Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Ten Forward
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
03-22-2012, 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adondria
[...]
Well, the Bismark took a few torpedos and was scuttled, rather than being sunk. The only reason it was scuttled was due to a lucky shot to the rudder. Otherwise, it would have been damaged, but wouldn't have been laid up that long, or even have had to go into port at all, from what I remember.
Yeah. but the lucky shot was done at a cost of merely risking one pilot and one (outdated) airplane. Now compute how many of those planes and pilots you could buy for the price of one battleship plus crew, and correlate with the probability of such a lucky shot per plane.

No, big surface ships without shields are just a bad idea, and have been since the invention of submarines and airplanes, if not much longer.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
03-22-2012, 04:15 PM
The construction of battleships /escorts/frigates have changed so much and contiue to change not just everymonth, but weekly.

Comparing "Treknology" i.e sheilds. Lets remember the defiant shall we, small overpowerd ship....they didnt fit it with more sheilds, they went with a blade of armor

My point; shuttles and small craft can go right thru sheilds, I imagine projectile weapons would as well

As I recal the attack on the Cole was only effective because they came at the ship in a smaller craft to get inside the patrol area and attach a bomb ( my facts may be in error)

Now day the armor it would take to stop a spent uranium round is getting thicker and thincker, making battlewagons with weighty armor yesterdays dino. Now the ships stay small , more manuverable, and come with the ability to be altered for mission specific armaments.

As I ramble on, I think I said what I ment....heck I dunno
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
03-22-2012, 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
In any case, the fate of the I.J.S. Shinano should show quite clearly that armor won't save your ship from torpedos, even if they are of the old-fashioned drect-hit type.
RE: Bismarck vs Shinano torpedo survivability.

Depends on where the torpedo hits. Conventional WW2 firing solutions for unguided torpedoes went specifically for hull hits because well, torps are unguided, you fired them in a spread towards the target from the side in the hope multiple torps will hit it and cause fatal flooding by destroying a section or sections of said vessel.

We all know that magnetic detonators back then didn't function reliably and the USN and German U-Boats reverted to mechanical fuzing after some very nasty malfunctions. So yes the torpedo belt was important in that era both for surface combat and also surviving submarine hits.

Same logic for shell penetration applies here - torpedo hit on the side where you have TDS (torpedo defense system) coverage, ship will survive. But any, repeat, any ship that takes a hit to the stern is going to lose propulsion and steering, guaranteed. It will also start to flood in the stern and that ruins your ship's sailing trim, reducing whatever speed you can muster.

Which brings me to the case of modern torpedoes...

For an active seeking torpedo (or torp on active mode), are they still programmed to go for the centre mass using proportional navigation? Or do they end up in a stern chase (pursuit curve) and impact the aft section of the target? Because something as huge as a Mk 48 ADCAP homing in on a big ship's props = 1 hit and the poor ship is dead in the water. Currently there are little means of active defense against incoming torpedoes other than decoys (NIXIE) or just running as fast as you can away from the torp and hope it doesn't manage to catch up.

The key point is once again you have to find the damn submarine first and either destroy it or scare it off with your ASW sensors. If you let a submarine close to say, 10,000 yards and let its computers or crew get a valid firing solution on you, your surface ship is toast. Many modern torpedoes travel up to 50 kts speed and that is at least a 20 kts advantage against most mid-sized to heavier warships in battle trim. If you manage to fire a torpedo at a relatively short range to the target, even if it turns tail to run immediately (assuming it manages to detect torpedo launch acoustics and run the right way in the first place) there is a very, very large 'no escape zone'.

It's nasty - knowing something very big and very deadly is coming up your stern in the next 10 minutes and you can do zilch to shake off the torpedo.

Suffice to say you don't put a huge torpedo belt on a Ticonderoga class to survive torpedo encounters - you add a LAMPS III ASW helo on the back




-------------

And of course this is very different from STO gameplay. Our shields are very very efficient vs torpedoes and all we need to do is worry if the power levels are going down.

If STO game balance were geared towards extended-range combat (out to 100km for instance) with canon levels of weapons power (one hit kills more likely) then we will adopt an RL style approach to 'detect first and kill first, or be killed'.

Despite what everyone says about Star Trek not using modern naval philosophy, consider that those who do not know history, are doomed to repeat it.

The works of Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and those of many other great military theorists are evergreen and their strategic concepts will likely remain timeless even in an age of photon torpedoes and warp cores.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
03-22-2012, 05:10 PM
I don't know if comparing the Cole to a WW2 ship is fair. During the WW2 era, the terrorists' boat would have been shot at the moment it turned toward the ship. They were a little less concerned about political correctness in those days.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
03-22-2012, 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commadore_Bob
I don't know if comparing the Cole to a WW2 ship is fair. During the WW2 era, the terrorists' boat would have been shot at the moment it turned toward the ship. They were a little less concerned about political correctness in those days.
LOL.....Ya know, it does seem like the more we care, the more we get killed
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
03-22-2012, 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotton View Post
LOL.....Ya know, it does seem like the more we care, the more we get killed
I'm just sayin'. General Patton would have declared martial law and said that anyone out during curfew would be shot. He'd have dropped leaflets on Baghdad saying "City is being leveled in three days. Get out!"

None of this Military Police business.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
03-22-2012, 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotton View Post
LOL.....Ya know, it does seem like the more we care, the more we get killed
Hence why I don't care about offending others I stay alive that way.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
03-22-2012, 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commadore_Bob
I don't know if comparing the Cole to a WW2 ship is fair. During the WW2 era, the terrorists' boat would have been shot[...]
Not even my country's navy of that time would have done that without any indication of hostile intentions, much less yours.

I observe a degradation of your country's ethical standards since then.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
03-22-2012, 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmenara
[...]
Which brings me to the case of modern torpedoes...

For an active seeking torpedo (or torp on active mode), are they still programmed to go for the centre mass using proportional navigation?
I do not know for sure (it's been a while since I was in active service, and even then I mostly did boring land duty), but I would guess that it either depends on the type of torpedo or is programmable by the weapon's operator.

Quote:
The key point is once again you have to find the damn submarine first and either destroy it or scare it off with your ASW sensors. If you let a submarine close to say, 10,000 yards
I was taught back then that if that happens, your are dead even without such fun things as the Shkval or the SKULK, because current range of conventional torpedos is more like 30nm.

Quote:
And of course this is very different from STO gameplay. Our shields are very very efficient vs torpedoes and all we need to do is worry if the power levels are going down.

If STO game balance were geared towards extended-range combat (out to 100km for instance) with canon levels of weapons power (one hit kills more likely) then we will adopt an RL style approach to 'detect first and kill first, or be killed'.
I don't know if one-shot kills are canon in Star Trek. I mostly remember the opposite. But yeah to the idea of different ranges for different weapons.

Quote:
The works of Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and those of many other great military theorists are evergreen and their strategic concepts will likely remain timeless even in an age of photon torpedoes and warp cores.
I would say that is only true for their more general advice. Clausewitz, for instance, is heavily influenced by the Napoleonic wars wherever he goes in to the details, which is natural, but ultimately useless for today and tomorrow.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
03-23-2012, 12:32 AM
Interesting thread. I like the debate. But...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
(Yes, I am also of the opinion that aircraft carriers are a waste of lives and money in a real war today.)
Why do you think this is a waste of lives and money in war today? I spent 8 years in the US Navy in fighter squadrons. First with an F-14A squadron attached to the USS Enterprise and then an F/A-18F squadron attached to the USS Nimitz. Carriers are designed to project the US Navy's power of air superiority around the world. Not only are they a projection of power but they are vital in the support of ground troops where ever they are.

As for lives, an aircraft carrier is well protected. The following pic if of the USS Abraham Lincoln's battlegroup. All the ships surrounding the Lincoln have one mission, to protect the carrier at all costs (well, except for the supply ship :p).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...attlegroup.jpg


Though it has never come to that as the shear shock of the power projection of an aircraft carrier and its battlegroup has, at times, prevented the proverbial poo hitting the fan.

Just my $0.02
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:24 PM.