JeffEngel wrote:snip
The problem with BC(P)'s is mostly that admirals have this weird compulsion to use them as wallers and get distressed when they go boom, or run out of ammunition. Using them like battlecruisers have traditionally been used, or working out any other doctrine for their use, seems to be just outside their heads.
There may also be this peculiar romance of the guns, of firing large numbers of missiles direct from your vessel, feeling it rumble with the launches, that podlayers just don't deliver. With wallers, good sense has stopped that from being a controlling decision-making factor. With BC's... not so much.
I saw a post by MWW, maybe here or in the pearls, where he said Solon was not exactly how the Admiralty had envisioned using the ships at all, that it was just a lack of ships at the time . . . .
Weird Harold wrote:Armed Neo-Bob wrote:..., I don't think that is as obsolete as some of the comments about the class in HoS seem to indicate.
The Agamemnons problem isn't really offensive endurance, or even defensive firepower density. The problem is that they can't take much battle damage and remain functional, let alone combat capable.
I believe the description, "
A sledgehammer wrapped in an eggshell" was used to describe them.
The problem really is that the core moves too many systems too close to the hull, and that the hull is probably armored like the late flight Reliants, and not the Nike. Also, they were hit by capital ship MDMs, not cruiser weight stuff. So, using for its actual intended role, it might not do so poorly.
Something I read somewhere suggested it is a bad idea for any BC to go up against a waller. . . .even if you can outgun them for awhile, it is just a bad habit.
Rob
