Talk:Sh'wada-pattern supercarrier: Difference between revisions
→Merge to Assault Carrier
| Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
::Um, yeah, because the UNSC reorganizing the names of the ship types of the enemy fleet so they aren't stuck with simple nicknames when naval officers look for information of a certain ship is so unreasonable. Seriously? It can easily be a retcon. Hell, Halsey knew of the Forerunner long before anyone else. the UNSC renaming a ship to a moniker that describes it's role in the enemy fleet better than simply slapping Super in front of carrier to describe an entire class of ships.--[[User talk:Zervziel|For the Swarm!]] 23:12, September 19, 2010 (UTC) | ::Um, yeah, because the UNSC reorganizing the names of the ship types of the enemy fleet so they aren't stuck with simple nicknames when naval officers look for information of a certain ship is so unreasonable. Seriously? It can easily be a retcon. Hell, Halsey knew of the Forerunner long before anyone else. the UNSC renaming a ship to a moniker that describes it's role in the enemy fleet better than simply slapping Super in front of carrier to describe an entire class of ships.--[[User talk:Zervziel|For the Swarm!]] 23:12, September 19, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::Well, since this apparently won't die. How about this, we know that in most cases the UNSC follows conventions set by the US military in the present day. And in current Naval terminology, Assault Carriers and Supercarriers are vastly different ships, one referring to a Marine carrier used to get right up to the front lines and the other referring to massive Navy carriers with a shitload of planes. [[User talk:Zuranamee|Z]] 00:49, September 20, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== differences between supercarrier us and assault carrier use == | == differences between supercarrier us and assault carrier use == | ||