Re: Search for historical presence: Small vessels and the Wall or Line of Battle

Two!  Two!  Two answers in one!!  (8-)

Ryan Gill wrote:
> A whole bunch of 5"-38's would mission kill a battle ship pretty quick
if 
> the ships were able to not get damaged. 
> 
> Why do you think the PT boats bothered with .50 cals and 20mm when
they 
> went after bigger stuff like DD's and CH's? You will have all sorts of

> folks standing out in the open sighting and directing the guns. Kill 
> those, and it will make it harder for the big guy to hurt the little 
> guys. The guns don't aim them selves. 

It's not the same between a DD/CL fighting a PT boat, and a DD trying 
to hurt a BB with guns.  The .50s and the 20mm would hurt the exposed
areas of DDs and CLs, because their armour protection wasn't 
comprehensive.	But a BB will shrug off the damage from a DD 5", 
mission kill idea aside...
 
> There were Directors for the Main Guns, Directors for the 5"/38s and 
> Directors for the 40mm's that were out in the open. All but the
Directors 
> for the main guns were out in the open and in clear view. (the
secondary 
> directors and tertiary directors also directed the spot lights and
vice 
> versa)
> 
> The main directors were armored like noones business but the actual
radar 
> emitters were pretty soft. No way to harden something like that. 
> 
> Damaging all the directors left the Primary and secondary armament
using 
> its optical hardware, not easy to use.

Granted.  However, none of these affected the core integrity of the 
ship.  Excepting an extremely lucky hit, a ship's core ability to find
a target, fight, and survive, would remain intact.  Her watertight
integrity would not be seriously challenged.  A squadron of naval
destroyers
could not challenge a battleship with guns, and win.  

In FT, that's not true.  A squadron of destroyers with Class 1 bats, if
they
can get into range, can seriously damage a BB, a DN, or a SDN.	It's
because
the balance between armour and weaponry is different in FT; in Naval
combat,
armour is protective, and does not suffer damage while defending the
ship.
In FT, screens reduce but do not stop damage, and armour is ablative; 
eventually, you can get through.

Los wrote:
> 
> Why is it that space battles are always thought of in terms of naval
> action
> and not air force action? (Including me) Are we all firmly entombed
> inside
> a box that has been built by popular Sci Fi? Heck if anything the Air
> Force
> is the organizatuion that has it's hands buried firmly within the
> aerospace
> realm and no doubt with all the political squabbles for control that
> will
> arise when the armed services go to space for real, they may have an
> upper
> hand in ensuring that they are controlling things.

Several reasons in my mind why the Air Force isn't used as a precedent:

1)  Unit size; the largest Air Force combat vehicles hold approximately
10 - 15 crew, while naval vessels hold hundreds.   Even now, a picture
of an air force is a bunch of a one or two man fighters.

2)  Basing:  Naval units can patrol a heck of a lot longer than Air 
Force units.

3)  History and Romance:  Naval history appears to be more adaptable
then the events of Air Force history.  While you can draw analogies
(Sea Control versus Air Supremacy), nations have been fighting for
Sea Control a hell of a lot longer then they've been fighting for
Air Supremacy. 

> Also I agree with Tom. What differnce does it make if there is a wet
> navy
> precedent or not to smaller units in major actions? 

Actually, I think you're agreeing with me.  (8-)

J.

-- 
/ Jerry Han -  CANOE Canada - jhan@canoe.ca -
http://people.canoe.ca/jhan \
  ** Visit the Canadian Online Explorer! => http://www.canoe.ca **
TBFTGOGGI
 The opinions expressed are mine, and not necessarily those of CANOE
Canada.
	 "Call it impulsive, call it compulsive, call it insane..."