In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970326113257.30404A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
> If you want to play "Harpoon in Space", just disallow all batteries
...and don't forget to disallow any speed above, say, 3"/turn, so,
Yes, Virginia, you will be hit by the missile, and No, there is no worthwhile
concept of maneouver.
> Oh, and disallow "C-batts as PDAFs" while you're at it.
Come now, didn't a Royal Navy vessel get a kill on an Exocet missile
with her 114mm gun? All naval guns are dual-purpose.
...and for that special Harpoon flavour, remember to over-rate all
American technology... Wave that flag.
I've made the Modern Naval comparison with FT before (missiles, say,
could be smaller and more vulnerable to point-defence, so mandating
great waves of missiles to overwhelm the defences) but at the day's end Big
Guns are More Fun. Star Wars has big guns, right?
All the best war cliches come from WWII, 'cos they made so many war films.
These cliches spill into Star Wars, Star Trek and so forth, and so into SF.
Classification: Prologue: Epilogue:
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger Gerrish/UK/IBM on 27-03-97
02:56 PM
> In message <5060100000160492000002L022*@MHS> Roger Gerrish writes:
I don't think this is true, although it may have been wishful thinking by the
Navy. I believe at least one Exocet was decoyed away from warships. Either
way, the point stands. All Naval guns
are dual-purpose anti-aircraft and anti-surface.
Note that an American warship, that was equipped with a phalanx CIWS, was hit
by an Exocet missile in the Persian Gulf. This suggests that there isn't a fat
lot you can do about shooting
them down, even with a specialised system... perhap FT's 1-in-6
has that part correct.
> Roger Gerrish wrote:
Yah they do! It's called the U.S. WW2 BATTLESHIP! :-) (It's the only
class of ship left that can absorb a hit by an Exocet without
scratching the paint!) 8-)
> Yah they do! It's called the U.S. WW2 BATTLESHIP! :-) (It's the only
Actually, I think it would scratch the paint, but thats what Bosun's Mates are
for:)
Maybe we need some weapons that do damage versus number of damage rows. That
way, bigger ships would have an extra advantage.
+++++++++++++++
+------------+ +----------------+
> In a message dated 3/27/97 9:25:15 AM, you wrote:
> ...and don't forget to disallow any speed above, say, 3"/turn, so,
This is not entirely true. On VLS boats, maneuver matters little. On
non-VLS with box launchers, which orientation you are to the target
makes a great deal of difference...
> ...and for that special Harpoon flavour, remember to over-rate all
Still take a 688i against an Akula or Sierra any day. It doesn;t matter who's
noisiest, it I can spot you and lob a 48 at you from twice as far away,
then... score one for the US. Still, I do see what you're saying.
> David Brewer writes:
@:) Note that an American warship, that was equipped with a phalanx @:) CIWS,
was hit by an Exocet missile in the Persian Gulf. This @:) suggests that there
isn't a fat lot you can do about shooting them
@:) down
My understanding was that the phalanx system was not operational at the time.
This may or may not be true and it also may or may not have anything to do
with my further understanding that during trials of the phalanx system the
device was activated and immediately targetted the
rotating radar on the mast of the ship and blew it away - prompting
captains to leave the system deactivated except when they were ordered to turn
it on. Anyone able to confirm or deny?
As for my opinion on FT's handling of missiles, shooting them down on a 6 is
ok, but it seems like fighters should be able to engage them.
> At 6:01 AM -0800 3/28/97, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
As I recall from the Stark incident, the CIWS was out of arc and unable to
engage the missile.
I agree, to each his own.
If you went "modern" then tactical maneuver does go away (and this would
be boring in FT although perhaps fun at an operational/campaign level).
But with big guns maneuver IS a factor. I still think with the current FT
rules big guns win out in an unbalanced way.
Paul
----------
From: David Brewer [SMTP:db-ft@westmore.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 1997 6:10 PM
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: "Harpoon in Space"
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970326113257.30404A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
...and don't forget to disallow any speed above, say, 3"/turn, so, Yes,
Virginia, you will be hit by the missile, and No, there is no worthwhile
concept of maneouver.
> Oh, and disallow "C-batts as PDAFs" while you're at it.
Come now, didn't a Royal Navy vessel get a kill on an Exocet missile
with her 114mm gun? All naval guns are dual-purpose.
...and for that special Harpoon flavour, remember to over-rate all
American technology... Wave that flag. I've made the Modern Naval comparison
with FT before (missiles, say,
could be smaller and more vulnerable to point-defence, so mandating
great waves of missiles to overwhelm the defences) but at the day's end Big
Guns are More Fun. Star Wars has big guns, right? All the best war cliches
come from WWII, 'cos they made so many war films. These cliches spill into
Star Wars, Star Trek and so forth, and so into SF.
AAH! No! Please! They don't need anymore advantages! Also, one Exocet into an
Iowa classes superstructure would probably be a mission kill (the ship would
be out of it for awhile).
Paul
> At 02:41 AM 3/28/97 GMT, David Brewer wrote:
We have to remember two important facts about the Stark Incident: 1. The CIWS
was not armed. 2. The TAO did not orient the ship to unmask the battery. 3.
The crew was not ready to respond to Iraq as a threat.