Prev: [FT] UNSC Next: Re: [FT] UNSC

[FT] Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

From: "stranger" <stranger@c...>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:55:45 -0500
Subject: [FT] Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

>
> In traditional WWII naval doctrine, there was a reason for the
> small ships.
> It was called "torpedo boats".
>
> Battleships could blow any lesser ship of the line right out
> of the water, but those pesky torpedo boats were too fast to
> be hit by any gun mounted on a battleship.
>
> And a couple of well placed torpedo boats could send a
> battleship to Davy Jone's locker.
>
> Thus: the Torpedo Boat Destroyer, which was shortened
> to "Destroyer."
>
> This was a fast (i.e, little or no armor belt) ship
> specialized to swat torpedo boats.
>
> Battleships and Destroyers need each other.  Battleships
> protect destroyers from other battleships, and destroyers
> protect battleships from torpedo boats.
>
> Cruisers, on the other hand, are balanced ships which
> are optimized for independent (i.e., non-fleet) operations.
> These are the ships that travel alone to raid convoys or
> whatever.  They can also be used in fleet operations
> as heavy cavalry and as advanced scouts.
>

That is exactly the point I was trying to make, though you put it a bit
better!

George


Prev: [FT] UNSC Next: Re: [FT] UNSC