Re: FT: Pulse Torpedoes vs. Submunition Packs

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.

Hmm... I wouldn't really say that.  But it *is* harder to use sub. packs
on faster ships, especialyl since they're one use weapons.  I'd tend to
be *much* more careful about shooting 'em, i.e. 'Only fire at enemies
that are closer than 12 inches' or some such.

>      The pulse torpedo is more important against ships that can
> 'MOVE'.   By 'MOVE' I mean thrust five or better ships.  
> In a current campaign, my thrust five battledreadnought squadron
> has managed to elude not less than 30 missiles (in two salvos).

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