Re: DDEs vs. DDs

Ryan M Gill wrote:

> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but some list-ite of inestimable worth
> > indicated that he or she figured the FB destroyer designs were
really
> > DDE designs. Which makes sense if you look at the weapons loadout.
> 
> Well not really. It depends on which navy you are talking about.
>
> The NAC Ticonderoga is a gereral purpose DD. It works well in union 
> with other DDs and a Cruiser to act as a Leader. 

Which means that the main DD designs of the other navies - the NSL
Waldburg, the FSE San Miguel and the ESU Warsaw/Volga - do so as well,
since they all have virtually identical armaments...
 
> The ESU escorts are more of the line of the recent Russian/Soviet
navy. 
> Some ships that were really one shot rocket carriers. 

You mean "The FSE escorts are...". 

The ESU escorts are almost exclusively beam-armed (except for some
Lenov refits), while most of the FSE ones have expendable munitions -
but the FSE DD shown (the San Miguel class) has a pure beam armament
and no missiles... It has an SMR variant described in the text, though.

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry