Re: UN Fleet Size: (was Nominal Taxation Rates)

Peter wrote:

> Or getting it right would be the RAN in the Gulf in 1990/91. Same
> communications, datalinks (after HMS Brisbane got its link sorted),
etc. The
> RAN plugged into the USN carrier group.

That's the way it's supposed to work. In fact, an RAN ship (used to be,
anyway) was preferred as the Link Co-Ordinator, as the implementation
was more tolerant of foibles than either the USN Atlantic Fleet version
or the US Pacific Fleet version. As for the Steel Cat's link, I was
involved in a peripheral <pun intended> way with that, see my home page
for details.

As to the Pac Fleet vs Atlant Fleet, it used to be said about the USN
that if you failed in the Pacific, you were sent to the Atlantic: If you
failed in the Atlantic, you were sent to the Med, and if you failed in
the Med, you got sent to the Indian Ocean fleet. Having heard some of
the old sea stories about the Indian Ocean fleet 15-20 years ago, I can
believe it.

> Then there's STANORFORALT, etc.

STANAVFORATLANT (Standing Naval Force Atlantic, ie 1 of everybody, 1 RN,
1 Canadian, 1 Dutch, 1 German, 1 USN). This used to be an exercise in ,
well, not exactly futility, but was good for finding all the bugs in the
SOP.
But I'm getting onto thin ice and shoaly waters here, ATACP1 and all
that, so had better shut up.

> I'd say Naval groups have an easier time than ground units.

Then God Help the ground units!

-- 
	      http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|	    xxxxx	Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |	xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
 abrain@cs.adfa.edu.au o O*OO^^^^OO*O o oo     oo oo	 oo  
		       By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale