Attacking Darius:

1520 posts • Page 140 of 152 • 1 ... 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 ... 152

Re: Attacking Darius:
by Jonathan_S » Tue Nov 07, 2023 12:25 am
Jonathan_S Fleet Admiral Posts: 9041 Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm Location: Virginia, USA	Brigade XO wrote:Exactly. The 1st description (limited though it was) had the LDs being able to launch the Graser Torpedos from tubes......doesn't say how but compressed air, mass driver, whatever that doesn't show up as an energy flair from the launching ship. You're back to a stealth weapon, best used in some sort of ambush attack where the launching ship is well away from the weapon when it fires. So far, the G-torps are not being able to be spotted or tracked by their drives so while they can maneuver and - given time & distance- can build up good speed, they aren't built for a gunfight. So no missile exchange and no energy weapons if you want the LD (or other spider involved) not to be spotted, at least from the firing initiation of the grazer at its target. So, to the extent that you can analogize a Spider warship to a submarine (which is really easy to take too far) it's not a WWI/WWII U-boat - it's an SSGN with stealth guided missiles. (Basically if a US developed a sub-launched version of LRASM for it's ex-boomer SSGNs) Sure, it'll still carry shorter ranged, less stealthy, weapons for last-ditch self-defense (like Mk-48 ADCAP torpedoes) -- but no captain in their right mind is going to give up the advantages of stealth and standoff range granted by their primary weapons by instead adopting an attack plan of sneaking way closer than needed just to use those self-defense weapons in an ambush attack from within their targets' effective quick reaction weapons range.
Top

by Jonathan_S » Tue Nov 07, 2023 12:25 am

Posts: 9041
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Brigade XO wrote:Exactly. The 1st description (limited though it was) had the LDs being able to launch the Graser Torpedos from tubes......doesn't say how but compressed air, mass driver, whatever that doesn't show up as an energy flair from the launching ship. You're back to a stealth weapon, best used in some sort of ambush attack where the launching ship is well away from the weapon when it fires. So far, the G-torps are not being able to be spotted or tracked by their drives so while they can maneuver and - given time & distance- can build up good speed, they aren't built for a gunfight. So no missile exchange and no energy weapons if you want the LD (or other spider involved) not to be spotted, at least from the firing initiation of the grazer at its target.

So, to the extent that you can analogize a Spider warship to a submarine (which is really easy to take too far) it's not a WWI/WWII U-boat - it's an SSGN with stealth guided missiles. (Basically if a US developed a sub-launched version of LRASM for it's ex-boomer SSGNs)

Sure, it'll still carry shorter ranged, less stealthy, weapons for last-ditch self-defense (like Mk-48 ADCAP torpedoes) -- but no captain in their right mind is going to give up the advantages of stealth and standoff range granted by their primary weapons by instead adopting an attack plan of sneaking way closer than needed just to use those self-defense weapons in an ambush attack from within their targets' effective quick reaction weapons range.

Top

Re: Attacking Darius:
by penny » Tue Nov 07, 2023 1:17 am
penny Rear Admiral Posts: 1478 Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am	Jonathan_S wrote: Brigade XO wrote:Exactly. The 1st description (limited though it was) had the LDs being able to launch the Graser Torpedos from tubes......doesn't say how but compressed air, mass driver, whatever that doesn't show up as an energy flair from the launching ship. You're back to a stealth weapon, best used in some sort of ambush attack where the launching ship is well away from the weapon when it fires. So far, the G-torps are not being able to be spotted or tracked by their drives so while they can maneuver and - given time & distance- can build up good speed, they aren't built for a gunfight. So no missile exchange and no energy weapons if you want the LD (or other spider involved) not to be spotted, at least from the firing initiation of the grazer at its target. So, to the extent that you can analogize a Spider warship to a submarine (which is really easy to take too far) it's not a WWI/WWII U-boat - it's an SSGN with stealth guided missiles. (Basically if a US developed a sub-launched version of LRASM for it's ex-boomer SSGNs) Sure, it'll still carry shorter ranged, less stealthy, weapons for last-ditch self-defense (like Mk-48 ADCAP torpedoes) -- but no captain in their right mind is going to give up the advantages of stealth and standoff range granted by their primary weapons by instead adopting an attack plan of sneaking way closer than needed just to use those self-defense weapons in an ambush attack from within their targets' effective quick reaction weapons range. Of course no captain will venture any closer than needed. However, any critical mission would hardly be carried out just so he can showcase his self-defense weapons. I agree that the best self-defense weapons are the ones you never have to use. But it is best to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them. But if you think any navy, especially the MAN, will not risk one capital ship to destroy a fleet of sitting ducks, you are crazy. One very stealthy submarine could have destroyed every ship in Pearl Harbor. And it would have been a windfall for the Japanese navy even if it had lost the sub. And again, the notion that tactical and strategic doctrine for this navy will be different has not completely settled in. Remember, a 3-second firing g-torp is a paradigm shift which fuels completely different tactics. Counter-missile tactics should be different for a 3-second firing g-torp the likes that would embarrass even barricade. 3-second firing g-torps firing in the midst of tightly packed GA launches traveling at such speeds should wipe them out easily. And these are long-legged CMs affording several launches! . . . The artist formerly known as cthia. Now I can talk in the third person.
Top

Re: Attacking Darius:

by penny » Tue Nov 07, 2023 1:17 am

penny
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1478
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am

Jonathan_S wrote:
Brigade XO wrote:Exactly. The 1st description (limited though it was) had the LDs being able to launch the Graser Torpedos from tubes......doesn't say how but compressed air, mass driver, whatever that doesn't show up as an energy flair from the launching ship. You're back to a stealth weapon, best used in some sort of ambush attack where the launching ship is well away from the weapon when it fires. So far, the G-torps are not being able to be spotted or tracked by their drives so while they can maneuver and - given time & distance- can build up good speed, they aren't built for a gunfight. So no missile exchange and no energy weapons if you want the LD (or other spider involved) not to be spotted, at least from the firing initiation of the grazer at its target.

So, to the extent that you can analogize a Spider warship to a submarine (which is really easy to take too far) it's not a WWI/WWII U-boat - it's an SSGN with stealth guided missiles. (Basically if a US developed a sub-launched version of LRASM for it's ex-boomer SSGNs)

Sure, it'll still carry shorter ranged, less stealthy, weapons for last-ditch self-defense (like Mk-48 ADCAP torpedoes) -- but no captain in their right mind is going to give up the advantages of stealth and standoff range granted by their primary weapons by instead adopting an attack plan of sneaking way closer than needed just to use those self-defense weapons in an ambush attack from within their targets' effective quick reaction weapons range.

Of course no captain will venture any closer than needed. However, any critical mission would hardly be carried out just so he can showcase his self-defense weapons. I agree that the best self-defense weapons are the ones you never have to use. But it is best to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

But if you think any navy, especially the MAN, will not risk one capital ship to destroy a fleet of sitting ducks, you are crazy. One very stealthy submarine could have destroyed every ship in Pearl Harbor. And it would have been a windfall for the Japanese navy even if it had lost the sub.

And again, the notion that tactical and strategic doctrine for this navy will be different has not completely settled in. Remember, a 3-second firing g-torp is a paradigm shift which fuels completely different tactics.

Counter-missile tactics should be different for a 3-second firing g-torp the likes that would embarrass even barricade. 3-second firing g-torps firing in the midst of tightly packed GA launches traveling at such speeds should wipe them out easily. And these are long-legged CMs affording several launches!

.
.
.

The artist formerly known as cthia.

Now I can talk in the third person.

