Subject:
|
Re: free-for-all in space
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Jan 2000 22:59:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1144 times
|
| |
|
|
James Powell wrote:
> > Granted, fighters don't generally mind what the pattern is as long as
> > they can get in and out, and historically they haven't been aboard sea
> > freighters because of the whole runway issue that may be irrelevant to small
> > spacecraft.
>
> A fair number of ships were fitted with spitfires in WW2, something in the
> order of 200 flights were made. (all were take off, ditch flights...) It
> worked great against Condors (the search plane), in that the condor was _much_
> more expensive than a spitfire (they used Mk1's, because they were not fighting
> fighters...)
Hm...I wasn't aware that had actually been implemented. I knew the option had been
studied, but thought it was canned once P-51s and P-47s became available along with
"Jeep" carriers (CVEs) for convoy duty. It probably was, but I can see where a
FW-200 would have been rather surprised by the sudden appearance of a Spitfire out
at sea. It reminds me a bit of the short-lived airship-borne fighter system that
Germany and the US tested during and after WWI, respectively (and which has now
found "new life" in the role-playing/combat game from FASA called "Crimson Skies").
Ditching is harder in space, though. ;)
> > The"OooooOOoooO!!" (as in surprise or alarm) factor however also rests on the
> > fact that the overwhelming number of freighters *aren't* fitted out like this.
> > To seewhat happens when more than a few are, just look at the Q-ships and
> > German unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI.
>
> Yep, it is the suprise...suprise is the event that happens in the mind of the
> commander. The whole Q ship/armed merchant ship is a interesting concept. The
> problem is that the ships are _not_ warships, and should not be expected to do
> all that well against a warship. The idea of a 2/5 3/5 fighter/cargo sounds
> far more like a military/pirate ship than a cargo carrier to me...
The power of surprise cannot be overestimated. It determined the course of WWII in
the Pacific, after all.
And they're not 'pirates,' they're 'privateers.' Please, 'pirate' is soooo
low-class. ;) (Actually there is an important distinction. Pirates usually
operate solely for personal gain and without concern for affiliation beyond
self-preservation; privateers operate both for personal gain but also under a
letter of marque or some other sanction by a state at war, and choose their targets
by their affiliation.)
best,
Lindsay
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: free-for-all in space
|
| Granted, fighters don't generally mind what the pattern is as long as they can get in and out, and historically they haven't been aboard sea freighters because of the whole runway issue that may be irrelevant to small spacecraft. A fair number of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
