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

Donald Hosford wrote:

> 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.

Ship *may* go to the bottom if not properly compartmentalized (or if
the crew was too untrained to close the blast doors in time, but that
amounts to the same thing). If ship is spaceship instead, ship loses
atmosphere if not properly compartmentalized. Modern wet-navy warships
are generally properly compartmentalized.

Wet-navy ship will almost certainly lose speed and maneuverability due
to changed hull shape and extra mass even if the drive line and rudders
(including all control runs) weren't damaged. The spaceship won't lose
maneuverability unless its engines (including control runs) are
damaged, unless the safety factor between structural stress under full
emergency power and the actual structural strength of the ship was way
too low to begin with :-/

I'm pretty sure there are examples of WWII ships that survived single
torpedo hits. I know there are examples of modern ships which has
survived such hits. Sorry, I don't have any references handy.

(BTW, this is why several modern anti-ship missiles are designed to
literally break a ship in half instead of merely blowing a hole in it.
Not sure if there are any torps or mines with similar warheads in use
today (nor if the warheads in question actually work as intended), but
sooner or later they will be (...provided my esteemed collegues are
correct in their predictions and no-one manages to design a ship able
to survive those warheads as well :-/ ).)

> 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.

It seems to me that the difference between amount of damage necessary
to incapacitate all equipment aboard a modern wet-navy warship and to
actually sink it is a lot smaller than you think.

Or, to put it the other way, the amount of damage necessary to
incapacitate (but not destroy) a complex weapon system such as a
warship - wet-navy or space, doesn't matter - is much smaller than you
seem to think. "All" you have to destroy on a warship in order to
incapacitate it is the fire control and/or bridge, but it takes a lucky
hit (or several, depending on the size and design of the ship) to do
that. 

Indeed, it is possible knock many modern (OK, built within the
last 20 years) frigates and smaller out of the fight with a single hit
from a light shoulder-launched anti-tank weapon... you just have to get
close enough (which is very difficult on the high seas, but a lot
easier in an
archipelago), and know exactly where to aim (difficulty depends on how
good your spies are) :-/

> 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."

But IMO you were wrong saying that. Torpedoes *do* that much actual
damage to wet-navy ships, but modern wet-navy ships are designed to
survive that kind of damage. Unless something really critical - keel,
CIC, engines or similar - is destroyed, the ship will survive, and may
able to fight on at a reduced level... and spaceships are just as
vulnerable to such critical hits as wet-navy ones.

> Please note:	I am not a military person, I just noted the differance

> between space combat and water combat.

Sure. It's just that this difference isn't as important as you make it.

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry