US Tank "General" Names

Hi

It is today pretty well established that US AFVs should be named in honour of past US generals but is it true that this trend was started by the British in WW2 who preferred such names for the tanks they received from the US rather than the rather sterile official alpha numeric tags that they came with ?

 

All sources I have claim that it was the British who came up with "Lee", "Grant" and "Sherman". I don't know about the others, though. Interestingly, the British also gave the tanks they recieved different numerical designations.

 

The first US tank to receive a suggestive name was the Heavy Tank M26 'Pershing', which didn't receive it's suggestive name until after the war ended.

 

The US didn't officially name AFV's until the M-26. They picked up the British trend of using former American military men (mostly generals of the Civil War). Same with aircraft. The Brits started it and the US troops liked it enough that we copied it.

The US Army also names it's aircraft after Native American/Indian nations. The notible exception being the Cobra.

 

The Apache and Comanche are good examples of that.

 

As are Chinook, Blackhawk, Mohawk, Tarhee, Iroqouis (Huey), Chickasaw,
Souix, Cayuse, and Kiowa.

 

I thought there was a Cobra helecopter?

 

There is, the Cobra attack helicopter:
<http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air-support/vietnam/cobra.htm>

 

Well they should it better showing them so respect instead of none after what the American Government and Army have done.

 

Before you are so quick to criticise other nations you shoul look into the record of relations between Canada and Indian tribes as well.

Excerpt taken from this site: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3695/is_199604/ai_n8748787

 

The AH-1 Cobra was a private development by Bell. They saw what the military was doing with gunships in Vietnam and figured it would be good to have a helicopter whose sole purpose is that of assault. Bell named it the Cobra and the name stayed with it.

 

Does that justify anything?

I don't think Gunter's point makes much sense though. How exactly is an eradicated Indian tribe honoured by having its name attached to a machine of war? This is not going to bring their old culture back, it's not going to return their land to them and it won't do any good to what remains of the Native American people, either. Unless they secretly own massive stocks in Lockheed.

 

The comment wasn't intended to justify anything. It means exactly what it says. Don't be so quick to condemn others until you first take a look at your own transgressions. That being said I don't buy into the PC attitude about the Indians. The land didn't belong to them anymore than it belonged to those they might have taken it from. There is no such thing as original ownership in this world since none of us possess deeds signed by the original owner (presumably the Creator?).

Cultures clashed..one was stronger and more numerous than the other and prevailed. That is what has been going on across the world since the beginning of time. Deal with it. When our time has passed and we must stand aside (for aliens from distant galaxies or perhaps future Chinese generations) well we will just have to deal with it too.
History won't care.

 

Can I have your house then ? I Could sell it on eBay.

 

I think the idea that the land "belonged" to the Indians is an overstatement for the reasons you mention; you cannot "own" land unless you purchased it from or for a higher social organization that can protect it for you. In the end land will always belong to those who have the strength to hold it. The Indians, when faced with European settlers, did not. However, this overstatement is probably derived from a debate on the methods used to remove the Indians from the lands they inhabited.

 

Of course you can have it. Provided you can take it and hold it.
That's how things work. The constraints in todays world when it comes to individual action as opposed to that of governments though are related to things like the rule of law thus police power which might make taking and holding it somewhat difficult. (not to mention my ability to resist)

ps see Roels post above he does a good job of explaining it.

 

I am aware of both just that America went further than Canada.

 

Just out of interest - here's how it breaks down re the Generals concerned -

NB. I've listed the period that they most notably served as generals.

Named by the Brits -

Stuart - Confederate
Grant - Union
Lee - Confederate
Sherman - Union
Chaffee - WW1/Inter War

Named by the Yanks -

Pershing - WW1
Walker Bulldog - WW2 /Korea
Patton - WW2
Sheridan - Union
Bradley -WW2
Abrams - Vietnam

Note that only the Brits named any vehicles in honour of Confederate generals (two, actually) - is this significant I wonder ?

The Americans have only used one civil war name preferring more contemporary generals.

The Bradley is the only US non-tank AFV I'm aware of that was named after a general.

The Chaffee was the only one the Brits named after a contemporary figure.

 

Abrams also fought in WW2. In fact I only learned a few days ago that he also commanded the American armed forces in Vietnam later on.

 

He only served as a general in Vietnam.