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

Gonna handle two messages with one answer, so please bear with me... 
:-)

Phillip Pournelle wrote:

> >If you think about it, the "wet navy" torpedos don't do all that much
> >actual damage to a "wet navy" ship.
> >All it takes is a small hole to sink a "wet navy" ship.  In space, a
> >small hole may kill a few unprotected
> >crew, but otherwise will do nothing to the functioning of the ship.
> >Unless it hits some equipment or the bridge...
> >
> >Donald Hosford
>
>     As a Naval Officer and a weapons person, I must strongly disagree
with
> this statement.  Torpedoes are deadly weapons.  The Destroyer came
from
> "Torpedo Boat Destroyers"  Whose job it was to screen out small & fast
> torpedo boats that could sink a battleship.  In World War II the
Japanese
> inflicted incredible casualties to American ships in Night Torpedo
Attacks
> (Captain Hughes USN-R 1999).	The Mark 48 ADCAP torpedo is well known
as a
> ship killer today and during the FAlklands war the General Belgrano
was sunk
> by single kingfish torpedo....Subject:
>

>	    RE: [FT] Re: Small vessels and the Line of Battle
>      Date:
>	    Mon, 13 Sep 1999 17:47:50 -0700
>      From:
>	    Mike Wikan <MWikan@mailhost.accolade.com>
>  Reply-To:
>	    gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>	 To:
>	    "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
>
>
>
>
> I have to agree with Mr. Pournelle. The torpedo is HUGELY effective.
they
> did very large amounts of damage and were surprisingly accurate.
During the
> Solomons campaign, a spread of Japanes long lance 21" unguided
torpedoes hit
> a US destroyer group at 12 miles, sinking one and damaging two others.
Most
> ship kills in WWII were Torpedo kills either by Aircraft, ships or
> Submarines.
>
>

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