
Advertisement

by Confederate States of California » Tue May 15, 2012 9:38 pm


by Grays Harbor » Tue May 15, 2012 10:01 pm
Awesomeland wrote:Not true at all, in fact. All major militaries have experimented with the use of submarine carriers. The Americans, the British, the Japanese, the French, the Italians, the Germans, all have either built, or attempted to build, aircraft-carrying submarines.Albion Rhodesia wrote:No military has ever actually suggested the use of a submersible carrier.

by Awesomeland » Tue May 15, 2012 10:17 pm
"Carrying a few scout floatplanes" does not make a battleship, cruiser, destroyer, or frigate a carrier because those planes are designed to support a primary function that is not "carrying planes", whereas a single ship that exists just to carry a single plane is a carrier, albeit a very small one, because carrying and deploying that plane is its primary purpose for existing. A battleship without the planes is still a battleship, a carrier without the planes is useless. Just because what we field only carries a handful of planes doesn't make it any less a carrier. It's a submarine, that is made to carry and deploy planes as primary function. It's a submarine carrier. Some countries like giant expensive carriers. We prefer a somewhat larger number of smaller submarine carriers: Because a giant supercarrier can only be in one place at a time, but to sink ours, you'd have to hunt each one down individually. You can't just lob missiles from thousands of miles away at it, or pop it with a single submarine, which are all problems faced by any surface target: It's obvious, people can see it, and therefore, can hit it and kill it, from a long distance away.Grays Harbor wrote:There is a huge difference between a submarine which carries 2-3 scout floatplanes and an aircraft carrier. If you used just carrying aircraft as the definition of aircraft carrier then every battleship, cruiser, destroyer, frigate, patrol vessel, seaplane tender, etc, etc, that happens to have facilities for a couple floatplanes or helicopters would then be classified as an aircraft carrier.
by Vallermoore » Wed May 16, 2012 11:36 am

by Sebbal » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:21 am

by New Hayesalia » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:26 am



by Leonische » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:56 am


by Redsarkia » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:24 am


by Sondstead » Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:57 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Poor analogy. A better one would be a high school american football team approaching a couple of kids quietly reading/writing during lunch hour, telling them to play with them and then stamping on their books/notepads if they refuse.
All with the teacher watching on from the sidelines nodding in approval.

by Itanica » Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:14 pm

by Crystaldell » Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:18 pm

by Chinese Regions » Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:51 pm


by Southern Patriots » Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:06 pm
Panzerjaeger wrote:Why would Cleopatra have cornrows? She is from Egypt not the goddamn Bronx.

by Lifield » Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:11 am
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: HarYan, Karnatadesha
Advertisement