- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.402
- 38.945
MUAHAHA, and the american fleet can't even close range either my carrier sinks them or they manage to flee..
Väinö I said:Well, neither the Italians or the French had any carriers there. So if the Med needed carriers why didn't they have any? The British had carriers on every teathre at some point of the war, so you can't really say that the Med absolutely needed carriers just because the British had some there.
Had the Italians had a better led, equipped, motivated and trained navy and airforce (especially the latter), as well as resource and industrial backing equalling the ones British had, I have no doubts victory on the Med would have been possible even without carriers.
BlkbrryTheGreat said:So that they could have airpower in the parts of the Med. that their ground based aircraft didn't have the range to reach. Keep in mind, that at one point they only controled Egypt and Malta.
ErwinRommel said:Loved it![]()
I am intrigued though - will the carrier automatically maintain distance?
Surely the destryers will close to within range?
Fiendix said:Johan wrote:
"MUAHAHA, and the american fleet can't even close range either my carrier sinks them or they manage to flee.."
so that would suggest that it wont even come to a direct shoot out between the fleets and the escorts will stay close to the carrier.
ErwinRommel said:Yes it would but I was talking about the destroyers with the American task force. The scenario presented was that no American guns were within range. Surprising since the screen suggests that the two groups are only 9000 yds apart.![]()
ErwinRommel said:But I think Mr T summed it up