Re: FB designs & fighters (& strawmen)

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Leary" <john_t_leary@yahoo.com>
>
>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.

In my eyes, if the ships had been used as designed then they'd not 
have met such a dreadful end. They weren't supposed to engage big 
heavy ships. They were supposed to run from them. They were meant to 
act as anti-cruiser vessels. Its not unlike throwing cruisers into 
the battle line and wondering why they don't work or using an armored 
car regiment to act as a main line of resistance in a land battle. 
Certain weapons must be used for their main function.

>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.

I think the task is warranted. Especially in the vastness of space. 
Having something big that can run down something smaller can be a 
good thing can it not?