Naming the Marauder Bomber
Sir Isaac Grey III
Considering the fact that the Martin Company had wanted to name their
new bomber the Martian, aren't you proud that we Brits gave it the
more fitting name of Marauder?
It is quite amusing to think of the Jerrys being attacked by Martians!
Fortunately, you Yanks adopted our name instead.
Good day,
Sir Isaac Grey III
Cub Driver
>Considering the fact that the Martin Company had wanted to name their
>new bomber the Martian, aren't you proud that we Brits gave it the
>more fitting name of Marauder?
I've never heard that story, but note that the U.S. by and large
didn't give fighting names to its aircraft until 1942 or after The
Mustang, Tomahawk (which Curtiss later vamped into Warhawk), and Havoc
(the night fighter version of the Boston/A-20) were all named by the
RAF. So was the Brewster Buffalo.
all the best -- Dan Ford (email: web AT danford.net)
see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub
vincent p. norris
>didn't give fighting names to its aircraft until 1942 or after The
>Mustang, Tomahawk (which Curtiss later vamped into Warhawk), and Havoc
>(the night fighter version of the Boston/A-20) were all named by the
>RAF. So was the Brewster Buffalo.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
I note that you said "by and large," Dan, but a couple of exceptions
that come to mind were the Curtiss biplane fighters of the '20s and
'30s called "Hawks," and the SBC biplane dive bomber called the
"Helldiver."
vince norris
robert arndt
IIRC, the Martin "Martian" company name for the 179 originated with
the "futuristic look"
of the new aircraft compared to its competitors- among them, the ugly
B-23 Dragon:
http://www.elite.net/castle-air/b23.htm
But the British, thank God, came up with the "Marauder"- which is just
a fancy name for "raider" or "pillager"... exactly what the B-26 was
supposed to be as an attack bomber.
Rob :)
Gordon
>IIRC, the Martin "Martian" company name for the 179 originated with
>the "futuristic look"
>of the new aircraft compared to its competitors- among them, the ugly
>B-23 Dragon:
You take that back! We have one of those (CAF) and I think its lovely. Sorta
like a B-17's younger, prettier sister. :)
v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew
"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."
Andreas Parsch
>
> I note that you said "by and large," Dan, but a couple of exceptions
> that come to mind were the Curtiss biplane fighters of the '20s and
> '30s called "Hawks," and the SBC biplane dive bomber called the
> "Helldiver."
"Hawk" and "Helldiver" were marketing names assigned by the
manufacturers. The military was not involved.
Andreas
vincent p. norris
I don't doubt that, but wasn't that essentially true of the names
later given to the Lightning, Apache (Mustang), Warhawk, etc.?
That is, weren't they "marketing" names given those airplanes to
"sell" them to the American public?
I can't speak for all the services, but I can say that in my limited
experience in the marines, during the Korean fracas, anyone who
referred to an F4U as a "Corsair" or any other a/c by its "public
relations" name would be laughed out of the O Club.
vince norris
Peter Stickney
vincent p. norris <vp...@psu.edu> writes:
>>I've never heard that story, but note that the U.S. by and large
>>didn't give fighting names to its aircraft until 1942 or after The
>>Mustang, Tomahawk (which Curtiss later vamped into Warhawk), and Havoc
>>(the night fighter version of the Boston/A-20) were all named by the
>>RAF. So was the Brewster Buffalo.
> I note that you said "by and large," Dan, but a couple of exceptions
> that come to mind were the Curtiss biplane fighters of the '20s and
> '30s called "Hawks," and the SBC biplane dive bomber called the
> "Helldiver."
Those were Curtiss' "Company Names" for their military aircraft
designs.
Fighters were always "Hawks", whether they be P-6s or P-36s (Hawk 75s)
Observation aircraft, and biplane light bombers were "Falcons"
Monoplane light bombers were "Shrikes" (A-8, A-12, A-18)
Monoplane Observation aircraft were "Owls"
Navy Dive Bombers were "Helldivers"
I suppose that if they'd continued making Heavy Bombers, they'd have
called them "Condors" (Curtiss B-2)
The U.S. didn't start getting into teh "Name Game" until after 1940,
when the Brits started assigning names to the U.S. built types that
they were receiving.
Of course, in anything other than press releases, they were referred
to as "P-51B" or "B-17F" or whatever.
At that, they USAAC/USAAF/USAF had it better than the Army Ground
Forces. It would, at some point in mid 1942, be possible for some
unit ot have on issue the:
Medium Tank, M3
Light Tank, M3
Armored Personnel Carrier, M3
Gun Motor Carriage M3
105mm Howitzer M3
and have Submachine Guns M3 coming later in the year.
For all I know, they had Overcoats, M3, and Cans, Water, Drinking, for
the use of. M3 as well.
That seems to be taking COMSEC a bit too far.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Peter Stickney
krzta...@aol.comint (Gordon) writes:
>>
>>IIRC, the Martin "Martian" company name for the 179 originated with
>>the "futuristic look"
>>of the new aircraft compared to its competitors- among them, the ugly
>>B-23 Dragon:
>
> You take that back! We have one of those (CAF) and I think its lovely. Sorta
> like a B-17's younger, prettier sister. :)
Or a DC-3 that exercized and lost all that extra weight. The B-23 is
a beautiful airplane indeed, and I've never heard of it having any bad
habits. A cursory glimpse at its numbers shows it to be superior to
the He 111H in all respects, and the equal to the Ju 88A-4.
If it were German, it's have been produced throughout the war.
But we had the B-25 adn B-26 coming, so we didn't need it.
Cub Driver
wrote:
>That is, weren't they "marketing" names given those airplanes to
>"sell" them to the American public?
Oh, very definitely. If you look at Life magazines for the early war
years, you'll see some of those adverts from North American and
others. If you live near a library that actually has bound volumes of
Life from WWII, you are blessed. I never get tired of leafing through
those magazines and re-entering that world.
Same thing happened in Japan. (The names, I mean, not the magazine
adverts, though they probably existed too.) The Nakajima Ki-43
Hayabusa (Falcon) was I think the first named Japanese army fighter,
and they were all named after that. Not sure about the navy. Whether
the Zero was a Japanese or an American invention, I've never been able
to determine.
Andreas Parsch
>
> Whether
> the Zero was a Japanese or an American invention, I've never been able
> to determine.
It was the IJN's numerical type designation for the aircraft - it was
designated as "Carrier Fighter Type 0" (last digit of Japanese Year
2600 = A.D. 1940). The "short name" was "Reisen", which AFAIK was
short for Rei-Sentiki (Rei = zero, sentiki = fighter(?)). IIRC, the
"mixed languange" name "Zero-Sen" was a Japanese invention - but I may
be wrong here.
Andreas
Emmanuel Gustin
news:hgbhcvc4uqtaepqln...@4ax.com...
> adverts, though they probably existed too.) The Nakajima Ki-43
> Hayabusa (Falcon) was I think the first named Japanese army fighter,
> and they were all named after that. Not sure about the navy.
Around 1943 the IJN began to use names as formal
designations instead of numbers. It was judged that
designations such as 'Type 3 reconnaissance seaplane',
apart from not making for very attractive reading in
newspapers, were too informative to the enemy. (In the
same spirit that caused to Japanese to code their serial
numbers.) Hence Ryusei, Shiden, Reppu, Tenzan, Tokai,
etc. are official names, not popular names.
There was a system to it, too -- winds for carrier fighters,
thunder and lightning for land fighters, mountains for attack
bombers, stars for bombers, clouds for reconnaissance
aircraft, forms of light for nightfighters.
--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet.be
Flying Guns Page:
http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
John Halliwell
norris <vp...@psu.edu> writes
>I don't doubt that, but wasn't that essentially true of the names
>later given to the Lightning, Apache (Mustang), Warhawk, etc.?
Lightning was named by the RAF (who only use names, many with
alliteration) for the 'castrated' P-38s they took delivery of. It wasn't
officially used for US P-38s until the E model.
