The Sea Stallion was named after a stallion, which is a strong, muscular animal; the aircraft was designed to do heavy airlifting.
1 Like
Gotta love it! That is the truth! Go US Navy!
Leopard I from Germany is a dear one to me. Note that this specific tank in this specific photograph is in Brazilian service. Germany invented these though.
The WWII Panther tank. I do love this one. Perhaps one of my favorite tanks.
This one is very popular too. Everyone who has some passion for tanks has seen this. Very popular in filmography. It is the mighty Panzerkampfwagen VI (AKA: Tiger I)
1 Like
What is it called?
Dang, sorry. I will edit that. It’s called the Panzerkampfwagen IV (Panzerkampfwagen in English translation means armored-fighting-vehicle) also nicknamed the “Tiger I” or just “Tiger.” But, people refer to “Tiger II” tank with “Tiger” as well. Tiger II was an improvement of Tiger I [as you may have thought.]
1 Like
Awesome choice! Gotta love the flying beer keg. 
1 Like
https://www.historynet.com/brewster-buffalo-finland/
My favorite Finnish pilot who flew Brewster Buffalo. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilmari_Juutilainen
Part of his story on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XkksbtMwfxA&pp=ygUQRmlubmlzaCBhY2Ugd3dpaQ%3D%3D
My other beloved aircraft named after an animal is the Bell P-39 Airacobra. The Airacobra served in the US Army Air Corps and the Soviet Air Force. It was intended as an interceptor for the Air Corps but it lacked a turbo supercharger which would have given it better performance at higher altitudes. Those superchargers work by sucking in extra air for combustion since the air gets “thinner” as altitude increases. It suffered above lower altitudes. So, the Army Air Corps used it as a ground attack aircraft rather then an interceptor. It was also bad at climbing altitude. The main purpose of an interceptor is to be meet the enemy right away and quickly. Despite it’s bad performance, the Soviets loved it as a fighter and half of all that were made by the United States were shipped to the USSR to combat the Germans. Since battles over at the USSR were at low altitudes, usually. It worked well for them. It’s a rather unusual design with the engine behind the pilot’s seat rather then in thr nose of the aircraft. The engine was moved to the middle of the plane to compensate fot the massive 37mm auto cannon. The cannon fired high explosive ammo which exploded upon impact of the target. Very deadly. The auto cannon is huge too. I suggest doing more research into this aircraft, very interesting.
American P-39s
Note that the massive 32mm cannon is fires through the middle the nose (propeller hub)
Soviet P-39s:
I love the intake on the top of the plane. It reminds me of formula cars. Also, it got it’s name from the fact that it was like a cobra. It struck hard and it struck fast. Packed a powerful punch.
1 Like
I’ve enabled slow mode on this thread as it’s being dominated by a few people. So now, every person can only post once every four hours. Please remember that the iNaturalist Forum is a place for constructive discussions, and should not be dominated by any one or small group of people.
6 Likes
Not to mention that it’s more a discussion about military hardware than about nature.
4 Likes
Nobody seems to really be actually explaining the etymology of these names and why / how they were chosen. Without explaining why something is named after an animal in nature and the significance of that. This has just become a forum basically with posts saying “look at this helicopter” It has osprey in its name. Ok… But why? What is the connection? Why Osprey, why not Seagull, Albatross, etc. Why a bird to begin with?
6 Likes
I noticed that, too. Of all the posts on this thread, I recall three that did that:
And indirectly,
One would have thought, if this was really a nature-relevant thread, that we would see more of these connections. Like the fact that aircraft are frequently named after birds because they fly (hence the slang term “warbirds” for military aircraft). That, like an actual blackbird, the SR-71 stands out for its black “plumage.” Perhaps the Albatros was an especially graceful soarer, like its namesake bird? Given that we are really into nature here, I should think that such analogies and comparisons would spring esily to mind.
About that Sea Stallion. The word “sea” added as an adjective is a common practice in the Navy and Marine Corps to acknowledge that they are sea forces. But if we want to be consistent in our animal terminology, wouldn’t “sea stallion” be the the most appropriate term for a male sea horse, and “sea mare,” for a female sea horse?
Anyway, here is why the Sea Stallion has a place in my memory. We were off the coast of San Diego. I and several other of the sonar guys had been picked to attend training on a more advanced type of sonar; and the training facility for that was in San Diego. Rather than take the time to pull into port, moor, and get underway again just to tranfer us to shore, the decision makers felt it would be more time effective to airlift us. The ship and the rest of the crew would remain at sea to do whatever exercises they were doing, and we would rendezvous with them when they made port a few days later. During the helo trip, I was scanning the sea below to see if I could see any sea life down there. A couple of times I thought I saw mola molas, but we were so high up and moving so fast that I can’t be sure; it could have been just wishful thinking.
