Split Thread: Provincial Colonial defends the Realm

[Ideologue]

Neil's totally wrong about naval history.

The UK was late in developing a strong carrier force, and even then they were third place in a game that only had two serious players.  As for the other important naval arm, their submarine force was practically vestigial.

Also, Vancouver is the best place on Earth, the Primum Mobile to Seattle's Fixed Stars and Portland's Saturn.

[Neil]

Neil's totally wrong about naval history.

The UK was late in developing a strong carrier force, and even then they were third place in a game that only had two serious players.  As for the other important naval arm, their submarine force was practically vestigial.

Are you retarded?  Britain invented the carrier and did all the work in making it useful.  They had the first strong carrier force, with Furious, Argus, Courageous, Glorious, Hermes and Eagle all being in service before Ranger.  Their carrier aviation was built to complemement the European situation.

As for submarines, the UK had a top-flight submarine fleet especially in the interwar years.

Also, Vancouver is the best place on Earth, the Primum Mobile to Seattle's Fixed Stars and Portland's Saturn.

Too many drug addicts and Canucks fans.

[dps]

Also, Vancouver is the best place on Earth

Too many drug addicts

Well, you can see why Ide likes it, then.  Bet Fireblade would love the place.

[crazy canuck]

Also, Vancouver is the best place on Earth, the Primum Mobile to Seattle's Fixed Stars and Portland's Saturn.

I see the truth is spread even in my absence.  Well done.  Keep up the good work.

[Tonitrus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-BPWQv-yRk&feature=player_embedded

[grumbler]

Are you retarded?  Britain invented the carrier and did all the work in making it useful.  They had the first strong carrier force, with Furious, Argus, Courageous, Glorious, Hermes and Eagle all being in service before Ranger.  Their carrier aviation was built to complemement the European situation.

The Brits held the lead in carrier development for a while, but made the understandable mistake of believing the carrier was to replace the battlecruiser and just engage in search and sniping attacks.  They developed neither the carriers, the planes, nor the tactics to utilize carriers in their true (by the late 1930s) role as the replacement for the battle line.  And I wouldn't call a carrier force that relied on ships like the Argus, Hermes, or Eagle "strong."  Only Courageous and Furious of that group would be considered actual fleet carriers, of which the US had 2 much better ships (which normally carried more aircraft than all the British carriers combined).  The Brits, as usual, combined superb ideas with crap execution.

As for submarines, the UK had a top-flight submarine fleet especially in the interwar years.

The British submarine service never did get the credit it deserved; on a unit-for-unit basis, it was arguably the best submarine service to see action in WW1 or WW2.  We must exclude from that assessment the 17 or so units of the unfortunate K class, of course.  More than a third of themh were lost to accident in the mere 4 years between the completion of the first and the decision to scrap the whole lot - one served an entire five years, which I believe was the record for that class.  Again, a brilliant concept married to crap execution.

[Neil]

The Brits held the lead in carrier development for a while, but made the understandable mistake of believing the carrier was to replace the battlecruiser and just engage in search and sniping attacks.  They developed neither the carriers, the planes, nor the tactics to utilize carriers in their true (by the late 1930s) role as the replacement for the battle line.  And I wouldn't call a carrier force that relied on ships like the Argus, Hermes, or Eagle "strong."  Only Courageous and Furious of that group would be considered actual fleet carriers, of which the US had 2 much better ships (which normally carried more aircraft than all the British carriers combined).  The Brits, as usual, combined superb ideas with crap execution.

I don't think that the RN was unique in the 'battlecruiser carrier' concept, at least looking at how the Lexington and Saratoga were used in wargames.  Still, it's not like the British had the option of building Lexington-class ships.  They didn't have enormous, partially constructed hulls kicking around, and it would have been illegal for them to build a 36,000-ton carrier in any event.  The British had small battlecruiser hulls, and so they had small carriers.

The British submarine service never did get the credit it deserved; on a unit-for-unit basis, it was arguably the best submarine service to see action in WW1 or WW2.  We must exclude from that assessment the 17 or so units of the unfortunate K class, of course.  More than a third of themh were lost to accident in the mere 4 years between the completion of the first and the decision to scrap the whole lot - one served an entire five years, which I believe was the record for that class.  Again, a brilliant concept married to crap execution.

