Torpedos... and similarities/differences between the wet navy and the vaccuum heads...

I have it on some good authority that some of the torpedos in the
pipeline from some of the naval weapons yards are quite capable of
spine fracturing especially on smaller ships. Add to which some have
amazing stealth and tracking capabilities. And if you look at the UUVs
the USN is thinking of for future combat, you'll have some idea of the
intelligence that could potentially be embedded into later generation
torpedos.

Didn't someone author some rules for a non-ablating style of vessel
armour? With this in play, you'd have something for your cap ships a
lot like the armour belt that would render some small weapons nigh on
to useless. If that flavour is what you wanted, that is.

It seems to me when we compare sea and space naval vessels, the list
of similarities and differences:

Similarities:
Compartmentalization and bulkheading are vital for both - important
for wet navy for flotation and damage limiting, and for space navy for
atmosphere retention and hull integrity.
Ship can be mission-killed by removal of key systems (CIC, motor
control runs, fire directors, EW suite controllers, bridge).
Ships are tougher than we sometimes think - in both cases it would be
hard to completely disable a ship short of destroying it - you could
affect mobility, firing, etc. but the odds of the ship not being able
to do *something* are low.
Small weapons in the right place can take out a key system on both
types of ship.
Large areas can be damaged and not affect much on both types of ship.
In both types of ship, crew quality has a lot to do with how good a
ship will perform and when it is mission killed - this includes "will
to fight", damage control ability, etc.
In both types of ship, fire would be a large danger in limited oxygen
scenarios. Fuel leaks or powerplant damage (fusion reactors cooking
off, etc. in space) would be a hazard.
In both cases, good redundant systems design will help ameliorate most
weapon effects. Things like having one fire con or having a really
weak hull with no armour or having only one weapon that can fire in a
given arc will all contribute to problematic situations. Good design
will ameliorate this.
Both types of ships are threatened by torpedos and other seeking
weapons and are forced to manoevre by that threat. In a similar way to
the way mines affect land forces (channelize), these threats force
seaborne and spaceborne vessels to manoevre to avoid them. This can be
used in tactical planning.

Differences:
Holed wet navy ship takes on water and mass and performance character
change.
Holed space navy ships lose some atmosphere, maybe stuff like water
and fuel, and the only reason their performance envelope may change is
associated hull integrity effects reducing maximum thrust in the
various axes.
In seaborne ships, gun directors have often been exposed making them
vulnerable to threats like HMGs and 20mms. In space, this is unlikely.

Just another 0.02.

Thomas Barclay
Software UberMensch
xwave solutions
(613) 831-2018 x 3008