Moderator: Edi
Uhm, kicked the USSR's ass all over the world for 12 years and saw theAlyeska wrote: Reagan and Bush sure as hell did NOT earn the title. Hornet, Yorktown, and Ranger deserve to be carriers again before Reagan and Bush.
Not really. Most ships are identified by their number anyway.MKSheppard wrote:Ah, but what of the ENTIRE cruiser class named after it?Alyeska wrote: The Tico will be decomissioned soon, solves the problem.
That will make a mess...
An Arliegh Burke if I remember right.Coyote wrote:What class DDG is that Churchill, anyway? I'm a grunt; I'm not all 100% on my seagoing platforms.
Huh? The original Constitution is a sailing frigate! What are you talking about?Coyote wrote:As for the Constitution, it is called a Frigate but in actuality it is more of a heavy cruiser (guns, displacement). They've toyed around with the types and classes of ships over the years. It wouldn't be right to name a 'torpedo-bait' frigate after that ship; an Aegis cruiser would be more appro pos.
So, if it wasn't for Reagan the Soviet Union would still exist? I guess that means Socialist and Communist ideals technically CAN work.MKSheppard wrote:Uhm, kicked the USSR's ass all over the world for 12 years and saw theAlyeska wrote: Reagan and Bush sure as hell did NOT earn the title. Hornet, Yorktown, and Ranger deserve to be carriers again before Reagan and Bush.
dismantling of 80 years of Soviet tyranny?
AB Flight IIAStormbringer wrote:An Arliegh Burke if I remember right.Coyote wrote:What class DDG is that Churchill, anyway? I'm a grunt; I'm not all 100% on my seagoing platforms.
And it has a RN officer permanetly stationed on it.Sea Skimmer wrote:AB Flight IIAStormbringer wrote:An Arliegh Burke if I remember right.Coyote wrote:What class DDG is that Churchill, anyway? I'm a grunt; I'm not all 100% on my seagoing platforms.
Enteprise is better then any of those names.Durandal wrote:Dammit, I was hoping for cool, Imperial names, like Executor or Devastator.
No actually. During the 1980's it was possibul for the Russians to win, if they could divide or destroy NATO and force economic concessions out of it. The massive military buildup and all out political and economic attack made that impossible and sped things along. It was hardly the forgone conclusion you claim.Alyeska wrote:So, if it wasn't for Reagan the Soviet Union would still exist? I guess that means Socialist and Communist ideals technically CAN work.MKSheppard wrote:Uhm, kicked the USSR's ass all over the world for 12 years and saw theAlyeska wrote: Reagan and Bush sure as hell did NOT earn the title. Hornet, Yorktown, and Ranger deserve to be carriers again before Reagan and Bush.
dismantling of 80 years of Soviet tyranny?
Oh, thats right. The USSR was fucked before Reagan even took office.
All Reagan did was throw money at the armed forces. That is nothing special.
Which says nothing about Bush who WAS a decorated Navy-puke who also saw through not one but TWO highly successful wars/invasions as President and also saw the country throuh the msot turbulent time in recent history with the end of the USSR.Alyeska wrote:So, if it wasn't for Reagan the Soviet Union would still exist? I guess that means Socialist and Communist ideals technically CAN work.MKSheppard wrote:Uhm, kicked the USSR's ass all over the world for 12 years and saw theAlyeska wrote: Reagan and Bush sure as hell did NOT earn the title. Hornet, Yorktown, and Ranger deserve to be carriers again before Reagan and Bush.
dismantling of 80 years of Soviet tyranny?
Oh, thats right. The USSR was fucked before Reagan even took office.
All Reagan did was throw money at the armed forces. That is nothing special.
They'd damn well better not give that name to anything less than a carrier. To do so would demean one of the greatest fighting ships in US Naval history.Alyeska wrote:Enteprise is better then any of those names.Durandal wrote:Dammit, I was hoping for cool, Imperial names, like Executor or Devastator.
Agreed. Its a pitty that CV-6 had such a sad fate.Stormbringer wrote:They'd damn well better not give that name to anything less than a carrier. To do so would demean one of the greatest fighting ships in US Naval history.Alyeska wrote:Enteprise is better then any of those names.Durandal wrote:Dammit, I was hoping for cool, Imperial names, like Executor or Devastator.
