Re: orbital bombardment

> [Tomb] Dunno, if it was anything like the
> time I spent in Pure Math, maybe not. ;)

Applied math course after Diff. Eq. (Diff. Eq. was a lot fun, I highly
recommend it!).

> [Tomb] Okay, take that 0.000001 and
> change it to 0.00001 or 0.0001. The
> numbers go up a lot. A lot has to do with
> your expectations and assumptions about
> the technology.

Yes it does.

> [Tomb] And let us assume for a moment
> materials have advanced apace with your
> fire control and focusing abilities. I think
> the amount of energy required will be
> substantial. I'm thinking that a weapon
> that wants to actually damage an FT ship
> decently has really two or three factors to
> deal with: Getting a hit of any kind and
> having that hit do enough damage to be
> meaningful and doing that within a finite
> budget of available offensive energy. The
> first of those is aided by rapid fire (across
> an area) or a scattergun effect. The second
> of those is aided by having more powerful
> individual shots. The third of those is
> impeded by both of the former two. It
> seems to me FT weapons must be a
> compromise, but there is *no* point in
> getting a hit if you don't do meaningful
> damage, so the second objective is actually
> the important one. Thus the emphasis is on
> having a shot do some damage when it
> hits. So, I guess it boils down to how much
> fire you figure can be put out to achieve
> that. I'm assuming batteries that fire
> slowly (for temperature and energy build
> up reasons) and make great attempts to
> hit what they aim at. There could be (and
> probably are) multiple pulses. But I don't
> think of them as high rate area sweepers. I
> just don't think they could pack meaningful
> power levels in without having a ridiculous
> power demand.

In space, no.  At 36,000,000 m it sweeped a whoping 124 sq. m with 8
pulses.
That's not much.  Against planets where ground troops move much slower
they
can be very nasty.

> [Tomb] Quite. But you're the one who
> commented on area sweeping effects,
> IIRC. If you're going to say the area you
> meant was incredibly small, then why say
> that? If it is a sizeable area, then that
> implies either individually weak shots or a
> whopping input energy.

The point is that if they sweep an area like that with enough power to
damage starships, they can sweep the same area on the surface per
battery...

> [Tomb] My comments on how *I* view
> orbital bombardment made no particular
> direct reference to your suggestions. I read
> them (at least skimmed) and wasn't
> interested in commenting directly on your
> mechanics. Therefore your emphasis
> addresses a point I had not taken up. Nor
> will I. Your rules didn't seem totally
> unreasonable, to the extent I paid attention
> to them. Some of your philosophy I'm not in
> total agreement with. I was merely
> advancing my opinion of what I think things
> must be like in the canonical universe.

If you are not going to bother to read them and understand them, then
you
don't want understand my philosophy.  It's all there in the rules.  Read
it,
understand it, or quit wasting my time.

> [Tomb] Yep, but down below you argue
> against ground attack fighters.
> Interesting....

No I don't, I argue against multiple classifications of fighter.  Space
attack fighter, surface attack fighter, space torpedoe fighters, surface
torpedoe fighters, etc, etc, etc...

> [Tomb] In what sense? Limited ammo?
> (Ever heard of a fleet collier? also notice
> GMS systems don't have ammo constraints)
> Or that they don't have ammunition choice?
> DS2 and SG2 present only a very simplified
> picture of actual artillery capability and
> variety.

Funny, there is no mention or Ortillary systems requiring a fleet
collier to
function.  I want something much more quantified then current generic
system.  I don't care about DSII because I quit playing a couple of
years
back.  I could never get into SG.  I have too many fond memories of
double
blind FirePower to get into SG2.

> [Tomb] You mentioned the thunderbolt
> from the B5 Universe, and you mention the
> rough time in atmosphere. I add to that the
> possibilities of interception inside the
> atmospheric envelope by highly specialized
> interceptors who should be able to outfight
> your "standard space fighter". Plus I'm not
> sure the Thunderbolt of Starfury are even
> aerodynamic enough to be viable (okay, I
> guess the B2 proves a brick can fly with
> enough power.....). My point was that a
> fighter designed for space combat is a poor
> choice for in-atmosphere ordinance
> deployment against ground targets,
> especially in the close support role. It
> seems that it would be overly vulnerable.

Actually, any rocket proves that a brick can fly...  Depends on your
genre
as to whether or not space fighter are good.  If you let space fighters
operate in atmospheres you then give the defender of the planet an
option he
wouldn't otherwise have.  Do I send my fighter up and accomplish little
or
nothing, or do I keep them down, so if they launch a fighter strike, my
fighters get to maul them as they enter the atmosphere.  This is much
more
interesting then "My atmospheric fighter must wait tell he lands to do
anything."

> [Tomb] Except it seems to me that a ship
> with a single class 4 beam could freely
> roam around and roast formations, cities,
> etc with no reply from the defenders
> assuming it had orbital superiority. (Or did
> I read that wrong?) Something tells me
> that considering the value of planets, some
> serious effort would be put into planetary
> defenses sufficient to prevent that. (Class
> 10 ground mount beams? Ground launched
> salvo missiles? I don't know, whatever).

Have you seen the size of a city?  That single ship with one class 4
beam
can slowly roast and eventually crush the planet if you don't bother to
send
a relief force to chase it away.

> [Tomb] Okay, how about a B4 armed DD? I
> ask because this design is fairly viable as a
> vector combatant (not so in cinematic) and
> could also, by your rules if I read them
> right, make for a nasty bombardier. And
> squadrons of them would be just nasty.
> Frankly, I'd just rather that atmospheres of
> any significant level just plain stopped
> beams dead. I think ground assault
> requires specialized assets which are nigh
> on useless in space. Period. So if your navy
> decides to show up without them or loses
> them, you're done for planetary attack until
> you fetch replacements.

If you want to play that way, you can go play that way.

>> [Tomb] Which is fine, if the analogy
> worked. It breaks down because in 1945, it
> was very hard to know where the other
> fleet was and all the islands were
> effectively different places (as in fact were
> different parts of the same island) due to
> the technology of the time. Now, an entire
> world is effectively one place, as far as
> interdicting traffic to it probably goes. So I
> don't think you'll ever get this situation
> unless you have terrible luck. If you don't
> go into an invasion with enough force to
> sweep space, you deserve to lose. If you
> do sweep space, you'd better darn well
> hold it or the troops you've landed are in
> bad situations. Allowing his ships to enter
> the atmospheric envelope for any purpose
> is likely to see to it that he plants a nuke
> on some of your boys (more worrisome
> than the "supplies" he might bring in or
> even the "reinforcements"). A true
> planetary invasion had better involve one
> side taking and holding the planet and the
> space around it for a fair distance. And if
> they do that, any "landers" will be blown
> sky high. So at that point, it behoves the
> invaded party to not waste such efforts
> trying to sneak in, but to build up and come
> in with a true relief force, again oriented to
> taking out whatever is there and winning
> space superiority.

If you are not strong enough to attack and hold, but you are strong
enough
disrupt, and the target is valuable enough to disrupt, you would be a
fool
not to.  This is how the U.S. got into Guadalcannal.  It was a brutal,
ugly
fight, at sea, in the air, and on the ground.  The U.S. did not have the
strength to challange the Japs in an all battle, but we needed stop the
Japs
from building that air base.  And as bad as it was, it would have been
much
worse if the Japs had finished that airbase...

> I think if you really have not truly
> established local space superiority, you
> have no real business landing troops. And if
> you can't hold it, the troops you have
> landed are in a lot of trouble.

See comment above.

 > And that, my friend, is not exactly the
> Pacific War all over again.

See comment above.

ias