My dad,a sub engineer, said to put $ in subs vs carriers....

.....he said - "carriers are a lot of $ to be sitting ducks".....he figured put the money into subs and missiles from the subs would be better money spent.....but he never liked carriers :)

In response to this post by HokieDan95

Posted: 10/23/2017 at 11:54AM

Ww2 peeps: why was the potential of the cv ignored in favor of battleships? -- HokieDan95 10/22/2017 10:08PM

That, and the London Naval Treaty. -- Chris Coleman

10/23/2017 12:41PM

My dad,a sub engineer, said to put $ in subs vs carriers.... -- TD-Tech 10/23/2017 11:54AM

Thought the Japanese I400 was an interesting idea -- HokieDan95 10/23/2017 1:54PM

Potential with that - in the little reading I did, the... -- TD-Tech 10/23/2017 2:40PM

We had three fleet carriers in the Pacific when the war started. -- hokieman842 10/23/2017 09:39AM

Battleships were old hat by the time of WW1 -- I85Hokie 10/23/2017 07:37AM

People are resistant to change -- Vienna_Hokie 10/22/2017 10:28PM

Battleships still have their place, as will CVNs in the future. -- EDGEMAN 10/23/2017 08:52AM

Agree with all that...it's the over-focus and budget driven decisions -- Vienna_Hokie 10/23/2017 09:32AM

The US already had battleships. It wasn't like you could build a bunch of -- Hokie`79 10/22/2017 10:25PM

My dad,a sub engineer, said to put $ in subs vs carriers....

Insert a Link

Tech Sideline is Presented By:

Our Sponsors