Board Thread:Event Community Discussion/@comment-28069733-20170521154728/@comment-28069733-20170524211208

Ar-cen-ciel wrote: Slowchamp wrote: Don't forget what you all did to Armored Carrier. CVB had already been a widely accepted hull code at the time of debate, with very flimsy reasons for change (specifically, it was because Taihou was way too lightweight compared to Midway-class carriers). Given that reasons, it's no surprise that our administration pulled the plug right off the debate to keep the status quo.

The situations were different for this one because Kaibokans were simply too different from DEs to fit as destroyer escorts. About the sole convincing reason why PF was rejected is because it overlaps with Tacoma-class frigates (again, due to the disconnection between USN ship classes with other navies).

I dont see how CVB is more correct though if Taihou was more lightweights. If anything, it just points more to the direction that CVA shouldve been used instead. None of the ships comes close to Shinano when we're talking about tonnage. I wouldve at least pushed for CVA if I was actually active during those times.

If anything, the fact that people are complaining about CVB now just proves that we are repeating the history again, except with the sides changed. I definitely dont agree with DE, but I dont 100% agree with PF either, thats why EE was proposed as the middle ground in the first place. Its only 1 fucking letter difference too.