Prev: Re: Ship Class Nomenclature Next: Re: Fw: Carriers and other updates

Re: Fw: Carriers and other updates

From: JRebori682@a...
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 10:43:40 EDT
Subject: Re: Fw: Carriers and other updates

In a message dated 7/4/99 11:30:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au writes:

> 
>  Based on my experience, I don't think a 'wet navy' carrier would work
if
>  you were more inclined to have it closer to the action or had a VERY
>  limited tabletop area which prevented you from having enough room to
keep
>  the carrier out of harms way as much as possible.
>  

USN carriers stay well away from actual combat areas for exactly the
same 
reasons. They are very vulnerable by themselves. As part of their
defense 
some cruisers use their EW assets to appear to be the carrier and
hopefully 
draw fire from it, if needed. Thrilling job, isn't that?
Those of us who served on small patrol craft also spent a lot of time
looking 
to sneak up on the oppositions carriers. We put a lot of effort into
trying 
to find ways to sneak past the long range screen and get into missile
range. 
Could a force of small DD or CL type ships be used the same way on the
table?

John Rebori, ET2 Discharged. 
Ex-USS Pegasus, PHM-1 :-)


Prev: Re: Ship Class Nomenclature Next: Re: Fw: Carriers and other updates