New Manty ship ideas.

The E wrote:

Rakhmamort wrote:Really? He's automatically incompetent? If I'm commanding the light forces, I'm going to make sure my squadron will be twisting and turning around each other all the time to make the LACs 'passes' problematic at best. And its going to be a running battle. My ships might not be as maneuverable as they are, but continuous 'random' twisting along my axis would make it practically impossible for them to 'coast and turn' so they can fire at the space between my wedges. Hell, in that kind of environment, I might even try to catch their wedge with my much stronger wedge.

Thus neatly making your whole energy torpedo concept much more useless.

Not at all! I've said it might be possible to use the practically unlimited ammo property of the ETorp launchers to make the enemy maneuver into a direction you want it to go. You can't go wasting your limited missile ammo with that kind of shots. I'm proposing shots across the throat that wouldn't exactly hit but might hit if the enemy wiggles too much. (I'm specifically not proposing an ETorp guided by the force to curve into the throat ot the wedge, curl up and around the hammerhead and hit the unarmored top or bottom part of the ship nearest its fusion bottle and cause a catastrophic explosion of the fusion plant. NOT!!!!)

Potato wrote:Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Ferrets provide the most missiles per LAC. But given the composition of a typical LAC wing, Shrikes provide the most anti-ship missile power (I am ignoring Katanas here). Wing composition is 2 squadrons of Ferrets per wing. With a wing of over 100 LACs, that is only 15% of the wing. Shrikes carry fewer missiles, but there are so much more of them that it is more than enough to make up the difference.

Check your numbers. The composition of the MacGregor strike is over 22% Ferrets.

324 LACs
252 Shrikes
72 Ferrets

With a 1:4 ratio, you are correct, most of the ship killers would be in the Shrikes. Only 41% in Ferrets.

However, I am only suggesting that only 1 out of the 4 Shrikes are going to be equipped with ETorps. That wold only mean a reduction of 2 missile launchers. From 20 to 18. From 136 missile for the 5 LACs to 126. What you gain however is, if the opportunity presents itself, the ability to take out an SD with 4 salvos of 2 ETorpedoes (If the RMN exercise ruling can be used as basis). Less salvos if your target is a smaller ship.

Rakhmamort wrote:

Potato wrote:Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Ferrets provide the most missiles per LAC. But given the composition of a typical LAC wing, Shrikes provide the most anti-ship missile power (I am ignoring Katanas here). Wing composition is 2 squadrons of Ferrets per wing. With a wing of over 100 LACs, that is only 15% of the wing. Shrikes carry fewer missiles, but there are so much more of them that it is more than enough to make up the difference.

Check your numbers. The composition of the MacGregor strike is over 28% Ferrets.

324 LACs
252 Shrikes
72 Ferrets

22.2% on those figures.

[Edit] Also, the Battle of Macgregor is irrelevant to a discussion of a modern LAC force mix. It took place in 1915 during Operation Buttercup, before the introduction of the Katana-class LAC. The balance of LAC squadrons in a carrier wing has changed with the inclusion of the Katana.

But that still does not change the point at all. There are 4 Shrikes for every Ferret, which is more than enough to offset the Ferret's < 3x missile load.

Dafmeister wrote:

Rakhmamort wrote:
Get on the same page with us if you want to join the discussion. There were no DNs with no wedges in Barnett.

Excuse me? I was pointing out that the CO wasn't on a ship at all, whether or not there were DNs without wedges is irrelevant.

Since I was pointing out that the CO was in the CIC of a DN with no wedges during the attack, that means we were not talking about Barnett where the CO was in a control room on planet/moon/station. Check Chapter Thirty-Nine of AoV.

Potato wrote:But that still does not change the point at all. There are 4 Shrikes for every Ferret, which is more than enough to offset the Ferret's < 3x missile load.

The point is, for the loss of 10 shipkillers out of 136, 2 launchers out of 20, you get a weapon that can deal a huge amount of damage. Yes, you have to wait for the chance to use it but what is the probability that NO sidewall generator goes down before your target is destroyed?

Rakhmamort wrote:
Since I was pointing out that the CO was in the CIC of a DN with no wedges during the attack, that means we were not talking about Barnett where the CO was in a control room on planet/moon/station. Check Chapter Thirty-Nine of AoV.

Yes, I got my discussion threads tangled and thought you were referring to Barnett. My apologies, serves me right for reading the forums at work.

Dafmeister wrote:

Rakhmamort wrote:Check your numbers. The composition of the MacGregor strike is over 28% Ferrets.

324 LACs
252 Shrikes
72 Ferrets

22.2% on those figures.

[Edit] Also, the Battle of Macgregor is irrelevant to a discussion of a modern LAC force mix. It took place in 1915 during Operation Buttercup, before the introduction of the Katana-class LAC. The balance of LAC squadrons in a carrier wing has changed with the inclusion of the Katana.

1) You don't send in Katanas on a strike unless the other side has defending LACs.
2) Even so, 2 Squadrons of Ferrets, 8 of Shrikes and 2 of Katanas. You can add 1 or 2 squadrons of whatever type you want if you are not using the 96 LAC wing size. The ratio is practically the same. So it's just going to be nitpicking because of a 2 or 3% difference.

Dafmeister wrote:

Rakhmamort wrote:
Since I was pointing out that the CO was in the CIC of a DN with no wedges during the attack, that means we were not talking about Barnett where the CO was in a control room on planet/moon/station. Check Chapter Thirty-Nine of AoV.

Yes, I got my discussion threads tangled and thought you were referring to Barnett. My apologies, serves me right for reading the forums at work.

It happens. No worries.

Rakhmamort wrote:

Potato wrote:But that still does not change the point at all. There are 4 Shrikes for every Ferret, which is more than enough to offset the Ferret's < 3x missile load.

The point is, for the loss of 10 shipkillers out of 136, 2 launchers out of 20, you get a weapon that can deal a huge amount of damage. Yes, you have to wait for the chance to use it but what is the probability that NO sidewall generator goes down before your target is destroyed?

[Edit: God, the original of this was badly written...]

And the counterpoint is that it's not a question of the raw damage output numbers, it's about the effective force you can bring to bear at a given point. You're arguing that the RMN should remove weapons that are effective in a broad range of circumstances in favour of weapons that can only be used to give a quicker coup de grace to an enemy who is already badly damaged, is probably falling behind its companions and can be finished off readily by other means. In the meantime, your energy torpedo LAC has reduced effectiveness in all other circumstances, which is hampering its ability to actually cripple that enemy in the first place.

If the only purpose, or even the primary purpose, of LACs was to act as hounds dragging down wounded prey, then putting energy torpedoes into the mix might make sense. They're actually intended for screening, scouting, direct combat against enemy light units and, increasingly, fleet missile defence. It makes no sense to compromise their capabilities in those areas in exchange for a greater ability to kill cripples, who can often be compelled to surrender in any case.