On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:51:17 -0800 (PST)
> =?iso-8859-1?q?Michael=20Robert=20Blair?= <pellinoire@yahoo.com> writes:
As it should be. <grin>
> If anything most starship games do not give small
Yeah, anybody know just how many carriers were involved in this strike?
> I know I am biased, I don't like fighters - I would go
Well, it depends on your basis for the game model - One modern CV with
full complement should be able to sink multiple Kirov, Missouri's etc. But
then that's hardly a fair (or even reasonable) model. I like the 'Extended
Range Air Force' model for SF space war myself but yes if this is WW2 in space
then strike craft (fighters) are over rated.
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
Hello Everyone: An interesting conversation about airstrikes and other stuff.
Lets set the record straight on a couple of things.
The attack on the Musashi (Yamato sister ship) did take roughly 12 (some say
up to 20) torpedo hits and roughly 20 bomb hits. That the ship survived only
to be sunk due to a sharp turn by the captain came as a shock to the American
analyst. Henceforth attacks on large Japanese ships with torpedoes were
directed to be against one side only so as to capsize the ship (ie what
happened in the Yamato's case) The Japanese did not have the proximity fuses
that the US had at hat time. Thier AA was relatively ineffective compared to
ours. Note there is an interesting article in Science and Technology magazine
about the development of these fuzes if you care to read about it. Had the
Japanese ahd proximiity fuzes the battle would have been much bloodier. As for
the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal that occurred on the night of 13th of
Nov 1942 Several things happened. First the fight was a bar room brawl with
ships cutting infront of, behind and besides each other. There is still some
discussion on this subject of what causes the Japanes battleship the mortal
wound that slowed it down. There is a good write up about it and analysis see
the following
http://www.combinedfleet.com/atully03.htm
The ability of one modern CV (or CVN) to take out multiple Kirov or Missouris
is a matter of conjecture. They may be able to mission kill (ie render
inpotent) the ship due to topside distruction of radar, optics and comm.
However the ability to completely punch through 12 to 16 inchs of specially
designed armor is a matter of great concern. If the warheads were shaped
charges then maybe but general explosives, I doubt it. Unless the torpedoes
are designed to explode under the hull the BB are a real tough customer. One
of the problems the US Navy found out about in the Gulf while escorting
tankers (before Desert Storm) was the inability of 5inch guns to really due
much structural damage to oil platforms and other tough structures. Now a
couple salvos from 16 inch guns is another story. What does this mean for
traveller, good question. For heavy armored ships fighters have to blast
through the armor (while taking PDF fire). Torpedo fighters will punch thorugh
but get only one shot.
Good points John. I'd like to add a couple of more points about 2nd
Guadalcanal. The Japanese capital ship that was sunk was Hiei, one of a class
of four battlecruisers reconstructed as fast battleships in the late 1930's.
She defnitely didn't have a "modern" (for 1942) battleship scale of
protection, even allowing for the extensive refit. Secondly, 2nd Guadalcanal
was indeed a "barroom brawl". Initial contact (and open fire), despite U.S
radar and the vaunted Japanese optics, occurred at about 3000 yards or so, at
which range the U.S. 8inch guns were at least theoretically capable of
penetrating the Hiei's relative thin main belt and turret armor. Finally, the
air attack threat was sustained air attack from the SBD's based on Henderson
Field, not just a single carrier strike. Despite all of that, it can well be
argued that Hiei was lost as much due to the indecision of her captain as to
her battle damage. Inter alia it should be noted that most of the "easy"
capital ship kills in WWII (Royal Oak, Hood, Barham, Arizona for instance)
were obsolete or obsolescent vessels. Modern capital ships (Scharnhorst,
Bismarck, etc.) proved extremely tough and difficult to sink, whether by air
attack, torpedo, or surface gunfire. USS North Carolina, for instance, was
able to maintain 25 knots AFTER being hit by a Japanese submarine torpedo
under the Number 1 turret. The only modern battleship that was an "easy" kill
that I can think of was the Italian Roma, sunk by a single (or possibly 2)
hits from a 1400lb guided bomb which exploded her magazine.
