Prev: RE: Ground Zero Games West Coast Convention II: Status Report Next: Re: [DS] Why tank destroyers?

Naval Engagements now was [DS] Why tank destroyers?

From: Ryan M Gill <rmgill@m...>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:32:24 -0400
Subject: Naval Engagements now was [DS] Why tank destroyers?

At 10:39 AM +0900 9/6/01, Edward Lipsett wrote:
>Have to check that out... thanks.
>In addition to who got the first missile in, though, the DD is spending
>a rather expensive missile to knock out one fishing boat equipped with
a
>few missiles and a few crew members. The dozen fishing boats only have
>to make one fairly small hole in the DD to take abig chunk out of South
>Korea's defensive capabilities.

If its a matter of destroying a FAC with 4 ASM's that will destroy 
your DD (it takes about 1.5 Exocets to mission kill the average 
combatant now) then use of two missiles to be assured of a kill of 
that vessel is not a waste of time or money. Disabling the red force 
launch platform before it disables yours is the important part of the 
missiles on missiles theatre.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		 ----------	      SW1025 H -
-   Internet Technologies  --  Data Center Manager (3N &10S)   -
- ryan.gill@turner.com			 rmgill@mindspring.com -
-		   www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- C&R-FFL -	 \ Toronto, Gun down some squeegee kids, - NRA -
- www.rawa.org	  \  Then you can host the Olympics too!       -


Prev: RE: Ground Zero Games West Coast Convention II: Status Report Next: Re: [DS] Why tank destroyers?