Re[2]: Base Destruction

RE: AA batteries etc.

 Naturally these are for fighters, cruise missiles and such,
"conventional" 
attacks . But if you are going to launch wave attacks of cruise missiles
with 
tactical nukes, or ICBM MIRVS, I think it is "The Last Great Act of
Defiance 
syndrome". If you are gonna use tactical/strategic nukes the game is
over eh?
At least for that base....

And having guarded strategic USN installations I have seen those that
have no 
AA or other close in defense other than Air Wing assets, or ship
support, 
unless you count Marines M16s and such as AA.. ;> 

I think the real question is do you want to start a rock chucking war?
If so why
would you not just whack the opponents home world? I think I would
rather 
have battle fleets instead of tug fleets! Seems like more fun.

						    Semper Fi
						      Jon
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Base Destruction
Author:  FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk at MEMCPSMTP
Date:	 5/11/97 4:10 AM

On Fri, 9 May 1997, Jon Holloway wrote:
     
>      I have not seen many "real" naval bases that did not have air
stations 
>      and warship support. 
     
And I have not seen many that come without AA guns/missiles, shore 
batteries etc.
     
If the battle never gets that close, why do they bother?
     
It's not about being able to put up a mobile defense or not. It's about 
whether the game is over after the mobile defense is dealt with or not.
     
-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly 
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig. 
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso 
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |