|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 14, 2018 1:40:53 GMT
This bears out something I said about a year or two ago. The nuclear-powered attack subs and "supercarriers" that the US Navy fell in love with during the 1960's were a glorious waste of money. A smaller and more expendable carrier and a diesel-electric submarine are superior. Prog may not like hearing this, but's he's going to have to live with it.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 1:44:20 GMT
Of course in the real world, a diesel electric has very little chance of doing a damn thing to a carrier.
And they would be next to useless for a force like the US navy. Or any offensive navy, given that they are largely defensive weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Aug 14, 2018 11:19:32 GMT
Well, they're not trained to lose. 👍  They also beat Spanish ships, a French nuclear-powered attack sub, and a US nuclear-powered attack sub (USS Houston). On a weird trivia note, the Houston had Barbara Bush as ship sponsor. 😲 |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 14, 2018 11:40:12 GMT
Well, they're not trained to lose. 👍 They also beat Spanish ships, a French nuclear-powered attack sub, and a US nuclear-powered attack sub (USS Houston). On a weird trivia note, the Houston had Barbara Bush as ship sponsor. 😲 Now that's creepy. It would be even more creepy if ZZ Top's "Pearl Necklace" was the sub's official battle song.  USS Houston makes me think of the Battle of Java Sea. Disaster for the allies. HMS Exeter hit early in the battle, reduced to half speed, and sunk in a following engagement. Java and DeRuyter sunk. Houston and Perth make a run for Australia but they are sunk. All the British and Dutch destroyers are sunk. Total disaster. |
|
