Re: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]
From: Joachim Heck - SunSoft <jheck@E...>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:57:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]
@:) > I see it quite the other way round. A small ship can give its
@:) > weapon an all-round coverage; it's these bloody great "Star
@:) > Destroyers" with their massive superstructures that should mandate
@:) > limited-arcs.
@:) now we've reached the question of is full thrust a game of space
@:) combat or a "wet-navy" game where the boats have wings?
@:) I tend to think of a batteries as guns so huge that you would need
@:) to build [an escort] carrying one as an engine and a cockpit tied
@:) to the gun itself, while a carrier should be big enough to have
@:) it's torpedo launcher on a turret (imho)
Well, if it is a modified wet-navy game or if wet navies, our only
existing examples of navies of any kind, are to be used as instructive
examples, then I am reminded of a footnote in the book _Sea_Power_
about the Yamato that stated "One of the triple-mounted [18.1 inch
gun] turrets weighed as much as a large destroyer...".
PS those guns apparently fired a 3,200 pound projectile, which sounds
to me like they were throwing compact cars around. Youch again.