 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
Congratulations on your recent accendancy to number one. You really snuck up on the rest of the world over the last few years, haven't you?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by el freako
Britian had a shitload of dreadnoughts in 1920 - how useful where they over the next 30 years?
The aircraft carrier is as useful today as Battleships where in the 1920's (i.e. obsolete, but almost no-one has really realized this yet) |
Well sort of--- The power of the carrier is its ability to kill planes and ships BEFORE said planes and ships get in range to kill it. In a non-nuclear exchange, I believe they still have reasonable survivability if they don't get overconfident close to land and are in a diplomatic position to kill everything that appears threatening.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Well, being an aircraft carrier... |
Kuci,
he was just being deliberately obtuse. next thing he will question a tank's ability to kill another tank since after all it is the armor piercing shell that actually kills said other tank
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Az
quote:
Kuci,
he was just being deliberately obtuse. next thing he will question a tank's ability to kill another tank since after all it is the armor piercing shell that actually kills said other tank |
Yeah, well, that would work, but not for a country with any meaningful airforce. It would be a really really bad idea to get in the range of land based airpower, and that range has a funny tendency to grow with tankers, etc. |
Hmm -- are you seriously suggesting there is an "unfriendly" airforce out there with a reasonable chance of going at it with the US navy carrier group at a distance where they need to get a tanker assist? My bet would be on the Yanks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lonestar
It's easier to shoot down a slow-ass tanker than it is to sink a Carrier. |
I was thinking the same thing-- PLUS it would be over the open ocean where US advantages should be at a premium. Those tankers would be a prime target.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by snoopy369
I'm shocked by the fact that China is supposedly building a carrier ... why the f* would they want to do that? Japan and Taiwan/ROC are well within land attack range ... and we're the only nation they'd ever realistically want to fight that a carrier would help them against- and at the moment the concept of that happening is just too funny. They'd be better off with SSMs given our naval abilities ... and India would probably be too hard to get to and too dangerous of waters to risk, given they can use Tibet (unless India gets frisky and takes it away first) ... |
Just out of curiosity - why do US keep their carriers ? My guess is that they could easilier and cheaper protect themselves without.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
Don't know wich of you to qoute, so ...
Why should the Chinese doesn't want do to do the same ?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-08-2005 02:21
. But it's true. We were a target. The thing is, not too many nations have a submarine force good enough to sink one.
Those aren't real carriers 
How does the carrier have the power to kill planes?
|