Artistic License Ships: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Film) |
|||
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
* There are a fair number of older ''[[Harpoon (game)|Harpoon]]'' scenarios that pit a Soviet carrier group against an American one. The actual Soviet use of the "''Kiev''" and "''Moskva''" classes were to defend areas for missile submarines, not engage in a suicidal tangle against a ''Nimitz'' group, unless the latter got close to the Soviet mainland. If the Soviets were going to take on a U.S. CBG (Carrier Battle Group), they'd use submarines and/or aircraft. Even then, the Motherland would lose ''a lot'' of units in the process. |
* There are a fair number of older ''[[Harpoon (game)|Harpoon]]'' scenarios that pit a Soviet carrier group against an American one. The actual Soviet use of the "''Kiev''" and "''Moskva''" classes were to defend areas for missile submarines, not engage in a suicidal tangle against a ''Nimitz'' group, unless the latter got close to the Soviet mainland. If the Soviets were going to take on a U.S. CBG (Carrier Battle Group), they'd use submarines and/or aircraft. Even then, the Motherland would lose ''a lot'' of units in the process. |
||
** ''Harpoon'' predates the current ubiquitousness of AEGIS ships in the USN, meaning there was a greatly increased risk of the heartstopping "[[Mnogo Nukes Other Naval Nukes|SS-N-12 SANDBOX]] detected. METHOD: Visual" happening. This did not stay true for long after the game's release though. |
** ''Harpoon'' predates the current ubiquitousness of AEGIS ships in the USN, meaning there was a greatly increased risk of the heartstopping "[[Mnogo Nukes Other Naval Nukes|SS-N-12 SANDBOX]] detected. METHOD: Visual" happening. This did not stay true for long after the game's release though. |
||
** William S. Lind [http://archive.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind113.html expressed this clearer]: |
|||
| ⚫ | * May not apply here but this is the closest thing I've found to a place this piece of critical information belongs: [http:// |
||
{{quote|...contrary to the U.S. Navy's fervent belief, the aircraft carrier is no longer the capital ship. It ceded that role long ago to the submarine. [...] |
|||
About thirty years ago, my first boss [...] asked Admiral Hyman Rickover how long he thought the U.S. aircraft carriers would last in the war with the Soviet navy, which was largely a submarine navy. Rickover's answer, on the record in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was, "About two days." The Committee, needless to say, went on to [[When All You Have Is a Hammer|approve buying more carriers]]. }} |
|||
| ⚫ | * May not apply here but this is the closest thing I've found to a place this piece of critical information belongs: [http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Emperor_Class_Battleship Emperor-class battleships] don't launch Space Marine drop pods, and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlRfPQP4uhA that was probably close to two full chapters they just flung out there]. |
||
** It ''does'' carry 8 squadrons of small craft. The number of actual vehicles depends on the craft size, and if we are to believe ''Battlefleet Koronus'', this translates to 160 Fury Interceptors or 320 Lightnings - since the drop pods are even smaller, it's feasible that it ''could'' carry, say, 640. But this would clearly go far beyond simple support action, while the Astartes forces are completely separated (including their own spaceships) and are neither designed nor allowed to be integrated with other forces (such as Navy) like this. |
|||
== [[Video Games]] == |
== [[Video Games]] == |
||