NationStates Jolt Archive

After a lengthy discussion, I, and various other nations, have found a possible way to deal with a superdreadnought battleship without resorting to the use of nuclear devices which would provoke a nuclear retaliation.

A large Magnetic Acceleration Cannon (MAC) (such as the one currently under development by Pontinian scientists for use inserting unmanned spacecraft into orbit) could theoretically be used to hurl an unmanned unit into space consisting of a second MAC and assorted targeting systems. This second MAC would then fire an artillery shell the size of a large house towards Earth. The projectile would rip through the atmosphere, and, upon impact with the SD, it's solid-iron nose would vaporise, detonating a warhead using Torpene or similar high-explosive. The resulting detonation would, in theory, cause devastating damage to the SD, possibly even breaking the keel and snapping the SD in two.

A system that is more MT but with similar results is a system the contain tungsten rods that are realesed from a high orbit sattalite. As the rod drops it gains great speed and is essentually a very powerful KE projectile.

^ Same idea as what he said

I sell a solution to the SD problem, its a Tungsten Needle MicroSatellite, no way to stop it, and the SD has only 30 seconds to react after launch, just spear it repeatedly, the pressure wave will fissure the hull eventually. I wouldn't destroy it completely, but I would sink it or damage it enough so it no longer goes anywhere.

Check out my storefront: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433522

Its listed under weapons of Mass/Focused Destruction

Aside from the astronomically high cost of space-based weapons (especially if you do also maintain something that resembles a large scale space-based ballistic missile defence system), people apparantly has forgetten about the accuracy of space-based weapons when used against land. Not only is there no way to accurately guide a space-launched weapon, but how are you going to make sure that it will hit a moving object, at such a high speed and dropped from such a height?

It might work if you decide to 'pepper' the SD with a lot of these space-based projectiles, but get an ambulance ready in case the accountant faints when he or she reads the financial figures associated with such attack.

That's the basic principle, but the fact that the second MAC is actually falling directly towards the target adds more KE. Also, satellites are vulnerable to attack, especially from EMP devices. The proposed site for the Pontinian MAC is inside the country's northern mountain range - a ready-made shelter.

And this is perfectly plausible with modern technology, it's just that no-one has decided to fund one yet. CERN has a similar system.

Aside from the astronomically high cost of space-based weapons (especially if you do also maintain something that resembles a large scale space-based ballistic missile defence system), people apparantly has forgetten about the accuracy of space-based weapons when used against land. Not only is there no way to accurately guide a space-launched weapon, but how are you going to make sure that it will hit a moving object, at such a high speed and dropped from such a height?

It might work if you decide to 'pepper' the SD with a lot of these space-based projectiles, but get an ambulance ready in case the accountant faints when he or she reads the financial figures associated with such attack.

Without warning and the fact that most SDs move super slowly advanced computing can predict where it will be when the needle impacts, the pressure wave formed is enough to scare a SD, when a tidal wave the size of a 5 story building appears along with a deafening sonic boom.

Without warning and the fact that most SDs move super slowly
On what basis are you basing your allegation on?

the pressure wave formed is enough to scare a SD, when a tidal wave the size of a 5 story building appears along with a deafening sonic boom.
...again, provided if it actually hits the ship itself. That is, a moving ship within a gigantic battle group, which will detect the projectile (though not shooting it down) which will stop following its straight line course, and which will conduct evasive maneuvers.

This would be very expensive and I think that the SD owner might just notice that you were maneuvering a house-sized shell over their ship. Trust me, there are much cheaper, easier and less esoteric ways of destroying a superdreadnaught.

On what basis are you basing your allegation on?


...again, provided if it actually hits the ship itself. That is, a moving ship within a gigantic battle group, which will detect the projectile (though not shooting it down) which will stop following its straight line course, and which will conduct evasive maneuvers.

Most SDs, I see moving at 25 knots max, any more would be flying for those monsters. Detecting a projectile that takes about 30 seconds to enter the atmosphere moving at Mach 9, doesn't give it much time to move. If fired at the right trajectory (at an angle to pierce the hull near the waterline), the evasive manuveurs would be futile and still maintain a high percent chance of impact. Besides, that needle will still devastate other ships nearby, so its money well spent if a few frigates get swamped or cut in half.

Why not just use a really, really big torpedo? Far less expensive, and more accurate.

...again, provided that the projectile would still hit the exact little dot that it is aiming at, at an astronomical speed with no provision for guidance or maneuvering on the projectile itself. Think of it as a bullet - yes, you aim it, but is it going to guide itself once it exits the barrel of a firearm? Really, this has been discussed before about a year ago (if not more) when the SD was just months old in its age - and aside from the cost (though really it shouldn't be that expensive) the degree of accuracy is predictable.

And this is perfectly plausible with modern technology, it's just that no-one has decided to fund one yet. CERN has a similar system.
Blah Blah Blah Still PMT.

SD's are inherantly slow. Noone here is going to tell me that a SD can do 35 knots. They are simply too big to go ways.

As with the Tungsten Rod idea, it would be quite simple to project where a target will be within the next few moments and would be even simpler to know how to rod would act and thefor know it's course. It is very dense and heavy so winds don't effect it and even if it hit a bird or something, it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

But yes, they are expensive. But so are SDs.

Why not just use a really, really big torpedo? Far less expensive, and more accurate.
Actually, provided that the penetration of the ASW defences is achieved (and no, ASW warfare is far more deeper than dropping a trillion sonobuoys), torpedoes - especially larger ones - are one of the very ideal weapons for the destruction of a SD. When combined with other weapons in a grand attack, it'll actually work and hit its target.

Most SDs, I see moving at 25 knots max, any more would be flying for those monsters. Detecting a projectile that takes about 30 seconds to enter the atmosphere moving at Mach 9, doesn't give it much time to move. If fired at the right trajectory (at an angle to pierce the hull near the waterline), the evasive manuveurs would be futile and still maintain a high percent chance of impact. Besides, that needle will still devastate other ships nearby, so its money well spent if a few frigates get swamped or cut in half.
My SDs move at around 32knts max. The size of a ship doesnt affect its speed, provided there are correspondingly larger engines, it only affects how quickly the vessel can change speed and direction. Now, considering the height you would have to launch this from, and considering the fact that tungsten rods have been suggested before (and therefore the SD is looking out for them) and considering how long it would take for the rod to hit (satellites arent planes or hypersoars - geostationary orbit is at about 36,000km) the SD will have about an hour to get out the way even if the rod is moving at a km/second. This is more than enough, especially considering that tungsten rods arent exactly accurate.

Don't snipers work on the same principle: Far away moving target, project where the bullet will be, even if he somehow finds out the bullet is speeding toward him, he won't have much time to move.

My SDs move at around 32knts max. The size of a ship doesnt affect its speed, provided there are correspondingly larger engines, it only affects how quickly the vessel can change speed and direction. Now, considering the height you would have to launch this from, and considering the fact that tungsten rods have been suggested before (and therefore the SD is looking out for them) and considering how long it would take for the rod to hit (satellites arent planes or hypersoars - geostationary orbit is at about 36,000km) the SD will have about an hour to get out the way even if the rod is moving at a km/second. This is more than enough, especially considering that tungsten rods arent exactly accurate.

Well, I hope never to engage you in combat.

My SDs move at around 32knts max. The size of a ship doesnt affect its speed, provided there are correspondingly larger engines, it only affects how quickly the vessel can change speed and direction. Now, considering the height you would have to launch this from, and considering the fact that tungsten rods have been suggested before (and therefore the SD is looking out for them) and considering how long it would take for the rod to hit (satellites arent planes or hypersoars - geostationary orbit is at about 36,000km) the SD will have about an hour to get out the way even if the rod is moving at a km/second. This is more than enough, especially considering that tungsten rods arent exactly accurate.

Your SD must have freaking huge engines. SD are just too huge to move at those speeds without half the ship being an engine.

Also, the rods reach in excess of mach 7 and follow a Ballistics trajectory and are therefor very easy to predict. The SC would have a few minuets to react, that is if they can detect it.

Your SD must have freaking huge engines. SD are just too huge to move at those speeds without half the ship being an engine.

Also, the rods reach in excess of mach 7 and follow a Ballistics trajectory and are therefor very easy to predict. The SC would have a few minuets to react, that is if they can detect it.

Actually with LEO being 320-800 km, at 1 km/sec its 320-800 seconds to react, not long. And at Mach 7, the SD has between 2.2 minutes to 5.5 minutes to react. And based on my Ballistic Missiles and how they fire, it should give around 45 seconds to around 1.5 minutes.

Your SD must have freaking huge engines. SD are just too huge to move at those speeds without half the ship being an engine.
My superdreadnaughts have several rather large nuclear engines powering waterjets, yes.

Also, the rods reach in excess of mach 7 and follow a Ballistics trajectory and are therefor very easy to predict. The SC would have a few minuets to react, that is if they can detect it.
Do the sums. Actually work out how long it would take something moving at mach 7 to travel 36,000km. You may be somewhat suprised.

<snip>
Out of interest, how does your satellite maneuver to a position aobve the SD? Satellites only carry fuel for minor orbit corrections. Especially at such a low altitude where your satellite will be orbiting the earth every hour or so.

Do the sums. Actually work out how long it would take something moving at mach 7 to travel 36,000km. You may be somewhat suprised.

Only if they get into GSO, or HEO, at LEO its a very short amount of time.

If ortillery fires at an SD, the SD -WILL- get hit unless the firing platform's aim was off-- an SD is far too massive to make any sort of evasive maneuvers or even to change it's speed quickly, so it's just a matter of predicting it's course and leading it a bit.

You could nail an ordinary aircraft carrier the same way.

If ortillery fires at an SD, the SD -WILL- get hit unless the firing platform's aim was off-- an SD is far too massive to make any sort of evasive maneuvers or even to change it's speed quickly, so it's just a matter of predicting it's course and leading it a bit.

You could nail an ordinary aircraft carrier the same way.
Exactly. These projectiles move at blistering speed. In space, there is no medium (like air) to slow you down, so the only limit on your speed is the speed of light - nothing can go that fast without either a) bending the laws of physics, which is future tech and therefore impossible for the nations concerned with SDs, or b) being a light beam.
Granted, the atmosphere would slow you down, but factoring in the gravitational slingshot effect (the projectiles would be fired into highly elliptical orbits) and the rotation of the Earth (the projectiles would be fired against the Earth's rotation, so the Earth would, in effect, move the ship towards the projectile as the projectile moved towards the ship), the shell would be moving at such speed that all you'd need to do is aim at the bow, and when the projectile got there, the SD would've moved just far enough for you to hit dead centre.
(This is from second firing, not first firing. Up until the moment the second MAC fires, the projectile can be re-directed to hit anywhere on Earth, although for maximum effect this is limited to about one-third of the Earth's surface - the bit more or less under the MAC)

If ortillery fires at an SD, the SD -WILL- get hit unless the firing platform's aim was off-- an SD is far too massive to make any sort of evasive maneuvers or even to change it's speed quickly, so it's just a matter of predicting it's course and leading it a bit.

You could nail an ordinary aircraft carrier the same way.
Maybe in PMT / FT. In modern tech an unguided tungsten rod moving several hundred - several thousand kilometres would be lucky to have a CEP of 800m.

...all you'd need to do is aim at the bow, and when the projectile got there, the SD would've moved just far enough for you to hit dead centre...
...and once again, you are assunming that the skipper of the SD will be idiotic enough to receive a report of the firing of the projectile, and /still/ go on this straight course of his. Which will by the way, rarely happen.

Also, the rods reach in excess of mach 7 and follow a Ballistics trajectory and are therefor very easy to predict. The SC would have a few minuets to react, that is if they can detect it.

yes i doubt a radar would detect a mach 7 object, say the size of a car

Out of interest, how does your satellite maneuver to a position aobve the SD? Satellites only carry fuel for minor orbit corrections. Especially at such a low altitude where your satellite will be orbiting the earth every hour or so.
they could use an ion engine, we already have experimental ones and the EU is going to send one into space soon. or from the satellite fire a rocket with a tungsten rod that would position itself above the SD then drop

yes i doubt a radar would detect a mach 7 object, say the size of a car
Especially one with such a massive heat signature that it will have to be wrapped up in degradeable ceramic tiles to stop it melting into a blob of remarkable unaerodynamic tungsten goo.

(Well ok that doesnt actually affect the chances of being detected by radar, but you know what I mean).

they could use an ion engine, we already have experimental ones and the EU is going to send one into space soon. or from the satellite fire a rocket with a tungsten rod that would position itself above the SD then drop
'tis true, I'll admit.

You wouldn't even need radar to see it coming, just an observant lookout..

And missing the SD doesn't necessarily mean you wasted a shot. Remember, this behemoth is so expensive and huge, it needs a massive escort fleet(s?), and the massive resultant wave formed by a tungsten rod slamming into the water may swamp some frigates or smaller boats. Or it may even hit another ship in the fleet. At least it will spook them. And follow up with a Fuel Air Munition strike, its seriously demoralizing.

it needs a massive escort fleet(s?)
That's after all, a component of any large naval battle fleet, correct? With the FAE strike though, I don't see how you could just deliver something from space and still has room for a FAE warhead. Other than that, you'll have to deliver it atmospherically.

And missing the SD doesn't necessarily mean you wasted a shot. Remember, this behemoth is so expensive and huge, it needs a massive escort fleet(s?), and the massive resultant wave formed by a tungsten rod slamming into the water may swamp some frigates or smaller boats. Or it may even hit another ship in the fleet. At least it will spook them. And follow up with a Fuel Air Munition strike, its seriously demoralizing.
Fleets dont stay in hull-to-hull contact. The chances of hitting anything with a tungsten rod is fairly small. The only way to make a decent strike is to launch large numbers of rods, but as has been said it quickly becomes extremely expensive.

Morale, within reason, is mostly irrelevent in naval warfare. There is nowhere to run on a ship, especially from something raining from the sky, and so there is little anyone could do even if firing at the vessels did spook them enough to want to flee.

Don't know why everyones so worried about SD's in the first place. How many times have these things actually been used in combat? I don't think they've been used at all in the last few months unless i've completely missed it. But even if an SD is used against you and you start manuevering these Sats over head don't you think the SD owner is going to notice multiple sats which would have to be pretty big if there holding all these tungsten rods. And Sats aren't exactly armored. Still don't see what your worried about because the chance of an SD actually being used against isn't all that great.

Fleets dont stay in hull-to-hull contact. The chances of hitting anything with a tungsten rod is fairly small. The only way to make a decent strike is to launch large numbers of rods, but as has been said it quickly becomes extremely expensive.

Morale, within reason, is mostly irrelevent in naval warfare. There is nowhere to run on a ship, especially from something raining from the sky, and so there is little anyone could do even if firing at the vessels did spook them enough to want to flee.

Its part of the "Hand of God" complex. Even if your troops can't run, wouldn't that add to the fear. I'm not saying I'm demoralizing you to the point that you turn tail, but I'm just scaring you and making soldiers nervous. Its been shown the a nervous soldier makes mistakes, and that is what we want. Sailors pissing their pants, twitching at the guns and making navigational errors. As for the "Hand of God" complex, its an unstoppable weapon, falling from the sky, and causing tremendous damage, if it hits. Even if it doesn't we have waves and ships shaking. Being on sea you rarely ride out 4-5 story waves that your enemy creates. Creating disorder and chaos. And this isn't just a one time thing. I'd coordinate this with the opening blows, as fuel air muntions rain down, sparking fires, artillery strikes making navigation hell, and airstrikes. And you can declare war and as you do that fire said rods at the enemy SD, disabling them before they can get to battle. From what I understand the only 2 Doujin-class SDs ever to be put out of commission were done so with a similar tactic, while they were docked, they were bombarded from the sky with Rods until they sank in the port. THey were too large to lift conventionally. And were just abandoned.