Thats called a Bribe. Its also called denying history. Where are all the fighting ships of WW2? What makes a money man more important then our fighting ships?Uraniun235 wrote:Pfftt-BWAHAHAHAHAHAAlyeska wrote:All Reagan did was throw money at the armed forces. That is nothing special.
That is precious. Yeah, throwing a trillion dollars at the military (which IIRC much of which was aimed at the navy) isn't special at all to the people who decide what name to paste on.
The Russians could never have divided or destroyed NATO without nuclear conflict, and then nobody wins. The fact of the matter is that communism/socialism simply does not work.Sea Skimmer wrote: No actually. During the 1980's it was possibul for the Russians to win, if they could divide or destroy NATO and force economic concessions out of it. The massive military buildup and all out political and economic attack made that impossible and sped things along. It was hardly the forgone conclusion you claim.
FISH DON'T VOTE!Alyeska wrote: Thats called a Bribe. Its also called denying history. Where are all the fighting ships of WW2? What makes a money man more important then our fighting ships?
Indeed she should right there at Pearl Harbor along with Mighty Mo. Damn shameful way for such a proud ship to go. If they had any heart at all she would have at least been given the Saratoga's fate.Alyeska wrote:Agreed. Its a pitty that CV-6 had such a sad fate.Stormbringer wrote:They'd damn well better not give that name to anything less than a carrier. To do so would demean one of the greatest fighting ships in US Naval history.Alyeska wrote: Enteprise is better then any of those names.
Actually, she lives on in the CVN-65, in the only portholes on the ship - inStormbringer wrote: Indeed she should right there at Pearl Harbor along with Mighty Mo. Damn shameful way for such a proud ship to go. If they had any heart at all she would have at least been given the Saratoga's fate.
Indeed. It is my personal opinion that the Enterprise should be rebuilt to her final specifications, then "altered" from that point to WW2 era specifications to make the ship look as authentic as possible. Also they would find as much of the original material from the Enterprise as possible to be used in rebuilding her. Then she would become a historic monument.Stormbringer wrote:Indeed she should right there at Pearl Harbor along with Mighty Mo. Damn shameful way for such a proud ship to go. If they had any heart at all she would have at least been given the Saratoga's fate.Alyeska wrote:Agreed. Its a pitty that CV-6 had such a sad fate.Stormbringer wrote: They'd damn well better not give that name to anything less than a carrier. To do so would demean one of the greatest fighting ships in US Naval history.
The Russians where very coninced they could win, they where also convinced they could keep a nuclear conflict limited to West and East Germany. Without the huge buildup of convetionla forces the Soviet T-80 swarm would have been overrunning what was left of the NATO nuclear stock pile within hours, prevent is use.Howedar wrote:The Russians could never have divided or destroyed NATO without nuclear conflict, and then nobody wins. The fact of the matter is that communism/socialism simply does not work.Sea Skimmer wrote: No actually. During the 1980's it was possibul for the Russians to win, if they could divide or destroy NATO and force economic concessions out of it. The massive military buildup and all out political and economic attack made that impossible and sped things along. It was hardly the forgone conclusion you claim.
She's gone. And while a monument ships would be something to see it wouldn't be the same. Better to honor her now by continuing the name and tradition.Alyeska wrote:Indeed. It is my personal opinion that the Enterprise should be rebuilt to her final specifications, then "altered" from that point to WW2 era specifications to make the ship look as authentic as possible. Also they would find as much of the original material from the Enterprise as possible to be used in rebuilding her. Then she would become a historic monument.Stormbringer wrote:Indeed she should right there at Pearl Harbor along with Mighty Mo. Damn shameful way for such a proud ship to go. If they had any heart at all she would have at least been given the Saratoga's fate.Alyeska wrote: Agreed. Its a pitty that CV-6 had such a sad fate.
Course she would have to be named (ex) Enterprise because we already have one in commission.
Ditto for the USS AVENGER.....also a minesweeperJim Raynor wrote: There's actually already a USS Devastator, but it's a freaking MINESWEEPER. Waste of a good name.
