How do spider drive SD(P)'s fight?

fallsfromtrees wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:
Nice rundown, by the way, though I snipped it to save electrons and mouse scroll buttons. About this last though: Why do you assume the core armor faces all aspects? I'd think that the tops and bottoms could be skipped, since (barring truly freak hits) anything that would have been coming from that direction would have been stopped by the wedge.

For that matter, I'd also think that the forward portion could be thinner, since anything coming from that direction would have had to get through the entire forward hammerhead, which isn't armor as such but does represent a good piece of protection coverage as a matter of course. (The aft direction is the really vulnerable one, because the pods go out that way.)

Also - because hey, this is as good a place as any to ask - bucklers: do they need the wedge to work? Because if they don't, spider drive ships could be fitted with such things to project very well defended shields along the threat axes as another passive defense.

There is no hammerhead on the LD, which is why there has to be armor. Also,I think he is assuming no wedge (no beta nodes), so armor on the top and bottom.

SWM wrote:

Theemile wrote:What keeps hitting me is OB really didn't NEED the Sharks or the LDs.

OK - hold with me for a second.

"Legimate" Freighters lining up to use the wormhole disgorged the Frigate sized Ghosts for thier scouting mission - and no one noticed.

Why not use freighters to drop off the Graser torps in a similiar manner as the ghosts? over a week or 2 they could be dropped off by passing various, unrelated freighters and move to a pre-arranged, out of the way rendevous point, then together swarming the stations at pre-arranged times weeks later. The Ghosts would still need to do last minute recon and build the guidance platform, but no LDs and no Sharks. No worry of a deep space intercept. No 2 month accel to .2C. No way to figure out who dropped them off from the annonymous 2 month old traffic lists.

They also need the Ghosts to do the initial espionage work, which determined the targets of the torpedos and missile pods. That took many weeks.

But yes, I think you're right. They could have done Operation Oyster Bay as it was executed without the Sharks or Detweilers. It makes me wonder if the original plan included something even bigger for the Detweilers to do. Take out the Junction forts, perhaps?

JeffEngel wrote:
Nice rundown, by the way, though I snipped it to save electrons and mouse scroll buttons. About this last though: Why do you assume the core armor faces all aspects? I'd think that the tops and bottoms could be skipped, since (barring truly freak hits) anything that would have been coming from that direction would have been stopped by the wedge.

For that matter, I'd also think that the forward portion could be thinner, since anything coming from that direction would have had to get through the entire forward hammerhead, which isn't armor as such but does represent a good piece of protection coverage as a matter of course. (The aft direction is the really vulnerable one, because the pods go out that way.)

Also - because hey, this is as good a place as any to ask - bucklers: do they need the wedge to work? Because if they don't, spider drive ships could be fitted with such things to project very well defended shields along the threat axes as another passive defense.

fallsfromtrees wrote:There is no hammerhead on the LD, which is why there has to be armor. Also,I think he is assuming no wedge (no beta nodes), so armor on the top and bottom.

JeffEngel wrote:Right. I was asking with regard to impeller drive SD(P)'s there.

JeffEngel wrote:

Vince wrote:
The one area where I am inferring the most is the core armor scheme on a SD or SDP. I assume that it faces all aspects, unlike the outer armor scheme on an SD or SDP

Nice rundown, by the way, though I snipped it to save electrons and mouse scroll buttons. About this last though: Why do you assume the core armor faces all aspects? I'd think that the tops and bottoms could be skipped, since (barring truly freak hits) anything that would have been coming from that direction would have been stopped by the wedge.

For that matter, I'd also think that the forward portion could be thinner, since anything coming from that direction would have had to get through the entire forward hammerhead, which isn't armor as such but does represent a good piece of protection coverage as a matter of course. (The aft direction is the really vulnerable one, because the pods go out that way.)

Also - because hey, this is as good a place as any to ask - bucklers: do they need the wedge to work? Because if they don't, spider drive ships could be fitted with such things to project very well defended shields along the threat axes as another passive defense.

Vince wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:
Nice rundown, by the way, though I snipped it to save electrons and mouse scroll buttons. About this last though: Why do you assume the core armor faces all aspects? I'd think that the tops and bottoms could be skipped, since (barring truly freak hits) anything that would have been coming from that direction would have been stopped by the wedge.

