That is so true.Will be round to smite thee round 8ish.In the best colonel crittendons voice.
“...I’ve always been struck by how we gave bold and brash names to our bombers like “The Flying Fortress’’ and “The Liberator’’, ... Brits gave their bombers rather up scale, genteel sounding names like “The Wellington’’, The Handley-Page, The Bristol Blenheim and The Lancaster. …” [jmacusa, post 83]
Handley Page was not an airplane; founded by Frederick Handley Page, it was the UK’s first publicly traded aircraft manufacturing company, existing from 1909 until 1970. The firm co-founded Imperial Airways, and turned out such noted bombers as the O/400, the Hampden, and the Victor; together, these three span the timeframe from World War One to the Cold War.
RAF and USAAF used different nomenclature systems n the 1940s.
British defense practice was to assign an official “name” for an aircraft when it was approved for service. After that it became part of all official documentation and correspondence. Thus “Spitfire Mk I,” Mk Ia, Mk IX etc (up to Mk 24; they changed from Roman numerals to numbers, in the late 1940s)
USAAF used the mission-design-series system of nomenclature, a combination of letters and numbers designating primary purpose, model number, and subvariant.
Names began informally: the story is that a reporter spotted Boeing’s 299 (later the B-17) taking off and uttered the words “Flying Fortress,” which stuck.
Names have gained official approval at times, the moreso since the public-affairs establishments of the armed services gained influence. But operators and maintainers rarely use such names, sticking to MDS in daily use and official documentation.
Unofficial nicknames do appear, and gain wide acceptance in military culture. Some incorporate bad language and can be unflattering.
This may have affected US reluctance to use names in paperwork. The American sense of proper expression may have balked at the use of “BUFF” or “Aardvark” in official communications and records.