Re: [GZG] Re: Ship Roles & Classes Part Deux

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 5/17/07, Doug
Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > By the way, despite the WWII movie title, those of us who
> > have crewed modern "strikeboat" equivalents find the word
> > "expendable"...........unsettling. :-)
>
> I have to admit the vision of penal units came to mind briefly.
However,
> I'm sure the brave part was that Jon intended to have the emphasis.
>
> Throwing very small craft at very big ones, while occasionally
successful,
> certainly suggested a certain expendability in the minds of the battle
> planners. Interesting, that in 'radical' naval thought, there were
periods
> when small torpedo craft vied with aircraft as to be the future doom
of
> big
> ship navies.

I have a brother who used to serve on a missile frigate. They were often
escorts for carrier battle groups. He said with no mincing of words that
they were considered expendable, and that their job was that of the
classic
Bonzai Jammers in FT/Honor Harrington.

Of course, very few navies out there at the time he was in could have
seriously threatened a carrier battle group, so the whole thing was
pretty
academic in the minds of he and his crew. But I believe they would have
totally offered up their ship to save a missile hit or four on the
carrier.
That was, after all, what they were trained to do.

Brave. But expendable. :-/

Mk