Top

Re: Attacking Darius:
by ThinksMarkedly » Tue Nov 07, 2023 2:40 am
ThinksMarkedly Fleet Admiral Posts: 4656 Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am	penny wrote:Of course no captain will venture any closer than needed. However, any critical mission would hardly be carried out just so he can showcase his self-defense weapons. I agree that the best self-defense weapons are the ones you never have to use. But it is best to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them. Very much agreed: having defensive weapons in case you need them, because it's better to have and not need than need and not have. That may also be true of having some offensive weapons. The MAN designers need to balance the equation of how much defence they need before putting offensive weapons on. Think about this: a squadron of 6 Roland-class destroyers can put out 72 missiles in a double broadside in under a minute, double that for a double double-broadside. They can send several waves of 144 missiles at a target, from 2.5 light-minutes away. Can an LD be defeated by a single desron? But if you think any navy, especially the MAN, will not risk one capital ship to destroy a fleet of sitting ducks, you are crazy. One very stealthy submarine could have destroyed every ship in Pearl Harbor. And it would have been a windfall for the Japanese navy even if it had lost the sub. I agree on the principle too, but not on the conclusion you're trying to reach. Yes, 1 or 2 LD for a fleet of capital ships is worth it ("fleet" being a minimum of 3 squadrons, so 18 capital ship kills minimum). And even then, not many times, because LDs don't grow on trees or asteroids. In a war of attrition, the MAlign loses. Counter-missile tactics should be different for a 3-second firing g-torp the likes that would embarrass even barricade. 3-second firing g-torps firing in the midst of tightly packed GA launches traveling at such speeds should wipe them out easily. And these are long-legged CMs affording several launches! 3 seconds of firing does not mean multiple ships being hit. No, it probably means no more than 1. The one thing that the 3 seconds can certainly do is deliver more energy and over a longer line, so if it does hit the ship, the ship ceases to exist. If it hits the sidewall, that may cause a generator overload. That doesn't change the counter-missile strategy: the counter missile must hit the attack missile before the latter fires. The earliest that can be done, the better. The difference in this exchange is not the firing time, but stealth: the warhead may have been able to close to its firing range before being detected, so there are no CMs to deal with.
Top

Re: Attacking Darius:

by ThinksMarkedly » Tue Nov 07, 2023 2:40 am

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4656
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

penny wrote:Of course no captain will venture any closer than needed. However, any critical mission would hardly be carried out just so he can showcase his self-defense weapons. I agree that the best self-defense weapons are the ones you never have to use. But it is best to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

Very much agreed: having defensive weapons in case you need them, because it's better to have and not need than need and not have.

That may also be true of having some offensive weapons. The MAN designers need to balance the equation of how much defence they need before putting offensive weapons on. Think about this: a squadron of 6 Roland-class destroyers can put out 72 missiles in a double broadside in under a minute, double that for a double double-broadside. They can send several waves of 144 missiles at a target, from 2.5 light-minutes away. Can an LD be defeated by a single desron?

But if you think any navy, especially the MAN, will not risk one capital ship to destroy a fleet of sitting ducks, you are crazy. One very stealthy submarine could have destroyed every ship in Pearl Harbor. And it would have been a windfall for the Japanese navy even if it had lost the sub.

I agree on the principle too, but not on the conclusion you're trying to reach.

Yes, 1 or 2 LD for a fleet of capital ships is worth it ("fleet" being a minimum of 3 squadrons, so 18 capital ship kills minimum). And even then, not many times, because LDs don't grow on trees or asteroids. In a war of attrition, the MAlign loses.

Counter-missile tactics should be different for a 3-second firing g-torp the likes that would embarrass even barricade. 3-second firing g-torps firing in the midst of tightly packed GA launches traveling at such speeds should wipe them out easily. And these are long-legged CMs affording several launches!

3 seconds of firing does not mean multiple ships being hit. No, it probably means no more than 1. The one thing that the 3 seconds can certainly do is deliver more energy and over a longer line, so if it does hit the ship, the ship ceases to exist. If it hits the sidewall, that may cause a generator overload.

