Me: Now, usually a small craft with one, big shot, say, submunitions pack.
How small?
The naval designation for boat is usually 'can be carried by another craft',
ship cannot.
I always heard that a boat wasn't seaworthy for more than brief stints, while
a ship could stay at sea. In SF terms, usually FTL = ship, no FTL
=
boat. It's what I think of in FT, though I know some small FTL craft have been
called strikeboats.
Basic idea is a lot of little boats that heavy, expensive weopens will be
wasted on. Giant killers.
The_Beast
andy wrote on 05/16/2007 05:50:53 AM:
> Thanks for the replies.
> Me:
Yes, we've been rather inconsistent about this in the past, I admit; maybe we
ought to tie it down, and say that a StrikeSHIP (as we've
used for the new-NSL FT522) is FTL-capable, while a StrikeBOAT is
non-FTL. Aside from that difference, both are the equivalents of WW2
MTBs or current fast attack boats - little craft capable of
delivering a single-shot (or at best a couple of shots) punch that
can seriously hurt a bigger ship. Crewed by very brave (or very expendable)
men and women, as they go "pop" if anyone so much as points a weapon at
them.....
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 5/17/2007 3:42:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jon@gzg.com writes:
Yes, we've been rather inconsistent about this in the past, I admit; maybe we
ought to tie it down, and say that a StrikeSHIP (as we've
used for the new-NSL FT522) is FTL-capable, while a StrikeBOAT is
non-FTL. Aside from that difference, both are the equivalents of WW2
MTBs or current fast attack boats - little craft capable of
delivering a single-shot (or at best a couple of shots) punch that
can seriously hurt a bigger ship. Crewed by very brave (or very expendable)
men and women, as they go "pop" if anyone so much as points a weapon at
them.....
Jon (GZG)
Submariners call their crafts "boats" despite the fact they qualify as ships
in size because historically the first ones were boats. Strikeship crews
may
well follow the same tradition. Aside from that, which would have no game
effect, I like the ship = FTL /boat = non-FTL nomenclature rule.
By the way, despite the WWII movie title, those of us who have crewed modern
"strikeboat" equivalents find the word
"expendable"...........unsettling. :-)
John Rebori ETN2 (Discharged)
USN 1976 - 1982
ex-USS Pegasus PHM-1
************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
John Rebori wrote on 05/17/2007 06:18:49 AM:
***snippage of beloved manufacturer's remarks***
> Submariners call their crafts "boats" despite the fact
I didn't think the nomenclature was entirely voluntary. ;->=
Excellent point about tradition trumping reason, though.
I am rather partial to the distinction based on FTL, though it could just as
well be the difference to a ship with equipment and facilities for extended
intersteller missions, including to the amount of fuel, vs. a unit that could
only pop in, and, if surviving an encounter, pop right back out to home.
*shrug*
> By the way, despite the WWII movie title, those of us who
I have to admit the vision of penal units came to mind briefly. However, I'm
sure the brave part was that Jon intended to have the emphasis.
Throwing very small craft at very big ones, while occasionally successful,
certainly suggested a certain expendability in the minds of the battle
planners. Interesting, that in 'radical' naval thought, there were periods
when small torpedo craft vied with aircraft as to be the future doom of big
ship navies.
The_Beast
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 5/17/07, Doug
> Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
However,
> I'm sure the brave part was that Jon intended to have the emphasis.
I have a brother who used to serve on a missile frigate. They were often
escorts for carrier battle groups. He said with no mincing of words that they
were considered expendable, and that their job was that of the classic
Bonzai Jammers in FT/Honor Harrington.
Of course, very few navies out there at the time he was in could have
seriously threatened a carrier battle group, so the whole thing was pretty
academic in the minds of he and his crew. But I believe they would have
totally offered up their ship to save a missile hit or four on the carrier.
That was, after all, what they were trained to do.
Brave. But expendable. :-/
Mk
> John Rebori wrote on 05/17/2007 06:18:49 AM:
However,
> I'm sure the brave part was that Jon intended to have the emphasis.
I had more "fanatic" than "penal" in mind when I wrote that.... would YOU let
a bunch of convicts fly off in a small fast ship with missiles on board....?
<GRIN>
I suppose you could PSB an AI "kommisar" running the ship's systems, that
won't let them do anything except fly towards the enemy and fire
on them - a bit like the Japanese chaining kamikaze pilots into their
cockpits to prevent them changing their minds... :-/
Hmmm, that sounds a bit like the starting point for a good short
story....!
On a more serious note, in "realistic" fleet terms I'd see the
strikeship/boat concept as more of a defensive than offensive weapon
(in a strategic sense); something to station around worlds that you need to
try and defend but can't spare major fleet units for, on the basis that they
give good "bang for buck" if they survive long enough to attack. I can see
small colonies buying or begging a handful of strikeboats to give them some
small chance of taking out one or two of the assault transports before the
invading force can land.
Using them in an attacking role may be effective tactically, but the losses
they will incur could be very expensive in terms of politics
back home and fleet morale - not that some nations will worry too
much about this..... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> Throwing very small craft at very big ones, while occasionally
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l>On 5/17/07, Doug
Evans
> <<mailto:devans@nebraska.edu>devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
However,
> I'm sure the brave part was that Jon intended to have the emphasis.
So very small trees have ECM effects....?
[Runs and hides from NBS!!]
Jon (GZG)
> Of course, very few navies out there at the time he was in could
When you think about the power projection torpedo boats were always there to
take out heavier vessles quickly and cheaply. They are still used today as
heavy patrol boats with missles and torpedoes.
> --- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> >On 5/17/07, Doug Evans
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> Jon T. wrote:
> Yes, we've been rather inconsistent about this in the past, I admit;
maybe
> we ought to tie it down,
You only ought to tie it down IFF every navy in the GZGverse uses exactly the
same English nomenclature.
However, in any realistic background the various navies *won't* use the same
nomenclatures, so call the ships whatever you like <g>
Later,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWhen I was on the
carrier (CV-66, USS America, '85-'89) during the cold war
we were considered expendable once the airplanes were off the deck. The
expected scenario was 100s of tactical nukes. The small boys in our
CV-BG
would be giving themselves up not to keep the carrier alive, but to keep the
carrier alive long enough to get the planes off the deck with their
retaliatory nukes.
I'm glad those days are gone, It's still a dangerous world but now we worry
about a terrorist destroying a city. In the "good old days" a stupid
politician or military leader could have destroyed big chunks of the world.
Roger
> On 5/17/07, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
> At 4:48 AM -0400 5/18/07, Roger Books wrote:
The expected scenario was 100s of tactical nukes. The small boys in
our CV-BG would be giving themselves up not to keep the carrier alive,
but to keep the carrier alive long enough to get the planes off the deck with
their retaliatory nukes.
Funny thing was the Day After was on last night.
Great shots of SAC and USN forces doing their drills for a Nuclear conflict.
One set of shots showed phoenix missiles being assembled and rolled out to the
waiting Tomcats. One weapon specifically designed to aid in that potential
nuclear conflict. Shoot the Bears and Backfires before they shoot the carrier.