From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 14:45:32 -0400
Subject: Torpedos... and similarities/differences between the wet navy and the vaccuum heads...
I have it on some good authority that some of the torpedos in the pipeline from some of the naval weapons yards are quite capable of spine fracturing especially on smaller ships. Add to which some have amazing stealth and tracking capabilities. And if you look at the UUVs the USN is thinking of for future combat, you'll have some idea of the intelligence that could potentially be embedded into later generation torpedos. Didn't someone author some rules for a non-ablating style of vessel armour? With this in play, you'd have something for your cap ships a lot like the armour belt that would render some small weapons nigh on to useless. If that flavour is what you wanted, that is. It seems to me when we compare sea and space naval vessels, the list of similarities and differences: Similarities: Compartmentalization and bulkheading are vital for both - important for wet navy for flotation and damage limiting, and for space navy for atmosphere retention and hull integrity. Ship can be mission-killed by removal of key systems (CIC, motor control runs, fire directors, EW suite controllers, bridge). Ships are tougher than we sometimes think - in both cases it would be hard to completely disable a ship short of destroying it - you could affect mobility, firing, etc. but the odds of the ship not being able to do *something* are low. Small weapons in the right place can take out a key system on both types of ship. Large areas can be damaged and not affect much on both types of ship. In both types of ship, crew quality has a lot to do with how good a ship will perform and when it is mission killed - this includes "will to fight", damage control ability, etc. In both types of ship, fire would be a large danger in limited oxygen scenarios. Fuel leaks or powerplant damage (fusion reactors cooking off, etc. in space) would be a hazard. In both cases, good redundant systems design will help ameliorate most weapon effects. Things like having one fire con or having a really weak hull with no armour or having only one weapon that can fire in a given arc will all contribute to problematic situations. Good design will ameliorate this. Both types of ships are threatened by torpedos and other seeking weapons and are forced to manoevre by that threat. In a similar way to the way mines affect land forces (channelize), these threats force seaborne and spaceborne vessels to manoevre to avoid them. This can be used in tactical planning. Differences: Holed wet navy ship takes on water and mass and performance character change. Holed space navy ships lose some atmosphere, maybe stuff like water and fuel, and the only reason their performance envelope may change is associated hull integrity effects reducing maximum thrust in the various axes. In seaborne ships, gun directors have often been exposed making them vulnerable to threats like HMGs and 20mms. In space, this is unlikely. Just another 0.02.