That doesn't change the counter-missile strategy: the counter missile must hit the attack missile before the latter fires. The earliest that can be done, the better. The difference in this exchange is not the firing time, but stealth: the warhead may have been able to close to its firing range before being detected, so there are no CMs to deal with.

Top

Re: Attacking Darius:
by Jonathan_S » Tue Nov 07, 2023 9:10 am
Jonathan_S Fleet Admiral Posts: 9041 Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm Location: Virginia, USA	penny wrote:Of course no captain will venture any closer than needed. However, any critical mission would hardly be carried out just so he can showcase his self-defense weapons. I agree that the best self-defense weapons are the ones you never have to use. But it is best to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them. But if you think any navy, especially the MAN, will not risk one capital ship to destroy a fleet of sitting ducks, you are crazy. One very stealthy submarine could have destroyed every ship in Pearl Harbor. And it would have been a windfall for the Japanese navy even if it had lost the sub. And again, the notion that tactical and strategic doctrine for this navy will be different has not completely settled in. Remember, a 3-second firing g-torp is a paradigm shift which fuels completely different tactics. Counter-missile tactics should be different for a 3-second firing g-torp the likes that would embarrass even barricade. 3-second firing g-torps firing in the midst of tightly packed GA launches traveling at such speeds should wipe them out easily. And these are long-legged CMs affording several launches! Except the Japanese did send 5 subs to infiltrate into Pearl Harbor. Of course those weren't full-sized subs (not that full sized WWII subs were capital ships) because there was effectively zero chance of slipping even one full sized sub through the harbor defenses -- such a mission would have a near 100% chance of being unsuccessful, a high change (depending on how aggressive the sub skipper was) of losing the sub, and a near 0% change of inflicting significant damage. So they didn't try. As it was, with the smaller stealthier subs they did risk, 2 were detected and sunk by anti-submarine defenses, one by USS Ward outside the entrance to the channel to the harbor and one by USS Monaghan inside the harbor after it is believed to have fired its torpedoes (and missed). One more is known to have been unable to enter the harbor, one more likely did enter the harbor but its unclear whether it got any hits, and the fifth's fate and actions on that day are unknown. Yes, the Japanese were fanatical enough that they'd probably have been willing, even at the start of the war, to trade one large sub and its crew for sinking the US Pacific fleet. But they didn't try because they knew the chances of success were near zero. And the smaller, cheaper, stealthier platforms they were willing to risk did not achieve any notable success either. Yes, a navy that that thought there was a good chance of success would risk the total loss of a capital unit to destroy an entire fleet of enemy ships. But unless they're backed into a corner and desperate they're not going to run a high risk of losing a capital ship for a very low chance of taking out a fleet. And if given two options, one with a much higher chance of losing the ship for an only slightly higher chance of inflicting major damage most navies will take to other option - the one with the less unbalanced risk:reward ratio.
Top

Re: Attacking Darius:

by Jonathan_S » Tue Nov 07, 2023 9:10 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 9041
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

penny wrote:Of course no captain will venture any closer than needed. However, any critical mission would hardly be carried out just so he can showcase his self-defense weapons. I agree that the best self-defense weapons are the ones you never have to use. But it is best to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

But if you think any navy, especially the MAN, will not risk one capital ship to destroy a fleet of sitting ducks, you are crazy. One very stealthy submarine could have destroyed every ship in Pearl Harbor. And it would have been a windfall for the Japanese navy even if it had lost the sub.

And again, the notion that tactical and strategic doctrine for this navy will be different has not completely settled in. Remember, a 3-second firing g-torp is a paradigm shift which fuels completely different tactics.

Counter-missile tactics should be different for a 3-second firing g-torp the likes that would embarrass even barricade. 3-second firing g-torps firing in the midst of tightly packed GA launches traveling at such speeds should wipe them out easily. And these are long-legged CMs affording several launches!

Except the Japanese did send 5 subs to infiltrate into Pearl Harbor. Of course those weren't full-sized subs (not that full sized WWII subs were capital ships) because there was effectively zero chance of slipping even one full sized sub through the harbor defenses -- such a mission would have a near 100% chance of being unsuccessful, a high change (depending on how aggressive the sub skipper was) of losing the sub, and a near 0% change of inflicting significant damage. So they didn't try.

As it was, with the smaller stealthier subs they did risk, 2 were detected and sunk by anti-submarine defenses, one by USS Ward outside the entrance to the channel to the harbor and one by USS Monaghan inside the harbor after it is believed to have fired its torpedoes (and missed). One more is known to have been unable to enter the harbor, one more likely did enter the harbor but its unclear whether it got any hits, and the fifth's fate and actions on that day are unknown.

Yes, the Japanese were fanatical enough that they'd probably have been willing, even at the start of the war, to trade one large sub and its crew for sinking the US Pacific fleet. But they didn't try because they knew the chances of success were near zero. And the smaller, cheaper, stealthier platforms they were willing to risk did not achieve any notable success either.

Yes, a navy that that thought there was a good chance of success would risk the total loss of a capital unit to destroy an entire fleet of enemy ships.
But unless they're backed into a corner and desperate they're not going to run a high risk of losing a capital ship for a very low chance of taking out a fleet. And if given two options, one with a much higher chance of losing the ship for an only slightly higher chance of inflicting major damage most navies will take to other option - the one with the less unbalanced risk:reward ratio.

Top

Re: Attacking Darius:
by tlb » Tue Nov 07, 2023 9:13 am
tlb Fleet Admiral Posts: 4765 Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am	penny wrote:But if you think any navy, especially the MAN, will not risk one capital ship to destroy a fleet of sitting ducks, you are crazy. One very stealthy submarine could have destroyed every ship in Pearl Harbor. And it would have been a windfall for the Japanese navy even if it had lost the sub. The average depth of Pearl Harbor is 45 feet and the average distance from keel to top of conning tower for a WWII sub might be 25 feet; but the submerged sub needs to extend its periscope to attack. In the relatively calm water waters the periscope of a moving sub would be quite visible and after the first torpedo explosion everyone would be looking. The torpedo load of a sub is less than 39, so it was wiser to attack with airplanes. A submarine is shallow water is not stealthy and did not have enough torpedoes to do as much damage as the dive and torpedo bombers did. In addition the fighter aircraft eliminated almost all military planes in the island. One mini-sub is believed to have entered the harbor, but it only carried 2 torpedoes; so did not accomplish much.
Top

Re: Attacking Darius:

by tlb » Tue Nov 07, 2023 9:13 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4765
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

penny wrote:But if you think any navy, especially the MAN, will not risk one capital ship to destroy a fleet of sitting ducks, you are crazy. One very stealthy submarine could have destroyed every ship in Pearl Harbor. And it would have been a windfall for the Japanese navy even if it had lost the sub.

The average depth of Pearl Harbor is 45 feet and the average distance from keel to top of conning tower for a WWII sub might be 25 feet; but the submerged sub needs to extend its periscope to attack. In the relatively calm water waters the periscope of a moving sub would be quite visible and after the first torpedo explosion everyone would be looking. The torpedo load of a sub is less than 39, so it was wiser to attack with airplanes. A submarine is shallow water is not stealthy and did not have enough torpedoes to do as much damage as the dive and torpedo bombers did. In addition the fighter aircraft eliminated almost all military planes in the island.

One mini-sub is believed to have entered the harbor, but it only carried 2 torpedoes; so did not accomplish much.

Top

Re: Attacking Darius:
by penny » Tue Nov 07, 2023 10:08 am
penny Rear Admiral Posts: 1478 Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am	tlb wrote: penny wrote:But if you think any navy, especially the MAN, will not risk one capital ship to destroy a fleet of sitting ducks, you are crazy. One very stealthy submarine could have destroyed every ship in Pearl Harbor. And it would have been a windfall for the Japanese navy even if it had lost the sub. The average depth of Pearl Harbor is 45 feet and the average distance from keel to top of conning tower for a WWII sub might be 25 feet; but the submerged sub needs to extend its periscope to attack. In the relatively calm water waters the periscope of a moving sub would be quite visible and after the first torpedo explosion everyone would be looking. The torpedo load of a sub is less than 39, so it was wiser to attack with airplanes. A submarine is shallow water is not stealthy and did not have enough torpedoes to do as much damage as the dive and torpedo bombers did. In addition the fighter aircraft eliminated almost all military planes in the island. One mini-sub is believed to have entered the harbor, but it only carried 2 torpedoes; so did not accomplish much. Pardon me for not pointing out 'depth of harbor notwithstanding.' I thought that'd be a given as it is also the reason the navy didn't think such an attack using torpedoes dropped from planes was possible. Yet the Japanese designed torpedoes that could operate in shallow waters. BTW, I think that attack is also an example of ... Invisible force = (force)² . . . The artist formerly known as cthia. Now I can talk in the third person.
Top

Re: Attacking Darius:

by penny » Tue Nov 07, 2023 10:08 am

penny
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1478
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am

tlb wrote:
penny wrote:But if you think any navy, especially the MAN, will not risk one capital ship to destroy a fleet of sitting ducks, you are crazy. One very stealthy submarine could have destroyed every ship in Pearl Harbor. And it would have been a windfall for the Japanese navy even if it had lost the sub.

The average depth of Pearl Harbor is 45 feet and the average distance from keel to top of conning tower for a WWII sub might be 25 feet; but the submerged sub needs to extend its periscope to attack. In the relatively calm water waters the periscope of a moving sub would be quite visible and after the first torpedo explosion everyone would be looking. The torpedo load of a sub is less than 39, so it was wiser to attack with airplanes. A submarine is shallow water is not stealthy and did not have enough torpedoes to do as much damage as the dive and torpedo bombers did. In addition the fighter aircraft eliminated almost all military planes in the island.

One mini-sub is believed to have entered the harbor, but it only carried 2 torpedoes; so did not accomplish much.

Pardon me for not pointing out 'depth of harbor notwithstanding.' I thought that'd be a given as it is also the reason the navy didn't think such an attack using torpedoes dropped from planes was possible. Yet the Japanese designed torpedoes that could operate in shallow waters.

BTW, I think that attack is also an example of ...

Invisible force = (force)²

.
.
.

The artist formerly known as cthia.

Now I can talk in the third person.

Top

Re: Attacking Darius:
by tlb » Tue Nov 07, 2023 10:30 am
tlb Fleet Admiral Posts: 4765 Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am	tlb wrote:The average depth of Pearl Harbor is 45 feet and the average distance from keel to top of conning tower for a WWII sub might be 25 feet; but the submerged sub needs to extend its periscope to attack. In the relatively calm water waters the periscope of a moving sub would be quite visible and after the first torpedo explosion everyone would be looking. The torpedo load of a sub is less than 39, so it was wiser to attack with airplanes. A submarine is shallow water is not stealthy and did not have enough torpedoes to do as much damage as the dive and torpedo bombers did. In addition the fighter aircraft eliminated almost all military planes in the island. One mini-sub is believed to have entered the harbor, but it only carried 2 torpedoes; so did not accomplish much. penny wrote:Pardon me for not pointing out 'depth of harbor notwithstanding.' I thought that'd be a given as it is also the reason the navy didn't think such an attack using torpedoes dropped from planes was possible. Yet the Japanese designed torpedoes that could operate in shallow waters. BTW, I think that attack is also an example of ... Invisible force = (force)² No need to ask for pardon when correctly pointing out a fact of history. Yes, the US Navy was wrong to think air dropped torpedoes would get stuck in the mud, because of this they did not deploy anti-torpedo netting. The Japanese did develop a simple wooden add-on for their torpedoes that solved the problem. Another reason why air power was the answer and not submarines. Your equation is at best metaphorical; because as a statement of physics, it is nonsense. But no matter how it is taken; it has no application to Pearl Harbor, that was the result of an attack by highly visible aircraft.
Top

Re: Attacking Darius:

by tlb » Tue Nov 07, 2023 10:30 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4765
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

tlb wrote:The average depth of Pearl Harbor is 45 feet and the average distance from keel to top of conning tower for a WWII sub might be 25 feet; but the submerged sub needs to extend its periscope to attack. In the relatively calm water waters the periscope of a moving sub would be quite visible and after the first torpedo explosion everyone would be looking. The torpedo load of a sub is less than 39, so it was wiser to attack with airplanes. A submarine is shallow water is not stealthy and did not have enough torpedoes to do as much damage as the dive and torpedo bombers did. In addition the fighter aircraft eliminated almost all military planes in the island.

One mini-sub is believed to have entered the harbor, but it only carried 2 torpedoes; so did not accomplish much.

penny wrote:Pardon me for not pointing out 'depth of harbor notwithstanding.' I thought that'd be a given as it is also the reason the navy didn't think such an attack using torpedoes dropped from planes was possible. Yet the Japanese designed torpedoes that could operate in shallow waters.

BTW, I think that attack is also an example of ...

Invisible force = (force)²

No need to ask for pardon when correctly pointing out a fact of history. Yes, the US Navy was wrong to think air dropped torpedoes would get stuck in the mud, because of this they did not deploy anti-torpedo netting. The Japanese did develop a simple wooden add-on for their torpedoes that solved the problem. Another reason why air power was the answer and not submarines.

Your equation is at best metaphorical; because as a statement of physics, it is nonsense. But no matter how it is taken; it has no application to Pearl Harbor, that was the result of an attack by highly visible aircraft.

Top

Re: Attacking Darius:
by penny » Tue Nov 07, 2023 10:39 am
penny Rear Admiral Posts: 1478 Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am	tlb wrote: tlb wrote:The average depth of Pearl Harbor is 45 feet and the average distance from keel to top of conning tower for a WWII sub might be 25 feet; but the submerged sub needs to extend its periscope to attack. In the relatively calm water waters the periscope of a moving sub would be quite visible and after the first torpedo explosion everyone would be looking. The torpedo load of a sub is less than 39, so it was wiser to attack with airplanes. A submarine is shallow water is not stealthy and did not have enough torpedoes to do as much damage as the dive and torpedo bombers did. In addition the fighter aircraft eliminated almost all military planes in the island. One mini-sub is believed to have entered the harbor, but it only carried 2 torpedoes; so did not accomplish much. penny wrote:Pardon me for not pointing out 'depth of harbor notwithstanding.' I thought that'd be a given as it is also the reason the navy didn't think such an attack using torpedoes dropped from planes was possible. Yet the Japanese designed torpedoes that could operate in shallow waters. BTW, I think that attack is also an example of ... Invisible force = (force)² No need to ask for pardon when correctly pointing out a fact of history. Yes, the US Navy was wrong to think air dropped torpedoes would get stuck in the mud, because of this they did not deploy anti-torpedo netting. The Japanese did develop a simple wooden add-on for their torpedoes that solved the problem. Another reason why air power was the answer and not submarines. Your equation is at best metaphorical; because as a statement of physics, it is nonsense. But no matter how it is taken; it has no application to Pearl Harbor, that was the result of an attack by highly visible aircraft. Again, I didn't think there was any need to point out the obvious. Of course the planes were visible while they were attacking. That equation keeps going over your head. It is easily grasped by Alphas. I am certain it was an equation that was displayed in every MAN production facility and classroom. Don't sweat it. . . . The artist formerly known as cthia. Now I can talk in the third person.
Top

Re: Attacking Darius:

by penny » Tue Nov 07, 2023 10:39 am

penny
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1478
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am

tlb wrote:
tlb wrote:The average depth of Pearl Harbor is 45 feet and the average distance from keel to top of conning tower for a WWII sub might be 25 feet; but the submerged sub needs to extend its periscope to attack. In the relatively calm water waters the periscope of a moving sub would be quite visible and after the first torpedo explosion everyone would be looking. The torpedo load of a sub is less than 39, so it was wiser to attack with airplanes. A submarine is shallow water is not stealthy and did not have enough torpedoes to do as much damage as the dive and torpedo bombers did. In addition the fighter aircraft eliminated almost all military planes in the island.

One mini-sub is believed to have entered the harbor, but it only carried 2 torpedoes; so did not accomplish much.

penny wrote:Pardon me for not pointing out 'depth of harbor notwithstanding.' I thought that'd be a given as it is also the reason the navy didn't think such an attack using torpedoes dropped from planes was possible. Yet the Japanese designed torpedoes that could operate in shallow waters.

BTW, I think that attack is also an example of ...

Invisible force = (force)²

No need to ask for pardon when correctly pointing out a fact of history. Yes, the US Navy was wrong to think air dropped torpedoes would get stuck in the mud, because of this they did not deploy anti-torpedo netting. The Japanese did develop a simple wooden add-on for their torpedoes that solved the problem. Another reason why air power was the answer and not submarines.

Your equation is at best metaphorical; because as a statement of physics, it is nonsense. But no matter how it is taken; it has no application to Pearl Harbor, that was the result of an attack by highly visible aircraft.

Again, I didn't think there was any need to point out the obvious. Of course the planes were visible while they were attacking.

That equation keeps going over your head. It is easily grasped by Alphas. I am certain it was an equation that was displayed in every MAN production facility and classroom. Don't sweat it.

.
.
.

The artist formerly known as cthia.

Now I can talk in the third person.

Top

Re: Attacking Darius:
by tlb » Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:02 am
tlb Fleet Admiral Posts: 4765 Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am	penny wrote:That equation keeps going over your head. Drax the Destroyer: wrote:Nothing goes over my head! My reflexes are too fast, I would catch it.
Top

Re: Attacking Darius:

by tlb » Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:02 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4765
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

penny wrote:That equation keeps going over your head.

Drax the Destroyer: wrote:Nothing goes over my head! My reflexes are too fast, I would catch it.

Top

Re: Attacking Darius:
by ThinksMarkedly » Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:17 am
ThinksMarkedly Fleet Admiral Posts: 4656 Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am	penny wrote:Invisible force = (force)² BTW, you probably meant the other way around: Force = (invisible force)² Because you meant that an amount of invisible force is equivalent to a much larger amount of regular, non-invisible force. However, your statement is actually not wrong, because adding more invisible force is not going to contribute linearly (much less quadratically) to the regular force, as the chance of detection also increases, so long as those invisible forces are weaker than regular when discovered.
Top

Re: Attacking Darius:

by ThinksMarkedly » Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:17 am

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4656
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

penny wrote:Invisible force = (force)²

BTW, you probably meant the other way around:

Force = (invisible force)²

Because you meant that an amount of invisible force is equivalent to a much larger amount of regular, non-invisible force.

However, your statement is actually not wrong, because adding more invisible force is not going to contribute linearly (much less quadratically) to the regular force, as the chance of detection also increases, so long as those invisible forces are weaker than regular when discovered.

Top

1520 posts • Page 140 of 152 • 1 ... 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 ... 152

Return to Honorverse

Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Attacking Darius: