Prev: Re: Re: [FT] OU Defence Force Website now error checked and corrected Next: Re: Re: [FT] OU Defence Force Website now error checked and

Re: Re: [FT] OU Defence Force Website now error checked and

From: devans@u...
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:38:55 -0600
Subject: Re: Re: [FT] OU Defence Force Website now error checked and


***
...acronymic minefields...
***

Geeze, guys, you could give a fellow a warning! I barked out a laugh,
and
my girlfriend made me explain it.

Karen now sez we're all very bad boys. (Not that she didn't find it a
scream.)

As for the fluff, I gather that the OUDF may be big enough to field
capitals, but I'm assuming barely. I'm reminded of the smaller powers
near
the turn of the century HAVING to have dreadnoughts, and what it cost
them,
especially the case of the Agincourt.

On the other hand, I remember, back in the seventies, Janes and Weyer's
analysii(sp?) of the Japanese naval defense forces as the model of what
a
small fleet tailored well to their needs should be.

Not that I'm against going crazy in a 'race' made for s**ts-and-grins;
the
TFNS has carriers each built by combining THREE super tankers.

Prev: Re: Re: [FT] OU Defence Force Website now error checked and corrected Next: Re: Re: [FT] OU Defence Force Website now error checked and