Re: Battlestar Galactica

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damon Agretto" <garrand.geo-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l-r0TUnz/JSrZWk0Htik3J/w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Battlestar Galactica


> > One thing I've always thought silly was the whole
> > idea of carriers in
> > space.  Air craft carriers work well because the
> > planes they launch travel
> > in a different medium than the ships: air vs. water.
> >  Carriers in space are
> > like two battle groups of large ships launching a
> > number of small boats to
> > engage in combat.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. One of the reasons
> carriers were effective (and still are) is because you
> can fight your enemy at an arms distance...you don't
> have to close with him. In this context a carrier
> essentially becomes a battle transport for smaller
> attack craft, that can then be used to defend the ship
> at an arms distance, or to launch attacks of their
> own. The best protection a ship can have is to NOT
> expose itself to enemy guns...

Right, but why do we only have aircraft carriers, and not small boat
carriers for fleet vs. fleet operations?  IMHO, its because aircraft has a
different set of tradeoffs from boats/ships.  I cannot imagine a carrier
of, say PT boats being effective in fleet to fleet operations.  If they
were effective, wouldn't we have had at least one PT carrier in a fleet?

Dan M.

Dan M.