On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:33, Onno Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Evyn replied to me: > > With a Perry!?!.... Oh I went and looked they where sometimes armed with > > Harpoon, Forgot that Sm-1 was a pretty effective anti-air missile, that > > could be pressed into anti-shipping, but had a huge tendency to lose it > in > > the near surface chop. As their main role was ASW and Fleet Air Defense > > each > > Perry didn't carry more than a Handful. To be honest the Deck gun is > > probably the most effective offensive weapon. > > Hello Evyn, > > my point is that frigates were built for ASuW, ASW and AAW, in > different proportions, while the fast attack boats are almost > exclusively ASuW units, and patrol ships like the Cyclone are > designed to fight irregular, light forces. >
Check, I get that. > Comparing Cyclones with the other two is like comparing apples > and oranges, or MBTs and IFVs. Frigates and fast attack boats > both do ASuW, so they can be compared in that regard, but the > comparison is slightly unfair because it ignores ASW, AAW, or > endurance. > My point about the Albatross and the Cyclone is they are both hulls designed to operate in shallow waters, and most of their offensive hardware is largely modular. Especially in the the case of the Exocet and Harpoon including their firecontrol. Missile, Gun, Torpedeo boats all have been pressed into service as spec ops boats. I am also thinking about other historical ships that where similarly tasked. Also in mind is the ship's of the Yangtze Patrol (http://www.cityofart.net/bship/sand_pebbles.html) While effectively Brown Water Navy Might be of some use to your thinking. To be real honest a lot of my comparison is Pickups armed with MGs and a ATGMs to MBTs... > Translating that into space, ASuW, ASW and AAW probably merge > into one category, anti-space warfare. Possibly there will be > a difference between combat against starships (from ASuW) and > combat against small drones and missiles (from AAW), but that > is a matter of degrees, not like the difference between water > and air. > > So there would be the question if ten small anti-space ships > can beat one ship which is ten times larger in a ship to ship > fight (law enforcement or COIN doesn't count). > See that is where is comes down to the brass tacks. The question is Direct fire vs. shields and armor, missiles vs point defense, a combination of both? What is the attrition, how many smaller vessels does it take to press home a killing shot on the larger? I must remind you the Destroyer class came into existence to combat Torpedo Boats which could easily kill a Battleship. > > > Looking at the Albatros and the Cyclone they are both basically the same > > boat. Their guns are drop in mounts, and the harpoon launchers are just > > bolt > > on deck mounts.... To be honest I went with the Cyclone as it is Coastal > > patrol/Special operations delivery ship equipped for both littoral and > > shore > > action. > > The Albatros was designed to slug it out with larger vessels, > to fight the Soviets in the Baltic or North Sea. Not just a > matter of dropping in guns, or bolting on Exocet launchers, > but also a question of sensors, of another five knots, or > a point defense system with 21 RIM-116 missiles. > No, the Albatros was designed to zoom out drop it's load then zoom away over shallow seas to reload and repeat. Sea-keeping combat endurance is one of the Perrie's main mission as they escort larger more venerable targets. A big part of that is the Perrie's ability to resupply under way. > > To be honest most of my service was in the brown water navy, so I tend to > > think in those terms, no mater that I own a Surface Warfare Badge (the > > things you do sitting in the middle of the Indian Ocean with no Strict > > daily > > duties). > > Which one? SWO? > Surface Warfare, not the Special Operations badge, though to be honest if I had known the year I was getting out that within 6 months the reorganization of Nav Spec Warfare that small boats would be coming back as their own rate I would have fought to reenlist. But in the late 80s that was more of a chore than it sounds like it should have been.... > TL11 reactionless thrusters are more than enough to maneuver > in an atmosphere, and TL12 has contragrav as well. Check. I hope this is all helping with your ideas.... -- Evyn _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
