RE: Well......
Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:41 pm
but i don't think that is what they are saying....they ack that the us gets its 4 essex carriers no matter what. what they have a prob with is that if the US losses pre-war carriers, they get additional carriers on top of the normal carriers. i see their point to a extent because i think it allows the US to play too aggressively (sp). i bet alot of the move that are made would not be if a US player knew that no real replacement was coming.
ON the other hand, personally, i do believe that the US could have laid down more carriers in 42. some people do not. that is fine. I do know that the US was pouring money into the shipyards and expanding them. I think that if needed, all it takes to turn a shipyard that makes DD to a shipyard that makes CV is lots and lots of money. I found a good site earlier on shipyards during WW2.
http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/u ... lsbldg.htm
I'm a linkin fool today!!
either way, i don't think it is going to change
ON the other hand, personally, i do believe that the US could have laid down more carriers in 42. some people do not. that is fine. I do know that the US was pouring money into the shipyards and expanding them. I think that if needed, all it takes to turn a shipyard that makes DD to a shipyard that makes CV is lots and lots of money. I found a good site earlier on shipyards during WW2.
http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/u ... lsbldg.htm
I'm a linkin fool today!!
either way, i don't think it is going to change