Re: Re: [FT] a "true Fisher Battlecruiser" for the NAC, wasBattlecruisers vs. battleships

----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [FT] a "true Fisher Battlecruiser" for the NAC,
wasBattlecruisers vs. battleships

> At 2:38 AM +0100 5/17/02, Robin Paul wrote:
> >Much SNIPPED
> >In FT, BC means "light battleship". Real-life BCs were almost
invariably
> >bigger than the corresponding battleship.
> >The WW1 BC HMS Lion was a battlecruiser version of the battleship HMS
Orion-
> >I was intrigued to see what would happen if the same changes were
applied
to
> >a FT battleship, so:
>
> That increase in displacement is if I don't miss my mark, due to the
> fact that a longer hull is faster in the water than a given hull of
> similar displacement and shorter size.

That's part of it, and I agree that Lion has a far racier hull form, but
the
battlecruiser powerplant is _huge_ .

Orion: 18 boilers, 27000 horsepower, crew 752
Lion: 42 boilers, 70000 horsepower, crew 997 to run fewer guns, i.e. the
difference is mostly stokers.  Add coal to feed the monster with a
decent
range, and the enlarged hull is justified in its own right, in contrast
with
e.g. an Iowa with that horrible soft snout and is more or less a
battlecruiser version of South Dakota.

In FT, a "battlecruiser" type with extended range salvo missile racks
might
be a useful raiding unit in campaigns, but otherwise...

Rob Paul