[quoted original message omitted]
Robert: I would agree with you about most of the battleships sunk during WWII
were of the older nature. However there were a couple that were of modern
design. Besides the two Japanese BB and the German Bismarck there was also the
Britsih Prince of Whales. Her and the Repulse (an older ship that had been
reconstructed if I remember correctly) were attached by most land based
Japanese naval plans. The POW was a modern ship that took several hits. One of
those hits shut down electrical supply espeically to AA and radar. The other
hit that doomed her was a hit near the propeller shaft (#4 if memory
iscorrect). The crew coupld not disengage the shaft from the engine in time to
prevent if from opening up the seals in several places which caused
progressive flooding. The actual number of plans in the attack was about 88 if
memory is correct. An interesting note about one of the American BBs (Iowa
class). It seems there was a dent left in th armor following a Japanese attack
that was never repaired properly. Sometime later (and we are talking 70s or 80
here) some mavy repair men used bondo or something similar to fill in the
dent. The captain of the ship was almost livid at them doing that. "It dates
back to WWII!" was one comment. Jexx, these brass, don't appreciate hard work.
OBTrav comment. Every now and then I get a minature that hs a deformity. When
asked about that I usually invent something on the spot like "Of, that was
damaged done to no critical parts of the ship during tthe last battle. This
was rushed here due to the severity of the problem." This also works for ships
that have slightly tilted pieces that were glued on not quit perfect.
John W. Fox
> Good points John. I'd like to add a couple of more points about 2nd
Finally,
> the air attack threat was sustained air attack from the SBD's based on
"The only modern battleship that was an "easy" kill that I can think of was
the Italian Roma, sunk by a single (or possibly 2) hits from a 1400lb guided
bomb which exploded her magazine."
That glide bomb was Fritz X and "was especially intended for attacking heavily
armored ships." The Fritz X also heavily damaged the Battleship Italia. On
September 16, 1943; the Fritz X was used to attack "the British Battleship
Warspite at Salerno and damaged it so heavily that it had to be towed to Malta
and was out of action for six months." What brought an end to the terror of
the Fritz X was that the allies captured a few in Italy,
and developed jammers. Otherwise D-Day would have been a lot worse...
Fritz X stats: length: 3262 mm fuselage dia.: 562 mm wingspan: 1352 mm total
weight: 1575 kg
explosive weight: 320 kg of amatol
velocity: 343 mps
The Warspite was a Queen Elizabeth class BB. She dispaced 33,000 tons and had
8 x 15 inch guns. This ship was laid down in 1912 to 1913, but was modernized
before WWII.
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:51:17 -0800 (PST)
writes:
> >To put it very bluntly.
Hi Folks,
just a couple of brief thoughts re the battleship thread...
<snip lots>
> The ability of one modern CV (or CVN) to take out multiple Kirov or
> inpotent) the ship due to topside distruction of radar, optics and
<snip lots more - interesting stuff...>
While modern missiles (harpoon, etc) and long-range naval guns might not
take out one of those battleships with their heavy armour, modern torpedoes
might very well. The Janes website
http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/juws/juws010202_01_n.shtm
l
has an interesting set of pictures of the Australian navy testing one of their
current torpedoes (the US Mk 48 ADCAP) on an older ship, from an "over the
horizon" shot. The torpedo explodes under the center of the hull, and the ship
was cut in half. Certainly this isn't a battleship, but still... A modern
torpedo packs a whallop.
Also, there are a lot of air- and sea- launched weapons other than
Harpoon type and size... Imagine being hit by a Kelt? Chances are you'd be
able to shoot the thing down, but the Soviet Kelt missiles were *huge*. Make a
big mess if one hit a modern ship. And then, of course, the warhead could be a
baby nuke, at which point things are academic.
What about the sinking of the Admiral Belgrano during the Falklands? That
was a late WWII-era heavy, wasn't it? How many shots did it take from
the British submarine that attacked it? Certainly wasn't as many as were
needed to sink the Yamato. I thought only one or two.
And with laser guided armour piercing 2000 pound bombs and stealthy
aircraft (manned or unmanned) guiding them - a battleship would be a
sitting duck, I'd think. Same old problem - I build heavy armour, you
build a bigger gun, I build heavier armour, you build an even bigger gun. But
now, as they say, modern conventional weapons can defeat any practical
thickness of armour.
My 0.02.
********************************************
> "Imre A. Szabo" wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
If the Kirov is allowed to defend itself, a single carrier airwing will have a
lot of trouble as the SA-N-6 missile has a long enough range to launch
before the harpoons, the Kirov class has at least one missile per harpoon on
the carrier, and it has plenty of other missiles and multibarreled cannon,
too.
Against the Missouri, a single laser guided bunker buster dropped from
an A-6
will either detonate on the water side of the keel plate (bad)[if thirty feet
of steel reinforced concrete doesn't stop them, a few decks of 3 inch steel
has no chance], or in the main magazines or engineering spaces (worse), and
there is nothing that the Missouri can do to prevent it. Loaded with four such
bombs,
the single A-6 has a reasonable chance of sinking the entire Iowa class
of battleships in a single sortie, if the ships were in the same formation.
