Inquiry: Why does WRD not have a standardized unit naming system?

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1465
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Inquiry: Why does WRD not have a standardized unit naming system?

Postby FrangibleCover » Thu 1 Mar 2018 21:42

lastcrusade101 wrote:For Japanese tanks in particular, I wish they called it Type whatever it was. Not only is the example of Guntank a strange anomaly in the list, they did the same thing for Chinese tanks (which were added at the same time so its not like it's outdated). Why would the same game, with units added at the same time, call the Type 88 the Type 88, and not Bālíng Shì, while calling the Type 90 a "Kyu Maru Shiki"?

Differentiation. The Chinese get YYY-XX designations such as ZTZ-85, the North Koreans get Type XX and the Japanese get Ekcs Ekcs Shiki. It's intended to make the units stand apart from each other and it more or less succeeds. Apart from the annoyance of Japanese double naming, which is why the Guntank is not called the Hachi Nana Shiki.

Also XX Shiki is the superior solution. Differentiate stuff like the Type 87s by calling them 87 Shiki Guntank and 87 Shiki RCV. It's reasonably close to a transliteration of the official Japanese terms, looks a little neater and saves the irritation of people calling units "Nana Shiki thingies".
What if Wargame stuck to timeframe?
Image

Fodder
Sergeant Major
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri 7 Oct 2016 20:15
Contact:

Re: Inquiry: Why does WRD not have a standardized unit naming system?

Postby Fodder » Fri 2 Mar 2018 01:34

FrangibleCover wrote:Differentiation. The Chinese get YYY-XX designations such as ZTZ-85, the North Koreans get Type XX and the Japanese get Ekcs Ekcs Shiki. It's intended to make the units stand apart from each other and it more or less succeeds. Apart from the annoyance of Japanese double naming, which is why the Guntank is not called the Hachi Nana Shiki.

Also XX Shiki is the superior solution. Differentiate stuff like the Type 87s by calling them 87 Shiki Guntank and 87 Shiki RCV. It's reasonably close to a transliteration of the official Japanese terms, looks a little neater and saves the irritation of people calling units "Nana Shiki thingies".

+1

Scheintot887 wrote:...

English words like short arrow and close arrow. Artillery named by caliber 105mm SP and 203mm SP.
But then again it really doesn't matter when there are things like DLC imbalance, tank availability inconsistencies, and units that never existed.

Scheintot887
Sergeant
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue 27 Jan 2015 15:54
Contact:

Re: Inquiry: Why does WRD not have a standardized unit naming system?

Postby Scheintot887 » Fri 2 Mar 2018 02:04

lastcrusade101 wrote:For Japanese tanks in particular, I wish they called it Type whatever it was. Not only is the example of Guntank a strange anomaly in the list, they did the same thing for Chinese tanks (which were added at the same time so its not like it's outdated). Why would the same game, with units added at the same time, call the Type 88 the Type 88, and not Bālíng Shì, while calling the Type 90 a "Kyu Maru Shiki"?



Red Guard wrote:all chinese weaponaries' codes are base on the chinese charactor which represents some words. this is the new naming system, back many years ago, such as tanks and AFVs would all be named as Type XXX, as XXX would be the years such vechile or any kind of landforce weapons enter services are being mass produced.

now, the new naming system, SOME, goes like this, note, some of these are not correct, since this system was never offically published.


North Korea probably never changed their designations and thats why North Korea and China have different names (Type and ZTZ).

I still don't get where your point with the Guntank is. Even Wikipedia wrote in the first section that it is called the "Guntank". I think they would not write this if this was just a side note. Source down below.

Wikipedia.org wrote:Naming system for tanks
The Japanese system for naming tanks seems difficult to a Westerner, although it is logical. Like all weapons, the year of introduction is the first criteria. That year is computed on the historical calendar of Japan, starting 660 years BC. A Type 89 tank was thus introduced in 1929, the year 2589 of the Japanese calendar (only the two last digits counts).[5][6] The problem is that several weapons or tanks can be introduced the same year. The Japanese used ideograms to differentiate further the various weapons. The ideogram "Chi" meant a medium tank, "Te" a tankette; "Ke" a light tank, "Ho" (artillery) a self-propelled gun, "Ka" an amphibious tank. There was a second ideogram to distinguish the models. The Type 97 Chi-Ha is a medium tank introduced in 1937, the Type 2 Ke-To is a light tank introduced in 1942. There is sometimes a surname to supplement or replace the ideograms. The "Type 97 Shinhoto Chi-Ha" is a variation of the medium tank Chi-Ha with a new turret (meaning of the word Shinhoto). The Type 95 light tank had the surname "Ha-Go" (third model) that was given by its designer, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries


Japan is using TWO naming systems.


historyofwar.org wrote:Most of the tanks used by the Imperial Japanese Army during the 1930s and 1940s were identified by two complementary designation systems.
The first was used to identify all Army equipment, and consisted of a type number based on the imperial year that the item was accepted. Before 1945 three systems of dating a year were in use in Japan – the Anno Domini system, the era name based on the regnal years of the current emperor, and the imperial year, counting from the then accepted foundation of Japan in 660 BC. In 1873 the Gregorian calendar was adopted, and the Japanese New Year was moved to 1 January. This rather neatly lined up the western and Imperial year systems, so that 1940 became 2600.

Up until 1940/2600 the accepted practise was to use the last two numbers of the year as a type number, as in the Type 89 medium tank of 1929, with Type 100 for items accepted in 1940. After 1940 only the last digit was used, so Type 2 equipment was accepted in 1942.

The second designation system saw each tank given a name, essential to separate between two tanks accepted in the same year. At first the names were simple – the Type 89 medium tank was the “I-Go”, or “first car/model” while the Type 95 light tank was the “Ha-Go”, or “third car/model” (no second model has been identified).

This system was then refined to give each tank a two letter name, with the first letter standing for the type of tank and the second for the order in which the tanks were developed.

The majority of tanks fell into three categories – Chi, Ke and Ho, or Medium, Light and Gun respectively, with Chi and Ke used as single character abbreviations for Chiu (or Chui) and Kei.

The numbering system used was based on the Iroha, a Japanese poem first mentioned in 1079. This used every character from the Japanese syllabary once, and for a long time was used to put those characters in order (in a rather poetic version of the ABC). The first two lines of the poem, transliterated in roman letters, ran:


In Wargame all the mentioned japanese tanks you called out have one in common: Shiki. Shiki means "formula" (Source down below) and as I understand it means something like "Type". Actually a lot of the asian countries did not call it Type, it is "formula".

Source:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/the-ne ... stem.t334/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_ ... pe_90_tank
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... _WWII.html

Guntank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_87_s ... rcraft_gun

Shiki(copy and paste: 式):
https://www.google.de/search?q=japanese ... e&ie=UTF-8

User avatar
damoj
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2016 10:07
Contact:

Re: Inquiry: Why does WRD not have a standardized unit naming system?

Postby damoj » Wed 7 Mar 2018 06:58

Scheintot887 wrote:North Korea probably never changed their designations and thats why North Korea and China have different names (Type and ZTZ).


Arrogant imperialist drivel.

Link related, gives a hint at the difficulties of naming conventions... sometimes I think the entire game should be NATO-centric just for consistency's sake.

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1201889/dprk-missile-designations/

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests