Subject:
|
Re: Factions (and violence)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:31:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2162 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.castle, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
(oops, snipped one credit too much, this is me that starts this)
> > You could well be right - I think a lot of it is the proximity of the item
> > in question to people who actually suffered from it. The propeller driven
> > biplane isn't viewed as much of a threat anymore. The Spitfire may go the
> > same route (but at this rate, not in my lifetime). Tanks, on the other
> > hand, have become more sophisticated and powerful, but the basic format is
> > the same.
>
> Oh, I don't know, ask the boll weevil if it thinks a biplane is a
> threat, especially when dispensing pesticide...but yeah, the point
> is valid.
I can't fault your statement, but I did say "people". :-)
>
> ...and the basic format of the tank isn't the format it started with.
> Look at "Mother" and "Little Willie" to see what permutations it went
> through before [1] they settled on the Cheesebox on a Tracked Raft [2].
Treads, armored body, with various barrels sticking out was what I was
refering to (because of all the early WWI contraptions). All will be
realized as AFVs - okay, maybe not the classic Cheesebox on a tracked raft
(I like that phrase), but self-propelled guns and tank destroyers would
probably fall under the same ban regardless of them not being "tanks".
But of course, well-noted as always.
>
> > But the real reason for the reply: The USS Constitution wasn't around in the
> > Revolutionary War. It made its name during the War of 1812. :-)
>
> Well, its name as we think of it now, but its first combat actions
> were against French warships during the "undeclared" war of 1799-1800.
> Those Humphreys frigates were (are) mighty nifty!
Well-noted again (but that's why I said it made it's name during the War of
1812, rather than refer to it's launch date - 1797, but I was less certain
of that date). And no dispute about mighty nifty!
>
> But at any rate, the kit was 398, USS Constellation, not the USS
> Constitution. It's worth noting that the frigate USS Constellation
> does *not* exist (it was broken up in the 1850s)--the Constellation
> that's afloat today is a sloop of 20-some guns that dates from a
> later period.
>
> best
>
> LFB
There's just no slipping *anything* over on you! :-)
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Factions (and violence)
|
| (...) Oh, I don't know, ask the boll weevil if it thinks a biplane is a threat, especially when dispensing pesticide...but yeah, the point is valid. ...and the basic format of the tank isn't the format it started with. Look at "Mother" and "Little (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jul-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.general)
|
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
