I think it's worth noting that Trumpeter seems to pull these stunts less frequently than many other manufacturers do. I can't claim to have looked at anywhere near all the company's 1/700 kits, but it should be observed that it sometimes offers two kits with different parts, representing the same vessel at different times in her career. (The Prince Eugen, Graf Spee, and Hood come to mind immediately.)
Trumpeter also sometimes issues different ships in the same class with different names and different configurations - without telling the modeler just what's going on. The Trumpeter 1/700 Washington, for instance, represents the ship in her as-built configuration (with .1" anti-aircraft guns, .50 cal. machine guns, and the "notch" in the port bow, among other features), whereas the 1/700 North Carolina represents her in her late war fit (with 40mm. and 20mm. guns, the "notch" removed, the additional bridge level on the tower mast, and a dazzle camouflage scheme. One of my "bucket lists" projects is a North Carolina in her mid-1942 configuration. The Washington kit will make a better start for that.)
Many - but not all - of the parts necessary for either version (the 20mm. and .50 cal. guns, for instance, are in both kits. My personal preference in cases like this would be for the manufacturer to issue one kit with enough parts for any configuration of any ship in the class. That would, among other things, make life easier on the local hobby shops (the few that survive) and the modeler wanting to build a particular ship. (At the moment, that poor schlep has to surf the net, looking for some dealer who has both the "Hood 1941" and the "Hood 1931" in stock.) Imagine: "Iowa-class battleship. Contains parts to build either the Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, or Missouri in 1943, 1945, 1951, or 1990 configuration." Would those extra parts force the manufacturer to raise the price of the kit significantly? No. The plastic in a kit represents a tiny percentage of the cost of producing and selling it.
Quite a few of Trumpeter's fairly recent releases have included dates in their titles. That strikes me as a positive development - if the necessary parts to make the changes are included. (I wish the two kits mentioned previously had been labeled "U.S.S. Washington 1942" and "U.S.S. North Carolina 1944." Those labels would be quite accurate.)
At the moment my more intense wrath is reserved for Tamiya. (See "Disappointing 'new' release - II.") That company has, in the past, repeatedly played the "different names, different dates" trick. (How many neophyte modelers think the Musashi always had fewer guns than the Yamato?) But Tamiya sister-ship kits usually seem to contain different parts (though, of course, they may or may not be exactly right).
Hasegawa, Fujimi, Aoshima, Pyro, Monogram, Aurora - they've all engaged in the practice to a greater or lesser degree. The biggest offender by far over the years, though, has been Revell, which has been indulging in such stunts for almost 60 years (starting with its ancient Missouri and New Jersey kits - one with seaplanes and the other with helicopters). Revell stepped over the line once - repackaging its Type VII U-boat in a box labeled "U-505." The gift shop at the Science Museum of Chicago blew the whistle, and Revell withdrew the kit. (I imagine a Revell "U-505" kit in the original box is quite a collector's item nowadays.)
The only company I can think of that, to my knowledge, has never done it is Airfix. Long live Airfix.
I guess it's something modelers just have to tolerate. In the case of the "Warspite 1915" and "Queen Elizabeth 1918," at least the problems are relatively easy to fix. I'm still thinking about the best way to make two identical 6" armored gun houses, though.