Warbird Information Exchange

We all know how the British ended up adopting American nicknames for their aircraft, but I only recently realized how extensive the problem of linguistic intermixing was and how it apparently rubbbed a number of people the wrong way.

First, I will note that a number of American wartime aircraft manuals actually have an "American to British glossary":

(Source: AirCorps Library)

(Source: AirCorps Library)

Furthermore, I recently came across this interesting opinion piece in the back of a wartime book:

Source: R. A. Saville-Sneath, British Aircraft, First Annual, vol. One (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1944), 224.

This resentment may have been the result of the British having to adopt so many American aircraft since, as has been noted elsewhere, so many of the British naval aircraft were obsolete. It is also worth noting that we Americans commandeered their Chad as our Kilroy.

As George Bernard Shaw said, not coincidentally, in September 1942:

(Source: Quote Investigator)

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

It was the Americans that copied the British in officially naming aircraft rather than the other way around. Prior to the Mustang, a manufacturer may have had an internal name or export name (all Curtiss fighters were "Hawks", and internally the NA-73 was the "Apache" for a while), but officially the US Army didn't use anything but the numerical designation at first.
No better example can be found than armo(u)red vehicles. The British doctrine of naming US made tanks after US Generals has stuck

Otherwise, the struggle is real. I developed an interest in the workings of automobiles later than most of my peers, and British ones at that, so I learned Automotive English before I learned Automotive American, and had to mentally translate for a while.

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

You're right, I made a mistake in not thinking what I was writing through enough. It was kind of a weird back and forth. At the beginning, we Americans did copy British nicknames for aircraft. However, what I was trying to get at was that as the war went on and we started to develop and promote our own nicknames, American nicknames started to supersede British ones. For example, Wildcat replacing Martlet, Avenger instead of Tarpon, Hellcat instead of Gannet. Interestingly, these are all for naval aircraft, which is the connection I was making with the British having to adopt American aircraft.

What is interesting to me is that the two naming formats came together to form the modern way of referring to aircraft. The Americans used designations (e.g. P-51), but not nicknames and the British used nicknames (Mustang), but not designations. So, now, most aircraft use both (P-51 Mustang).

As to why Americans started adopting the British practice of using nicknames, I've seen it suggested in a limited number of places that it was motivated by secrecy. Apparently, the theory was that if we stuck to designations, the enemy could guess something about our airplane development from the sequence of the numbers. In other words, they could figure out that the P-51 was more advanced than the P-40 because it had a higher number, or that there were 10 pursuit plane models between the two. (See the German tank problem) So by only using nicknames publicly, it would deprive the enemy of such information.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

Hmm. The only American fighter I can think of that didn't have a nickname was the P-35 - or did it?

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

It's an interesting thought, but it would only work when 'new' designs were developed in secrecy >during< a conflict.
Just like bold markings on otherwise camouflaged vehicles, in operational practice knowing what your own stuff is is more important than depriving the enemy of that casual knowledge. (a good, albeit obscure example is the Polish Wz35 'Uruguay' an effective anti-tank rifle so shrouded in secrecy, that when they were needed, no one knew they existed)
Also, in peace time, commercial concerns arise. A manufacturer is more than happy to produce things for export where allowed, and marketing is required (TBH, marketing is required to get something adopted within a normal procurement. "Sexiness" and selling sometimes trump conventional or best practice, which is why the F-117 was black instead of splinter blue, and the F-35 isn't the F-24 like it should be

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

The North American P-64 never had a name attached to it

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

and a sample of German Aviation lingo
.

Lived in the UK for the first 31 years & the US for the next 29. Was hired to help resto a Spit in the US after a conversation that started with "Can you translate this manual into American English?"

I'm now fully bilingual

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.

British manuals can be so much fun," Give the housing a hearty thump with a wicket", corrective action for a stuck impulse coupling on a Gipsy Major

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

...And make sure you loosen/tighten your knock off lugs on your auto with the proper lolly.....

_________________
He bowls overhand...He is the most interesting man in the world.
"In Peace Japan Breeds War", Eckstein, Harper and Bros., 3rd ed. 1943(1927, 1928,1942)
"Leave it to ol' Slim. I got ideas...and they're all vile, baby." South Dakota Slim
"Ahh..."The Deuce", 28,000 pounds of motherly love." quote from some Mojave Grunt
DBF

UNDO

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

I still consider one of my greatest achievements in my aviation career was when I convinced a British colleague that "torch" was a dumb name for a flashlight.

He wouldn't budge on anything else though, especially "aluminium".

Try to convince him that Fag is a bad name for a cigarette

When building a british plane....Jig drill with xxxxxxxx part...
And fettling with lots of swearing about the handbuilt extra complication of British cottage industrial assemblies....

_________________
If the CO ask,s you to be Tail End Charlie...Just Shoot Him..A Piece of Cake

That's why we invented the elongated bolt hole. If Part A has a 1/8x1/2in hole on the X axis & Part B has the same size hole on the Y axis you now have a 1/2x1/2in area in which to get the bolt in the 1/8in *hole*. First came across this on a Spitfire, wouldn't at all surprise me to find the same thing on a new Typhoon...

And there's bigger versions, 3/16x3/4 & 1/4x1in spring to mind. 3/16x3/4 are VERY popular. If you ever get a chance to look inside a Spitfire fuselage behind the cockpit you'll be all "Holy sugar, he wasn't joking"

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.