Evyn replied to me: > 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.
Hello Evyn, I think the major upgrades in weaponry were a matter of follow-up classes, not refits, like the Type 143a with Exocets, one 76mm AA and one SAM system, after the Type 143 with Exocets and two 76mm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatros_class_fast_attack_craft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepard_class_fast_attack_craft > Missile, Gun, Torpedeo boats all have been > pressed into service as spec ops boats. Which would have wasted their missile capability -- a custom-built spec ops boat would be more efficient in the role. Enter the Cyclone. On the other hand, multirole craft are better for games. You can play space action in one adventure, ground action in another. Do you know Space: Above and Beyond? It was a bit silly to have fighter pilots serve as ground troops, but if the vessel is a "missile boat" with several crew plus room for special forces, it sounds less unlikely that the crews would get out, like a landing party to secure the river banks while they wait for the ground pounders. (In space, that would mean a missile boat on the ground, and crewmembers forming a perimeter.) The crew of a Vietnam-era PBR sounds too small for that, however. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112173/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_Boat,_River > 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... Maybe I'm doing them injustice, but to me ships like the Panay always looked like "colonial" law enforcement by the Navy, not real combat ships. At 474 tons, the Panay had two 3" guns and a bunch of .30 MGs. Compare that to the RN Fly class with one 4", one 3", two smaller guns and four MGs at a displacement of 98 tons. Or the 625-ton Insects, with two 6" guns. So the comparison would be MBT vs. armored car vs. jury-rigged pickup with a MG. Fast attack boats are highly optimized green water warships, a different role from blue water warships, while many of the river gunboats were just riverboats with a few guns slapped on. > > 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. Torpedo boats were thought to be able to kill a battleship. That's a slightly different proposition :-) At Jutland, destroyers scored seven torpedo hits, excluding those to finish disabled ships, out of 168 fired. (Brown, The Grand Fleet, p. 110). Back to space, if small and large warships fire the same types of missile, their "missile attack efficiency" is measured as the percentage of ammo weight in the loaded mass. Four 200-ton ships with 10% ammo each have the same number as one 800-ton ship with 10% ammo. All other things being equal, large ships could have a slightly higher magazine percentage than small ships, because of scale efficiencies -- one 800-ton ship has less area and hence less armor than four 200-ton ships, so more is left for offense. Unless the saved mass is used for something else, of course. The "missile defense efficiency" is a question of point defense mounts and their effectiveness. Assume that each point defense mount can engage one missile per incoming salvo, with a 50% success rate. If four ships with one point defense mount are attacked by four missiles, spread evenly, the chances are: * 6.25 % probability for no survivor/four kills * 25 % probability for one survivor/three kills * 37.5 % probability for two survivors/two kills * 25 % probability for three survivors/one kill * 6.25 % probability for four survivors/no kill If one ship with four point defense mounts is attacked by four missiles, the chances are: * 93.75 % probability for no survivor/one kill * 6.25 % probability for one survivor/no kill Now assume that scale efficiencies allow the single ship to carry eight point defense mounts, and the chances become: * approx. 68 % probability for no survivor/one kill * approx. 32 % probability for one survivor/no kill Of course that is all a bit simplistic. In the first case, if the attackers fired two missiles each against two ships, and ignored the others, they'd have a 100% chance of two kills. The other unwarranted assumption is that point defenses on small ships are just as effective as point defenses on large ships. What if the large ship has better fire control? What if the larger ship has longer-ranged point defense, which can engage one missile several times, rather than having just one turn of firing? That sounds too lethal for me, BTW, but the odds were just picked out of thin air to identify trends. > > 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. I was comparing the Albatros and the Cyclone here. > I hope this is all helping with your ideas.... It is. Not many others are joining in on the wet navy comparison, but we are clearly on topic for GURPSnet. And Eric wrote in a different mail: > I had this thought to add to hyperdrive weapons -- a ship in hyperdrive > dropping "mines" into normal space from hyperspace -- even (if > necessary), mini hyper-drive torpedoes. The ideal attacker scenario > would that they drop into Real Space inside larger ships (or if the > rules enforce displacement due to mass (e.g., planet, ship), the torpedo > will appear in real space immediately touching or extremely close to the > target), moving at very high speeds. Larger ships are more valuable > targets, and are more difficult to get out of the way from multiple > attacks. > > (I just had this vision of space -> ocean warfare analogy, with > "airplanes" being hyperspace fighters, or something)... Hello Eric, usually ships in hyperspace can't see out, and getting navigation right within a few yards sounds impossible. But if the missiles themselves are small hyperspace-capable craft, that could explain why point defense of big ships can't pick them off at long range, which was a problem in my numbers above. Turn one: Attacker aims at target, fires missiles. Turn two: Missiles enter hyperspace. Turn three: Missiles leave hyperspace, scan for target, target detects missiles and aims for them or decides to make an emergency hyperjump. Turn four: Missiles make their terminal attack maneuver, point defense fires to pick them off, perhaps the emergency hyperjump. End of turn four: Impact of any surviving missiles unless the target jumped. Do you know the books by Rick Shelley? The ground action has a Falklands look and feel, no doubt intentionally, even if he is American. The space action is this confused melee of ships jumping in and out of the proximity of the planets, which are the strategic targets. There is no way to pin an inferior force down unless they have to defend a planet or support an invasion force. Regards, Onno _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