I think I have said all I am going to say in this thread. I answered the original question; I made the nature connection; and I provided a very naturalist-like explanation for my liking it.
7 Likes
I tried to explain the connection behind the name of my entry as well, so we’re up to at least four:
Overall, though, it does feel like more effort could be made in some posts to highlight the relationship between the name and how it relates to the living creature.
1 Like
Not exactly. It takes close examination of the characteristics of the airplane. No, it’s not just “hey look at this helicopter” it’s just a place where people who love military technologies can commune. We could figure out why these planes and/or tanks are given these names upon close examination and researching the characteristics of the vehicle. It’s quite, ehem, apparent why you would name a flying machine after a bird… wouldn’t you think so??
Idk if your question about the V-22 Osprey was a real question or an example. I’m just going to go ahead and answer it anyway.
The V-22 “Osprey” was named so because of a few reasons:
1.) Since the osprey bird adapts well to different environments such as living ny the sea, or or inland. This was an inspiration to name the V-22 the “Osprey” because it is indeed adaptable. Both are!
2.) Just like the Osprey bird, the V-22 is very agile indeed! It can do all sorts of sick maneuvers. Both can indeed!
3.) Both are very versatile. Both the V-22 and the original osprey were made to be very versatile.
4.) The name Osprey for this plane just sounded really relevant and super cool too. You want to give a war machine a name to fear or respected. For example, if you name an aircraft the “chicken” who will fear that name and who will respect it? Most likely everyone would make fun of it. And it wasn’t used in the past as a name for other aircraft either.
There is a reason behind every one of these machine’s names. Please ask if you’re curious of the origins of any other names. I can tell you. :) I hope this answers your question about why the Osprey is called as so. God bless. 
Yes, @papernautilus, I love weapons. Are you complaining? This is only for people who are interested in these things. 
So, is it actually against iNat rules to have this thread? I mean, tiwane didn’t have any issues when he visited.
What do you think of all this? Is it bad? Is anyone doing anything wrong?
1 Like
Seems to me like this would be a good name for a stealth craft since nobody would expect it. 
4 Likes
Well it is an aircraft.
1 Like
Who in WW1 would respect a vehicle called tank? What is a tank? “You mean the thing that holds liquids?”.
Going to be real. I don’t think iNaturalist is the place to talk about glorifying weapons. Call that a hot take if you want. Also no, this is not just for people interested in these things. This is a public forum post open to everyone. It’s getting harder and harder for me to see this forum post in a good light. Even when the conversation begins to start actually talking about the honestly small connection between the names and nature. You say something like that. In the context of this being a citizen wildlife site meant to connect the public with nature. Saying something like that gives me an uncomfortable feeling. Everybody from kids to all walks of life use this site, and here there’s a conversation about military hardware including Nazi hardware, because it has tiger in it’s name which is an animal.
There is a time and a place for discussion of military vehicles, and i struggle to see how you can fit that with iNaturalist. I feel a much more connected conversation about military vehicles is their impact on nature. How does the treads of tanks affect plants when they get run over, (do they all die, only some, etc), How do naval ships deal with invasive species in their ballast tanks? How does artillery fire effect a natural landscape and what plants and fungi might recolonize the craters created? These are just examples of topics I feel relate much more to nature than just the names of the vehicles.
I will disclose as the post below me also did. I do have some interest in military hardware like many other nerds do. Personally I really like learning about modern naval ships like carriers and destroyers. There isn’t an issue in being interested about these things. The Issue I have though with this forum post is the place. The iNat forums is not a place to nerd out about military aircraft and ships. This is what i feel like i’m seeing and reading in this forum post.
Edit.
We should not be trying to skirt the “Please wait 4 hours between posts in this topic” Tony set in place by editing messages to reply. We can reply again after 4 hrs of the first message.
4 Likes
Yes I am complaining. I have nothing against your interest in weapons. In fact I am a SRA member and gun owner. That being said, this is not the place for that.
The guidelines of this forum state:
iNaturalist created this forum as a place for members of the iNaturalist community to have constructive discussions about iNaturalist-related issues, provide feedback, and nerd out about nature-related topics
When you say “this” I assume you mean this thread and when you say “these things” I assume you mean weapons, that is where you are mistaken.
This forum is intended for iNaturalist and nature related discussions, claiming that it is for anything else is incorrect. This thread has a very loose connection to nature, the best you can do is the etymological connection and why, although from your first post it is apparent that wasn’t your original goal with this.
I will disclaim that while I have a personal problem with your evangelicalism on iNat and forum, I am trying to keep that separate from this.
Edit:
@tanker-aviator-naturalist I do not. I respect all religions and you asking that is a fallacy of composition and does nothing to help your point. What about lgbtq+ people on here? That is a red herring, unrelated and irrelevant. Regardless, if you looked at my profile at all you would have the answer to that question. I don’t know why you feel a need to attack me.
7 Likes