There's only one RP that wasnt ignored that I am aware of which included SDs... they are only used if there's a major war, and there is almost never a major war.

There are simpler, cheaper and or more effective ways to take out an SD.

There are simpler, cheaper and or more effective ways to take out an SD.

Like?

And Praetonia, whether MT tech can nail an SD from orbit or not is really not an issue, as SDs are PMT.

From what I understand the only 2 Doujin-class SDs ever to be put out of commission were done so with a similar tactic, while they were docked, they were bombarded from the sky with Rods until they sank in the port. THey were too large to lift conventionally. And were just abandoned.

When did this happen? You can add another Doujin to the list, one was nuked during Brimstone. Didn't die but was effectivly taken out of the conflict.

There are simpler, cheaper and or more effective ways to take out an SD.

My tungsten rods are usually used on bunkers and stationary targets anyway. A tactical nuke works wonders but the "nuke" part scares people. Mounting a rod on a hypersonic sea-skimming cruise missile could do it, but I think the traditional way of blasting it to pieces either at dock or at sea with conventional weapons is much more sastifying to the heart, and to the wallet.

<snip>
I doubt that it would have any significant effect on a well disciplined navy. Generally guns and operations centres dont have windows, and shaking is something that sailors are more than used to. And if you actually get hit, the morale of the sailors involved is no longer relevant. The only thing that will cause major worry is spooking the officers, but that doesnt happen much.

And yes that thing about the Doujins is true, but that was a pre-scripted RP and done for the sake of the storyline (subsequently ignored also, but that was because the RPers involved no longer had time to finish the war). In reality, unless you launched large numbers of rods, they wouldnt do a huge amount of damage, and you have to remember than even a small hit from shrapnel from a SAM would knock them far off coruse.

Napalm/cluster/Thermite on top: AA weaponry overheats(from the fire or from firing) and the ship becomes a defensless target. Throw whatever you want next.
Or a mass torpedo attack, have the torpedo carried by long range missiles. Split the SD in two.
Cruise missile with a DU tip thrown at it from 35km, supported by a scramjet engine tio give it a higher speed. It'll go right through the deck, and whatever charge you used will blow, cripple or sink the SD.

I must admit, Doom has some good idea's. Good thing i'm on his side.

When did this happen? You can add another Doujin to the list, one was nuked during Brimstone. Didn't die but was effectivly taken out of the conflict.

Didn't another few get nuked by IDF when Doujin was stupid enough to sink a bunch of IDF's ships right in front of some of his diplomats and basically taunt him about it?

Napalm/cluster/Thermite on top: AA weaponry overheats(from the fire or from firing) and the ship becomes a defensless target. Throw whatever you want next.
Rubbish. Any navy worth fighting will use SAMs and SAAMs, not just CIWS guns, and they wont allow their CIWS guns to fire continuously until they overheat and then just stop.

And I dont see what napalm or cluster munitions would do to an SD, and the effectiveness of thermite is somewhat overexaggerated.

Or a mass torpedo attack, have the torpedo carried by long range missiles. Split the SD in two.
This faces the same problems as any mass attack - you need to launch massive numbers of missiles, most will get shot down and you need multiple good impacts to do any damage, especially against a trimaran SD (which 95% of them are).

Cruise missile with a DU tip thrown at it from 35km,
You can get within 35km of an SD unmolested? How?

supported by a scramjet engine tio give it a higher speed.
SCRAMjets only work in the upper atmosphere. That is, if they work at all... there has only ever been 1 successful test in real life, and that wasnt on a missile.

It'll go right through the deck, and whatever charge you used will blow, cripple or sink the SD.
No it wont. It will cause localised damage to the area of the vessel where it exploded.

I must admit, Doom has some good idea's. Good thing i'm on his side.
They are good ideas, but none of them "decisive". There isnt really any decisive way of destroying an SD...

Didn't another few get nuked by IDF when Doujin was stupid enough to sink a bunch of IDF's ships right in front of some of his diplomats and basically taunt him about it?

I dunno, the Doujin I'm talking about was hit by Belem I think. If I remember right it was a bunker buster nuke dropped by a bomber.

There are at least two available to me, though one you have a stated policy of overreaction to =p

There are at least two available to me, though one you have a stated policy of overreaction to =p
Meh. It doesnt matter. You are a PMT nation anyway so we would never go to war.

Rubbish. Any navy worth fighting will use SAMs and SAAMs, not just CIWS guns, and they wont allow their CIWS guns to fire continuously until they overheat and then just stop.
High altitude bombing will work fine, this target is so huge that ou simply cant miss it.

And I dont see what napalm or cluster munitions would do to an SD, and the effectiveness of thermite is somewhat overexaggerated.
Overheat everything, making anything external (mostly weapons) useless. In other words make your SD useless.


This faces the same problems as any mass attack - you need to launch massive numbers of missiles, most will get shot down and you need multiple good impacts to do any damage, especially against a trimaran SD (which 95% of them are).
meh, its works, and you dont need to launch massive amounts of them. Thats all i need to know


You can get within 35km of an SD unmolested? How?
I'd say yes, but that doesnt matter. You didnt understand this one. I will send the cruise misslie from much further away, while it will fly 35km high


SCRAMjets only work in the upper atmosphere. That is, if they work at all... there has only ever been 1 successful test in real life, and that wasnt on a missile.
Really now, 75% of all ubertech weapons that are around NS are based on testing and or theory. It will work, especially 35km high.


No it wont. It will cause localised damage to the area of the vessel where it exploded. An ONC charge will do the trick


They are good ideas, but none of them "decisive". There isnt really any decisive way of destroying an SD...
There is no such thing as an invincible ship. I constantly work on ways to rid NS of the SD. And only those who deploy and or make SDs will say there is no decisive way to kill one.

Bah, most SD owners suffer from Golden Egg Syndrome. They are too afraid to deploy it. So you see the SDs either sit in port all day and decay, or just are blown up in port.

With hitting SDs in harbour, hitting them before they set sail is always a cruical in the process, assuming that these SDs aren't already deployed to sea in the light of a crisis; in regards to the suggestion of putting torpedoes onto missiles, it will work, but not to the point to sinking a SD. Since torpedoes are after all, a payload once it is mounted on a rocket or a guided missile, it would require an astronomically large missile if you want a torpedo that is big enough to damage a capital ship, which means that it will most likely take up more space than a standard anti-ship missile, while prohibiting aircraft deployment on anything smaller than a larger bomber. Then you'll also haev to release the torpedo at a relatively short range, since the sensors on the torpedo are pretty short ranged (if you are insisting on supercavs, forget about it). While the torpedoes are tricky to destroy in some instances, the missiles however, can be shot down before they get into the range of the SD to release their torpedoes (I'd assume that any competent naval commander would organize his escorts in rings over a fairly wide radius). In the end, the idea is good and is feasible, but it means either a) a reasonably sized missile that has a puny 12.75" LW torpedo; or b) a large missile (the size could be slightly larger than say, a Granit/Shipwreck), with a 21" torpedo with the warhead of only a reasonable sized standard anti-ship missile.

An ASROC-style weapon is a great ASW weapon, but an inefficient weapon in the surface ship attack role.

heading back onto the speed of tungsten rods,

something going at mach 7 wouldnt show up on radar, simple answer, its going too fast and the radar waves go too slowly.

its like trying to run to the end of an olympic sprint to see who wins.

the tungsten rod guided rocket used en masse by would be a best non-nuke idea.
an EMP strike?
biological warfare?
acid attack? using science to destroy the metal hull
Fe+AO3? (not too sure with chemistry) but it can melt concrete

Fe+AO3? (not too sure with chemistry) but it can melt concrete

Acid is most likely a bad idea. Not only will it take a long time to work, it will be diluted by the large amounts of water that ships tend to be in, and will be hellishly expensive to store.

I know that the idea of a scramjet-powered KE weapon has been thrown around, but would a ramjet-powered one have the speed necessary?

Umm, why does everyone think that a car sized projectile moving at Mach 7 can cripple an SD? Even the Patriot PAC-3 and S-400 are designed to intercept objects moving at or around that speed(up to Mach 10-16 I think, not sure), and then those objects would give off MASSIVE heat signitures, you just develop a Anti-Missiles Defence shield for your SDs that incorporate PAC-3s, S-400s or other like systems.


Disclaimer: i'm probably wrong :p

I have a really easy solution to the Superdreadnaught problem - my entire navy. In order to destroy a Superdreadnaught, all I have to do is attack it with everything I have. Sure, I'll take terrible losses from its escorts and such, but the loss of one of those thigns equates, in terms of economic and political damage, to the destruction of a large fleet, so I figure it's a decent trade.

you just develop a Anti-Missiles Defence shield for your SDs that incorporate PAC-3s, S-400s or other like systems.

Don't take this as gospel, but I think I remember one of the NS naval experts saying that PAC-3s couldn't be mounted on ships due to technical difficulties.

Oh and another way to destroy a SD, get your own SD! I mean, there are plenty of good ones across NS for you to buy, and if none suit your needs, team up with a ship designer and make your own(Like I did).

And don't get mad at some nations just cause they have massive fleets that have multiple SDs, the willingness to spend trillions of dollars on a huge navy seperates true naval powers from nations with just navies.

Heres how me, The Macabees and Samtonia plan to kill SD's.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428035&highlight=safehaven2

(I know its a bit dirty to be using this thread to advertise but hey bussiness is bussiness.)

I still don't believe most people need to worry about SDs. There hardly ever usedand like Prae said only in major wars which hardly ever hapenn. SDs cost hundreds of billions of dollors, not many people are willing to take a chance of loosing them.

Heres how me, The Macabees and Samtonia plan to kill SD's.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428035&highlight=safehaven2

(I know its a bit dirty to be using this thread to advertise but hey bussiness is bussiness.)

I still don't believe most people need to worry about SDs. There hardly ever usedand like Prae said only in major wars which hardly ever hapenn. SDs cost hundreds of billions of dollors, not many people are willing to take a chance of loosing them.
Yeah, though I'd consider that more leaning towards PMT you can see I've bought 4 of those, not the most effective thing, it probably would have been better to just mount massive amounts of ETC guns.

My own version carries ETC/EMR guns instead of railguns.

heading back onto the speed of tungsten rods,

something going at mach 7 wouldnt show up on radar, simple answer, its going too fast and the radar waves go too slowly.

its like trying to run to the end of an olympic sprint to see who wins.

the tungsten rod guided rocket used en masse by would be a best non-nuke idea.
an EMP strike?
biological warfare?
acid attack? using science to destroy the metal hull
Fe+AO3? (not too sure with chemistry) but it can melt concrete

Sorry, but this is completely false. Radar waves, being electromagnetic energy, move more or less at the speed of light (slowed a bit by the atmosphere, but not enough to matter).

Praetonia, if you use SDs, you're using postmodern tech-- and thus are vunerable to postmodern countermeasures.

Oooh.

I want one.

Oooh.

I want one.
Want what?

I have a brute force weapon that can take care of a SD plus its entire escort fleet.

First...

http://www.utpb.edu/ceed/GeologicalResources/West_Texas_Geology/Images/meteorite.jpg

Then...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/imagedump/10791.jpg

Then...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/imagedump/10792.jpg

Then...

http://www.newprophecy.net/Giant_Tsunami_2.jpg

Nuff said. :p

Though each of the ideas has merit, I'm not sure if in an RP people will accept wacky ideas in the the process of having their SD destroyed. I've seen the whole argument about the asteroids before and frankly it's more than obvious that such thing is without scientific basis, thus it's unlikely that it'll be accepted OOCly in an IC RP.

Though each of the ideas has merit, I'm not sure if in an RP people will accept wacky ideas in the the process of having their SD destroyed. I've seen the whole argument about the asteroids before and frankly it's more than obvious that such thing is without scientific basis, thus it's unlikely that it'll be accepted OOCly in an IC RP.

Heh. I'm going for a slightly different angle here.

I do not necessarily have to aim the asteroid directly at the SD. I could use the asteroid to generate that city-killer tsuamni pictured. That could sink or wipe out a good portion of the SD's escort fleet, allowing my naval forces and such to close onto the SD without as much resistance.

EDIT: Also, with the wipe-out of dozens and even hundreds of destroyers, AEGIS cruisers, missile boats, supply ships, etc. from the tsuamni, then there will be far less enemy defenses for my submarine packs to deal with. My submarine packs will only have to deal with battleships, aircraft carriers, and the SD itself.

...and then again, the problem is that the asteroid weapon concept itself is not feasible, thus it would be nothing short of a miracle if people would accept as a feasible way of destroying a SD. Really, the arguments previously already had established the utter impossibility of such weapon on realistic terms based on both science and financial practicability; and in the end, it's irrelevant whether you declare it MT or PMT: it's impossible.

You could still use it provided that the other people actually accept it; and this will rarely be the case in a between-MT/PMT (deliberately avoiding the SD = MT or PMT issue here) naval RP, if at all.

...and then again, the problem is that the asteroid weapon concept itself is not feasible, thus it would be nothing short of a miracle if people would accept as a feasible way of destroying a SD. Really, the arguments previously already had established the utter impossibility of such weapon on realistic terms based on both science and financial practicability; and in the end, it's irrelevant whether you declare it MT or PMT: it's impossible.

You could still use it provided that the other people actually accept it; and this will rarely be the case in a between-MT/PMT (deliberately avoiding the SD = MT or PMT issue here) naval RP, if at all.

I disagree on the feasibility of asteroid weapons. It is feasible to use small scale asteroids of anywhere between 10 - 100 meters. Anything bigger than that would be much more difficult and problematic to manage and deal with.

However, lets put that debate aside. We will just have to agree to disagree there.


I would like to discuss potential ways to achieve a tsuanmi if not by asteroids. One idea I have is to use huge explosives underwater and shatter a sea canyon, which would create sufficient water displacement to generate a good sized tsuanmi.

I want to explore different weapon systems and such, as I want to see what can be done without resorting to number-spamming as you so eloquently put it. I am aware there are tactics and strategy involved with taking down SD's, but I want to see what else can be done, and creatively at that.

The issue with tungsten rods isn't with aiming...

You can line up a perfect shot and miss by hundreds of meters. It's called heat friction, and it is very, very mean to things falling from space in terms of course.

Why do you think nuclear warheads miss exact target by hundreds of meters? Blazing speed means heat friction.

Granted, your tungsten rods will have to be much more precise. A nuclear weapon is powerful enough so that it can miss its target by hundreds of meters. But your tungsten rod is shooting at a much smaller target, and it's going to be messed with by reentry and atmospheric forces just as much.

When did this happen? You can add another Doujin to the list, one was nuked during Brimstone. Didn't die but was effectivly taken out of the conflict.

I did that. I used Deep Penetration bombs with nuclear warheads. Basically the bunker buster bombs being developed by the U.S. Army with a very very very small nuclear charge(less then a kiloton.) It didnt work as well as I expected mainly because there was a lot of arguing about it first and then when we agreed OOCly on the status of low yield nukes, the Hypersoars got intercepted.