Mustang was also named by the British, not surprising as it was created
to meet a British specification.
Obviously the names seemed to stick (some were very good) and later
taken up by the manufacturers (or USAAF?).
Many more names originated from British use of the type, including
Boston, Catalina, Dakota, Havoc, Hudson, Liberator and Ventura.
--
John
John Halliwell
<pe...@adelphia.net> writes
>Those were Curtiss' "Company Names" for their military aircraft
>designs.
>Fighters were always "Hawks", whether they be P-6s or P-36s (Hawk 75s)
The Commonwealth carried the 'hawk' across to the Mohawk (P-36),
Tomahawk (P-40C) and Kittyhawk (P-40F & P-40N).
--
John
Gordon
>There was a system to it, too -- winds for carrier fighters,
>thunder and lightning for land fighters, mountains for attack
>bombers, stars for bombers, clouds for reconnaissance
>aircraft, forms of light for nightfighters.
Didn't they have a bird called a "Dragon Slayer" as well? Great name for a
bomber destroyer, if it worked...
Gordon
>At that, they USAAC/USAAF/USAF had it better than the Army Ground
>Forces. It would, at some point in mid 1942, be possible for some
>unit ot have on issue the:
>Medium Tank, M3
>Light Tank, M3
>Armored Personnel Carrier, M3
>Gun Motor Carriage M3
>105mm Howitzer M3
>and have Submachine Guns M3 coming later in the year.
>For all I know, they had Overcoats, M3, and Cans, Water, Drinking, for
>the use of. M3 as well.
>That seems to be taking COMSEC a bit too far.
Like an army unit being assigned a large supply of P-38s ('John Waynes' i.e.,
can openers) :)
Lawrence Dillard
"John Halliwell" <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pl1DRGAe...@photopia.demon.co.uk...
> In article <umcgcvot3urt8itje...@4ax.com>, vincent p.
> norris <vp...@psu.edu> writes
> >I don't doubt that, but wasn't that essentially true of the names
> >later given to the Lightning, Apache (Mustang), Warhawk, etc.?
SNIP
> Many more names originated from British use of the type, including
> Boston, Catalina, Dakota, Havoc, Hudson, Liberator and Ventura.
A couple of small corrections, if I may.
"Catalina" was in production prior to the onset of war and in civilian hands
as well, and was named by its manufacturer. Also, the "Liberator" gained its
name as a result of a company-sponsored initiative, as it also went into
production off the drawing boards before the onset of war.
Cub Driver
wrote:
>It was the IJN's numerical type designation for the aircraft - it was
>designated as "Carrier Fighter Type 0" (last digit of Japanese Year
>2600 = A.D. 1940). The "short name" was "Reisen", which AFAIK was
Yes, but the question is, who began to call it "Zero", which is the
universal name for it today?
Not many people in the west in 1941-42 knew about the Japanese
designation system, either army or navy.
Claire Chennault called the Zero the I-98 when he first saw it, since
he assumed it to be a followed on to the I-96 and I-97 he had earlier
encountered in China, these being the Type 96 Navy Fighter (Claude
A5M) and the Type 97 Army Fighter (Nate Ki-27). That was in 1940.
In the winter of 1940-41, Chennault was in Washington and briefing
General Marshall and others about this "a new-type Japanese fighter."
By the fall of 1941, the AVGs were all referring to the "Zero". How
did the name get into the lexicon? Obviously it didn't come from the
Japanese, who called it Reisen, this being short for Rei Shiki
Sentoki, meaning Zero Type Fighter.
By the way, those who call the plane "Zero-sen" are conflating two
languages. It was never called that.
For more on this subject, see www.danford.net/zero.htm
Cub Driver
>There was a system to it, too -- winds for carrier fighters,
>thunder and lightning for land fighters, mountains for attack
>bombers, stars for bombers, clouds for reconnaissance
>aircraft, forms of light for nightfighters.
Sure beats cities (Lancaster, Boston, Washington) as used for RAF
bombers.
