| Number 155 of 192 messages in this Archive | ||
|---|---|---|
| [Date Prev] | Main Index | [Date Next] |
| [Thread Prev] | Thread Index | [Thread Next] |
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?
Because Tuffleyverse ships fight much like the wet naval vessels of the late nineteenth and very, very early twentieth centuries. Battle begins at long range, progresses to short range, and is finished off at such close ranges that even the 6", quick-firing tertiary guns can penetrate to the vitals. Battleships are tougher than cruisers, but only by degree. Larger ships are harder to sink than smaller vessels. Not everything has a full analog, but it matches closely enough to be informative. Naval combat from 1885-1905 does not have anything corresponding to FT fighters and FT lacks anything as effective as self-propelled torpedoes. _______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l