EDIT: it might of been a Kiloton or slightly more. I used an online calculator to find out how much power would be needed for a a small blast radius I think it was 200-400 feet. Enough to rip portions of the ship apart from inside while distrubiting radiation directly inside. Of course if it hit the powder kegs, missile stores or engines/reactors the whole thing would blow up. Which would probably detonate with the force of a full size nuclear bomb considering how much munitions those things carry.

Not to derail, but this is to scare all you in the Atlantic, there is an old arms freighter that carried munitions during WWII, it was torpedoed, abandoned and subsequently beached itself. Now it carries enough munitions to equal nearly a megaton of explosive. That will cause tidal waves to swamp many Eastern cities in the Americas, and Western European cities, along with you Britian. The reason we haven't done anything is that we are afraid of setting it off, its deteriated for nearly 60 years. A SD, probably carries a megaton or more, so if it goes up in flames, so will a significant portion of the escort fleet. Now I know where to aim.

Not to derail, but this is to scare all you in the Atlantic, there is an old arms freighter that carried munitions during WWII, it was torpedoed, abandoned and subsequently beached itself. Now it carries enough munitions to equal nearly a megaton of explosive. That will cause tidal waves to swamp many Eastern cities in the Americas, and Western European cities, along with you Britian. The reason we haven't done anything is that we are afraid of setting it off, its deteriated for nearly 60 years. A SD, probably carries a megaton or more, so if it goes up in flames, so will a significant portion of the escort fleet. Now I know where to aim.

Really? I never knew that. Where is this abandoned time bomb freighter, anyways?

Um... a ship can haul 1,000,000 tons in the early to mid 20th century, or more specifically, 1,000,000,000 (or a billion) kilograms?

Um... a ship can haul 1,000,000 tons in the early to mid 20th century, or more specifically, 1,000,000,000 (or a billion) kilograms?

But only the largest container ships in the world can carry that much. A fully loaded carrier only displaces 97,000 tons. And most of that is non explosive. On those SD Im sure there load of missiles and shells equal and exceed that. Even saying its only 100 thousand tons of explosives on the ship thats still 5 Hiroshima bombs going off.

Over the last week I thought of a way to take SD's out, or at least fight them fairly well.

Without giving much away, it involves Cold War era weapons, tactics and a fleet of UAVs.

I sell a solution to the SD problem...

Isn't asking a ship to be able to counter orbital strikes rather like rating the Abrams' effectiveness against a Typhoon class boomer sitting a thousand miles away at the bottom of the ocean? Orbital warfare is a matter for sat-on-sat action, it's completely outside an SD's intended mission. Again, we're into this ridiculous situation of imagining that our glorious new weapon will just be allowed to sit there and take it's shot unmolested, exactly like the people who idiotically claim battleships are obsolete based on having limitless carrier-based planes versus a single, unescorted ship. A fleet in a time where these existed would have it's own orbital 'battlegroup' of attack sats to defend it from such tactics, and possibly a few lil' mid-stages SDI thingies to provide some protection from ICBMs, too.

One idea I have is to use huge explosives underwater and shatter a sea canyon, which would create sufficient water displacement to generate a good sized tsuanmi.

You'd never make a tsunami into a weapon effective against ships at sea because the waves stay low until they approach the shore. Didn't you notice that in fishing villages destroyed by the tsunami in Asia the fishermen themselves survived because they were at sea and barely noticed the wave?

Now it carries enough munitions to equal nearly a megaton of explosive.

Impossible. No ship in WW2 ever carried anything resembling that.

Actually, GMC, I highly doubt that an SD's fleet would be protected very well by orbital stuff. You'd need a rather extensive SDI network to do so-- and the expenses of a navy that builds and deploys SDs would generally preclude also developing an SDI system good enough to do what you suggest, unless the nation that owns said system cuts costs somewhere else (like in their nuclear arsenal).

Actually, GMC, I highly doubt that an SD's fleet would be protected very well by orbital stuff.

It needs to be protected from orbital weapons, which is significantly easier than developing space-to-surface weapons. It's not like a satellite is really that hard to put out of commission, after all.

Depends on the satellite, really. It wouldn't be that hard to design a sat tough enough that you couldn't just nail it with fragments from something.

The problem with your tactic Novikov is that if your facing an overtly funded and overtly huge navy like mine, your going to be facing upwards of 25 of these SD's [PSDNs is my term] And I don't know what's this obsession with golden egg, I always deploy my PSDNs if possible..just that I never get the chance. Personally I find the most effective way of taking out an SD is by encircling it's fleet (rarely possible) and literally spamming with torpedoes, SCRAMjet missiles, RAMjet missiles, tungsten rods, yakhont size missiles, etc etc. I find that if there's a whole fleet engagement, gun to gun action with a P/SDN is rather pointless and innacurate.

Weeeellllll...

Lesse... Tungsten Rods == Fucking Expensive. But so are SDs.

Putting stuff into orbit == Fucking expensive. But so is an SD.

SDs == technologically feasible. But so are Orbital weapons platforms. Just... Both are fucking expensive.

Now that this has been covered...

I think we can safely guess that the accuracy of $Kinetic_Kill projectile from orbit is in the range of ICBM accuracy.

SD ability to move out of the way: Now, I dunno... I'm sure that someone here knows of the excessive problems the average supertanker has, yes? Good. For the very huge and very heavy SD, it's about an order of magnitude worse.

Especially if you have < 10 minutes.

As such, the SD has a... Predictable path. Calculating where you have to hit, well, a few simple equations, that's all.

Still, a one shot - one hit situation is unlikely, so you would prolly need about, uh... four to eight projectiles to have a good chance of scoring a hit.

Next problem: Damage. Frankly, I doubt that the hit can sink the SD. First and foremost, it has to get through X layers of armour and shit. and even if it gets throgh it, the size of the hole would be... Limited, and I'm fairly certain that a sane SD has things like, uh... Bulkheads. And the KE you deploy wont exactly be kiloton range. More like, ah... Doubledigit ton of TNT equivalents. Certainly enough to do terrible damage to the superstructure, essentially achiving a mission kill, though.

SD ability to move out of the way: Now, I dunno... I'm sure that someone here knows of the excessive problems the average supertanker has, yes? Good. For the very huge and very heavy SD, it's about an order of magnitude worse.
My point exactly. This argument is split into those who use SDs and those who don't. Those who use them are obviously biased. They have all stressed that their SDs would be able to move out of the way, and that simply aiming ahead would not work. I beg to differ. A ship that is, on average, 800m long and weighs several hundred thousand tons can't exactly turn on a dime. Your average SD has a turning circle the size of New York. So there goes the 'evasive manoeuvers' idea. And as for simply coming to a halt and letting the projectile (tungsten rod, solid-iron/Torpene missile or whatever) simply land in the sea ahead of you also wouldn't work. Something weighing this much has a lot of momentum, and it can't brake from 32 knots to a standstill fast enough to dodge a falling projectile - especially one with fins that allow it to adjust its aim. So that leaves the interception idea - the ability to shoot down the incoming projectile. Someone has already said that the projectile would be travelling at about MACH 7. A missile would have to travel at about MACH 5 in order to hit it before it reached its target, assuming that the projectile was picked up the moment it entered radar range (which I doubt it would - any fool would be jamming radar at this point, which would at least lessen its range). This gives a closing speed of MACH 12. I don't need to tell you that this is insanely fast. No targeting computer in the world can think fast enough to hit a target with a closing speed of MACH 12. The American SR-71A Blackbird spy plane has a top speed of MACH 3 or 4, as does your average SAM. This gives a closing speed of MACH 6 (half of what we're dealing with) and the Blackbird is still (in the words of Jeremy Clarkson) completely un-shoot-down-able. If computers in MT/ close PMT can't hit a target closing at MACH 6, how can you claim to be able to hit something closing at MACH 12? If you do, it'll be luck. Pure and simple.

Therefore, I conclude that superdreadnoughts are vulnerable to rounds dropped/fired from space.

Whos to say you couldn't use an AMDS system to knock out the tungsten rod? If your good enough to be able to launch something like that from space, then your'e good enough to knock it out of the way. It would be very hard to aim a tungsten rod at a superdreadnaught. You could plan where it was going to go, but if as soon as it launches, your superdreadnaught banks hard port it's not going to hit the thing. It may land directly nearby and cause all sorts of wave damage, but not enough to turn an SD over, ESPECIALLY a trimaran.

Pontia, what don't you understand about Circular Error Probability? Even if you aim it perfectly, it will still likely miss by dozens or hundreds of meters...

Even so, all my fleets have missile cruisers with ASAT missiles... And like others have said, you aren't the first person to think of using Tungsten rods. Some nations even have dedicated ASAT support vessels.

The tungsten rod idea was talked before over a year ago, and still, the conclusion is simple: kinetic kill weapons from space are still too inaccurate, which then forces you to essentially saturate the SD with multiple rods; but then the expenses would be high as well... and who says that a SD /can only/ move into a straight course without doing anything else during the minutes when the rod was fired? Though admittingly supertankers does have the problem of bad maneuverability... as the size and sophistication of a combat warship increase, so does the propulsion arrangement of the ship, in size, capability, and sophistication... no?

I just thought of another idea.

What if we could actually drown the SD, or push it underwater? This would be like pushing a floating bar of soap underwater in a tub, for instance. The SD will sink to the bottom of the sea, and problem solved.

I just thought of another idea.

What if we could actually drown the SD, or push it underwater? This would be like pushing a floating bar of soap underwater in a tub, for instance. The SD will sink to the bottom of the sea, and problem solved.
Interesting. How about dumping WetSteel on it? WetSteel is an underwater welding material - it forms a steel-like material when it reacts with water. You'd end up with a huge block of the stuff stuck to the side - it'd dribble down the hull, touch the sea and solidify. That might drag it under. It'd take loads, though, even if you loaded it all on one side to tip it, especially with a catamaran.

Want what?
Take a guess.

Ok, this will probably sound stupid and semi-wacky.

But I remember on the Discovery Channel once on a show about the Bermuda triangle there was a theory where alot of bubbles of some sort of gas (it was common, but i fogot what kind now) could randomly rise from the ocean floor and cause a ship to suddenly just sink from the surface of the ocean.

They confirmed that was what happened to one large ship down there.

Could it be possible to cause some sort of problem like this manually under a large SD?

I, too, saw that show. Did you see the part with the destroyer being blown up? The keel was ripped in two, and the ship split in half. That was with a torpedo detonated a few feet (25 or so, I think) beneath the keel. You could, I suppose, replicate this with a large torpedo, as some have suggested. It would be easy to find the SD; find the fleet and the ship from orbit via sattelite, send in a submarine (travelling as slowly as possible), and route the sub so it lies in the SD's path. Position the sub so it presents as small a profile as possible to avoid being picked up by any active sonar.

Now just wait for the SD, hope you don't get detected, and fire your large torpedo. Because this thing is massive, you may just want a single huge torpedo tube. For added insurance, have multiple subs plotted in different theoretical positions of the enemy fleet, ideally in groups. This gives multiple torpedoes and multiple positions so that it becomes less likely that you will miss either the fleet (by predicting it is going to a different location) or that a torpedo will fail to hit the SD.

I don't know of effectiveness, nor will I attempt to gauge that. I leave that up to others to compute.

Meh,

I'd either hit it with a big ass torpedo, a big ass missle, a nuke; or do something evil like fire some sort of torpedo with a load of gas into a composite of other gas to make the SD just sink.

I just thought of another idea.

What if we could actually drown the SD, or push it underwater? This would be like pushing a floating bar of soap underwater in a tub, for instance. The SD will sink to the bottom of the sea, and problem solved.

Why not just drop bombs on it if you have the ability to fly over it and deploy weapons with total impunity?

I don't know of effectiveness, nor will I attempt to gauge that. I leave that up to others to compute.

Most modern SD have underwater CIWS systems. Such huge, slow torpedoes would be unlikely to ever reach their targets. In any case, why not just put a normal warhead on the gigantic torpedo, since that'd seriously damage the target anyway and be much easier to handle that a torp full of super-pressurised gas?

I suppose a massive land based cannon could be used to bombard an SD outside of its own firing range. I'd recommend the shells be at least partially guided (no engine, just adjustable fins) and carry a several tons of thermite each. The thermite would destroy basically any surface function it hit, crippling the main guns, detonating VLS cells en masse (it could melt through their armored shutters, if not just jamming them shut), ruining the runway on the carrier portions typically attached to the outer trimaran floats, or slagging large areas of the sensors. Once an SD starts taking on hundreds of tons of pure iron melted in patches on its critical systems, it becomes less and less viable as a weapon......

Ye-es, that particular suggestion is slightly reliant upon your enemy having the intelligence of boiled cabbage, and thus failing entirely to notice the presence of a fecking great gun, or indeed of an equally oversized shell winging its merry way towards him. This is rather unlikely, when one considers that there existed back in the 1980s radars able to track 6in shells on land, and that most SDs' big guns can fire a projectile of several tons about 130+ km. Beating that range will need a very, very large gun, and probably a fairly large shell (if you wish to do any damage). And for that matter, I wonder how you're going to guide a shell over the horizon, since I think it reasonable to assume that your opponent will probably have done his utmost to knock out your satellites etc.

Blah Blah Blah Still PMT.

SD's are inherantly slow. Noone here is going to tell me that a SD can do 35 knots. They are simply too big to go ways.

As with the Tungsten Rod idea, it would be quite simple to project where a target will be within the next few moments and would be even simpler to know how to rod would act and thefor know it's course. It is very dense and heavy so winds don't effect it and even if it hit a bird or something, it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

But yes, they are expensive. But so are SDs.

Uh, actually, the US Army recently slipped congress a proposal asking for appropriate funding for a sattelite that could launch a 100 (I think) ton tungsten-ferite projectile towards the earth with unnerving accuracy, and would carry the same force as the Hiroshima bomb without the nasty environmental side-effects. This is entirely MT.

...and what? Even if the project's news is true and that the project will be successful (and there's no denial that space-based kinetic projectile weapons does have accuracy... every weapon has a degree of it), it would require a large amount of investment while the system itself would be only designed to attack fixed land targets, correct?

Though I also don't understand why it's the US Army's job. Should be a request by the USAF if the news' actually true.

Well, if an SD can have a big gun that can do that, but they have to carry it around on the ocean, logic dictates a land based one could be built to have a longer range because it has no limit of space to work with (although the daunting technical problems of even building SD guns are another matter). And obviously they'll know about the guns, just like you know about the SD, its all a matter of defending the guns. I guess it would be possible to shoot down incoming shells, but if that is true than it is just as easy to shoot down SD shells. As for guiding it, well, I guess it will need a built in targetting system. And if an enemy shoots down all of your satellites, you are more than welcome to shoot down all of his, which still leaves you with the bigger guns.

Edit: And satellites aren't the only things that can look over the horizon; over the horizon radar stations are quite real.

...and what? Even if the project's news is true and that the project will be successful (and there's no denial that space-based kinetic projectile weapons does have accuracy... every weapon has a degree of it), it would require a large amount of investment while the system itself would be only designed to attack fixed land targets, correct?

Though I also don't understand why it's the US Army's job. Should be a request by the USAF if the news' actually true.
A descent orbit for the shot could be made, and an object 10 km long moving at less than fifty knots could easily be accounted for and lead. Also, why would this fall under the air force's juristiction any more so than the army's?

... assuming that you are facing a SD that is near the shore, and is not in the middle of an ocean, ready to battle another fleet. All in all, targeting and detection still goes beyond satellites - you'll still need to actually know where the target is, track its course, and then accordingly shoot the projectile (and believe me, this is also true for many "100% guided weapons" as well). If you want to use the bi gun and fire blind, well that's your choice, though you are just going to waste some projectiles, time, electrical power, and a darn good gun barrel.

A descent orbit for the shot could be made, and an object 10 km long moving at less than fifty knots could easily be accounted for and lead.

You are correct and multiple projectiles, in that case, will guarentee a hit; though pretty much, as said before during the time between the projectile is launched and the time when the projectile impacts (either water or a hard surface) the skipper of the SD will evade unless a) he does not detect the attack; or b) extraordinary situations and inconviences disallows him to do this (highly unlikely); or c) quite frankly, he's an idiot.

Also, why would this fall under the air force's juristiction any more so than the army's?
*shrugs* I've been under the impression that the USAF, after all, does control the military space assets up there. I might be wrong, but it makes perfect sense (along with ticking some of my memories) for the AF to control space-based military assets as opposed to the Army (which, to the greatest extent if I recall, controls the ground-based air defence systems).

You are correct and multiple projectiles, in that case, will guarentee a hit; though pretty much, as said before during the time between the projectile is launched and the time when the projectile impacts (either water or a hard surface) the skipper of the SD will evade unless a) he does not detect the attack; or b) extraordinary situations and inconviences disallows him to do this (highly unlikely); or c) quite frankly, he's an idiot.


*shrugs* I've been under the impression that the USAF, after all, does control the military space assets up there. I might be wrong, but it makes perfect sense (along with ticking some of my memories) for the AF to control space-based military assets as opposed to the Army (which, to the greatest extent if I recall, controls the ground-based air defence systems).

There's an idiot born every minute, my friend.
And you're right, they do, but the army's engineer's invented it, and the army also views it as under their juristiction because it would be used as a support role in battle. You see, getting clearance for an invasion or military action is hard, but getting clearance for a military action with both the army and air force is ten times harder. So, to save migranes, the army wants it all to themselves.

Why not just drop bombs on it if you have the ability to fly over it and deploy weapons with total impunity?

Umm....

1. Planes can be shot down easily by 7982786189762 CIWS and AAA defenses the SD and its escorts have.

2. Conventional bombs won't sink a SD due to its extreme armor. A mission kill is possible, but I am aiming for full destruction of the SD as a major physcological blow, plus deny the enemy that particular SD to repair and send back into battle a few months later.

3. To defeat such unconventional stuff like SD's, the solutions have to be unconventional and "out-of-the-box" thinking.



You're advocating mass missile and plane spam, hoping for a kill on a SD. It doesn't work that way, because the costs will be astromoical, as much as an asteroid weapon, tsunami weapon, gas bubble weapon, etc.

If I send in 1,000 B-2 bombers to hope to even damage the SD. The enemy shoots down 950 - 990 of those bombers, meaning I lose over $2 trillion in that attack. Each B-2 costs roughly 1 - 2 billion dollars, plus several more billion dollars for weapons, missiles, etc.

So... if I had a choice between a $2 trillion cost "spam-attack" or a $500 billion dollar space weapon or unconventional weapon system, I'll choose the latter. I can have 4 of those space weapons for 1,000 B-2's and have a better chance of success.

What's more, tack on another $1 trillion for spammed cruise missile attacks. That means $3 trillion total for conventional weapons aganist the SD. Thus your "Use conventional Bombs and Torpedoes" method will actually end up costing more than my space or unconventional weapon systems in terms of resources, manpower (experienced plane pilots are hard to replace, refer to Japan in WW II), and morale loss from seeing so many men die in "spam-plane-attacks".

1. Planes can be shot down easily by 7982786189762 CIWS and AAA defenses the SD and its escorts have.

Ah, so once again you're trying to think up weapons to defeat imaginary people you should never have been roleplaying with to begin with? How would you deploy any weapon at all if your opponent is going to claim, as you say, invulnerability? It's pointless.

2. Conventional bombs won't sink a SD due to its extreme armor.

Large conventional bombs will sink an SD regardless of it's extreme armour.

3. To defeat such unconventional stuff like SD's, the solutions have to be unconventional and "out-of-the-box" thinking.

Not if the 'box' is reality.

You're advocating mass missile and plane spam, hoping for a kill on a SD. It doesn't work that way, because the costs will be astromoical, as much as an asteroid weapon, tsunami weapon, gas bubble weapon, etc.

Except none of those would work. Tsunami weapons are ridiculous, the asteroid weapon is totally implausible and gas bubble weapons are much less likely to work than conventional torpedoes.

Thus your "Use conventional Bombs and Torpedoes" method will actually end up costing more than my space or unconventional weapon systems in terms of resources, manpower (experienced plane pilots are hard to replace, refer to Japan in WW II), and morale loss from seeing so many men die in "spam-plane-attacks".

Except that I wouldn't be doing that. You use staged attacks on centrepeice combatants, in the series isolate-immobilise-destroy, and you use combined forces of ships, submarines and aircraft, not just a huge swarm of B-2s. Ie, ideally you must remove the battlegroup around an SD, then immobilise her [since an isolated SD would be making a break for friendly waters unless it's captain was certifiably insane or it had some reason to stick around], then attack her with aircraft, extended-range ship guns and such. Assuming you deem it necessary to do more than cripple her, that is.

Your 'solutions' are not cheaper because none of them would work at all, and you're horribly underexaggerating the cost of them anyway, and overexaggerating conventional costs by using B-2s instead of something with a sane pricetag.

You could very feasibly force an SD to go in circles with a torpedo dropped from a wood-and-canvas biplane. The rudder cannot be very well armored(or the ship would be very sluggish) and cannot be repaired at sea.

You could very feasibly force an SD to go in circles with a torpedo dropped from a wood-and-canvas biplane. The rudder cannot be very well armored(or the ship would be very sluggish) and cannot be repaired at sea.

I think you're confusing Superdreadnoughts with the Bismarck.

I think you're confusing Superdreadnoughts with the Bismarck.

Well, one might look to history, as opposed to Star Wars for solutions to the problem, I might say.

Well, one might look to history, as opposed to Star Wars for solutions to the problem, I might say.

Historically the torpedo struck the Bismarck's poorly-armoured steering gear, not her rudder. Extremely poor armour on the steering gear and fire control stations is a flaw in the Bismarck's design, not all ship design.

Well, one might look to history, as opposed to Star Wars for solutions to the problem, I might say.
Most SDs use waterjets, not propellers, so yes you can armour the drives. And the Bismark actually had a flaw in its propellor design recognised at the time because it was based off of earlier WWI German battleships, which made its propellor vulnerable. If the Bismark had been designed properly (you can hardly blame the German engineers - their entire navy was scuttled and this was the first time they'd built anything big since 1917ish) then the crippling blow struck by the torpedo probably wouldnt have been so serious.

lets get thinking on this,

1. if you can build a SuperDrednought, you can build a Super Bomber (and before you say you can't just look at the german He-111 Zwillig)

2. if you have a super bomber, you can build more you can have a super bomber fleet.

3. get your super bomber fleet, and carpet bomb the naval fleet. your bound to take some munitions ships with you and some pretty vital logistics.

OR

1. get plane
2. load exorcet
3. get more planes
4. load exorcets
5. fly
6. bomb supply ships.
7. fly away

result. SD has nothing to keep it alive.

And the ships won't fire back at the superbombers?

well yes then the plan loses all thought

or you could high altitude bomb

heck why not just kamikaze it, your bound to lose if that SD gets close to your nation

I guess the idea is to use a flight of ridiculusly powerful bombers to destroy a ridiculusly large and powerful ship.
I think that SD's are a little silly as they have such a huge cost and can range from nearly godmodding to a massive resources drain to merely a large military unit (depending on RPer) however they are an accepted part of NS and thus have to be tolerated and as far as I can see a SuperBomber wing sounds better and more realistic than a satelite mounted rod as an effective counbter measure.

SDs are PMT precisely because cost is no big deal in NS, just a function of joindate. Most people play as though money is no object.

lets get thinking on this,

1. if you can build a SuperDrednought, you can build a Super Bomber (and before you say you can't just look at the german He-111 Zwillig)
I'll accept that.

2. if you have a super bomber, you can build more you can have a super bomber fleet.
I have 21 SDs and sub-SDs, so you can build 21 superbombers.

3. get your super bomber fleet, and carpet bomb the naval fleet. your bound to take some munitions ships with you and some pretty vital logistics.
This is the bit I disagree with. You get within 1000km of the fleet, and then it deploys its CAP (carrier planes) to intercept. Since you only have 21 planes, you dont stand much of a chance.

OR

1. get plane
2. load exorcet
3. get more planes
4. load exorcets
5. fly
6. bomb supply ships.
7. fly away

result. SD has nothing to keep it alive.
Have you considered the possibility that the supply ships just might be escorted?

oh well, my plans a futile

all this talk of sd is making me hungry. ...goes off to look at SDs and satellite weapons.

Ye-es, that particular suggestion is slightly reliant upon your enemy having the intelligence of boiled cabbage, and thus failing entirely to notice the presence of a fecking great gun, or indeed of an equally oversized shell winging its merry way towards him. This is rather unlikely, when one considers that there existed back in the 1980s radars able to track 6in shells on land, and that most SDs' big guns can fire a projectile of several tons about 130+ km. Beating that range will need a very, very large gun, and probably a fairly large shell (if you wish to do any damage). And for that matter, I wonder how you're going to guide a shell over the horizon, since I think it reasonable to assume that your opponent will probably have done his utmost to knock out your satellites etc. Your reply was doubtlessly reliant upon you having the tactical and strategic skills of said boiled cabbage, yes? Given that you essentially suggested to evade combat at all costs, which makes the development of guns... Pointless.

The idea of such a gun (And coastal defence guns can quite easily be build as big/ bigger than your snuggly OMG I WIN! SD) is 1. To be noticed, so you stay the fuck away from the coast (Just like your SD is designed to keep enemies the fuck away from your fleet), and 2. to fight on equal terms... Just like your SD.

Now, why you consider a tactical/ strategic concept that is identical to SD concepts (With the difference of being stationary, and thus cheaper to build (At the cost of being significantly less versatile, given that it can't move/ do anything but defending) stupid... Why, yes, it's a bit beyond me. Too drugged up with the sheer OMGness of the SDs to recognise its most basic principles in somewhat more defensive concepts (And observing problems with firing over the horizon that are, apparently, completely irrelevant for SDs, despite the main artillery being in the SAME FUCKING CLASS)? I'm not impressed.

Your reply was doubtlessly reliant upon you having the tactical and strategic skills of said boiled cabbage, yes? Given that you essentially suggested to evade combat at all costs, which makes the development of guns... Pointless.

Not at all. I'm suggesting that one evades the threat of the guns, which can be done by either killing them from beyond their ability to reply or eliminating their sensors. I put it to you: if I were suggesting "evading combat at all costs" would I even have a battle fleet? No.

The idea of such a gun (And coastal defence guns can quite easily be build as big/ bigger than your snuggly OMG I WIN! SD) is 1. To be noticed, so you stay the fuck away from the coast (Just like your SD is designed to keep enemies the fuck away from your fleet), and 2. to fight on equal terms... Just like your SD.

You forget, sadly, that this hypothetical gun cannot fight on the same terms as the ships it's facing. An SD has the advantages of manoeuvreability and ability to strike beyond the range of the gun, firstly because it's not attached to the bleeding ground, and secondly because if the SD finds itself unable to endure the fire from a few guns that are very large but pitifully inadequate in terms of volume of fire it need only withdraw beyond the range of the gun, open its missile cells and let rip. Assuming that the ship is willing to brave the threat of a few coast-defence guns firing inanely over-sized shells (bear in mind, by the way, that about the largest useful calibre of shell is a 30in) at a range at which they will be exceedingly imprecise (and before you mention guided shells, it seems to me highly likely that anyone steaming a battle fleet this close to shore will have used his nous and shipped systems to neutralise or impede the guidance of such shells), it then has the additional advantage of weight of fire (unless you're going to spend a fortune and plaster every inch of your coast with these things, plus an extremely strong air defence net). So let's sum up: it fails to keep me away from the coast (for fuck's sake man, I'm hardly going to be getting close enough to be worried by the damn thing for purposes of sightseeing) and it fails entirely to fight on equal terms with a large warship.

Now, why you consider a tactical/ strategic concept that is identical to SD concepts (With the difference of being stationary, and thus cheaper to build (At the cost of being significantly less versatile, given that it can't move/ do anything but defending) stupid... Why, yes, it's a bit beyond me. Too drugged up with the sheer OMGness of the SDs to recognise its most basic principles in somewhat more defensive concepts (And observing problems with firing over the horizon that are, apparently, completely irrelevant for SDs, despite the main artillery being in the SAME FUCKING CLASS)? I'm not impressed.

I'll thank you not to change what I've said to suit your own argument. I never argued that SDs wouldn't have issues with OTH targeting, nor did I imply it. And as to your consideration that one of these proposed wastes of cash is in some way "in the same class" as an SD, I would advise you to do some more research on them. An SD is not just a ruddy great gun platform, y'know.

Perhaps we can all sastify ourselves that no ONE solution answers the SD problem. We can just engage it like any naval ship. We can pepper it with rods to disorient and possibly sow chaos as frigates and destroyers try to get upright, then use fuel air munitions to set it aflame, then en masse, carrier aircraft and traditional naval bombardment. When we can't destroy it fully, we can wipe outs its escort fleet surround it, and bombard it until nothing on deck is moving. Then board it, and seize the hull (+ whatever else remains). I say its much more sastifying to board it then let it sink to the bottom. It hurts the enemy more psychologically. Of course "wonder weapons" will always be prohibitally expensive and the only real ONE solution is the Tactical Nuke, which isn't very "kosher".

then use fuel air munitions to set it aflame

Skip that stage and use earthquake bombs.

Skip that stage and use earthquake bombs.

Whatever you want man, its going to be your burned out SD hull to reclaim. ;)

Feh. I see nothing wrong with fending off an SD from your coast using a railgun/linear gun of ridiculously large calibre. You can especially build a linear gun larger than an ETC weapon since recoil is a fraction of that involved with a conventional gunpowder/ETC weapon.

1. if you can build a SuperDrednought, you can build a Super Bomber (and before you say you can't just look at the german He-111 Zwillig)
Well... The He-111 Zwilling is more like two outdated WWII tactical bombers (that never wasn't designed for strategic operations) into one. Although aircraft can be huge in size, you aren't going to get something as large as a SD.

However, if you really insist to fly the bombers blindly into an enemy fleet (like "other" people "suggested" with their astronomically expensive B-2s), then... prepare for some thousands of crying mothers and wives on your soil.

BTW, it's Exocet, not "Exorcet".

Okay, I'm getting quite frustrated here.

1. Every time I try to come up with original ideas and concepts how to defeat any uber-weapons or unconventional stuff like SD's or SDI systems, people bash my brains in saying each and every one of my ideas cannot be done.

2. This is leading me to abandon MT and start RP'ing full time in Post-MT just because I can come up with far more creative solutions in a Post-MT setting without people whining "god-modding" or say my stuff isn't possible.

3. However, Axis Nova is the only Post-MT nation that I know of in I.I. Not exactly a diverse enviroment for RP like the MT or FT crowds. I do not want to RP in FT because of the sheer volume of "OMG! My ship and weapons are bigger than yours! My technology is godly!" crap, which is much worse in FT than in MT.

4. A lot of my ideas I've been thinking of, both civilian and military, are quite radical such as different types of navy, air force, ground forces, factories, economy, etc. Those ideas and concepts would give my nation a quite distinctive flavor like "Hey, thats a Sharinan thing!"... something I cannot hope to do in MT, as being in MT, I'd be forced into having generic stuff or be called a god-modder or a wanker.

5. Finally, I cannot seem to RP well in a MT setting, either because "Hey, it cannot be done!" or me not understanding the other player's military-babble (Take Doomingsland or Layatreb for example).



All this aside, I am trying to establish counter-measures aganist the SD. It has been natural in war that every weapon or technology always has a counter-measure to it. Guns = bulletproof vests. Tanks = anti-tank bazookas. Missiles = CIWS or flak. Nukes = SDI systems. Planes = SAM's or fighter planes. The list goes on.

Even if I switched B-2's for F-16's, the loss will still be the same. Even if I targeted the escort ships before the SD, the losses would be the same. Out of 10,000 F-16's (assuming a F-16 costs $100 million each along with munitions), probably only 100 - 200 will return back to base, meaning a loss of $1+ trillion as well as 9,800 - 9,900 elite pilots. It doesn't matter whether I strike the SD or its escorts, the countless CIWS and missile systems would tear the airforce to shreds. If I went for the CIWS ships before the SD, or attack aircraft carriers before the SD, it would still have the same result of 99% loss in my aircraft, no matter if its F-16's or B-2's, or even those uber-ized NS aircraft out there in storefronts.

Therefore, the only solution I see to deal with this is to create heavily armored airplanes, with 6 inch thick armor plating and powered by nuclear engines to provide the power necessary to keep those extreme-armored planes flying. This will lead me to create my own air-ships similiar to Axis Nova, so that my loss ratio would plummet to somewhere around 30% - 50% (instead of 99%) aganist the 27983792729 CIWS, missile, and navy fighter planes that the enemy has around his SD.

Its either this solution, or create one-hit wonder weapons like gas bubbles, asteroid "mass-drivers", a 100 ton torpedo, etc. Once again, I am trying for a full SD kill (sink or capsize), not a mission-kill (which I know how to do).

There are other postmodern nations, Sharina-- they just don't stand out as much. Sileetris is one (though he doesn't RP much) and I know New Empire is one too.

Apply napalm in large amounts. It wont kill the thing, but it will make it rather less effective, forcing the crew to rely on radar and other alternative detection methods, laser rangefinders and infrared would be totaly useless.
Thats just a theory, of course.

Other than that, boarding could be effective if you had some way of getting close (submarines? I think its been done before), or simply sabatoging it somehow. The giant uber-ship is not hugely effective without engines or electrical power.
Lastly...cruise missiles? Take out the bridge, sensors and that sort of thing, or hit its props/rudder with something.

Okay, I'm getting quite frustrated here.

1. Every time I try to come up with original ideas and concepts how to defeat any uber-weapons or unconventional stuff like SD's or SDI systems, people bash my brains in saying each and every one of my ideas cannot be done.

To be quick frank and honest, being creative is fine and does have merit, but if you are just going to try to come up with wacky and impossible ideas and then claim that they are feasible, there's a problem. If you don't want any argument against your ideas or if you don't want criticism at all, that's fine, but don't be surprised if a very low number of people, if at all, are actually going to accept yoru idea.

All this aside, I am trying to establish counter-measures aganist the SD. It has been natural in war that every weapon or technology always has a counter-measure to it. Guns = bulletproof vests.
Well, if you insist that a living human can stand multiple 7.62mm NATO or even .50cal hits in the chest without being knocked out or having his chest split open. In which case they don't, and they use tactics to say, neutralize a MG post in that ally down there, or on the top of the roof of that TV station.

Missiles = CIWS or flak. Nukes = SDI systems. Planes = SAM's or fighter planes. The list goes on.
Again, is there a 100% countermeasure?

It doesn't matter whether I strike the SD or its escorts, the countless CIWS and missile systems would tear the airforce to shreds. If I went for the CIWS ships before the SD, or attack aircraft carriers before the SD, it would still have the same result of 99% loss in my aircraft, no matter if its F-16's or B-2's, or even those uber-ized NS aircraft out there in storefronts.
The problem is that there's absolutely no sign of the usage of actual tactics, and by your automatic assumption that CIWS and missiles will kill you no matter what, you are assuming that some idiot's just going to fly a thousand planes at a medium altitude and charge into a fleet of ships - which isn't the case with a creative and logical mind. This also happens to many other things as well, but if you aren't willing to come up with such tactics or/and is unwilling to actually dedicate some time to research (after all, like other games, don't expect an easy way out), well, that's one of your faults. While it is indeed unrealistic to claim stupendously high kill rates with just about any air defence system, if you are actually unwilling to do some work, well that's your problem.

so that my loss ratio would plummet to somewhere around 30% - 50% (instead of 99%) aganist the 27983792729 CIWS, missile, and navy fighter planes that the enemy has around his SD.
...again, you are turning a blind eye completely to the realms of tactics, strategies, and the effective use of weapon systems, and instead only focusing on the actual technologies without thinking how it will do the job. And as a result, your ideas won't work either if you are still unwilling to incorporate tactics into them. Ever wonder why even in the real world where - there are sufficent to say, far more countermeasures - they are not charging B-2s and F-117s directly above someone's SAM battery? Ever wonder why while a nuclear submarine is a formidable weapons platform, they use it with conjunction with tactics? Ever wonder why there has been relatively few losses with the M1A1, with the exception of its armour? Yeah. Thinking minds produces strategy, tactics, and an actual outlook into how you will employ the weapon system. Not just spending a ridiculously high amount of time thinking solely of the technologies that will do this. If you realize that, congratulations. If you don't, then you shouldn't ever expect particularly high results from your inventions. Simple.

Its either this solution, or create one-hit wonder weapons like gas bubbles, asteroid "mass-drivers", a 100 ton torpedo, etc.
...and once again, please think outside the box, given that the 'box' I'm talking about is named "technology and equipment".

Once again, I am trying for a full SD kill (sink or capsize), not a mission-kill (which I know how to do).
If you want to achieve a full kill on it, mission kill it first. If you don't mission kill it first - along with its escorts - then don't expect too many good things to happen. You don't somehow magically spawn up 1000 suicide pilots and then put them into heavily armoured suicide planes to charge into the SDs - if you want to do even that, you have to figure out ways to effectively diminish the threats of the fleet's air defence systems. Which is by the way, very possible.

Forcing a superdreadnought to rely on radar is like forcing a skeet shooter to rely on sight. With radar, it can still do extremely well as a naval vessel.

Also, how do you plan on getting the napalm onto the SD? The pilots of those aircraft have a better chance of surviving by shooting themselves in the head than they do trying to strafe an SD, and get past the AAD of the battlegroup and the SD itself.

There are ways to kill SDs without all these semi-feasible one shot wonders. It's called tactics. Very rarely do we find one-shot methods of even killing aircraft carriers. The best counter to an SD and its battlegroup is a scaled up method you'd used to counter a carrier and battleships and their battlegroups. Maybe it's unfair for me to say this as an OMP member, but I do RP in Post Modern tech, and the only 'special' weapon I use against superdreads is just a very big torpedo on a very quiet sub, something I use in plenty of other situations.

Instead of arguing about the best method to kill an SD with a method that half the people don't think will work and the other half considers godmodding, it's better to just think up some tactics. I don't know about you, but for me, it's much more fun to read and write a tense naval battle as ships and aircraft manuver and attack than to just write one post in which a weapon instantly kills an SD, followed by 15 pages of arguing and flaming.

To be quick frank and honest, being creative is fine and does have merit, but if you are just going to try to come up with wacky and impossible ideas and then claim that they are feasible, there's a problem. If you don't want any argument against your ideas or if you don't want criticism at all, that's fine, but don't be surprised if a very low number of people, if at all, are actually going to accept yoru idea.

I am willing to accept criticism. However, there is no need to take my idea, tear it apart, pulverize its remains, stomp on its corpse, then urinate on it before burying it. (metaphorically speaking of course).

Discussion, along with how it can and can not be done is much more preferable.

Well, if you insist that a living human can stand multiple 7.62mm NATO or even .50cal hits in the chest without being knocked out or having his chest split open.

Bulletproof vests are used widely by SWAT teams and police forces. They have actually saved lives aganist guns.

Again, is there a 100% countermeasure?

100% isn't necessary. What's important that the principle is there, along with it being in existance. There have always been counter-measures discovered and employed aganist weapons throughout history, from stone-age eras to the ultra-modern setting.

The problem is that there's absolutely no sign of the usage of actual tactics, and by your automatic assumption that CIWS and missiles will kill you no matter what, you are assuming that some idiot's just going to fly a thousand planes at a medium altitude and charge into a fleet of ships - which isn't the case with a creative and logical mind. This also happens to many other things as well, but if you aren't willing to come up with such tactics or/and is unwilling to actually dedicate some time to research (after all, like other games, don't expect an easy way out), well, that's one of your faults. While it is indeed unrealistic to claim stupendously high kill rates with just about any air defence system, if you are actually unwilling to do some work, well that's your problem.

I do not have the time to spend hours researching military websites to learn all military techno-babble, terminology, technologies, etc. like some NS'ers have done (Doomingsland, Layatreb, Virgin Incursion, etc.).

I can employ tactics from what I know from the History, National Geographic, and Discovery channels. They have some excellent WW II shows that go into detail in the battles and strategy during WW II.

Besides, isn't it true that most battles in NS end up being nothing more than glorified WW I and WW II type of battles?

...again, you are turning a blind eye completely to the realms of tactics, strategies, and the effective use of weapon systems, and instead only focusing on the actual technologies without thinking how it will do the job. And as a result, your ideas won't work either if you are still unwilling to incorporate tactics into them. Ever wonder why even in the real world where - there are sufficent to say, far more countermeasures - they are not charging B-2s and F-117s directly above someone's SAM battery? Ever wonder why while a nuclear submarine is a formidable weapons platform, they use it with conjunction with tactics? Ever wonder why there has been relatively few losses with the M1A1, with the exception of its armour? Yeah. Thinking minds produces strategy, tactics, and an actual outlook into how you will employ the weapon system. Not just spending a ridiculously high amount of time thinking solely of the technologies that will do this. If you realize that, congratulations. If you don't, then you shouldn't ever expect particularly high results from your inventions. Simple.

See above.

...and once again, please think outside the box, given that the 'box' I'm talking about is named "technology and equipment".

Once again, I do not have the time to pore for hours through 100's of different military, technology, or equipment websites. I have a life outside of NS, and I'm primarily not a war-like nation on NS. I don't go into wars willy-nilly, compete with "who has the best tank, ship, and plane", or try to uber-ize my military. I'm only interested in finding counter-measures to giant over-rated militaries or equipment (Salvos of 286186 cruise missiles, uber Tank+1 like Soviet Bloc and Doomingsland have, SD's, etc.).

In other words, I'm a defensive player, meaning I'd rather play a defensive war than go war with anyone I don't like, unlike some NS nations. Towards this end, I prefer to seek counter-measures to level the playing field to 50 - 50 odds, instead of "OMG! Enemy has 90% chance of victory. I might as well surrender!" crap.

If you want to achieve a full kill on it, mission kill it first. If you don't mission kill it first - along with its escorts - then don't expect too many good things to happen.

Understood.

Most modern SD have underwater CIWS systems. Such huge, slow torpedoes would be unlikely to ever reach their targets. In any case, why not just put a normal warhead on the gigantic torpedo, since that'd seriously damage the target anyway and be much easier to handle that a torp full of super-pressurised gas?

It *is* a normal torpedo. It's just that detonating the warhead *beneath* the ship creates a vacuum, which breaks the keel of a ship. Most people, from what I see, think that the torpedo is primarily a contact weapon. They don't have to be.

Anyways, how do these underwater CIWS weapons track targets? If they track by vision, you can just have the torp run deep and come up at the last second. For sound, the fact that it is running slow should be good enough. For sonar, you could have the torp run under the thermal layer, lessening the chances of detection.

I am willing to accept criticism. However, there is no need to take my idea, tear it apart, pulverize its remains, stomp on its corpse, then urinate on it before burying it. (metaphorically speaking of course).
Not as bad as you suggest, though I suppose that the process of breaking down an idea that unfeasible could be somewhat harsh and inconvenient for some (and I have experienced the same before)... but weren't there already discussions about these ideas? Like... pointing out its flaws, or for the matter, how doing it would be illogical when you have a better way to do it?

Bulletproof vests are used widely by SWAT teams and police forces. They have actually saved lives aganist guns.
True, they did, but ever wonder why there has been relatively few deaths? Tactics.

100% isn't necessary. What's important that the principle is there, along with it being in existance. There have always been counter-measures discovered and employed aganist weapons throughout history, from stone-age eras to the ultra-modern setting.
...again, counter-measures are to be used with actual tactics, and what you imply basically sends out a message that it doesn't require tactics at all and it still will succeed. You think that throughout history, nations win wars through technology? No, they win it through the employment of such technology as to give their side an upper hand while denying the enemy's ability to achieve their own objective.

I do not have the time to spend hours researching military websites to learn all military techno-babble, terminology, technologies, etc. like some NS'ers have done (Doomingsland, Layatreb, Virgin Incursion, etc.).
Well, that's why if you want to succeed somewhat more, you must make concessions and do some more work, such as, for example, research. I can understand that you shouldn't let NS take over and I'm not saying that "it's your fault that you don't have any time", but the fact is, it's all a matter of whether you actually put some time and energy into it or not.

I can employ tactics from what I know from the History, National Geographic, and Discovery channels. They have some excellent WW II shows that go into detail in the battles and strategy during WW II.
That's fine, but as technology evolves, it is also equally important to invent one's own set of schemes for NS warfare.

Besides, isn't it true that most battles in NS end up being nothing more than glorified WW I and WW II type of battles?
Well, if you really insist on actively seeking to RP with people who only has an eye turned towards number and battles of attrition... there are more RPs that actually employs the use of strategy than you imply.

I'm only interested in finding counter-measures to giant over-rated militaries or equipment (Salvos of 286186 cruise missiles, uber Tank+1 like Soviet Bloc and Doomingsland have, SD's, etc.).
Again, if you are only bothering to spend time to only find the countermeasures in terms of technology and not tactics, well, quite frankly, that's your problem. There's no problem with you solely concentrating on the technological countermeasures, but don't be surprised if your opponent gains the upper hand with the employment of more effective methods of doing things. In the end, it's important once again to think outside the box at the same time, as no matter how much time you spend on NS in general, surely to gain further understanding of how you counter things like SDs - no matter whether defensive or offensive - you must actually open your eyes to the realms of tactics. Yeah, there's another whole set of space beyond technological countermeasures.

To put it simply: No matter how much time you got for NS, if you want to gain a better understanding of warfare (at least, NS warfare) and the aspects of NS warfare, you should be able to divide your time evenly.

Towards this end, I prefer to seek counter-measures to level the playing field to 50 - 50 odds, instead of "OMG! Enemy has 90% chance of victory. I might as well surrender!" crap.
I can understand your objective, and this is why it's important to have a combination of knowledges about technological countermeasures and a good grasp of the methods to effectively use them.

Anyways, how do these underwater CIWS weapons track targets? If they track by vision, you can just have the torp run deep and come up at the last second. For sound, the fact that it is running slow should be good enough. For sonar, you could have the torp run under the thermal layer, lessening the chances of detection.
AFAIK a combination of acoustic detection and short range laser light-based detection schemes; however, you don't have to use an underwater CIWS to kill a torpedo, though generally such torpedo would still be easy to kill. If you want to run it under the layer, unless you are going to have it attached to a wire for the whole duration of the attack, then it's highly unlikely - if at all - that the torpedo will be able to sense things on the other side of the layer as well. And if you can't track the target and doesn't even have a "real-time" sense of where the target is, how are you going to successfully attack it? It's highly unlikely that the target will be still there when your torpedo pops up from the layer.

