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

Donald Hosford wrote:

> 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.

You are assuming that a space navy ship is better compartmentalized than
a modern US Warship.  I can, without a doubt, say this is untrue.  A
modern US ship pretty well has to have a hole (or holes) big enough to
remove 50% of its flotation ability.  I would claim that any ship, space
navy or wet navy, that has had 50% of its hull space destroyed is going
to be a hulk in space.

The reason I say US ships is the Brits do things like build ships with
metal that burns and is soft (aluminum in a warship?)  If you can find
it (brain fog, sorry) there was that US tin can that ran afoul of a
mine,
you should look at the pictures.  What keeps ships running is partialy
design, but mostly a well trained and couragous crew, and I can't really
believe a space navy ship is going to be that much more survivable than
a wet navy ship.

Roger (Carrier experience, Data Systems Tech, but everyone was trained
	on DC.)