Re: FB designs & fighters (& strawmen)

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Leary" <john_t_leary@yahoo.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: FB designs & fighters (& strawmen)

> --- Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:

> > Okay, I can begin to see that rationale for it.  The
> > TbC still wouldn't be
> > that effective against a real warship with a more
> > concentrated weapons mix
> > though.

> It is the classic battlecruiser concept, able to
> outrun anything that can hurt it and able to destroy
> anything that can catch it.

I can see that.  And I've studied enough naval history to know what you
mean -- this is practically verbatim the rationale that is given in
history
texts for the British philosophy in their battlecruisers' design.  The
main
problem is that the concept didn't work that well historically, either.
I've been aware of two different instances where British battlecruisers
basically had to stop dancing around and engage in serious action with
true
battleships -- the Battle of Jutland in the First World War and the
Hood/Bismarck action in the Second.  Both instances were quite
catastrophic
for the battlecruisers in question.

Now, it _is_ true that I have been accused (probably deservedly) of
being a
bit biased against high speed vessels.	And although I _do_ favor high
speed
for certain specialized ships that are supposed to perform specific
functions, it is also true that I don't generally think that speed much
higher than 3 or 4 is going to be that productive on a ship of the wall
--
my experience with such vessels in FT mirrors that of the real-life
British
ships.

E