Really though, there are other uses for things like ASW rocket mortars. Like soft-killing the torpedoes or hard-kill them if lucky.

Not at all. I'm suggesting that one evades the threat of the guns, which can be done by either killing them from beyond their ability to reply or eliminating their sensors. I put it to you: if I were suggesting "evading combat at all costs" would I even have a battle fleet? No.The point of the guns is to be on SD main arty level or higher. And being on a bloody landmass, their sensors are harder to eliminate than those of an SD, given that they can be just about everywhere.

You forget, sadly, that this hypothetical gun cannot fight on the same terms as the ships it's facing. An SD has the advantages of manoeuvreability and ability to strike beyond the range of the gun, firstly because it's not attached to the bleeding ground, and secondly because if the SD finds itself unable to endure the fire from a few guns that are very large but pitifully inadequate in terms of volume of fire it need only withdraw beyond the range of the gun, open its missile cells and let rip. Assuming that the ship is willing to brave the threat of a few coast-defence guns firing inanely over-sized shells (bear in mind, by the way, that about the largest useful calibre of shell is a 30in) at a range at which they will be exceedingly imprecise (and before you mention guided shells, it seems to me highly likely that anyone steaming a battle fleet this close to shore will have used his nous and shipped systems to neutralise or impede the guidance of such shells), it then has the additional advantage of weight of fire (unless you're going to spend a fortune and plaster every inch of your coast with these things, plus an extremely strong air defence net). So let's sum up: it fails to keep me away from the coast (for fuck's sake man, I'm hardly going to be getting close enough to be worried by the damn thing for purposes of sightseeing) and it fails entirely to fight on equal terms with a large warship.How is being a moving target giving the SD having a greater range? Oh, right, it doesn't. We have equal or superior range for the land-based gun. Pity, huh?

Oooo, missiles. And of course coastal defence wouldn't have missiles, or so you seem to believe. Coastal defence wouldn't have air defences/ missile defences just like the SD and its fleet (Or more), or so you seems to believe. Of course the SD wouldn't have equal problems with regards to volume of fire, or so you seem to believe. The SD seems not to have any problems guiding its shells over excessive distance, whereas the coastal gun has, or so you seem to believe.

Oh, and where the hell did you get the idea that I need to plaster the coast with a defence grid? All I ahve to do is plastering important targets (Say, uh, harbours). It's most likely less hard than buidling the shiny SDs.

I'll thank you not to change what I've said to suit your own argument. I never argued that SDs wouldn't have issues with OTH targeting, nor did I imply it. And as to your consideration that one of these proposed wastes of cash is in some way "in the same class" as an SD, I would advise you to do some more research on them. An SD is not just a ruddy great gun platform, y'know.Right. It's a gun platform that can sink, unlike, say, an entire nation (Disregarding the nations that RPed themselves beign sucked into hell/ sank into the ocean, in NS).

So, do us all a favour and stop the Battletechesque 'The plot requires the mech (In your case, SD) to be OMG SUPERIOR! despite there being no reason whatsoever for it to be!' attitude.

Not as bad as you suggest, though I suppose that the process of breaking down an idea that unfeasible could be somewhat harsh and inconvenient for some (and I have experienced the same before)... but weren't there already discussions about these ideas? Like... pointing out its flaws, or for the matter, how doing it would be illogical when you have a better way to do it?

I was referring to other people who tore down my debates, like in the other threads. I do appreciate discussing flaws and such, so that I can either add stuff to compensate for the flaws, or seek an alternative (yet original) idea / concept.

Sometimes bringing up old topics or ideas may be more productive as new "angles" or concepts are introduced towards them. Then the debate about those new "angles" and such, and so on.

True, they did, but ever wonder why there has been relatively few deaths? Tactics.

True, tactics with SWAT teams. However, if I was alone aganist a criminal with a gun or whatever, and I have a bulletproof vest. The criminal fires at my chest, thinking he would shoot my heart or lungs. The criminal empties his gun of ammo, and I'm still standing.

Granted, most criminals are idiots when it comes to such situations (like not shooting the head), but my life has been saved by the bulletproof vest.

...again, counter-measures are to be used with actual tactics, and what you imply basically sends out a message that it doesn't require tactics at all and it still will succeed. You think that throughout history, nations win wars through technology? No, they win it through the employment of such technology as to give their side an upper hand while denying the enemy's ability to achieve their own objective.

Yes. However, you cannot deny that technology does play an important role in war.

For example, how much tactics or strategy will a ground structure or target be able to do aganist a bomber? Not much. However, if it has SAM batteries, then it can defend itself aganist the incoming bomber. Ditto for creating siege engines to use aganist medieval castles or fortresses. The enemy army engineered and created the weapons themselves to use aganist the castle or fortress in question. Then consquently, the castle defenders develop their own anti-siege weapons and such (probably not in the same battle, but the next one or elsewhere in the same nation once word spreads).

Granted, tactics are quite important in warfare and battles. However, there are situations where tactics won't work effectively without technology and counter-measures to back them up. This is where my analogies and examples come in.

Well, that's why if you want to succeed somewhat more, you must make concessions and do some more work, such as, for example, research. I can understand that you shouldn't let NS take over and I'm not saying that "it's your fault that you don't have any time", but the fact is, it's all a matter of whether you actually put some time and energy into it or not.

I can understand that. However, I might not have that luxury if someone decides to invade me that day. Then I come home from work, hanging out with friends, or doing errands, then sign on-line and on NS. I see my nation being invaded. Then I'll be under pressure.

Some players do not have the patience to wait a few days or so for me to research and try to develop good posts. They might want to "do it fast" or hurry it along.

That's fine, but as technology evolves, it is also equally important to invent one's own set of schemes for NS warfare.

Understandable. I do not have a good understanding of NS based technology, however. I'm more inclined towards technology I can create (not complex tech), or WW II era technology that I can understand via my frequent watching of History, Discovery, and National Geographic channels.

Well, if you really insist on actively seeking to RP with people who only has an eye turned towards number and battles of attrition... there are more RPs that actually employs the use of strategy than you imply.

Quite the opposite, actually. I would be honored to RP with those who employ strategy and tactics, while having the patience to either help me learn stuff, or let me take time to research stuff (with my RL time constraints).

I'm not looking to go to RP with the number-wankers and the like. However, I cannot stop them from deciding on their own to engage me in RP by them invading me or whatever (the only way to stop this is to I.G.N.O.R.E.)

Again, if you are only bothering to spend time to only find the countermeasures in terms of technology and not tactics, well, quite frankly, that's your problem. There's no problem with you solely concentrating on the technological countermeasures, but don't be surprised if your opponent gains the upper hand with the employment of more effective methods of doing things. In the end, it's important once again to think outside the box at the same time, as no matter how much time you spend on NS in general, surely to gain further understanding of how you counter things like SDs - no matter whether defensive or offensive - you must actually open your eyes to the realms of tactics. Yeah, there's another whole set of space beyond technological countermeasures.

To put it simply: No matter how much time you got for NS, if you want to gain a better understanding of warfare (at least, NS warfare) and the aspects of NS warfare, you should be able to divide your time evenly.

See above.

I can understand your objective, and this is why it's important to have a combination of knowledges about technological countermeasures and a good grasp of the methods to effectively use them.

I appreciate you being able to understand what I'm trying to do, unlike some other NS'ers who try to tear down my debates and such. I am willing to learn, unlike some NS'ers who believe their stuff and such is the only right way to go.

I was referring to other people who tore down my debates, like in the other threads. I do appreciate discussing flaws and such, so that I can either add stuff to compensate for the flaws, or seek an alternative (yet original) idea / concept.

In the vast majority of cases your ideas were torn down because they would not work at all and you were discussing feasibility in a modern setting. You be surprised how many people would be willing to accept ideas in actual RP they know wouldn't work in real life, but that wasn't the context of the discussion.

True, tactics with SWAT teams. However, if I was alone aganist a criminal with a gun or whatever, and I have a bulletproof vest. The criminal fires at my chest, thinking he would shoot my heart or lungs. The criminal empties his gun of ammo, and I'm still standing.

Actually, you're not. A bulletproof vest absorbs the impact of the bullet and prevents it from killing you or causing serious internal damage, but a hit still feels like a solid punch in the guts, and there's often nasty bruising.

Granted, most criminals are idiots when it comes to such situations (like not shooting the head)

If you aim for the head you're very likely to miss entirely if your shot is off. Real-life soldiers are trained to aim for the centre of mass, the torso. That's why bulletproof vests are effective in saving lives.

Then consquently, the castle defenders develop their own anti-siege weapons and such (probably not in the same battle, but the next one or elsewhere in the same nation once word spreads).

Actually, anti-siege weapons proved totally ineffective in the end thanks to the ease of breaching castle walls with cannon. Sometimes your opponent can pull out an unbeatable hand.

Granted, tactics are quite important in warfare and battles. However, there are situations where tactics won't work effectively without technology and counter-measures to back them up. This is where my analogies and examples come in.

Um, technology and counter-measures are factors taken into account by tactics. Strategy is the science by which a General determines where and when to attack, and in what force. Tactics is, to quote the dictionary:

The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy

In other words, technology in part determines tactics, it's not seperate from them.

Some players do not have the patience to wait a few days or so for me to research and try to develop good posts. They might want to "do it fast" or hurry it along.

Then tell them you're not prepared to play with them on those terms and if they don't like it they can find someone else to play with.

I appreciate you being able to understand what I'm trying to do, unlike some other NS'ers who try to tear down my debates and such. I am willing to learn, unlike some NS'ers who believe their stuff and such is the only right way to go.

If you are debating possibility OOC there is often only one right answer. If you open with 'I know this is silly and probably wouldn't work in real life, but is there any way to make it sound acceptable and convincing?' you're likely to get a better response.

In the vast majority of cases your ideas were torn down because they would not work at all and you were discussing feasibility in a modern setting. You be surprised how many people would be willing to accept ideas in actual RP they know wouldn't work in real life, but that wasn't the context of the discussion.

I'm perfectly up for bending the rules a bit if it means a better RP overall. However, there are those who are uber-realists and demand everything I do follow realism to the letter, or in this case (on-line), pixel.

If there are realism-bending like a Jupiter sized NS Earth, then surely people could be somewhat accomdating to my ideas for a decent RP. For instance, imagine a nation with airships (me for example) that replaces Navy and Airforce, going aganist a nation with conventional Navy and Airforce. Then go for somewhere between 40 - 60 win / loss, 50 - 50 even odds, or 60 - 40 win / loss.

That would make for a better RP, IMHO. Variety and diversity is actually much better for RP, as it adds much needed flavor. Similiar stuff can be said for those "Navy Superpowers" like Omz and Freethinkers, "Army Superpowers" like Automagfreek and Pantera, "Airforce Superpowers" like Axis Nova, "Tank Superpowers" like Doomingsland and Soviet Bloc, and so on. Each of those nations have thier own unique traits and brand of stuff, thus is it too much to ask that Sharina has its unique traits / brand of stuff like "Space Superpower" or "Airforce Superpower" (airships like Axis Nova).

Actually, you're not. A bulletproof vest absorbs the impact of the bullet and prevents it from killing you or causing serious internal damage, but a hit still feels like a solid punch in the guts, and there's often nasty bruising.

I meant I'd still be standing, as in being alive. I can heal up from "punches" or bruises from kinetic impacts of the bullets.

If you aim for the head you're very likely to miss entirely if your shot is off. Real-life soldiers are trained to aim for the centre of mass, the torso. That's why bulletproof vests are effective in saving lives.

True. However, head-shots are guanatreed kills (assuming the bullet actually does hit it) though.

Actually, anti-siege weapons proved totally ineffective in the end thanks to the ease of breaching castle walls with cannon. Sometimes your opponent can pull out an unbeatable hand.

Yes. suppose cannons weren't invented until 1800's or later? We'd have developed "Anti-Trebuchets" and "Anti-Catapults" or the like. I saw a show on National Geographic about medieval siege weapons a few weeks ago and it was quite informative.

In that show, it explained that siege weapons were small and simple in design, and were built to combat fortifications. Then later, those machines got bigger and more complex. While all this was happening, castle defenders were building their own siege weapons with longer range to combat the enemy's siege weapons.

The advent of the cannon effectively put a stop to this, as the last recorded use of a trebuchet was in 1521, when Hernado Cortez sieged the Aztec capital city of Tenocitilan. However, if the cannon wasn't developed for a few more centuries, we'd have much more complex trebuchets and counter-measures to the trebuchets.

Um, technology and counter-measures are factors taken into account by tactics. Strategy is the science by which a General determines where and when to attack, and in what force. Tactics is, to quote the dictionary:

In other words, technology in part determines tactics, it's not seperate from them.

Understood. Let me put it in another perpsective.

Nation A sends planes to attack a ground target in Nation B. The target has no SAM batteries to counter the aircraft, thus no amount of tactics can save the target in Nation B. However, if Nation B has SAM batteries, which exists because of technology, then it can employ tactics and strategies with the SAM batteries (manuever the batteries to specific positions or the like) to maxmizie effectiveness and AAA coverage of the target.

Hope I made sense with that.

Then tell them you're not prepared to play with them on those terms and if they don't like it they can find someone else to play with.

Agreed.

If you are debating possibility OOC there is often only one right answer. If you open with 'I know this is silly and probably wouldn't work in real life, but is there any way to make it sound acceptable and convincing?' you're likely to get a better response.

Honestly, I believe there are multiple "right answers" to any given problem. For example, take my SAM situation I described above between Nation A and Nation B.

There could be several "right answers" to solve that situation.

1. SAM batteries.
2. Nation B puts air cover over the target with its own aircraft.
3. Launch cruise missiles aganist Nation A's airfields.
4. AAA with Nation B's navy.

And so on.

I personally hate to limit myself to one answer. Being creative and imaginative is one of my strongest traits, and I always try to solve problems with as many solutions as possible.

I love the fact that MT doesn't have the fun option of sending in Metal Gear Ray.... Although for the record, I will ignore any production Metal Gears; unique prototype things I'm alright with.

What? Mechs? Oh, come on. Don't get that started.

I read my way all through this thread, and came to conclusion. i'm pretty sure no one will give a shit about what I say, because my postcount is not over 1000 nor do I sound wise by using a difficult words, trying to pretend to be some kind of an expert. Still, I'll tell you all what I think, not that it matters:

There is a countermeasure for tank, yes. Bazooka or antitank missile can destroy it, but it still seems that the best way is to use your own tank.
The thing is same with airforce and bulletproof vest.
AA's did cause some damage to Germans in '40, but it was still the RAF who won the Battle of Britain. I cant remember any in case in which the countermeasures have beaten armoured division or airforce.

If you have a bulletproof vest and the other guy has a gun, its not hard to figure out which one is going to win, even if your vest is good and the enemy aint that good shooter.

This doesn't depend on if you're a defensive or an offensive nation. Regardless, countermeasures alone can hardly match the object beeing countermeasured. They can perhaps slow it down, or even kill it in some occasions, but the truth, I think, is still that
THE BEST WAY TO DESTROY A FLEET/SD IS TO HAVE A BETTER FLEET/SD AND/OR TO USE IT BETTER.
Same with small arms, same with airplanes, same with tanks.

