Useful

**FORMER_FYRDMAN** · 10-02-2012, 18:07

Originally Posted by AirHippo

One is inclined to wonder about why it should take so long. Obviously it's something of an apples and oranges comparison, but the conversion of the Akagi from her weird triple-decked design to the conventional full-length flight-deck system took from April '37 to August '38. Admittedly they were simpler ships, but still, I would guess (very much a guess, of course) that the requirements of an aircraft carrier haven't changed too very much in terms of what you have to have in it - i.e. space to store aircraft, fuel, ammo, stores etc. You have to wonder what could be done, if the Russians pulled their fingers out. having said that, Akagi was, for her time, pretty big. Big enough, fortunately, to accommodate the ever-growing sizes and take-off runs of her air wing. But still, I wonder.

Mind you, I know slightly less than bugger-all about the intricacies of aircraft carrier design, so I am now hunkering down in preparation for a bombardment of corrections.

As a veteran of multiple carrier threads, I can state with absolute authority that you can knock up one of these things from a container ship. Simples.

**jimmys_best_mate** · 10-02-2012, 18:09

Originally Posted by Westpoint

When have I ever been wrong?

Originally Posted by Thai_exile

I think they were Cent AVRE's rather than tanks. The word was that the barricades were booby trapped and the AVRE with the dozer blade was needed to break through whilst protecting the crew. The fact that they were tracked vehicles was the emotive issue.

Originally Posted by Westpoint

They call them Combat Engineering Tractors (CET)

Made me laugh.

Originally Posted by Westpoint

They were not singing as they marched off the boats at Dover on their return from Dunkirk were they.

In a thread about "It's a Long Way To Tipperary", so not even the right war.

I can't be arsed looking further back than your first two pages of posts, if I'm honest.

**Westpoint** · 10-02-2012, 18:12

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

Made me laugh.

In a thread about "It's a Long Way To Tipperary", so not even the right war.

My comment about "them not singing as they got off the boats at Dover" was not incorrect. Please stop fussing about little details.

I can't be arsed looking further back than your first two pages of posts, if I'm honest.

x

**Westpoint** · 10-02-2012, 18:15

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

Made me laugh.

In a thread about "It's a Long Way To Tipperary", so not even the right war.

I can't be arsed looking further back than your first two pages of posts, if I'm honest.

Grow up. They sang "Its a long way to Tipperary" in WW2 as well as in WW1

**AirHippo** · 10-02-2012, 20:10

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

As a veteran of multiple carrier threads, I can state with absolute authority that you can knock up one of these things from a container ship. Simples.

Our problems are solved!

**Westpoint** · 10-02-2012, 23:12

Originally Posted by sunnoficarus

T45 is an ASuW unit, it clearly should be armed to deal with surface threats using it's own weapons. Carriers are carriers, fitting them out to fight battles directly with other surface units is a distraction from their primary purpose. Fitting them with large quantities of anti aircraft missiles similarly shows a lack of faith in the carriers air wing. This is a fact that has been proven and developed over many decades of practical war fighting experience by the USN and RN. Aircraft are a carriers best anti surface and anti air weapons and anything that distracts from that is taking away from their effectiveness. A simple look at carrier design evolution shows this, deletion of large guns followed by the stripping out of large quantities of anti aircraft weaponry and putting bigger air wings on.

Oh, I sooo sorry for using a fairly common misspelling of dispersal your eminence

dispersement
[edit]English

[edit]Noun
dispersement
Common misspelling of disbursement.
[edit]Usage notes
Also confused with dispersion, dispersal

Feel free to spit your dummy out because I fail to agree 100% with you, I'm sure joes privates will be along shortly to dogpile and give you a bit of a leg hump.
If you don't want to discuss or debate the point in a grown up and mature fashion, feel free to add me to the 'ignore'. And if it makes you feel better thinking I have no connection with the subject matter past or present and know nothing of it, have at it.

Disbursements is totally the wrong word in that scenario. Disbursements is connected with paying out money, are you getting confused with the Purser?

What on earth are you trying to say? You have no idea have you?

**Ancient_Mariner** · 10-02-2012, 23:26

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

As a veteran of multiple carrier threads, I can state with absolute authority that you can knock up one of these things from a container ship. Simples.

You are John Nott and I claim my 10 shillings.

And anybody who knows what I'm talking about is well past their use by date.

**jimmys_best_mate** · 10-02-2012, 23:28

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

As a veteran of multiple carrier threads, I can state with absolute authority that you can knock up one of these things from a container ship. Simples.

What we need is a Harrier made of Polystyrene with the engines from Concorde mounted. Such a combination would be more than a match for Raptor.