ArtKramr
>From: Cub Driver dan...@alumni.unh.edu
>Date: 5/20/03 3:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <kgvjcvcdqcn8tkue0...@4ax.com>
And let's not forget "Betty with the big behind". (grin)
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Andreas Parsch
>
> Yes, but the question is, who began to call it "Zero", which is the
> universal name for it today?
Sorry, I misunderstood your question.
>
> Not many people in the west in 1941-42 knew about the Japanese
> designation system, either army or navy.
>
> Claire Chennault called the Zero the I-98 when he first saw it, since
> he assumed it to be a followed on to the I-96 and I-97 he had earlier
> encountered in China, these being the Type 96 Navy Fighter (Claude
> A5M) and the Type 97 Army Fighter (Nate Ki-27). That was in 1940.
>
> In the winter of 1940-41, Chennault was in Washington and briefing
> General Marshall and others about this "a new-type Japanese fighter."
>
> By the fall of 1941, the AVGs were all referring to the "Zero". How
> did the name get into the lexicon? Obviously it didn't come from the
> Japanese, who called it Reisen, this being short for Rei Shiki
> Sentoki, meaning Zero Type Fighter.
I'm guessing now, but if the AVG somehow determinted that the aircraft
was called "Reisen" _and_ knew that the "Rei" was the type number,
then it's IMHO not too far a stretch to assume that they referred to
that type number in their own English language.
Andreas
Nick Pedley
Like Grumman and their feline fetish!
Nick
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/20/03 12:28 PM Pacific
>Like Grumman and their feline fetish!
>
>Nick
Never forget the Grumman motto: " We make 'em simple and we make 'em strong"
Paul J. Adam
<dan...@alumni.unh.edu> writes
>
>>There was a system to it, too -- winds for carrier fighters,
>>thunder and lightning for land fighters, mountains for attack
>>bombers, stars for bombers, clouds for reconnaissance
>>aircraft, forms of light for nightfighters.
>
>Sure beats cities (Lancaster, Boston, Washington) as used for RAF
>bombers.
So you think the USN got its cruiser (and, later, SSN) naming policy
wrong? :)
Japanese is better suited to concise but expressive names. Consider
"Yukaze" and "Kurosio" (Evening Breeze and Dark Tide respectively).
Hard to do similar names for a lot of British weather: unless you like
the idea of flying to war in the Avro Turned Out Nice Again, or the
Handley-Page Bit Nippy For This Time Of Year Isn't It. You might get
somewhere with the 'Lazy Wind' but that only gets you one. (A 'lazy
wind' blows across the Yorkshire moors. It can't be bothered to go over
or around you, so it just goes right through your bones instead...)
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Peter Stickney
Uhm, AFAICT, the Consolidated twin-engine Model 28 flying boat was
named by the Brits. The U.S. Navy flavors were all PBYs, and the one
in private hands was referred to as the Model 28. The Uhm, Model 29,
the 4-engine PB2Y boat was christened "Coronado" by the Brits, who
received a few. Note that Catalina and Coronado are both islands off
the California coast, and entire fitting with the Brit naming scheme
for Flying Boats (Sunderland, Shetland, Singapore, Lerwick) and also
having the extra plusses of being alliteritive and referencing the
airfraft's California origins. The Model 31 boat was named
Corregidor, presumably by the company, but didn't go into production.
John Halliwell
<pe...@adelphia.net> writes
>Uhm, AFAICT, the Consolidated twin-engine Model 28 flying boat was
>named by the Brits. The U.S. Navy flavors were all PBYs, and the one
>in private hands was referred to as the Model 28. The Uhm, Model 29,
>the 4-engine PB2Y boat was christened "Coronado" by the Brits, who
>received a few. Note that Catalina and Coronado are both islands off
>the California coast, and entire fitting with the Brit naming scheme
>for Flying Boats (Sunderland, Shetland, Singapore, Lerwick) and also
>having the extra plusses of being alliteritive and referencing the
>airfraft's California origins. The Model 31 boat was named
>Corregidor, presumably by the company, but didn't go into production.
My references suggest that the US adopted Catalina in 1942.
--
John