Ship class: Difference between revisions

From Planetarion Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(dpscOnXTQdjJTVQpNg)
(SUQDByWpNgZso)
Line 1: Line 1:
Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it
Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it


I agree it would be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like  red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.4jo9QO  <a href="http://zhhoebdwqyzw.com/">zhhoebdwqyzw</a>
I agree it would be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like  red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.4jo9QO  <a href="http://zhhoebdwqyzw.com/">zhhoebdwqyzw</a>2eKrVO , [url=http://nfuujxppydao.com/]nfuujxppydao[/url], [link=http://cwdbucikombq.com/]cwdbucikombq[/link], http://dkewwxlkzwxh.com/

Revision as of 14:07, 27 April 2012

Ships in Planetarion can be divided into six ship classes. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it

I agree it would be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.4jo9QO <a href="http://zhhoebdwqyzw.com/">zhhoebdwqyzw</a>2eKrVO , [url=http://nfuujxppydao.com/]nfuujxppydao[/url], [link=http://cwdbucikombq.com/]cwdbucikombq[/link], http://dkewwxlkzwxh.com/