Isn't it time for a TRUE Federation Carrier
View Single Post
Join Date: Jul 2012
01-28-2013, 12:42 PM
Originally Posted by
Not quite sure if your sources are fouled or you're just making this stuff up to troll. Here's the deal:
I am not making this stuff up.
After the battle of Taranto (look it up) and Pearl Harbor (look it up) the U.S. Naval doctrine was that carriers, along with cruiser/submarine screens, were more than capable of defending themselves. The major threat to carriers weren't battleships. It was aircraft, and submarines.
Again, look at the dates of the Iowa ... it was only commissioned in 1942, and it goes further back to 1938 that pre-dates those battles.
Originally it was intended to operate that way, also keep in mind only 4 out of 6 Iowa-class Battleships were build.
There is also stuff I could go on, for example the air-defenses on the US battleships were considered "adequate" before Pearl Harbor, we know they were substantially upgraded afterwards and this could really go on.
Also cruisers and battleships did pose a threat, I will remind you of Battle of Leyte Gulf, the 25 October Battle off Samar were 6 escort carriers and 7 destroyers suddenly were facing 4 battleships and 8 cruisers.
Now that that's established, the U.S.S. Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey were designed from the keel up, as battleships. They were NOT designed as some super destroyer escort, that people then decided to call battleships, as you purport. Their inception, was a direct counter to the new, faster, bigger, super, battleships that Japan was laying down, Yamato, Musashi, and an unnamed third, later to become the Shinano.
I never mentioned they were destroyer escorts because a destroyer was never meant to engage cruisers and battleships, they were a counter to Torpedo Boats and later to aircraft and submarines.
Also the Iowa-class was not a direct counter to the Yamato, that was the Montana-class that was never entered existed being cancelled but it was still approved to be build by congress in 1939 (I am putting dates to show when such decisions were made).
The speed was to the Iowa as the heavy firepower and armor was to the Montana, this come up during the Iowa planning stages.
Actually, to properly understand the battleship's role, you'd have to go back farther than the entire, naval, history of WWII. Enough said.
No, I just need to go back to World War I since this was when Battleships had a role with such a name, unless you want to go back to Ships-of-the-line or the more modern Ironclads.
[quote]The fighters you speak of in DS9 were never, actually, portrayed as carrier, launched, fighters. Nor were any carrier operations ever portrayed in DS9, or otherwise. Those fighters were planetary defense craft, similar to those that got wasted by the Borg cube in TNG. The Federation's "fighter", the Peregrine's actual designation is "courier" vessel, not "fighter".[/quote}
This tired old argument again ...
We been over this, I dont care about what you or anyone
, your speculation is as valid as mine.
There is one thing I will indulge, the Peregrine.
The only mention of it by that name is in DS9: "Heart of Stone" and yes, its referred as a courier however the Federation Attack Fighter that shares a striking similarity is shown in TNG: "Preemptive Strike", DS9: "The Maquis, Part II", "A Time to Stand", "Favor the Bold", "Sacrifice of Angels" and "What You Leave Behind".
Also its shown in display graphics in Voyager buts its referred as ""Academy flight trainer".
To make this clear, I made no claims the the Peregrine and the Federation Attack Fighter are one and the same.
Further as to make this point VERY clear, in the Mirror Universe the Federation Attack Fighter is known as the Terran raider.
No, I never said the Miranda was portrayed targeting multiple wings of fighter craft ...
Yes you did, I could point out a few of those "couriers" as you claim then to be managed to scare off a Galor and only retreated when the Enterprise-D entered the scene.
I will complete my reasoning ... according to on-screen evidence the Galor is LESS capable that a Miranda class if we follow your speculation.
Not sure why you thought I said the Klinks were modelled on the Japanese, either. I never said that.
Let me put this way, its fine for the KDF to send people into those INEFFECTIVE death traps because ... they want to die in battle?
There is a line in honorable death and suicide, if fighters are so worthless deathtraps why sending warriors into then so they can just be killed? the Klingons so not employ wave attacks, even the Dominion that have disposable forces do not use such tactics unless its the last option.
Lastly, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make concerning battleships, and dreadnaughts, being BAD WORDS. So there will be no rebuttal.
Point is the name "carrier" have no negative connections as some like to imply, at least not as a negative as "Battleship" and "Dreadnought".