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-l>On 5/17/07, Doug
Evans 
><<mailto:devans@nebraska.edu>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.

So very small trees have ECM effects....?

[Runs and hides from NBS!!]

Jon (GZG)

>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l