If
they were positioned like one of the Baker tests, a single modern carrier
airwing could sink every battleship built in this century, as their air
defences are not up to the task of dealing laser guided, bunkerbusting bombs,
let alone the aircraft that drop them.
> While modern missiles (harpoon, etc) and long-range naval guns might
http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/juws/juws010202_01_n.shtm
l
> has an interesting set of pictures of the Australian navy testing one
Make a
> big mess if one hit a modern ship. And then, of course, the warhead
That
> was a late WWII-era heavy, wasn't it? How many shots did it take from
Interestingly, in, at least earlier versions, of the Harpoon Naval War game,
it did take a few missile hits to sink a Missouri class Battleship, which is
considerably more than it took to sink every other kind of ship.
So I think a battleship can take a beating, but it still needs its escorts if
its to survive. You use the space on the platform for your heavy guns, and use
space on smaller, more expendable ships for things like Point Defense systems.
Also, smaller ships are faster (again, saving space for guns and armor on the
BB) so they can chase around all those ships carrying needle beams (or, if in
WWI torpedoes) and prevent the little guys from stripping off all your
Firecon.
George
> John Fox wrote:
> Robert:
The Prince of Wales probably had more than enough bouyancy to remain afloat,
but the
> --- adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
Yamato and Musashi were sunk by ordnance whose performance was not that
spectacular. Even ordinary bomb hits and near misses inflicted considerable
damage. As long as you have the means to pile it on, your target will
eventually sink.
> <snip lots more - interesting stuff...>
Yes, the Soviet missiles' warheads were deadly,
capable of sinking or mission-killing 10,000ton
cruisers with single hits. One test of a live AS-1 ASM
(with a standard shaped charge warhead) in 1960 or so
produced a clear penetration through a Sverdlov-class
cruiser's hull, including penetration of its 100mm armor belt on the way out.
> What about the sinking of the Admiral Belgrano
That's right, which is why there are so few armored ships being built right
now, except for local
anti-fragmentation protection.
> Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
My FA-18s would hit the deck before entering SA-N-6 missile range and
close
to within 50-60 km before unloading their harpoons. The harpoons would
come over the horizon in range of the SA missiles, but not the attack craft.
We've played this out using the Harpoon rules and the Kirov ends up a bloody
mess.
Not that I mind reading all of the great input into this conversation, but I
am curious. What does this have to do with Full Thrust?
Are we to assume W.W.II or year 2000 levels of weapon vs. armor performance
will not change in the next 200 years? Has the change from W.W.II to today
been so small that it would apply to the space based warfare of Full Thrust?
I am asking because I am still new to the GZG family of games and have not
read the Full Thrust rules yet. From my ignorant point of view it seems that
you'all are making these assumptions so I want to be clear about it.
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:06:37 -0500 "Robert W. Eldridge"
> <bob_eldridge@mindspring.com> writes:
<snip>. The only modern
> battleship that
This is your idea of an "easy" kill? <big Blink>
Okay, who thinks (if anyone) that fighters are costed (is that a word)
correctly?
How do Fighters compare versus the smaller craft? Is a squadron of torp
fighters likely to waste a light cruiser?
Even Worse <grin> we cannot (try over on the sfconsim list for a BIG archive
of these type threads) agree on what 'model' the game should be based on...
Pre-WW1?
WW2?
Modern Naval?
and the minority models:
Air Force in Space
today's Space Command extrapolated (and given vehicles, right now they are
essentially 'eyes only'. Yes, I said essentially, I can neither confirm or
deny...)
Plus there is all that detritus from Star Trek, Star Wars, Baby-lon 5,
Japanese anime'....
Hey, I'm not alone! I'm not the only person around who has serious
reservations about fighters in FT!
Unhappily, I am the only person in my gaming group who thinks so... I
figure fighters should cost perhaps twice what they do now; and/or do
damage like PDS does - a fighter could thus kill one other fighter on a
5,
two on a 6, and do ONE point of damage to a ship on a 6 only.
I've got no real problems with the torpedo fighter variants - they're
powerful, but it's all one shot power. Ditto dedicated space-superiority
fighters, which can't damage ships but kill fighters better - can't
remember the proper term for them...
Yes, I'm a big-ship fan - I figure ships and fleets give a much better
game than 'I've got a horde of fighters that are going to run up and mob your
stuff, while my three clamshell carriers lurk at the very back corner of the
table doing nothing at all after launching."
