Out of curiosity, do we have any idea if this Concordia is the namesake of the Concordia-class carrier, or is it simply not established? I have always pictured it as looking like the Lexington.
Talking of Action Stations (since I'm reading it at the moment):
Someone mentions the Ranger class (in one of the first chapters). Does he mean Yorktown and used Ranger because Yorktown didn't exist in 1998 or are both canonical and Ranger is just some other old class from before the war?
Sometimes I find it hard to see whether something is canon in the books or if Forstchen just got something wrong...
Speaking of which, was the TCS Lexington from WC4N a Concordia-class or a Confederation-class?
Lexington is first cited as Concordia-class in the WC4 game. The only Confederation-class ship we ever see in the games is Concordia (from WC2/3, which is ostensibly the third Confed ship to bear the name), though the movie also identifies Olympus as a ship of the Confederation-class if I'm not mistaken.
You're not from the UK by any chance, are you? Because that's exactly the story of how the British started building airplane-carrying cruisers (or whatever it is they were called) instead of carriers.Sometimes i think Terran ship classes and names are chosen with the sole purpose of confusing Kilrathi intelligence.
Or maybe the Confederation finance department.
"Sure we'll let you build a new light carrier. What, it's a dreadnought?!"
Quarto said:the British started building airplane-carrying cruisers (or whatever it is they were called) instead of carriers
No, I mean in the post-war period, in the age of jet aviation. Ilanin basically describes what I was referring to. And the reason, exactly as he writes, is political - the government essentially declared that the Royal Navy would never build more carriers because they are too expensive. This kind of short-sightedness was a huge problem for the Royal Navy, who squirmed as much as they could to retain their power-projection capabilities. It goes without saying, had the Royal Navy caved and just did what the government really wanted, we wouldn't be talking about the Falklands any more. This, incidentally, has the potential to make the upcoming couple of years potentially very interesting, with the Royal Navy now truly carrier-less, the Argentinians increasingly militant again, and the Democrat-led US openly hostile to the UK's interests in the Falklands...Flying-Deck Cruisers is what the USN called them or are you talking just about mounting float planes for scouting/spotting?
Yep, but I think the Russians actually did build their ships to be more like aircraft-carrying cruisers than carriers - i.e., they have much better armament and limited aircraft carrying capacity. Possibly shorter range, as well - the Russians never really relied on sea power, and they simply didn't want to invest in real carriers (and wisely so: Russia is a land power).The russians also do that IIRC, they call their carriers "heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser"