On 23/06/2014 02:29, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) wrote:

>  I always figured that when she went down it definitively answered
> the BC efficacy 'question'.
>
> Though I doubt that anyone really was promoting them anymore by
> then.

They weren't, and she wasn't really a battlecruiser, any more than HMS
Queen Elizabeth was. She was a fast battleship, albeit an old one.

> Still, the USA came with their CB design during WWII but, from what
> I've read, the USN was adamant that they were to be considered 'large
> cruisers' rather than BC's & their design was pretty much an upscale
> of their 'Baltimore' design w/ 12" guns. The secondary stayed the
> same but many more quad-Bofors were added & each had it's own
> rudimentary RADAR director. Also, compartmentation was greatly
> enhanced.

And frankly they were a silly idea. By then it had become clear that
cruisers were better off with more 6" guns than fewer 8" guns, and a
very large cruiser with 12" guns was just a very expensive 8" cruiser.
It couldn't face a battleship, and the same cost/tonnage of 6" cruisers
would probably have trashed it (and could be in more places at once,
which is an important consideration for cruisers and smaller vessels).

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> To get back to the TU & the CT Plankwells, I
> couldn't imagine
>> trotting them out into battle using the CT HighGuard
> rules. Not w/
>> that puny Class 3 Meson Screen!
>
> Her armour is somewhat light, too. A spinal PAW will scrape weapon
> systems off her very quickly.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  Is that using the CT system or a later one?

High Guard.