Re: small carrier expense

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.
> 
> By small carrier I'm assuming 2 squadrons.
> 
> Roger Books
> 
> 

Well, WW2 escort carriers (CVEs), which these seem to resemble, did have
a nice 
alternate expansion of their hull code.

Combustible Vulnerable & Expendable

-- 
Ray Forsythe