- Reaction score
- 17,208
- Points
- 1,010
So, would the maritime equivalent of black water have to be named White Land?Besides armed private security contractors are the equivalent on land. Black water
So, would the maritime equivalent of black water have to be named White Land?Besides armed private security contractors are the equivalent on land. Black water
Something tells me that name just wouldn't fly...So, would the maritime equivalent of black water have to be named White Land?
A PMC from South Africa, perhaps...Something tells me that name just wouldn't fly...
50 years ago...A PMC from South Africa, perhaps...
So you don’t call it Privateering. Call it a Maritime Safety Company that has a contract with the GoC.
In theory yes, a Canadian company can get a Firearms business license to have, and manufacture prohibited weapons. I'm not sure about some other criminal code aspects though, as the training, and export of the weapons could be problematic.would our gun laws even permit the establishment of such a company?
Hmmmm the things one has to ponder aboutSo, would the maritime equivalent of black water have to be named White Land?
Hood was really a fast Battleship, but that is a argument to fill many a forum.Uganda was a light cruiser with little armour and 6" guns, Hood was a battle cruiser.
Battlecruiser - Wikipedia
Battle cruisers were a bad idea even when they existed.
Hood was really a fast Battleship, but that is a argument to fill many a forum.
Ok ship nerds let’s have at it. I’m not one…I’ll just enjoy you guys arguingHMS Hood was a battlecruiser. As she was classed as such and was intended to fill those duties. Any debate on this is just the whims of ship nerds and lovers of alternative history.
HMS Hood - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Ok ship nerds let’s have at it. I’m not one…I’ll just enjoy you guys arguing
Laid down as a Battlecruiser and then thanks to Jutland, converted to a Fast Battleship when launched. But she teetered on the edge of the two definitions as ship design advanced.HMS Hood was a battlecruiser. As she was classed as such and was intended to fill those duties. Any debate on this is just the whims of ship nerds and lovers of alternative history.
HMS Hood - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Laid down as a Battlecruiser and then thanks to Jutland, converted to a Fast Battleship when launched. But she teetered on the edge of the two definitions as ship design advanced.
Although the Royal Navy designated Hood as a battlecruiser, some naval historians such as Antony Preston characterise her as a fast battleship, as she theoretically had the protection of the Queen Elizabeth ships while being significantly faster.[16] On the other hand, the British were well aware of the protection flaws remaining despite her revised design, so she was intended for the duties of a battlecruiser and served in the battlecruiser squadrons throughout her career, other than a few months assigned to Force H in 1940. Moreover, the scale of her protection, though adequate for the Jutland era, was at best marginal against the new generation of 16-inch (406 mm)-gunned capital ships that emerged soon after her completion in 1920, typified by the US Colorado class and the Japanese Nagato class.[17][18]
I think everyone knew the BC concept was dead, but were stuck with BC hulls for the time being. Hence the squadrons. Hood was as mentioned worn out and due for a major refit, which would have pushed her firmly into Fast Battleship territory again. But she never got that chance.
Sounds a lot like the current state of the RCN doesn't it?
its complicatedOk, minus the mutinous crew…
Not witchcraft .... just trigonometrySo. Naval gunnery. Firing from a moving platform on another moving platform.
Or firing at a shore target. The math etc involved must be amazing.
Or is it witchcraft???
Not witchcraft .... just trigonometry
Even Ticonderoga's have an impressive amount of firepower.... too bad they aren't being replaced.
Bismarck of course..The better debate is what caused her catastrophic destruction.