Re: [FT] Re: Small vessels and the Line of Battle

> Let me clear things up before anyone gets bent out of shape.
>
> Imagine this:
>
> "Wet Navy" ship in water takes a torpedo hit.  Result massive hole,
casualities,
> damaged equipment, ect.  Ship will (very probably) go to the bottom. 
The
> torpedo has been the bane of the ship since it was invented.
>
> Now imagine this:
>
> "Space Navy" ship in space takes a torpedo hit.  Result massive hole,
> casualities, damaged equipment, ect.
> Ship will not sink (no water).  Only those compartments effected by
the torpedo
> blast, will be disrupted.  The rest of the ship will fight on just
fine.
>
> The differance between space combat and "wet navy" combat is this:
>   All of the equipment aboard a space ship must be
distroyed/incapacitated to
> compleatly shut down that ship.  A "wet navy" ship only has to have
enough hull
> damage to sink it to shut it down.
>
> This is why I said:
> "If you think about it, the "wet navy" torpedos don't do all that much
actual
> damage to a "wet navy" ship."
> I didn't say anything about them being ineffective...
>
> Please note:	I am not a military person, I just noted the differance
between
> space combat and water combat.
>
> Sorry if anyone took this the wrong way...
>
> Donald Hosford

I don't buy it.  You don't have to destroy every system to kill a
spaceship.  If you
destroy the control system to the drives, the drives are as good as dead
for that
battle.  If you destroy the data link with the drives, the drives are as
good as
dead for that battle.  The only difference between a wet navy and a
space navy is
not what you think.  Most large wet ships with good compartmentalization
and decent
damage control can take a torpedo hit and not be sunk.	The difference
between wet
ships and space ships is that wet ships will be slowed down do to all
the extra mass
of sea water and loss of hydrodynamic streamiling.  That's it.

IAS