I'm perfectly up for bending the rules a bit if it means a better RP overall. However, there are those who are uber-realists and demand everything I do follow realism to the letter, or in this case (on-line), pixel.

If you ask if an idea is possible in a modern-tech setting in an out-of-character thread, if your idea is not 100% workable people will say so. If you don't ask that, you'll get more leeway for being silly. The problem is you're asking the wrong questions.

If there are realism-bending like a Jupiter sized NS Earth, then surely people could be somewhat accomdating to my ideas for a decent RP.

If you say you're not looking for totally practical solutions, yes.

True. However, head-shots are guanatreed kills (assuming the bullet actually does hit it) though.

Ya, the point is they are less guaranteed than torso shots because it's more difficult to score a hit.

Yes. suppose cannons weren't invented until 1800's or later? We'd have developed "Anti-Trebuchets" and "Anti-Catapults" or the like.

Would be rather difficult to intercept a projectile the size of a car with 1800-era technology, methink.

Understood. Let me put it in another perpsective.

Nation A sends planes to attack a ground target in Nation B. The target has no SAM batteries to counter the aircraft, thus no amount of tactics can save the target in Nation B.

Wrong. There are plenty of tactics besides shooting at enemy units, you know. You can set up decoys so your enemy will bomb the wrong area. You can camoflage the target so your enemy cannot find it to bomb it at all. You can use smoke and ECM to block their ability to locate the target accurately, meaning the effectiveness of their bombing is minimised thanks to dropping at random. You can position medical facilities near the target so your enemy is less likely to bomb it at all because of the risk of public outcry.

Tactics are not just about shooting what's attacking you.

However, if Nation B has SAM batteries, which exists because of technology, then it can employ tactics and strategies with the SAM batteries (manuever the batteries to specific positions or the like) to maxmizie effectiveness and AAA coverage of the target.

Um, aside from AAA meaning Anti-Aircraft Artillery guns, not SAMs], simply having surface-to-air missiles won't protect the target; you'd also need to effectively emplace and camoflage them.

I personally hate to limit myself to one answer. Being creative and imaginative is one of my strongest traits, and I always try to solve problems with as many solutions as possible.

The problem with that example is you're limiting yourself solely to solutions that involve destroying the enemy aircraft, when you should be doing a whole range of things to counter the effectiveness of enemy bombers, not just one. Effective employment of false intelligence, fake structures, camoflage and things like smoke will make your enemy's bombing less useful even if he can reach the target.

Actually on a side note Sharina, half of my navy is 'brown water' (i.e. for littorial and regional operations) so I won't quote my navy myself as anyway 'outstandingly strong' :p

Would be rather difficult to intercept a projectile the size of a car with 1800-era technology, methink.

Probably not. There could be other types of counter-measures for a car-sized 1800's trebuchet projectile.

More sturdy fortifications, improved construction techinques in reinforcing walls, longer range fort trebuchets to attack enemy ones, etc.

Wrong. There are plenty of tactics besides shooting at enemy units, you know. You can set up decoys so your enemy will bomb the wrong area. You can camoflage the target so your enemy cannot find it to bomb it at all. You can use smoke and ECM to block their ability to locate the target accurately, meaning the effectiveness of their bombing is minimised thanks to dropping at random. You can position medical facilities near the target so your enemy is less likely to bomb it at all because of the risk of public outcry.

Tactics are not just about hooting what's attacking you.

Allow me to clarify, I should have made the situation more specific.

The situation I had in mind was if it was just three factors (all others like decoys, medical facilities, smoke, etc. are not present or not possible - wrecked logistics or whatever).

1. Enemy planes.
2. Target facility.
3. SAM batteries defending target facility.

Anyways, this aside, I do believe that you need technology in order to engage in tactics. Without technology, there can't be ECM, smoke, decoys, medical facilities, etc. as we'd be back in the Stone Age with simple tree sticks and stones.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that in order to fight back the enemy effectively, you need to incorporate similiar technologies or counter-measure technology. Without counter-measures, your guys would suffer far more losses and damage than otherwise.


Um, aside from AAA meaning Anti-Aircraft Artillery guns, not SAMs], simply having surface-to-air missiles won't protect the target; you'd also need to effectively emplace and camoflage them.

My mistake. I thought AA and AAA were the same thing, as I've seen people say "AA" and "AAA" to describe flak, SAM's, etc.

Camouflage and emplace the SAM's was what I meant by using "tactics with technology" earlier. You gotta put the SAM's in good strategic places to provide best chances of success.

The problem with that example is you're limiting yourself solely to solutions that involve destroying the enemy aircraft, when you should be doing a whole range of things to counter the effectiveness of enemy bombers, not just one. Effective employment of false intelligence, fake structures, camoflage and things like smoke will make your enemy's bombing less useful even if he can reach the target.

That was just an example. I could think up many solutions for other problems, though.

More sturdy fortifications, improved construction techinques in reinforcing walls, longer range fort trebuchets to attack enemy ones, etc.

But it turned out that the cannon was invented instead. Much like carriers in WW2, the castle arms race was completely sidestepped by new technology.

Anyways, this aside, I do believe that you need technology in order to engage in tactics. Without technology, there can't be ECM, smoke, decoys, medical facilities, etc. as we'd be back in the Stone Age with simple tree sticks and stones.

Tactics change to take account of technology. Even with sticks and stones, you can deploy your forces to take advantage of terrain, exploit weaknesses and so on. Modern tactics are different because we have made enormous advances in technology, but there were tactics in the days of swords and bows, and no doubt in the days of rocks and clubs. They were just different because of the different conditions limiting them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that in order to fight back the enemy effectively, you need to incorporate similiar technologies or counter-measure technology. Without counter-measures, your guys would suffer far more losses and damage than otherwise.

And my point is that your technology needn't be advanced to counter advanced technology; there are often simple solutions available. In North Africa in WW2, the Allies used Shermans made of wood and canvas as decoys to make Rommel attack in the wrong places or make him believe his enemy to be numerically superior to what it actually was. Wood and canvas are hardly high-tech. Smoke can be made by burning tyres or fuel oil to obscure a target, also hardly high-tech but will work if they're relying on the Mark One Eyeball.

It's often said that as recently as Kosovo large numbers of dummy tanks make with simple materials have been used to fool an enemy without needing to resort to developing technology greater than theirs.

Camouflage and emplace the SAM's was what I meant by using "tactics with technology" earlier. You gotta put the SAM's in good strategic places to provide best chances of success.

Aye. Let me explain again.

Technology is part of what determines your tactics, but not all of it. What your weapons can do is a factor, but also the amount of weapons you can get is a factor [force strength], as is terrain, time of day, weather, what the enemy's weapons can do, how the enemy is deployed and so on. As I said earlier, strategy says when, where and in what strength you attack. Tactics are how you attack.

An M1 is a better tank than an Sherman, but if Shermans are firing from a solid embankment onto a unit of M1s moving through a bog, they will almost certainly win anyway [terrain advantage]. If you have the best soldiers in the world with no night optics against a mediocre force which does have night optics, your superior training will likely not be enough. If your supertanks are caught in the open by relatively primative but heavy artillery, none of their clever electronics will save them. Technology is a factor, but it is not true that a technologically inferior side is incapable of winning.

(Not arguing your point, but the Shermans would most likely still be killed, I mean come on, theyve got like a 75mm main gun that doesn't fire particularly effective armor-piercing shells. They weren't even good against heavy tanks 50+ years ago. The M1s might sink and have to be towed out, but they could probably stop any advances by Shermans through the area. Watching old tank-hunter planes pick the M1s off would be great though.)

But it turned out that the cannon was invented instead. Much like carriers in WW2, the castle arms race was completely sidestepped by new technology.

True. However, it does merit interest and curiousity to see what could have resulted if cannons and aircraft carriers were developed much later than they were in RL.

We could have had SD's in RL if carriers weren't developed in WW II. There would be many more ships like the Yamato and Mushashi, as the arms race could have continued between the USSR and the USA.

I love possibilities.

Technology is part of what determines your tactics, but not all of it. What your weapons can do is a factor, but also the amount of weapons you can get is a factor [force strength], as is terrain, time of day, weather, what the enemy's weapons can do, how the enemy is deployed and so on. As I said earlier, strategy says when, where and in what strength you attack. Tactics are how you attack.

An M1 is a better tank than an Sherman, but if Shermans are firing from a solid embankment onto a unit of M1s moving through a bog, they will almost certainly win anyway [terrain advantage]. If you have the best soldiers in the world with no night optics against a mediocre force which does have night optics, your superior training will likely not be enough. If your supertanks are caught in the open by relatively primative but heavy artillery, none of their clever electronics will save them. Technology is a factor, but it is not true that a technologically inferior side is incapable of winning.

Agreed. I do believe I was saying that tactics and technology were important, and one cannot function effectively without the other. I also do agree that technologically inferior stuff can take down high tech ones, like a Ak-47 weapon can take down guys with Star Wars laser guns, or Civil War era cannons can take down modern concrete fortifications, stuff like that.

Sticks + stones cannot defeat an APC or tank, even if we employ the best tactics available. This is where technology comes in, to even up the odds to your "Sherman VS M1A1" scenario. Another example would be Ancient Romans or Medevial European (Think King Arthur) trying to fend off aircraft (any era would suffice, let it be WW I or 2050 era). The Romans or King Arthur would not be able to take down aircraft, unless they somehow gain technology like guns, SAM batteries, their own aircraft, etc. to counter the aircraft attacking them. See what I mean?

The hard part for me is trying to understand NS technologies, and trying to figure out how to apply both tactics and counter-measures to those stuff.

Your examples have a rift of time between 500 and thousands of years. Sharina, I don't think you have that kind of problem.

The difference between an SD and a regular NS Navy is more like 5-10 years. You do not need asteroids from space or super-methane bombs or excessively large bombers to defeat it. A good tactician could use RL tech ships and weapons to defeat an SD battlegroup.

Stop looking for one shot wonders because you don't need them, and judging by the thread, few will RP with them. The only one shot wonder for an SD is tactics. Period.

(Or maybe tactical nukes)

The only time I dont RP with Superdreads is when they throw like OMG 5 or more at you at a time. The things are hideously expensive to opperate and people dont understand that.

(Or maybe tactical nukes)


The last time someone suggested tac nukes people starting crying and whining about how that would be considered a nuclear attack on their country and they would retaliate with their own nuclear arsonel.

With me you have 3 choices when using an SD against me.

1) You let it take damage and allow some of my ideas for taking it out and/or stopping it work.

2) You allow me to use nuclear attacks (not always destroying the ship)

3) You're ignored.

If people want to use big and hard to stop weapons then they're going to FACE big and hard to stop weapons. Such as a semi-orbital railgun platform.... ooops...

The only time I dont RP with Superdreads is when they throw like OMG 5 or more at you at a time. The things are hideously expensive to opperate and people dont understand that.

I think one of the figures quoted for a 'cheap' SD I saw here recently was like 700 billion dollars. That's almost 4 times the cost of the B-2 development program, which is widely hailed as the most expensive military program in history :p

Your examples have a rift of time between 500 and thousands of years. Sharina, I don't think you have that kind of problem.

The difference between an SD and a regular NS Navy is more like 5-10 years. You do not need asteroids from space or super-methane bombs or excessively large bombers to defeat it. A good tactician could use RL tech ships and weapons to defeat an SD battlegroup.

Stop looking for one shot wonders because you don't need them, and judging by the thread, few will RP with them. The only one shot wonder for an SD is tactics. Period.

(Or maybe tactical nukes)

That is true about the timescale. However the principle remains. In today's world, 10 years of tech difference might as well be 100 years, solely because of the accelerating rate of tech development.

The USA has smart bombs and guided missiles by 2000. It fights a country of similiar size, but with 1990's or 1980's technology. That country probably doesn't have lasers, tiny micro-chips, and all the good stuff of 1990 - 2000 that the USA has. Not to mention the advances in countermeasures like chaff, thrust vectoring, stealth material and all that jazz. Consquently, the USA will inflict much more accurate and devastation than the nation with 1990's or 1980's technology.

Think for a moment here. Nearly 80% of all the tech and things we take for granted have been invented within the last 25 years. Lasers, laptops, Internet, DVD's, TiVo, LCD displays, video games, smart weapons, stealth planes, microwave ovens, and a thousand other applications in both military and civilian life. Compare that to 50 - 75 years of tech development between 1900 and 1975. Then compare 100 - 200 years of tech between 1700 and 1900. See how tech is developing faster and faster?

By 2030, we'll have a lot of what we consider sci-fi in RL in 2005 become reality and commonplace.

Here's an example... 1,000 year lifespan is possible.

http://www.newstarget.com/004860.html

See what I mean? A 5 - 10 year difference would be significant when you take the hyper-acceleration of MT tech development into consideration.

McKagan, it's not that they are crying, it's more like you turning a blind eye towards the fact that there /are/ nations, provided that they have the policies and capabilities, that will treat such a nuclear attack as an attack against their nation, and thus will use strategic nukes to deter said usage of tactical nukes. As much as people are going to debate it, it is a reality that many has to face when using tacnukes against SDs. It's true that such policy will not exist in all nations due to - quite possibly - their military's nuclear capabilities and the current status of their government and general populance, but it will happen and not surprisingly, it is a logical form of deterrence against such type of use of tacnukes. So there goes another one of the 'ultimate widowmaker of SD sailors'.

As such, as some people here previously discussed, concentrating one's mind on these ridiculous - and often, wacky as well - 'the killer of all SDs' is just a wasteful expenditure of time if you are turning a blind eye towards the actual effective and efficient methods of using feasible weapons in the process of successfully defeating a SD.

We could have had SD's in RL if carriers weren't developed in WW II. There would be many more ships like the Yamato and Mushashi, as the arms race could have continued between the USSR and the USA.

Um, the battleship arms race was between the British Empire and everyone else. And carriers were developed in WW1, not WW2.

Sticks + stones cannot defeat an APC or tank, even if we employ the best tactics available.

If you find their depot and kill the crew with sticks and stones before they can get inside their tanks, you can still defeat them even with sticks and stones. That's tactics; if you can't engage the enemy head-on, you have to try something else.

The Romans or King Arthur would not be able to take down aircraft, unless they somehow gain technology like guns, SAM batteries, their own aircraft, etc. to counter the aircraft attacking them. See what I mean?

Aircraft have to land sometime and be serviced and refueled. Ground crews and pilots outside aircraft can still be SWORDED! if you're sneaky enough in getting your knights or Roman soldiers into position without being detected. Primative weapons don't mean you have to use primative tactics; most modern soldiers still carry knives, after all.

Um, the battleship arms race was between the British Empire and everyone else. And carriers were developed in WW1, not WW2.

I was referring to the possible arms race between the USA and USSR after WW II ended (alternate timeline where carriers were not developed yet). In this scenario, they could have went on an arms race that could eventually produce RL versions of SD's to try to hit the enemy from further away, or defend aganist submarine and conventional fleet actions in the middle of the Pacific where it would be hard to bring aircraft (without carriers, that is).


If you find their depot and kill the crew with sticks and stones before they can get inside their tanks, you can still defeat them even with sticks and stones. That's tactics; if you can't engage the enemy head-on, you have to try something else.

This is assuming that the stick + stone wielding people even know what an tank / APC supply depot is. They (stone age guys) may not even know or understand the concepts of supply and logistics.

Aircraft have to land sometime and be serviced and refueled. Ground crews and pilots outside aircraft can still be SWORDED! if you're sneaky enough in getting your knights or Roman soldiers into position without being detected. Primative weapons don't mean you have to use primative tactics; most modern soldiers still carry knives, after all.

