Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 38 guests
LACs: fighters or something else | |
---|---|
by Dauntless » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:08 am | |
Dauntless
Posts: 1072
|
I've been rereading some of the LAC fights and i'm starting to think that RFC has pulled a fast one.
I've started to think of them more as MTBs/PT/Eboats then fighters. RFC referenced a lot of fighter jock stuff when first started, but MTB crews were even crazier then fighter jocks, went just as fast (for a boat) then the planes, had bigger crews, more diverse weapons (i.e. MGs and Toprs like early LACs graser and few missiles). what do you guys think? am i nuts or does this actually make sense? |
Top |
Re: LACs: fighters or something else | |
---|---|
by MaxxQ » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:21 am | |
MaxxQ
Posts: 1553
|
You're not nuts. They're pretty much exactly as you describe - PT boats. David just gave the crews fighter jock mentality. Possibly just because he hadn't done so yet. =================
Honorverse Art: http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/ Honorverse Video: http://youtu.be/fy8e-3lrKGE http://youtu.be/uEiGEeq8SiI http://youtu.be/i99Ufp_wAnQ http://youtu.be/byq68MjOlJU |
Top |
Re: LACs: fighters or something else | |
---|---|
by Jonathan_S » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:22 am | |
Jonathan_S
Posts: 8793
|
Thats not a fast one. RFC has been pretty clear all along that LACs aren't fighters. They're speed and manuverabilty advantage over ships is too low to be an aircraft analog. Though because they lack the equivalent of a torpedo they're closer to a motor gun boat than a motor torpedo boat. (Though somehow carry the equvient of an 8" - 11" gun) There's even a post over in the infodumps, from 2002, called Shrikes and Ferrets are not fighters http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/138/0 |
Top |
Re: LACs: fighters or something else | |
---|---|
by Silverwall » Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:36 pm | |
Silverwall
Posts: 388
|
Definately not fighters.
It may also help to think of CLACs as being like the ultimate version of HMS Vulcan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vulcan_(1889) rather than Nimitz or Ark Royal The correlation is continued by the fact that Minataur had significant armamaent just like HMS Vulcan which was armed and armoured as a light cruiser on top of its torpedo boat mothership role. |
Top |
Re: LACs: fighters or something else | |
---|---|
by ZVar » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:28 pm | |
ZVar
Posts: 115
|
Another reason for the fighter jock analogy, Most readers know from other books and movies what a fighter jock attitude is. All, I think, most people know of MTB's is Kennedy was stationed on one of the PT boats.
-Steven |
Top |
Re: LACs: fighters or something else | |
---|---|
by Tenshinai » Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:34 am | |
Tenshinai
Posts: 2893
|
Ah yes, that was a very good example. |
Top |
Re: LACs: fighters or something else | |
---|---|
by Brigade XO » Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:14 pm | |
Brigade XO
Posts: 3190
|
About the only thing that PT boats don't share with Manticore LACs is that the PTs were NOT carried and launched from a mothership.
These were small, highly mobile ships that fought WAY above their weight class. It's the torpedos (in the Honorverse it's the shipkiller missiles). They also regularly were outfitted with twin .50cal machine guns in turrets and a with 20mm cannon on a mount on the rear deck. The torpedos could (at least) cripple a captial ship and sink most things smaller. While PTs (and MTBs) could be effective in fast attacks- that was their inital use against capital ships in WW I- they were often most effective on creaping in quietly, lauching the "fish" at a target and then quietly motor away- at least until the fish hit something and then it was all three throttles to the wall and get the hell out of Dodge. In a system defence role, the LACs are exactly like PT Boats. Small craft that are really difficult to pick up on sensors, very difficult to target, slink around to get into attack position and then deliver devistating hits- and run away very effectively (meaning they could avoid being killed by their larger targets by virture of size, speed and manuvarablity) . |
Top |
Re: LACs: fighters or something else | |
---|---|
by Jonathan_S » Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:06 pm | |
Jonathan_S
Posts: 8793
|
Actually I'd argue that analogizing the LAC missile to a torpedo isn't very accurate as they are far less deadly to a capitol ship than a torpedo. (Though yes, both types carry only a few missiles or torpedoes) Even a single torpedo hit landed anywhere on even the biggest warships ever to float is significant damage that will need non-trivial yard time, soon, to repair. (Though it's unlikely for a single hit, barring a golden BB from a WWII era torpedo to sink any battleship with a modern torpedo defense system. And a single hit may not even immediately force the battleship to break off operations and return -- but it won't stay on station any longer than it has to) In stark contrast the weak little warheads on a LAC missile will have marginal effect on a DN or SD unless they get a perfect golden-BB - a down the throat hit that angles past the heavy physical armor of the hammerhead to strike the least armored parts of the ship, it's dorsal or ventral surfaces. Normally the sidewalls will blunt it and the meters of armor will absorb and scatter most, if not all, of it. The waller might lose some surface mounted sensors or a single mount, but be able to continue to fight indefinitely. Another, probably less important difference, is that once a torpedo was launched the target's only real defense was to attempt to avoid it. But a LAC's missiles are subject to interception and destruction starting with CMs over the later 17% or so of their range, plus PDLCs over 2-3x the range of their own laserheads. So the LAC is probably far less likely to score a hit on a capital ship than a PT boat. In terms of weapon effectiveness I tend to view LACs as being somewhat more analogous to the MGB (motor gun boat) as it mounts weapons that are threat to smaller warships, but are unlikely to be particularly effective again heavy ships. |
Top |
Re: LACs: fighters or something else | |
---|---|
by Dauntless » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:07 am | |
Dauntless
Posts: 1072
|
we've seen CA/BC missiles upgunned so that they much more dangerous, given how easily they are killing solly BC they could probably seriously hurt even a haven sector SD.
what happens when something similliar is done to LAC missiles? now i'm not saying you will somehow get a MK 16 mod G warhead on a missile that small but i'm sure LAC missiles are going to get a lot nastier when the same sort of mods are done to them. |
Top |
Re: LACs: fighters or something else | |
---|---|
by Tenshinai » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:51 am | |
Tenshinai
Posts: 2893
|
The primary reason for "easy kills" on the Sollies isn´t due to the missiles being hyperdamaging, but because their electronics and engines are so much better that more hits are scored, less are intercepted and the hits scored have a higher tendency for nastier hits. They´re essentially overwhelming the defenses at every layer. A thousand mosquito-bites is a serious nuisance, a million is "ouch". |
Top |