Re: [FT] Re: Small vessels and the Line of Battle

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Donald Hosford wrote:

> This is exactly my point!  What is all the noise about?  Ryan's last
comment
> is the basic differance.  When building space ships based on wet navy
ships,
> one should keep this in mind.  That was it.  Why is it that only a few
seem to
> understand this?

I think folks are missing the importance of damage control in wet naval 
operations to keep the ship from dying. 

The Stark was able to stay afloat due to excellent damage control. Other

Ships of earlier navies were more prone to sinking from less damage to 
the whole of the ship. (see the BB of WWI that died from one torpedo). 

Capabilites in damage control enhance the survivability of a ship. The 
compartmentalization will help, but not make it easy. 

I don't think its a bad idea to take doctrine, it seems like it would 
carry over. Especially considering the range/size/speed diffs between 
larger/smaller craft.

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------