Re: FT: Pulse Torpedoes vs. Submunition Packs

Aaron P Teske wrote:
> 
> Excerpts from FT: 1-Nov-97 Re: FT:  Pulse Torpedoes vs.. by John
> Leary@sj.bigger.net
> >	 The entire debate about pulse torpedos/submunitions assumes
> > that the escort is attacking a slow moving capital ship w/thrust
> > of three or less.
>
 ...Selected parts of reply follow:...JTL

> Um, missiles and pulse torps are two entirely different things.
> Missiles, as long as you have a certain minimum speed (which gives you
> more than 6" spacing between endpoints if you do a one point turn), as
> quite easy to evade.	When you can do *two* point turns, they're
nearly
> irrelevent (though still deadly if you don't even try to evade them).
> 
> >	 I contend that submunition armed escorts could not have done
> > much better (I.E. close to within six inches for full effect).
> > Due to the even more limited firing arc.
> 
> More limited firing arc?  In what way?  They've got less range, but
then
> pulse torps don't exactly have a long range either unless you're
really
> lucky.  Both weapons want to be inside 6"....
> 
>		      Aaron Teske
>		      Mithramuse+@cmu.edu

Aaron,
     Actually I would be quite happy at 12" with the pulse torp,
the chance to hit is the same and the average damage is slightly
better than the sub pack. (Of course, there is never just one sub-
pack)
     More than likely the best situation is a combination of both
within a squadron of large DDs.   The pulse torps close slightly 
slower than the sub-packs and the target gets to choose which type
he will fire upon.
     The 'more limited range' comment refered to the area covered
by the weapon type,  24 inches of arc vs 18 inches.

Change of subject.
     I enjoyed your fleet in the first E.A. tourney.

Bye for now,
John L