New Manty ship ideas.

Whitecold wrote:LAC's are not designed to fight SD's, they never were, and never will be. Modern Shrikes can hurt wallers, but that does not mean it is a good idea. The designed target are light units, DD's and cruisers. Against BC's who know what they are up against LAC's will already take lots of losses, or even loose.
And etorps can't pierce sidewalls at all. It doesn't matter how weak.

You still have the graser to deliver damage that might take down the shields. That's going to be more than enough for lighter combatants. Even the proof of concept LACs continued attacking BBs even when they've shot out all their missiles. So you have half your standard missile salvos, why would it be a bad thing to have launchers that you can fire unlimited number of ETorps when you do get a chance to hit undefended ship areas?

Rakhmamort wrote:

Whitecold wrote:LAC's are not designed to fight SD's, they never were, and never will be. Modern Shrikes can hurt wallers, but that does not mean it is a good idea. The designed target are light units, DD's and cruisers. Against BC's who know what they are up against LAC's will already take lots of losses, or even loose.
And etorps can't pierce sidewalls at all. It doesn't matter how weak.

You still have the graser to deliver damage that might take down the shields. That's going to be more than enough for lighter combatants. Even the proof of concept LACs continued attacking BBs even when they've shot out all their missiles. So you have half your standard missile salvos, why would it be a bad thing to have launchers that you can fire unlimited number of ETorps when you do get a chance to hit undefended ship areas?

Get out your books.

Namely, On Basilisk Station and see what was gutted, then pull out House of Steel and compare/contrast how much of said hull tonnage was dedicated to the E torps on said ship. Then look at what would need to be removed from the LAC.

Do some basic footwork and post the NUMBERS before WHINING first.

Whitecold wrote:

LAC's are not designed to fight SD's, they never were, and never will be.

A new technology may come along. Never say Never. It bites you in der' buns all too often when mentioned.

Like, oh I do not know, a spider drive maybe? Currently they seem fairly large and slow. Give the engineers a few years.

Currently Tanks are nothing but sitting ducks to modern infantry. They used to rule. Until tanks obtain active defenses to take out said infantry weapons, a tank is nothing but a very expensive coffin. SD verses LAC. WWII it was the Battleship verses the airplane.

Relax wrote:SD verses LAC. WWII it was the Battleship verses the airplane.

That analogy doesn't work as well as you think it does. Unlike WW2 planes, LACs have no good way of dealing with the defences an active waller can deploy, from sidewalls to armor to weapon systems. Barring another big breakthrough in terms of how destructive an LAC-mounted weapon can be, LAC attacks against a waller will always end up with disproportionate losses on the part of the LAC wing.

Relax wrote:

Rakhmamort wrote:You still have the graser to deliver damage that might take down the shields. That's going to be more than enough for lighter combatants. Even the proof of concept LACs continued attacking BBs even when they've shot out all their missiles. So you have half your standard missile salvos, why would it be a bad thing to have launchers that you can fire unlimited number of ETorps when you do get a chance to hit undefended ship areas?

Get out your books.

Namely, On Basilisk Station and see what was gutted, then pull out House of Steel and compare/contrast how much of said hull tonnage was dedicated to the E torps on said ship. Then look at what would need to be removed from the LAC.

Do some basic footwork and post the NUMBERS before WHINING first.

WHINING? lol! Who is whining and what is being whined about?

And no, I don't have house of steel yet. Are you saying only those with complete collections can post in this thread?

If the problem is simply technical in nature, well, tech can be developed, in this case just improved. We already have ETorp launchers, we already have micro fusion reactors. Miniaturize one and improve the output of the other to supply enough plasma for the launcher and you have your LAC ETorp launchers. Nobody said the LACs I'm proposing should be carrying the same model launchers as the one installed in HMS Fearless.

Rakhmamort wrote:If the problem is simply technical in nature, well, tech can be developed, in this case just improved. We already have ETorp launchers, we already have micro fusion reactors. Miniaturize one and improve the output of the other to supply enough plasma for the launcher and you have your LAC ETorp launchers. Nobody said the LACs I'm proposing should be carrying the same model launchers as the one installed in HMS Fearless.

That assumes that the relevant technology can all be scaled so that this is possible.

And at the end of the development process for that weapon, you'll still end up with equipment that is mostly useless for the primary mission of a modern LAC. In a vessel as limited as an LAC, packing in hardware that will be rarely used is a severe waste of space, time, and money.

