Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, etc.
Well I think we all know by now that if you throw several million tons of dirt
and ice at a immobile construct said construct will be effectively
neutralized. Same for missile swarms vs. immobile constructs. Maginot Lines do
not work although they make for nice tours.
I think that we also need to delineate the attack parameters much more
clearly. So far we are assuming a clean attack with no interference, this IMHO
is highly unlikely. I can see where a forward repair
facility (dry-dock) may be caught unawares/lightly defended. But to
pull off an honest to god Pearl Harbor on a "real base" you would need to be
really good. And a real Death Star and "escorts" would probably eat most
strike forces (missile boats or not) for lunch. Actually Death Stars would
probably be the coolest way to take out your opponents bases.
I have not seen many "real" naval bases that did not have air stations and
warship support. You missile boats, or rock tugs need to actually be able to
make the attack before we even worry about PDAF, or Nova
cannons etc. Again IMHO if you are not able to put up that mobile defense,
what the heck are you doing with an immobile base insystem?
If your immobile base is sitting insystem with no supports, it is time to
negotiate or hit the lifepods man!!
While this is a neat topic to get all hot and bothered over, isn't the whole
point of "naval" combat to force your opponent to submit or have his "base"
destroyed??????
> On Fri, 9 May 1997, Jon Holloway wrote:
> I have not seen many "real" naval bases that did not have air
And I have not seen many that come without AA guns/missiles, shore
batteries etc.
If the battle never gets that close, why do they bother?
It's not about being able to put up a mobile defense or not. It's about
whether the game is over after the mobile defense is dealt with or not.
RE: AA batteries etc.
Naturally these are for fighters, cruise missiles and such, "conventional"
attacks. But if you are going to launch wave attacks of cruise missiles with
tactical nukes, or ICBM MIRVS, I think it is "The Last Great Act of Defiance
syndrome". If you are gonna use tactical/strategic nukes the game is
over eh? At least for that base....
And having guarded strategic USN installations I have seen those that have no
AA or other close in defense other than Air Wing assets, or ship support,
unless you count Marines M16s and such as AA..;>
I think the real question is do you want to start a rock chucking war? If so
why would you not just whack the opponents home world? I think I would rather
have battle fleets instead of tug fleets! Seems like more fun.
Semper Fi
Jon
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Base Destruction
Author: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk at MEMCPSMTP
Date: 5/11/97 4:10 AM
> On Fri, 9 May 1997, Jon Holloway wrote:
> I have not seen many "real" naval bases that did not have air
And I have not seen many that come without AA guns/missiles, shore
batteries etc.
If the battle never gets that close, why do they bother?
It's not about being able to put up a mobile defense or not. It's about
whether the game is over after the mobile defense is dealt with or not.
> On Mon, 12 May 1997, Jon Holloway wrote:
> I think the real question is do you want to start a rock chucking war?
IMHO, not so. The question is whether you want to start a war of
stand-off
attacks or not. Chucking rocks is just one way to do it. Plain vanilla
missiles and Nova cannon can be used with the same principles.
> would you not just whack the opponents home world? I think I would
I can agree with this.
> At 12:03 PM 5/11/97 +0300, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
As a Naval Officer, I have never seen a Naval base that did have any of these
weapons you name (AA Guns, Missiles, etc.). Instead they just support the
ships and aircraft present. These resources then engage the enemy away from
the base. It is a waste of resources to tie them up in a static facillity
unless you know the enemy is invading etc.
> On Mon, 12 May 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> As a Naval Officer, I have never seen a Naval base that did
No AA missiles? Really? I'm curious. How do you know the enemy is not
invading? Oh, right, you're probably the only country in the world that can
afford to make that assumption.
Well, I'm no expert on current US military doctrine, but the Finnish coast
defense still relies very heavily on shore batteries. Ok, so these
are closed waters, but defense installations have been outmoded only very
recently. Germans lost a bunch of stuff to Norwegian coastal fortresses.
I guess this boils down to personal preference again: I like the
dreadnought -style gunnery combat while you seem to favor the
missile-slinging "Harpoon in Space" approach.
No harm there, FT is flexible enough to be played both ways.