Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

The problem with all of this is that there is an analogy being made
between
current or WW2 aircraft and surface warships to space fighters and
ships.	I
personally don't like using fighters, mostly because I view them as
being
too "unrealistic" (if you'll forgive the use of that word).  Aircracft
have
an advantage over surface craft since they:

1. have the higher ground (you have to fight gravity to get at them)
2. move through a less viscous medium (air is easier to part than water)

Now, #1 means that your shots at the aircraft have to fight gravity
while
the aircraft's weapons (like bombs) are assisted by gravity.

Item #2 leads to the fact that aircraft can (and often must) move much
faster than surface craft.

In space, these differences don't exist between fighters and ships.  The
only thing I can think of for PSB is the Starfire approach--fighters use
completely different propulsion systems (ones that aren't conducive to
use
on larger vessels)--but even that one's a bit weak.

So, for the above reaon, I favor the WWI analogy.  Fighters can just be
considered to be equivalent to torpedo boats.  Which is why I liked the
fact
in FT2.0 that big ships could move faster than fighters fairly easily
(just
couldn't expect to maneuver very well at those speeds).  With the
increased
fighter speeds in FT/FB, this becomes more difficult.  Oh well.

Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christopher Pratt <valen@gatecom.com>
> To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 7:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Glenn M Wilson" <triphibious@juno.com>
> > To: <Stargrunt-Fullthrust@yahoogroups.com>;
<FullThrust@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
> > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 6:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:51:17 -0800 (PST)
> > > =?iso-8859-1?q?Michael=20Robert=20Blair?= <pellinoire@yahoo.com>
writes:
> > > >To put it very bluntly.
> > > >DD vs BB? The DD dies, live with it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As it should be. <grin>
> > >
> > > >If anything most starship games do not give small
> > > >ships a hard enough time. Fighters always seem to be
> > > >of exaggerated usefulness - people take the Yamato as
> > > >a normal example of the superiority of aircraft over
> > > >BBs and apply this model to the space games forgetting
> > > >just what a concentration of airpower this
> > > >represented.
>
> For a good book on just this topic, try "The Naval Battle of
Guadalcanal:
> Night Action 13 November 1942."  U.S.N. destroyers and cruisers tangle
with
> I.J.N. destroyers and two battleships...  The U.S. won, but only
because
> they were able to keep the battleships from bombarding Henderson Field
and
> the Japs scuttled won of thier own battleships the next day.	It is
> interesting that the reason the Jap captain scuttled his battleship
was
> because a US airstrike the next day nocked out communications to one
of
his
> engine rooms and it was incorrectly reported as the engine room being
> knocked out.	He didn't think they could survive tell dusk against the
US
> airstrikes.  Well, by the time they finished abondoning the ship, it
was
> dusk...  The first I.J.N. battleship loss of the war was mistake they
made
> themselves...
>
> > > Yeah, anybody know just how many carriers were involved in this
strike?
> >
> > umm... all of them...
> >
> > Seriously, all 10 american fleet carriers launched something in the
> > neighborhood or 320 strike aircraft!
> > As a side note, when Musashi (the other yamato class) was sunk
earlier
in
> > the war, she took 12 torpedos and 19 dive bomb strikes before she
wnet
> > down...
> >
> > >
> > > >I know I am biased, I don't like fighters - I would go
> > > >for the pre WW I model.
> >
> > I agree... but then I'm a battleship junkie myself.  Before WWII,
most
of
> > the admirality's of the world belived that aircraft would fight it
out
in
> > the skies above a major fleet action, much the same way the
destroyers
of
> > jutland fought between the apposing battle lines.
> >
> > > >
> > > >I can't help but see fighters as air-superiority and
> > > >ground attack craft launched from orbit with no part
> > > >in a fight in space.
> > > >
> > > >Michael
> > > >
> > > Well, it depends on your basis for the game model - One modern CV
with
> > > full complement should be able to sink multiple Kirov, Missouri's
etc.
> > > But then that's hardly a fair (or even reasonable) model.  I like
the
> > > 'Extended Range Air Force' model for SF space war myself but yes
if
this
> > > is WW2 in space then strike craft (fighters) are over rated.
> > >
> A Kirov, yes; a Missouri, I wouldn't be so sure.  The U.S.N. doesn't
have
> the ordance to deal with that type of armor anymore...  In WWII, they
did;
> dive bombers and torpedoe bombers.  When was the last time a Harpoon
or
> tomahawk was tested against 12" steel armor???  Yes, you can smash the
> lightly armored supperstructure, but that's not going to put the ship
down
> (unless the captain gets a false report of an engine room being
destroyed
> and then scuttles the ships)...
>
> IAS
>
>
>