Re: Transports and MS


Justin Palmer (Justin@briareos.demon.co.uk)
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:31:23 +0000


In message <4.1.19990112175914.0093b330@mail.nwnexus.com>,
dyar@halcyon.com <dyar@halcyon.com> writes
>At 16:03 1/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>The discussion about the fleet composition got me thinking...
>>
>>There doesn't seem to be any disadvantage to me of using modified transports
>>to act as, at least short-term MS carriers.
>[munch]
>>Certainly, you wouldn't be able to carry out any long term maintenance on MSs
>>in the way that a dedicated carrier could, but as a short term measure (such
>>as ferrying MSs into battle at A Bao A Qu on Columbus-class transports), it
>>shouldn't be a major disadvantage ?
>
>There's another possibility: Q ships -- transports equipped with hidden
>weapons (or MS) or small warships (with MS capability) disguised as
>transports. The first Q ships were deployed in WW1 to entice and trap
>German U-boats.
>
        Would yet another possibility be that the transports used are
actually *converted* transports, not stock transports, with some limited
facilities for storing/maintaining MS? Such ships were used during World
War II to escort convoys - Escort Carriers [1] - and I think at least
one of the early vessels was HMS Audacity (aptly named, as she was built
from a captured German merchantman...!)

        [1] CVE - Carrier Vessel Escort in the US Navy. [2]

        [2] CVE - Combustible, Vulnerable, Expendable - US Navy
crewmen... ^_^

I wanna have a pure time; |I wanna have a pure time; |justin@briareos.|
Everyones a noble mind... |demon.co.uk |
Believing in a sign of Zeta, | |
beyond the hard times from now! | |



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Jan 14 1999 - 00:17:43 JST