If you want a historical model, I like Jutland - no aircraft at all - or
maybe, just maybe 'Hunt the Bismark', with a few aircraft alongside
conventional ships. I can't stand the Midway model in an FT game - it's
no fun, and the ability to use actual tactics is limited.
Talking about 'realism' in a game with FTL & energy weapons in deep space
is a bit silly - it's a matter of the type of game we want, not
'realism'.
My $0.02,
The problem with all of this is that there is an analogy being made between
current or WW2 aircraft and surface warships to space fighters and ships. I
personally don't like using fighters, mostly because I view them as being too
"unrealistic" (if you'll forgive the use of that word). Aircracft have an
advantage over surface craft since they:
1. have the higher ground (you have to fight gravity to get at them) 2. move
through a less viscous medium (air is easier to part than water)
Now, #1 means that your shots at the aircraft have to fight gravity while the
aircraft's weapons (like bombs) are assisted by gravity.
Item #2 leads to the fact that aircraft can (and often must) move much faster
than surface craft.
In space, these differences don't exist between fighters and ships. The
only thing I can think of for PSB is the Starfire approach--fighters use
completely different propulsion systems (ones that aren't conducive to use
on larger vessels)--but even that one's a bit weak.
So, for the above reaon, I favor the WWI analogy. Fighters can just be
considered to be equivalent to torpedo boats. Which is why I liked the fact in
FT2.0 that big ships could move faster than fighters fairly easily (just
couldn't expect to maneuver very well at those speeds). With the increased
fighter speeds in FT/FB, this becomes more difficult. Oh well.
Rob
[quoted original message omitted]
The Admiral Belgrano was a pre-World War II Brooklyn class light
cruiser, that admittedly was armored on a scale with contemporary heavy
cruisers, but
substantially less well armored than the war-built Baltimore class heavy
cruisers.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Jon Davis wrote:
> Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
I think you meant 50-60 nm as 50-60 km means that some F-18's (even on
the deck) have already been shot down after crossing the radar horizon
Your opponent forgot about blip enhance, and you forgot that you have to find
the target with your radar before you can start to launch harpoons; unless you
do a
bearing-only-launch, and you still need to know where the target is.
The F-18's
searching for me will give me enough time to get my helicopters in the air (I
think
the Kirov carries four). If you do a bearing-only-launch, four out of
seven of the harpoons will uselessy try to shoot down helicopters and ignore
the Kirov entirely.
If you do the whole flight on the deck, or just above it, the F-18's
won't have the
> If you do the whole flight on the deck, or just above it, the F-18's
Actually, I alway prefered the Soviet Auto 130. A very nice dual gun on the a
latter Kirov's with unually high rate of fire and good range (for 5" pee
shooter). Buy the way, all of the Kirov's have 8 x 30mm gatling guns, plus
2 x SAN-4 for shooting down missiles, so you will neet a lot to get by
it's surge capacity. And then there's defensive EW...
Currently, I doubt the US could afford the missiles and smart bombs to hunt a
Kirov. Not the cost, rather the missiles themselves. Each of the services are
billions of dollars short of munitions, with smart bombs and guided missiles
being in accute short supply...
> Against the Missouri, a single laser guided bunker buster dropped from
If
> they were positioned like one of the Baker tests, a single modern
This A-6 will need EW support, Tanker support, Fighter cover, etc.
Then, your optomistic projection for 100% hits assumes that the target has no
ability to defend itself. No, I'm not talking the A-6, but the laser
guided bomb. Just because the Iraqi's are stupid enough to be bombed by smart
bombs for 10 years and not realize (or read un-classified western
defense journals) that the best defence is to go after the seeker on the bomb,
data link on the missiles, etc., does no mean everyone is that stupid. If you
take all four of the Iowa class out and park them and drop laser guided bombs
on them without allowing them to manuever, and without modern EW defence
including the ability disrput the incoming bomb's guidence, yes you could sink
them all if you get critical hits. But that is not a fair test. Granted,
shooting sitting ducks does occasionally happen. The best example of this is
Pearl Harbor. Note that most of the damage came from the first strike. Why?
The Jap pilots weren't being shoot at (for the most part).
I think that having these different models to choose from is good. Helps to
give a fleet a "feel". Then you can tweak it to make an interesting
fleet/nation. Very cool. By all means try to be as original as you
can.
Just so long as we are not "all scifi is really the mid-to-late 20th
century with a veneer of scifi on top". I had a "conversation" with one
promenent space game designer who thought this. Really annoying...I'll leave
the identification of those two games and their designer to others.