The E wrote:

Relax wrote:SD verses LAC. WWII it was the Battleship verses the airplane.

That analogy doesn't work as well as you think it does. Unlike WW2 planes, LACs have no good way of dealing with the defences an active waller can deploy, from sidewalls to armor to weapon systems. Barring another big breakthrough in terms of how destructive an LAC-mounted weapon can be, LAC attacks against a waller will always end up with disproportionate losses on the part of the LAC wing.

That is what the battleship boys said also, word for word before WWII.

The E wrote:That assumes that the relevant technology can all be scaled so that this is possible.

And at the end of the development process for that weapon, you'll still end up with equipment that is mostly useless for the primary mission of a modern LAC. In a vessel as limited as an LAC, packing in hardware that will be rarely used is a severe waste of space, time, and money.

And that primary mission is what? Isn't it get into knife fighting range and deal as much damage as they can?

The main problem with your standard LACs is that their throw weight is limited by their magazine space. As far as I know, there hasn't been an extended battle of LACs vs light units where both sides start battle ready and undamaged. IMHO, that kind of clash would be the running battle type where a standard LACs' missile load would be empty way before the battle ends (given the opponent's CO has half a brain).

With their maneuverability, LACs can even use the unlimited ETorps to force their opponents into unfavorable positions/maneuvers by taking high deflection shots at the open ends of the wedges. They can't do that with their current missile loads because they are very limited in what they can carry. Snipe away with their grasers until one or more of the sidewall generators fail and then finish with a couple of ETorp salvos.

wastedfly wrote:That is what the battleship boys said also, word for word before WWII.

Do I hear Kamikaze LACs?

Obviously LAC wedges are closer together than proper ship's wedges. Ergo, you can fit a LAC and it's wedges between a proper ship's wedge. Wedge in a boat bay sound familiar.

Of course it's a suicide ride, but hey, 1 LAC for 1 SD looks like a good exchange to me.

wastedfly wrote:That is what the battleship boys said also, word for word before WWII.

Tell me, then, what the usual result of a Battlecruiser-grade Graser vs a DN or SD-grade sidewall is. I'll wait.

Hint: I think it was in SVW, and the words "contemptuous ease" might have been used. Then there were the simulations Alice Truman and Honor ran that pitted an LAC wing against a single division of SDs, which also ended up disastrously for the LACs.

All indications we have point towards LACs being not very effective against Wallers. Sure, if you throw enough LACs at the problem, they will eventually get through, but I think that there are more efficient ways of disposing unwanted hardware and surplus crews.

Rakhmamort wrote:And that primary mission is what? Isn't it get into knife fighting range and deal as much damage as they can?

Sure. But as we've pointed out, an Energy Torpedo is a very situational weapon that is mostly useless, whereas a graser has a good chance of a) hitting the target and b) inflicting damage on it. So, if there's a choice between mounting an additional weapon system that you may get to use once in a blue moon, or improving the performance of a weapon system that is already proven useful, I know what I would choose. Because let us not forget: House of Steel shows that energy torps have always been a tertiary "can't hurt to have them" weapon system on Battlecruisers and Wallers, because the tonnage and room to mount them was more readily available in ships that size. Even so, current designs omit ET batteries from their loadout, concentrating on weapons that are more useful (or mounting more PD).

So, back to the question at hand: Is the addition of an ET launcher to the Shrike, or Shrike-like LACs, a worthwhile investment? From my perspective, no. The R&D time necessary to make it possible can be better spent improving the Shrike's graser, or making the Shrike more durable.

The main problem with your standard LACs is that their throw weight is limited by their magazine space. As far as I know, there hasn't been an extended battle of LACs vs light units where both sides start battle ready and undamaged. IMHO, that kind of clash would be the running battle type where a standard LACs' missile load would be empty way before the battle ends (given the opponent's CO has half a brain).

With their maneuverability, LACs can even use the unlimited ETorps to force their opponents into unfavorable positions/maneuvers by taking high deflection shots at the open ends of the wedges. They can't do that with their current missile loads because they are very limited in what they can carry. Snipe away with their grasers until one or more of the sidewall generators fail and then finish with a couple of ETorp salvos.

Except that against the light combatants against which this tactic would work, the standard graser mounted on the Shrike will perform the job quite handily already. Remember, these are Battlecruiser-grade grasers, and no Battlecruiser or below can take that many hits from them before either exploding or being taken out of combat. Basically, you are positing a solution for a problem that does not exist.