For that matter, I'd also think that the forward portion could be thinner, since anything coming from that direction would have had to get through the entire forward hammerhead, which isn't armor as such but does represent a good piece of protection coverage as a matter of course. (The aft direction is the really vulnerable one, because the pods go out that way.)

Remember the most open aspect of an impeller wedge is the throat which you can fire down and potentially hit the unarmored (outer skin) top or bottom of the ship. See the picture from Wedge geometry and visualize a laser head shooting down the throat of the wedge from an angle of almost up to 45 degrees above or below the plane the ship is in, but which misses the impeller wedge, bow hammerhead and hits the top or bottom of the SD/SDP.

The same applies to a modern fortress under impeller drive.

JeffEngel wrote:

Vince wrote:Remember the most open aspect of an impeller wedge is the throat which you can fire down and potentially hit the unarmored (outer skin) top or bottom of the ship. See the picture from Wedge geometry and visualize a laser head shooting down the throat of the wedge from an angle of almost up to 45 degrees above or below the plane the ship is in, but which misses the impeller wedge, bow hammerhead and hits the top or bottom of the SD/SDP.

The same applies to a modern fortress under impeller drive.

I would think that, if those shots were considered likely enough, it would make for much more armoring of the tops and bottoms of wallers. For that matter, if the designers are worried about that, the armor proposed for the tops and bottoms of the core section would be allocated to the tops and bottoms of the hull, thereby protecting bot only the core but everything between the top/bottom and the core too. Also, the image suggests that the chances of one of those down the throat shots missing the sidewalls on the way in is remote - it's a very narrow band between them. Granted, a shot hitting the sidewall isn't one that leaves you with zero interest in having armor further along the line of the shot - it's not a wedge - but it does mean that you've got a bit more reason to suppose that you won't be eating a full strength shot coming from that direction.

Vince wrote:Remember the most open aspect of an impeller wedge is the throat which you can fire down and potentially hit the unarmored (outer skin) top or bottom of the ship. See the picture from Wedge geometry and visualize a laser head shooting down the throat of the wedge from an angle of almost up to 45 degrees above or below the plane the ship is in, but which misses the impeller wedge, bow hammerhead and hits the top or bottom of the SD/SDP.

The same applies to a modern fortress under impeller drive.

JeffEngel wrote:I would think that, if those shots were considered likely enough, it would make for much more armoring of the tops and bottoms of wallers. For that matter, if the designers are worried about that, the armor proposed for the tops and bottoms of the core section would be allocated to the tops and bottoms of the hull, thereby protecting bot only the core but everything between the top/bottom and the core too. Also, the image suggests that the chances of one of those down the throat shots missing the sidewalls on the way in is remote - it's a very narrow band between them. Granted, a shot hitting the sidewall isn't one that leaves you with zero interest in having armor further along the line of the shot - it's not a wedge - but it does mean that you've got a bit more reason to suppose that you won't be eating a full strength shot coming from that direction.

munroburton wrote:In addition, the geometries involved means that no shot is going to hit an impeller drive ship's top or bottom side straight-on. They'll all be angled hits, with more of the energy punching sideways through the armour than directly through it. That generates additional 'depth' of armouring.

I'm sure naval designers take into consideration the maximum and minimum angles of attack possible upon the ventral/dorsal sides and armour them sufficiently to resist hits of those type. That still results in significantly thinner armour there.

In Fire Forged, An Introduction to Modern Starship Armor Design wrote:CORE ARMOR
When the core hull of a starship has at least one dedicated protective anti-beam or kinetic layer, it is said to have core armor. Core armor is a universal feature on anything larger than a battlecruiser but less common on smaller ships. The Star Knight’s core armor encloses all vital systems that can fit within its envelope, including the vast majority of crewed spaces, power rooms, control spaces, and virtually the entire life support complex. The composition is probably similar to the hammerhead armors. The core hull itself is of course difficult to see in most imagery so the thickness of its armor is uncertain, but it probably at least half a meter. Given the location of external fueling and venting ports, it is likely that the fusion reactors are surrounded by layers of compartmentalized hydrogen bunkerage for extra protection.