Basically I just don't feel like getting into a "...my widget defeats your
gismo...ect". Round and round,ect." Such games are useally overly complex.
So in my opinion, using a "real world model" to base your sci-fi fleets
on,
is good, just remember -- we are playing a game, not modeling
reality...or you might as well be playing a navel game.
Donald Hosford
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> Even Worse <grin> we cannot (try over on the sfconsim list for a BIG
> Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
The F-18's
> searching for me will give me enough time to get my helicopters in the
You are correct. I meant nm. It has been at least six years since we played.
The harpoons were launched via bearing-only-launch and were then
allocated against the targets the seeker heads saw when they went active. The
Kirov task force consisted
of the Kirov and a number of escorts, both anti-air and anti-submarine.
The Kirov group had been detected via other search assets, so the strike group
knew
where to go generally. The attack included both anti-ship missiles as
well as HARM missiles against the Kirov's search and firecontrol radars. It
was the air group
carying the HARMs that had to endure the SA-N-6 missile fire.
> "Imre A. Szabo" wrote:
In Red Storm Rising, it was a Norwegian diesel-electric submarine that
managed to kill a Kirov when it had sortied. But only after the Russian
surface
group had begun to prosecute the American nuclear sub contact.
> Not that I mind reading all of the great input into this
Most science fiction space ship war games have their roots in Naval Warfare.
Therefore looking at the past, helps us to "construct" the future.
George
> of this is Pearl Harbor. Note that most of the damage came from the
That's not quite true. American forces were returning fire within a minute of
the attack.
Its not generally talked about, but the Japanese took quite a few casualties
in that attack.
George
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 23:29:34 -0500, Richard and Emily Bell
> <rlbell@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> So I suspect that the actual hunting of an
This is, of course, assuming a non-nuclear option. Going nuclear has
some major ramifications, but it has been suggested that going nuclear in a
naval engagement is less risky than in a ground engagement. The chance of
escalation is a bit less than if you used tactical nukes in a ground battle.
A lot would depend on how bad you wanted to take out that Kirov, but it can be
done a lot more easily than with a flock of Harpoons. Funny enough, FT doesn't
have anything equivalent to nukes...
<decloak>
Just getting in my two cents. (8-)
> stranger wrote:
Though, as a word of warning, one must be also prepared for the danger of
using analogies from the past that don't hold. For example, in FT, the
mechanics do not allow ships to gain defensive bonuses for either size or
maneuverability. Thus, a battle between a DD squadron and a BB would fight
very differently on the FT tabletop then in WW II.
When you prepare for war, make sure you aren't preparing for the last one.
*shrug*
<cloak>
JGH
> "Imre A. Szabo" wrote:
> This A-6 will need EW support, Tanker support, Fighter cover, etc.
Then,
> your optomistic projection for 100% hits assumes that the target has
If the A-6's need fighter and EW support, they are not going to bother
shooting at the battleship, it will be sunk in the mopping up strike after the
carrier and guided missile escorts are sunk.
Except for the Iowa's, no battleship has the capability to fire on an
A-6 at
all, and even the Iowa has problems. If the Japanese had smart bombs at Pearl
Harbor, there would not have been any follow-on strikes.
The A-6 has enough performance to lob the bombs in from outside the
envelope of
the 5"/38 area air defence batteries of the Iowa's, and even 37 knots is
dead slow to a laser guided bomb. If we decided to save some money and by
using more
fuel and less smart bombs, more than one A-6 lobs sticks of iron bombs
(while painting the target with lasers anyways), until the Phalanxes stop
working, and the last plane drops the LGB to detonate under the keel, between
the funnels.
The Iowas were probably a poor choice of example, as they were (before being
decommed) fitted with a minimal, but still useful, point defence suite. Be
that as it may, some mavericks will take care of the 5" guns and phalanx,
clearing the way for the LGB.
The reason that current navies lack a ready means of sinking a battleship is
the complete absence of battleships. The battleships are gone because there is
a lack of any useful purpose for them.
Fighters in full thrust are "genre weapons". Real space fighters will suffer
from the problem that they are not twenty times as fast as the target, and
spacecraft do not have to float (the constraint that limited the protection
available to battleships). The liabilities of fighters are not modelled in FT.
In historical, wet-navy battles, small aircraft have the ability to
scout at
In message <9upkat49ho90usbidptg89hfhkvuv1st2o@4ax.com>
> Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
> A lot would depend on how bad you wanted to take out that Kirov, but
Well, if you want 'em - you design 'em :-)
Thinking about it, a 'common' scale I see quoted for FT is the 15 min
turn, 1000 km mu one - under which, a Phalon plasma bolt is almost as
big as the Earth! :-) (IIRC, Earth diameter ~12,700 km, Phalon PB
diameter = 12 mu = 12,000 km). Then its a good scale if you want a planet on
the board.
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:19:38 GMT, Charles Taylor
> <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk> wrote:
> Well, if you want 'em - you design 'em :-)
I didn't say I wanted them! *L*
I don't usually design FT weapons, unless it's to duplicate a genre weapon.
Weapon design is difficult if you don't want to create something that's
unbalanced. I like to run with a fairly "standard" game.
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:26:10 -0500 Jon Davis <davisje@nycap.rr.com>
writes: snip>
> You are correct. I meant nm. It has been at least six years since we
There are several scenarios in the Computer Harpoon game I used to have
on my computer with the Kirov. {Then I bought 486 with no 51/4"
drive,
discovered I couldn't load Harpoon Challenger Pack (5 1/4" disk and
hence couldn't load Harpoon Designer's Series II because of no
Harpoon...mental
tears flowed - I had made 3 1/2" back ups but they failed!!!!)}
Very Nasty foes but a decent CVBG who can get a SSN or air asset contact (land
based preferably) can make the play and sink the CPU run Kirov
group (or at least the Kirov, after peeling off escorts - the stupid AI
doesn't move escorts around to fill holes...) much more often then I could get
the Kirov TF to sink the CV. When I played Red (and I never considered a
scenario 'learned' until I could duplicate victory from both sides multiple
times) the CVBG kept dancing outside my range and literally ran my SAM's into
exhaustion shooting down Harpoons until
enough HARM's and/or lost escorts opened a hole. Then it was time to
abandon the mission or lose the Kirov. But for some reason it always the
Slavas who tripped me up if I didn't keep them in the equation...
Of course does a CPU AI count as a real opponent once you have played the
scenario over a dozen times? 8^) People are so much sneakier and
unpredictable...
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:10:27 -0800 (PST) Brian Burger
> <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> writes:
The one game I saw them the carrier delayed entry until late in the game
launched and then the torp fighters wasted a cruiser, IIRC, and the standard
fighters were still chipping away when it was determined that the scenario
should be adjucated.
> Unhappily, I am the only person in my gaming group who thinks so... I
Especially if they are supposed to be down scaled 'C' (in FT terms) beam
weapons.
> I've got no real problems with the torpedo fighter variants - they're
Well, WW2 and even modern CV's don't try and get engaged in missile/gun
fire situations.
> If you want a historical model, I like Jutland - no aircraft at all -
Well, I was not talking 'realism' as much as how the rules model the game
- like those books "based on historical events" shall we say.
> My $0.02,
That's cool. I figure those one and two needle beam only specialist boats are
'fighter enough' for me.
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:56:56 -0500 "stranger" <stranger@cvn.net> writes:
<snip>
> This is an interesting topic considering the History Channel was
Again, to harp on, the basis assumption I make (but don't agree is the most
likely to be the future 'reality') is that this is a naval model.
> For the first part, I think the FT game, and even the "official"
Agreed even if the fighters (in terms of cost, equipping, manpower and
training) are *way* too cheap, IMO.
> For the second part, the reason for all the little ships to exist.
Two quite excellent items. Your analysis is quite astute. I think a game where
there is an imbalance towards only heavy ships is 'unrealistic' in games terms
(See, Brian, I am using the term in 'game' parameters because I agree that in
'real world' terms we have no idea how the 'real' battles, IF they ever
*could* occur, would play out. I agree with you about realism in far future
space battles being a conceit we use to make a good game.)
> An earlier discussion said the big ships in FT are truly the queen of
And this justifies building and using the escorts/cruisers to keep the
enemy honest. It doesn't matter so much if you lose a flotilla or two of
LC/DDH's to send his BC/BB/etc. to the shipyards far away for a year...
> In my mind, those are two good reasons for the existence of small
Sure, a 'patrol' SDN???
> An interesting thing to note in both WWI and WWII is that Navies were
Suer, imagine a campaign where you only had one flotilla of BDN/SDN to
start with - every loss without a *proportionately* great loss to your
foe(s) would be eventually defeating.
> Anyways, just some random thought on the subject...
Nice analysis, George!
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:30:37 -0500 "stranger" <stranger@cvn.net> writes:
Yes, I must admit I love that aspect. It lets me slip my Starguard nations in
among my DS2 nations and blended everything in my Cotu campaign almost
seamlessly under FT, DS2 and using Starguard instead of Stargrunt...
> Plus there is all that detritus from Star Trek, Star Wars, Baby-lon
Agreed that they made it all possible. But we had Science Fiction war games
before some of those appeared, just not as rich a selection. The detritus
comment was that the vast selection of incompatible formats with no common
melding framework always kept me on the fringe because I never knew what might
be 'canon' in any group and hated the idea of buying, painting, and mounting
only to move and find my figures were not those used in the next city.
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:29:35 -0500 Jon Davis <davisje@nycap.rr.com>
writes: <snip>
> In Red Storm Rising, it was a Norwegian diesel-electric submarine that
Actually no. On page 299 (in my copy) and The US SSN is stalking the Kirov TF
and it reads:
"...They'd nearly determined the range for three of the escorts but not the
Kirov yet...Okay, the Captain thought, things are pretty much going
as planned----- "Conn, sonar, torpedoes in the water, bearing
three-two-zero. Signal fait. Say again, torpedoes in the water...A
series of three bright spokes appeared right on the bearing to the Kirov" Then
on page 300 "...Skipper, it looks like somebody just got inside on them and
launched an attack. He got three solid hits on the Kirov..." Then the American
slips in and launches some missiles, runs for his life from the very angry
Russians, and on page 360 the skipper of the Norwegian boat is identified as
the killer of the Kirov.
Not my very most favorite part of the book but definitely in the top ten
maight make top three. My favorite is on page 621 aboard the USS Nassu.
I would assume, as have most SF writers, that any missile being launched is a
nuke. There would no reason not to use them in space.
> I would assume, as have most SF writers, that any missile being
This is a dilemma that has had me flustered for ages. There is no reason not
to use nuclear weaponry, and yet FT dreadnoughts can take dozens of SM hits
before being destroyed. If each SM carries a nuke, then surely one hit would
destroy any ship? I mean, what are these vessels built out of that allows them
tos survive 30 missile hits intact (if barely)? The way I see it, SMs
are non-nuclear. The reason nobody uses nukes in space or ground warfare
(except in desparation) is that it is illegal. I can imagine the UN being very
strict on this issue, and I always got the impression that the UNSC was the
most advanced and the most powerful human space navy, certainly more powerful
than any one national navy. By my reckoning any use of nukes gets a swift and
brutal reprisal in the form of sanctions and blockades enforced by
the UN - they may not be powerful enough to stop colonial warfare
altogether, but I reckon they should have no trouble imposing enough economic
loss on a nation that nukes just aren't worth it anyway.
This is just how I deal with nukes, other people may have different
solutions. One thing's for sure - no war with widespread nuclear weapons
is in any way interesting. It's just a case of who can deliver the greatest
megatonnage fastest - what's interesting about that??
> Matthew Smith wrote:
> > I would assume, as have most SF writers, that any missile being
Nukes are not nearly as powerful as you describe them. Wet navy ships must
float, yet they are still highly resistant to nuclear blasts. Very few of the
vessels consumed in the A-bomb tests actually sank from the blast
effects. This does not mean that they could still fight, or the crew would
have survived, merely that they were not sunk, one cruiser was pulled up into
the mushroom cloud, and dropped several thousand feet into the ocean, but
(although any crew would have been VERY dead) it still floated after bobbing
back to the surface. In space, you lack the direct concussive effects of an
atmospheric detonation, so nuclear warheads are less damaging than expected.
Also, space is very large,
In message <5eilatk1u98egu068ob836nn1cj9epg7gv@4ax.com>
> Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:19:38 GMT, Charles Taylor
You've probably noticed that I get a little carried away designing new
stuff - most of is is inspired by some 'genre' system I've seen or read
about somewhere.
As for the FT equivalent of 'nukes' - such as planet-crackers, supernova
bombs, etc. well, I think (IMHO) this are best handled as scenario
specialities -stop the planet killer before it gets into firing position
- or you loose (Have a look at the Vorlon Planet-Cracker Beam in B5 Wars
for example).
But standard is god for most games.
> I wrote:
> > This is a dilemma that has had me flustered for ages. There is no
Richard & Emily Bell replied:
> Nukes are not nearly as powerful as you describe them. Wet navy ships
This
> does not mean that they could still fight, or the crew would have
I stand corrected! Still, what I said above applies equally to surface use,
and explains why surface warfare is still necessary. Without something to stop
nukes being used, what point is there in conducting a surface campaign? You
might say that troops can survive on a planet underground while the
bombardment is carried out, but this is assuming that troops are all that
there is on the planet. If there was actually anything valuable there, such as
habitable land or a working population, all anyone would need to do to gain
control of a planet would be to threaten them with nuclear attack. They would
have no choice but to agree (what would you do if you were faced with
impending nuclear doom??). Therefore, to make land warfare viable in the
future you need SOMETHING to prevent nukes from being anything other than a
desperation weapon. At least I think so :-).
> Matthew Smith wrote:
> I stand corrected! Still, what I said above applies equally to surface
In this situation, mutually assured destruction works, just like it worked in
the Cold War. If you threaten to nuke a world, they won't believe you; unless
you have previously nuked a world. If you have previously nuked a world, you
declared open season on civilian populations (including your own) with no bag
limit. Stopping an amphibious landing is easy. Dropping a million marines on a
world is hard to do stealthily and only landing two hundred thousand is worse
than not trying. Stopping every stealthed corvette with a single crust buster
is impossible, and the attempt will divert all of your resources. If cloaking
is allowed, there is no credible defence against the surprise immolation of
your cities.
I suspect that the UN does not threaten nuclear terrorists with sanctions,
they launch a retalitory strike that exterminates the offending nation state.
While
terribly draconian, this ends age old tensions the simple way (the other way
is
assimilation), has a zero rate of re-offending, and presents a strong
deterrent.
There is also the problem that threatening to nuke a colony from orbit is
difficult if you really need the real estate. The population may call your
bluff, or wait until you occuppy the place and start a guerrilla war. The
population knows it is a bluff, because if you did not need the real estate,
you would have nuked them from orbit and passed on. They know that you REALLY
need the colony because you attacked it in the first place (never fight a
battle that you do not need to win). If you have to utter the threat, it can
only be a bluff.
I actually see the more credible threat going the other way: "You pay us for
our products, or we nuke our own colony". The invaders will need a labor force
> Matthew Smith wrote:
> I stand corrected! Still, what I said above applies equally to surface
We've had nukes on this planet for some 56 years, and so far only 2
have been used in surface campaings - in the very first of those 56
years. After WW2, not one single nuke has been used in anger - in spite
of a fairly large number of hot wars where at least one side had nukes
available.
Seems like there are some pretty strong reasons not to use nukes in surface
campaigns at least when fighting other humans, don't you think?
Regards,
> Brian Burger wrote:
Actually. I think the base fighters are over costed in small amounts. Unles
you go whole hog into fighters, they just end up dieing and failing their
morale checks.
> Yes, I'm a big-ship fan - I figure ships and fleets give a much better
You're just bitter about the freighter carrier aren't you:)
Someone a while back also suggested that missiles (MT and Salvo) may be
bomb-pumped, one-shot, X-Ray Laser projectors. This explained why MT
missiles had such a poor turn radius, but a good turn radius at the terminal
point (they only had to orient on the target) and why they had a final range
(6" or 3-4").
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable The Full Thrust Ship
Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
Veering away from the topic but I thinl you will like this one.
An old cold war joke that rather sums up my feelings about air power.
After WW III two Russian tank generals are sitting in a cafe in Paris when one
of them asks the other "By the way, who won the air war?"
> I wrote:
> > I stand corrected! Still, what I said above applies equally to
Richard and Emily Bell replied:
> In this situation, mutually assured destruction works, just like it
unless you have previously nuked a world. If you have previously nuked a
world, you declared open season on civilian populations (including your own)
with no bag limit. Stopping an amphibious landing is easy. Dropping a million
marines on a world is hard to do stealthily and only landing two hundred
thousand is worse than not trying. Stopping every stealthed corvette with a
single crust buster is impossible, and the attempt will divert all of your
resources. If cloaking is allowed, there is no credible defence against the
surprise immolation of your cities.
I suspect that the UN does not threaten nuclear terrorists with sanctions,
they launch a retalitory strike that exterminates the offending nation state.
While terribly draconian, this ends age old tensions the simple way
(the other way is assimilation), has a zero rate of re-offending, and
presents a strong deterrent.
There is also the problem that threatening to nuke a colony from orbit is
difficult if you really need the real estate. The population may call your
bluff, or wait until you occuppy the place and start a guerrilla war. The
population knows it is a bluff, because if you did not need the real estate,
you would have nuked them from orbit and passed on. They know that you REALLY
need the colony because you attacked it in the first place (never fight a
battle that you do not need to win). If you have to utter the threat, it can
only be a bluff.
I actually see the more credible threat going the other way: "You pay us for
our products, or we nuke our own colony". The invaders will need a labor force
anyway, and paying the locals to continue producing is much cheaper than the
alternatives.