Prev: Re: [DS] Tank designs [and battleships] was Re: [ds] Ogres Next: RE: [FT] Evasion

Re: [DS] Tank designs [and battleships] was Re: [ds] Ogres

From: "John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@e...>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:54:40 -0800
Subject: Re: [DS] Tank designs [and battleships] was Re: [ds] Ogres

Thomas Anderson wrote:

> >  That might be why nobody has battleships anymore,
> they do; it's just that these days, battleships mount aircraft not
> carriers are just battleships with a different weapons fit, if you see
> what i mean. i know it's stretching the point, sorry.

Stretching past breaking point.

> anyway, carriers replaced the battleship when the only battleship
> was guns; now we have missiles, who's to say it won't make a comeback?

Realistic budget analysis, and the existence of aircraft.

> cases; witness the US attack on that aspirin factory in Khartoum. i

Yeah.  Asprin factory with guard dogs, barbed wire, and a guard force
from Sudanese Army.  Real valuable asprin, that. I once asked someone
how they can tell a biowar site from a real pharmecutical plant.  His
answer was "Usually the SAM batteries are the first clue."

> actually, a lot of navies don't have destroyers. many just have
> and missile boats. for instance iraq, which is why the navy was wiped

That and being outnumbered a couple hundred to one in the naval
department.  Besides, most of the Iraqi Navy had never been delivered by
the Italians--something about Iraq not paying bills.

> > You don't win wars fighting static defenses.  You delay defeat and
> > nothing more.
> are you saying that an army never needs to fight a defence? if so, you
> wrong. armies sometimes have to, and that is where something like the
> is useful. still, nice to know you can parrot doctrine with the best
> them!

Sure.  You may need to fight a tactical defense on occasion.  But you
don't win wars that way.  And strategic defense can only (logically
speaking) end in stalemate or defeat.  And even strategic defense
requires use of tactical offense on occasion.

> > and no, it wouldn't.  Do you know what a MLC 120 (I
> > think that's what the website listed earlier said it weighed) bridge
> > looks like?
> nope, but i know the AVLB conversion of the Challenger can put down a
> bridge which can carry other Challengers. it won't carry them very
> though.

Challenger weighs what, 60 tons?  Is not really a linear problem.

> > 3 Mauses, 9 Pz-IVs.  You loose 3 Mauses, or 3 Pz-IVs.
> only if both are equally easy to kill. the point of the maus is that
it is
> harder to kill, having thicker armour. thus, fewer are destroyed.

Drop 5 inch rocket on either, and they go away.

John M. Atkinson

Prev: Re: [DS] Tank designs [and battleships] was Re: [ds] Ogres Next: RE: [FT] Evasion