wide range of smaller calibres. There only mission was to stay in port until their enemy opponents sortied or take part in the blockade of their opposite numbers. The real war fighting, commerce raiding etc. was left to the cruisers.

In 1906 the Dreadnaught was launched, must faster than her predecessors and carrying a main armament of 10 x 12" guns!!!

For many years this type of Ship became known as Dreadnaughts, with the later larger types called Super-Dreadnaughts.
However as the last of the original Battleships went out of Service, they became referred to as Pre-Dreadnaughts....and the term Battleship was applied to the Super-Dreadnaughts.....so for example Bismarck was a battleship but in some texts referred to as a Super Dreadnaught.

As for the Omega, well she probably should be referred to as a Cruiser,as she appears to be designed for long range patrolling...facillited by the Artificial Gravity....which we only see replicated elsewhere on the Explorer class and the Asimov Liners. .......but as said before I guess the term destroyer was cooler

 

[emperorpenguin]

Many, many years ago at a UK B5 Convention, I asked JMS about the naming convention of the Omega as a destroyer (looking back I cannot believe how anorak that was)...however his succinct answer was..."that it sounded 'cool' "........what better reason.

:lol:

Originally ("Spider In The Web") the Omega was classed as a Heavy Cruiser, but so too had the Hyperion been designated.
JMS isn't a military buff and likely called it a "destroyer" as it sounded good.

How good am I?! 8) :lol:

 

[Da Boss]

from wikipedia

There are at least three possible explanations of the origin of the name "tank". One is it first arose in British factories making the hulls of the first battle tanks: the workmen were given the impression they were constructing tracked water containers or tanks for the British Army, hence keeping the production of a fighting vehicle secret.[1] Another is the term was first used in a secret report on the new motorized weapon presented to Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, by British Army Lt.-Col. Ernest Swinton. From this report, three possible terms emerged: "cistern", "motor-war car", and "tank". Apparently "tank" was chosen due to its linguistic simplicity.[2] But perhaps the most compelling story comes from Winston Churchill's authoritative biography. [3] To disguise the device, drawings were marked "water carriers for Russia." When it was pointed out that this might be shortened to "WCs for Russia," the drawings were changed to "water tanks for Russia." Eventually the weapon was just called a tank.

for fans of historical fiction, Harry Turtledove uses a similiar situation in his "great war" series, the tanks in that timeline wind up getting called "barrels".

Chern

I do enjoy most of his books - esp World War ones - less keen on the fantasy ones