Re: small carrier expense

The question is just what sort of defense is needed for convoy
protection, but this brings to mind the IJN aircraft-carrying subs
originally to designed to take out the Panama Canal:
http://www.pacerfarm.org/i-400/i-400.htm

A lot of other Japanese ships also came with a catapult-launched plane
or two. Depending on what you use them for, a couple of fighters can be
a nasty surprise to an opponent who notices you don't have any carriers
along.

Roger Books wrote:
> 
> On 31-Jan-02 at 22:35, Mark Reindl (mreindl@pacbell.net) wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > >You're talking about expense a lot in the below message... take
that
> > > > >thinking just a step or two further...
> > > > >
> >
> > I don't know if it's been addressed yet, but another advantage to
building
> > small carriers is the amount of time it takes vs. a larger vessel. 
Also,
> > loss of a smaller carrier isn't as crippling as a larger one would
be,
> > either in terms of combat strength or morale.  In addition, there
are some
> > things that smaller carriers are just better for when you don't want
your
> > big boys tied up doing things like convoy escort, etc.
> 
> I don't know about anywhere else but in FT my small carriers have
> been a disaster.  They aren't big enough to take any fire but
> attract attention out of all proportion to their size.  They are
> also painful to replace.  With a bigger carrier you can jump
> out if they get hurt, a small carrier just blows up.

=====
Edward Lipsett
Intercom, Ltd.
Fukuoka, Japan
translation@intercomltd.com
http://www.intercomltd.com
Tel: +81-92-712-9120