Re: [GZG] Battlecruisers

On 12/25/06, Mike Hillsgrove <mikeah@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> Why, are we assuming that the standard "classes" ala the wet navies of
> today will have any bearing on how ships of the future will be
> designed.  The old WWII "classes" have been pretty well replaced
today.
> We still have aircraft carriers, but the DD, DE, Cruisers, BB's, BC's
> are all gone. They've been replaced with Frigates of various
> specialties.	Weaponry has invalidated the heavy armament and now the
> smallest frigate can annihilate the largest BB that ever existed at
> ranges way beyond any gun range.  Why do we assume that the WWII model
> will prevail 200 years from now?

Because Tuffleyverse ships fight much like the wet naval vessels of
the late nineteenth and very, very early twentieth centuries.  Battle
begins at long range, progresses to short range, and is finished off
at such close ranges that even the 6", quick-firing tertiary guns can
penetrate to the vitals.  Battleships are tougher than cruisers, but
only by degree.  Larger ships are harder to sink than smaller vessels.
 Not everything has a full analog, but it matches closely enough to be
informative.  Naval combat from 1885-1905 does not have anything
corresponding to FT fighters and FT lacks anything as effective as
self-propelled torpedoes.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l