Re: [GZG] Battlecruisers

On 12/26/06, Mike Hillsgrove <mikeah@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> Why, are we assuming that the standard "classes" ala the wet navies of
> today will have any bearing on how ships of the future will be
> designed.  The old WWII "classes" have been pretty well replaced
today.
> We still have aircraft carriers, but the DD, DE, Cruisers, BB's, BC's
> are all gone. They've been replaced with Frigates of various
> specialties.	Weaponry has invalidated the heavy armament and now the
> smallest frigate can annihilate the largest BB that ever existed at
> ranges way beyond any gun range.  Why do we assume that the WWII model
> will prevail 200 years from now?

Actually, I'm not 100% sure of displacements.  But I was at a naval
museum a while back with hordes of ship models.  One of the things
they had was a "Destroyer" display case with models of every destroyer
the USN ever built.

Most of the modern warships (Spruance, Arleigh Burke, Ticonoderoga)
are more or less the same size as each other regardless of designation
as frigate, destroyer, or cruiser, and all are about the size of the
WWII cruisers.	Or so it seemed to me.

>From a purely logical standpoint, I can see a huge advantage in
standardizing all your designs to a single hull type and configuring
the weapon packages appropriately for the role.  The medium
cruiser-size hull (escort cruiser in FB navies) seems to be capable of
carrying enough equipment to do this decently.	Those ships and two
breeds of capital ship (a large carrier and a dreadnought-sized
warship) would seem to suffice for all direct combat roles created by
the FT rules.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l