The whole 25-knot sub thing never really panned out for them until nuclear power, did it?

[grumbler]

I don't think that the RN was unique in the 'battlecruiser carrier' concept, at least looking at how the Lexington and Saratoga were used in wargames.  Still, it's not like the British had the option of building Lexington-class ships.  They didn't have enormous, partially constructed hulls kicking around, and it would have been illegal for them to build a 36,000-ton carrier in any event.  The British had small battlecruiser hulls, and so they had small carriers.

I think the British were the first to realize that the carrier would replace the battlecruiser, and so were the first to employ carriers.  My point isn't that the Brits made a mistake in replacing the BC with the CV;  they did so very effectively, IMO.  My point is that they then failed to realize that aircraft had developed enough by the 1930s that the CV would replace the BB, as well.  Even the Ark Royal, the most capable British carrier (though poorly designed) carried far fewer aircraft than she was capable of carrying, because the Brits didn't see the utility of the carrier massed air strike (and, to be sure, lacked the types of aircraft necessary to make a massed strike).

[Grey Fox]

What's Neil prejudice about the NCAA & why is he wrong?

[Neil]

I don't think that the RN was unique in the 'battlecruiser carrier' concept, at least looking at how the Lexington and Saratoga were used in wargames.  Still, it's not like the British had the option of building Lexington-class ships.  They didn't have enormous, partially constructed hulls kicking around, and it would have been illegal for them to build a 36,000-ton carrier in any event.  The British had small battlecruiser hulls, and so they had small carriers.

I think the British were the first to realize that the carrier would replace the battlecruiser, and so were the first to employ carriers.  My point isn't that the Brits made a mistake in replacing the BC with the CV;  they did so very effectively, IMO.  My point is that they then failed to realize that aircraft had developed enough by the 1930s that the CV would replace the BB, as well.  Even the Ark Royal, the most capable British carrier (though poorly designed) carried far fewer aircraft than she was capable of carrying, because the Brits didn't see the utility of the carrier massed air strike (and, to be sure, lacked the types of aircraft necessary to make a massed strike).

They did take a very Eurocentric view of carrier aviation, but then again their main strategic concern was Europe, where carrier aviation didn't exactly replace the battleship.  They both had their roles to play, but land-based aviation and in the ineffectiveness of RN aircraft meant that carriers would never really dominate a body of water in Europe the way they did in the Pacific or the way that battlefleets had in WWI.

[katmai]

What's Neil prejudice about the NCAA & why is he wrong?

No idea and because he is Neil.

[CountDeMoney]

What's Neil prejudice about the NCAA & why is he wrong?

Not professional.  Also crappy and boring.  I'd rather watch guys kick rouges all day then watch some retard try and run the option against a crap defence.  At least CFL games are competitive.  In college football, the real game is by the scheduling guys who secure for their team the weakest opponents, in order to act like they're good so that they can get elected national champion while being challenged as little as possible.

No, the hierarchy is as so:

NFL






CFL



An XFL reunion game


AFL





Soccer























NCAA

In short, he's talking out of his ignorant foreign ass.  Again.

[Grey Fox]

I see. He's not wrong about the schedule.

[grumbler]

I see. He's not wrong about the schedule.

Agreed that he's not so much "wrong" as he is just plain ignorant.  But I forgive him, and ignore him, because I expect no better from a Canadian.

I doubt the Canadian TV network even shows games like Michigan-Alabama this upcoming year, or Oregon-LSU last year, so how would Neil know that there are tons of competitive games in the NCAA every year.  Hell, the best sports rivalry in North America (as determined in many polls in many venues over many years) is in NCAA division I-A football.

[CountDeMoney]

I doubt the Canadian TV network even shows games like Michigan-Alabama this upcoming year, or Oregon-LSU last year, so how would Neil know that there are tons of competitive games in the NCAA every year.

Well, when you're Canadian and being beamed the University of Guelph Griffons versus the Wilfrid Laurier Golden Hawks, you'd be pretty ignorant, too.