Re: Another possible way of looking at it was [ Re: Tin Cans versusDreadnoughts ]

The only action between ironclad fleets was the Battle of Lissa in 1866.
The
Battle of Humaita was between an ironclad fleet on one side, and
fortifications on the other. The various actions of the
Russo-Japanese )Tsushima, Round Island, etc.) were fought with
pre-dreadnoughts, which are a very different thing. Obviously, the
author of
the "Honor Harrington" series agrees with you that the Age of Sail is a
good
model for starship combat. The ironclad model might be interesting also,
with very little standardization between ships and fairly small fleets,
where even minor powers could have a couple of very powerful ships (i.e.
the
Huascar historically). Fact is, I think almost any naval period can be a
good analogue for space combat. What really counts is how it's all
implemented.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John-Martin Lotz" <jmlotzn1@pacbell.net>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 2:02 PM
Subject: Another possible way of looking at it was [ Re: Tin Cans
versusDreadnoughts ]

> Hmmm,
>
> When I consider FT type space combat the analogy that I use is "Age of
Sail"
> Whaile admittedly lower tech then other periods concidered, the
tactical
and
> stategic ethos is much closer, in my opinion.
>
> Actually, pre-dreadnaught iron clad steam ships might even be a better
> analogy, except I don't know of any fleet actions using them, unless
the
the
> battle in the Straights of Tsushina where Admiral Togo and the
Japanese
> fleet destroyed the Russian fleet in the Russo-Japanese war on 1905
was
> faught with predreadnaughts mixed caliber mixed sized fleets or with
> dreadnaught oriented fleets.
>
>
> John-Martin Lotz
>
> jmlotzn1nospam@pacbell.net
>