Re: GZG FH: Blue water navy.

Also look at the famous "at high tech a fighter plane  and a tank would
be
almost the same" argument from traveller.

With a grav hull, a MBT would be faster than a patrol boat, able to
negate
bad seas, and hide on land if things get scary.

Aircraft would also at a higher tech level would carry more firepower
and
would be harder to hit (with active and passive stealth).

Ships would also be very easy to locate from space (even today , with
Keyhole and ROSAT able to pick up subs and ships easily).

Therefore, IMHO, ships of tomorrow would be bigger, carry a LOT more
armour
than today (no more magnesium aluminium), and proberbly submarines.

Darryl

-----Original Message-----
From: John Atkinson <jatkins6@ix.netcom.com>
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk <FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk>
Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: GZG FH: Blue water navy.

>You wrote:
>
>>Do any of the NAC/NSL/FSE etc. have blue water navies?
>>Is there a place for them with grav vehicles and starships?
>
>IMHO, a lot of the roles of these clowns can be taken up by Grav MBTs.
>A MDC/5 or DFFG/5 on a small, fast, well armored hull can sink any
>freighter out there, and scrap most any warship small enough to avoid
>being 'plinked' from orbit.  Brown water craft will likely abound, but
>the blue water stuff is primarily there for maintaining or cutting
>SLOCs (Sea Lines Of Communication) which won't be likely to have the
>exaggerated prominence that they do, for instance, in the case of the
>United Kingdom or the United States (one being an island and hence
>forced to have a navy or be restricted to invading Scotland yet again
>and the other having oceans between itself and any enemies, unless of
>course Canada is taken over by Nazis)
>
>John M. Atkinson
>