This is quite true.

However, when said aircraft are attacking Rome or Camelot, the Romans and King Arthur have no way of countering *that*. They would have to wait until the aircraft land, which could be 500 miles away, a huge distance for a civilization without cars or transportation capable of going 50+ MPH. Their fastest transportation would be horseback, and it is a beast of burden. It would take guys on horseback several days to travel 500 miles as their horses would need to rest, eat, drink, and sleep. Compounding this problem is the lack of instant communication, no radios for instant unit-to-unit communication. The aircraft could also spot the incoming cavalary, and take appoporiate action.

Or if the aircraft are operating from an island, aircraft carrier, or another land (continent, isle, or whatever) across a body of water, the Romans and King Arthur are so out of luck. They would need weeks to outfit transport boats, load it up with knights or cavalary, then send them out. By then, there won't be any Rome or Camelot (or even their whole nation) by that time.

This is precisely why the Romans and King Arthur need to gain technology to have any decent chance of fighting back, even basic radios or weapons that can attack more consistently without need of training (years of training to become elite bowmen as opposed to easy 1 - 2 month training with guns). Or even rapid transportation to allow efficient strikes at airfields while the planes are reloading and such.

*Looks at the title and first few posts about Anti-SD weapons. Then flips through to the last few posts about fighting pre-modern tech armies with modern tech technology, and scratches head.* I miss somthing here?

Yes you did. I tried to follow it too... very confusing. Then again, I (was gonna) have my own anti SD defenses, seeing as even then the average SD was 7 times my defense budget, and it's far worse now. I had some truly clever stuff, but it's gonna be a while before it's even fundable.

*Looks at the title and first few posts about Anti-SD weapons. Then flips through to the last few posts about fighting pre-modern tech armies with modern tech technology, and scratches head.* I miss somthing here?

The path of the Jedi is a long and weird one, young Padawan.

...I (was gonna) have my own anti SD defenses, seeing as even then the average SD was 7 times my defense budget, and it's far worse now. I had some truly clever stuff, but it's gonna be a while before it's even fundable.

Try selling some of your ideas, if you believe you have something unique. Flesh them out, do a write-up, and set them free on the global marketplace. You might be able to raise some funds that way - a real killing can be made if you have something original and are willing to sell production rights to other nations.

Well, Thats all fine and good, but hat the argument has evolved to is tactics versus technology and its not a contest at all, tactics supported by technology win every time. Pure technological advancement never got anybody anwhere, espescially not in an online game, online people can react to technology instantly, you say you have a better tank so he calls up his special tanks that weren't used earlier and are better, bam that took five seconds. however when you use Tactics it takes a bit longer to adapt, the enemy has to think, you can't just pul tactics out of your ass online like you can technology, your enemy would have to think about how to specifically counter your strategy and then implement it and its always hit or miss, you might of already countered his counter in your mind, as long as you maintain a technology base thats not tottally out of date (like the rocks vs. tank depot scenerio) then you can trick your opponent into doing wha you want. I.E. In the King arthur/Air attack scenerio. if Arthur had maintained technologicall parity and had as a result built AAA batteries, then that would be technology, so the enemy build wild weasels, thats more technology, the wild weasels are designed to take out anti air batteries using anti radar missiles and the like. SO arthur could A> counter with with fighters of his onw (more technology) which the enem could immediately respond to with MORE and better fighters OR he could B> respond by deceptively placing AAA batteries and placing multiple radar sites for each battery (Thats tactics) now his enemy has to think about what to do, he could use more airplanes to counter the losses incurred by AAA or he could start sending land attacks where he had the advatage being on his home soil. A good example of this scenerio is the Vietnam war. Vietnamese fighters were very good, but pretty quik AMerica countered them so Vietnam switched to AAA batteries, so America devised the wild weasel to destroy them, so Vietnam began training the crew tourn their radars off until wild weasels wouldn't have enoug time to react before the AAA destroyed them and the placed their batteries in such a way that if a wild weasel destroyed one then it would have to fly into the kill zone of two more. So AMerica sent more ground troops and the rest is history. sound familiar?

ANyway, if anybody here is looking for a good Modern tech RP, TG me, I'm working on starting one up that will be grand, there will be terrorist plots and three different factions (at least, maybe four or more) and tactical nukes will be allowed (to a limited extent) and all that good stuff.

A good tactician could use RL tech ships and weapons to defeat an SD battlegroup.Errr... No (Disregarding the SD side having the most incompetent crew in history, of course).

RL ships are based on the requirements of the RL geostrategic situation.

Arsenal ships make sense for the US IRL. In NS, nobody has the total naval superiority necessary to make such ships save, as they would detonate with kiloton yields as soon as they are hit by an equal opponent.

The total lack of battleships IRL does, again, make sense due to the absolute naval superiority of, say, NATO, as it is simply unlikely/ impossible that close range engagements between equal opponents are starting. In NS; this is drastically different. Such engagements would still berare, but they are a possibility.

The same goes for the utter lack of armour RL ships have, and the list goes on. RL ships would also fail as they don't have the range ships in the NSverse require to actually cross the distances in question.

Simply put, RL ships are ludicrously inadequate in NS, and will be slaughtered by a proper NS force, with or without superdreads.

And while I'm convinced that NS shipbuilders (And geostrategists) generally fail to take the rather widespread availability of nuclear weapons into account (Which generally requires a vastly more tentative foreign policy than what we're usually seeing here, as well as accepting the widespread use of nuclear weapons as tactical weapons to beat $Number or $Superequipment), favouring simple cockflapping... well... RL equipment in NS, be it naval or elsewhere, == suicide.

I applaud Der Angst's realistic views of tac nukes-- frankly, if a small nation can't stop an SD with conventional force, they will HAVE to nuke it-- and might as well, since either way they're screwed. Might as well ruin a 700 billion dollar investment in the process.

Errr... No (Disregarding the SD side having the most incompetent crew in history, of course).

RL ships are based on the requirements of the RL geostrategic situation.

Arsenal ships make sense for the US IRL. In NS, nobody has the total naval superiority necessary to make such ships save, as they would detonate with kiloton yields as soon as they are hit by an equal opponent.

The total lack of battleships IRL does, again, make sense due to the absolute naval superiority of, say, NATO, as it is simply unlikely/ impossible that close range engagements between equal opponents are starting. In NS; this is drastically different. Such engagements would still berare, but they are a possibility.

The same goes for the utter lack of armour RL ships have, and the list goes on. RL ships would also fail as they don't have the range ships in the NSverse require to actually cross the distances in question.

Simply put, RL ships are ludicrously inadequate in NS, and will be slaughtered by a proper NS force, with or without superdreads.

And while I'm convinced that NS shipbuilders (And geostrategists) generally fail to take the rather widespread availability of nuclear weapons into account (Which generally requires a vastly more tentative foreign policy than what we're usually seeing here, as well as accepting the widespread use of nuclear weapons as tactical weapons to beat $Number or $Superequipment), favouring simple cockflapping... well... RL equipment in NS, be it naval or elsewhere, == suicide.

*cough*

I'm talking about submarines with tactical nuclear weapons, which a nation with RL ships would consider necessary to stop a superdreadnought.

Maybe I'm biased because I've used tactical nuclear weapons frequently and managed to live through the entire incident. But all too often, a nation using RL ships will try to stop the superdread as a last option, fire nukes, and then find out they've completely failed because of the massive missile defense systems.

I'm talking about penentrating an SD's defenses enough to launch a tactical nuclear torpedo underneath the superdreadnought. The explosion would be enough to split it in half, and the enemy may not be able to figure out it was a nuke if you take out their battlegroup quick enough. If you think they'll go MAD on you, then this gives you more than enough time to launch a proper nuclear first strike to disable their tactical and strategic nuclear capability.

I guess I just don't see the use of nuclear arms in the same light you guys do... I've managed to go through two wars using tactical nuclear arms, and been able to recover.

And Sharina, your examples are still ludicrous.

Even with the advancements of the last 25 years, that still does not equate to King Arthur going against a bomber wing.

I have an idea:

Take a school of tuna and tie pressure mines to their bodies. SD problem solved ( as long as they don't change direction.....).

Catching and releasing tuna would take too long, I still think Option: Prophylactic has some merit. I'm of course talking about my thermite condom raft.

I think we should pump beavers with drugs to make them extremely aggressive, and then replace their teeth with depleted uranium. After modifying them genetically to eat metal and live in saltwater, we can use them as sea mines.

OOC: How about a bouy that is a nuclear sea mine. As soon as the fleet approaches it, BAM! Just spread them far enough so the entire fleet will be consumed, and then place bouys everywhere beyond that. So they have to waste ammo blowing thsoe up.

I think we can save money by using otters instead of beavers, and giving them nuclear handgrenades disguised as clams. They'll swim up to the ships and try to break open their sweet treats, but to their and the crew's surprise.......

Saving money? Are you an idiot? That's completely infeasible!

That means you expend an otter and a nuclear handrgenade for each system!

Beavers are the ONLY feasible method to guarantee an SD kill, as long as they're deployed in proper numbers.

Try selling some of your ideas, if you believe you have something unique. Flesh them out, do a write-up, and set them free on the global marketplace. You might be able to raise some funds that way - a real killing can be made if you have something original and are willing to sell production rights to other nations.


Honestly, the last thing I want to do is sell them - I only sell selected technologies, like my tanks, and even then, quite rarely. You know, state secrets. Either way, I ususally don't get much money from them, seeing as it's mostly private industry that funds stuff. Hell, all of my nukes are made by the local trillion-dollar conglomerate GEM - I myself wouldn't get much of the money. Private industry development is a great way to save Government money, but unfortunatly, I can't sell most of the stuff.

OOC: How about a bouy that is a nuclear sea mine. As soon as the fleet approaches it, BAM! Just spread them far enough so the entire fleet will be consumed, and then place bouys everywhere beyond that. So they have to waste ammo blowing thsoe up.

Doesn't work like that. Even World War II era ships are quite resistant to the effects of nuclear blasts.

I was referring to the possible arms race between the USA and USSR after WW II ended (alternate timeline where carriers were not developed yet). In this scenario, they could have went on an arms race that could eventually produce RL versions of SD's to try to hit the enemy from further away, or defend aganist submarine and conventional fleet actions in the middle of the Pacific where it would be hard to bring aircraft (without carriers, that is).

Hrm...Except there'd probably have been no war in the Pacific. Since there'd have been no British attack on the Italian fleet in Taranto to convince the Japanese of the effectiveness of their plan to attack Pearl Harbour and they'd have been forced to sail battleships right up to Pearl and attack the US battleships directly, it wouldn't have have happened. To quote Der Angst:

[This] would end up preventing the pacific war to begin with. Imperial Japan stays the way it was, fighting in China, not even touching the Vichy holdings in Vietnam, its relations with the US strained but not actually reaching the point were war becomes a possibility, or rather, certainty.

Of course, this means that the US will take their time with an intervention in Europe. No Operation: Torch in November 1942. Stalingrad will have significant reinforcements, the German Airforce will be capable of protecting its transport planes a little better since the 8th USAAF wont be there, pressing the Germans in the west, this eventually resulting in the Sovjets taking one more year to win the war.

The Anglosaxon forces will thus have a chance to penetrate deeper into europe, Berlin and Munich will be nuked, no East Germany, Poland might end up joining the NATO in 1949, with Roosevelts death and Truman's succession, Churchill might get a chance to move british forces into Jugoslavia/ Bulgaria, preventing Sovjet dominance,the Sovjet Union fails to become a superpower, Mao fails in China, no cold war, the Sovjet Union collapses in the fifties...

Would certainly create an interesting world...

This is assuming that the stick + stone wielding people even know what an tank / APC supply depot is. They (stone age guys) may not even know or understand the concepts of supply and logistics.

Well, no real military would ever be experiencing quite that kind of technical gulf. In any case, my point holds; it is possible to use primative weapons against a technologically superior enemy. The situations you later describe are ones where technology is not their only asset. If their only asset were technology, King Arthur and his knights would be able to get to them; what you are describing is an enemy with both superior technology and a location advantage [they are far away or out to sea]. In other words, you've obliquely agreed with me that technology alone is not enough.

Even without the location advantage the guys in the depot will have guns and most likely a defensive perimeter around the camp probably with machine gun nests. Once again making it near impossible for King Arthur to effectively attack the camp at all. His knights would be gunned down before they could even come into range.

Even without the location advantage the guys in the depot will have guns and most likely a defensive perimeter around the camp probably with machine gun nests. Once again making it near impossible for King Arthur to effectively attack the camp at all. His knights would be gunned down before they could even come into range.


Well, at least until they started ambushing patrols and attacking supply convoys and stealing the magic fire-lances.

We currently have a RL example of what happens when a technologically and economically inferior force attempts to take on a (relatively) well equipped force. In Iraq, a poorly equipped technologically inferior force has essencially paralized the entire military of one of the greatest powers in the world by using standard unconventional tactics (I love that term, standard unconventional). True... America is still in power there, but the cost in manpower and equipment is unsustainable. Low tech tactics can imobilise the post powerful enemies. Faced with one of Soviet Bloc's ubertanks? Tank traps and mines will slow them down while you find a handy defile and hunker down. Aircraft bombing you? Don't give them a target... or give them false targets so every mission hurts them more than it hurts you. Faced with an SD? Worst comes to worst, you can ARM-spam them, but the best defence is not to engage them. Hide in littoral waters, which SDs enter at their own risk. Snipe at their escorts with SSGNs. Erode their CAP with stealthed SAM traps and feints... there are any number of tactics you can do to make an SD captain's life truely miserable without resorting to Ortillery or bubbletorps.

Though to tell the truth, a long time ago, my former region ringed itself with it's own Bermuda Triangle... hundreds of miles of vented piping in channels with enormous turbines ready to force air down into them. Very very silly.

Part of the problem with whats happening in Iraq is because of the U.S. own RoE(Rules of Engagement) if we took the gloves off and told the commanders on the ground do what ever is necessary to supress the insurgents the insurgency problem would end quite suddenly.

Only problem with your example of stealing the "fire lances" is that when you get a technological gap that large the inferior force would be at a loss on how to use the items even if they are obtained. They lack the know how on how to repair or operate the equipment and to them its just magic. They might figure out the basic principles of point and shoot but the finesse of using the rifle would be lost on them.

If I gave an english longbowmen from the 15th century an M16 and told him the bare basics and only minimal information about reloading the gun(based on just visual demonstrations no verbal commands) and told him to fire at the enemy. He would be able to do it but not with any skill of what hes doing or how to properly adapt to the change in the battlefield.

The same is true if I took a modern soldiers gun away and gave him a longbow with minimal instructions on its use. As long as he has the neccesary strenght to operate the bow he can in theory use it but he would not comprehend the different methods of its use its aiming or its tactical advantages and disadvantages.

The more you put someone out of there natural environment and further away from what they think is possible in there world view the harder it is for them to respond and adapt. A non military example is give a DvD player to someone over 50 who was never really into technology, I gurantee you they wont be able to get the thing working at all and if they do only with its most basic functions.

On most counts, correct, though using harsher practices in iraq would, in my opinion, be highly counterproductive. Look at Israel and Palistine or France and Vietnam as examples of that course of action.

About the knights and rifles, you're absolutely correct, initially at least. But many cultures have developed where bits and peices of a technology have made massive impacts. During the british imperialist phase, the brits were faced with many enemies armed with their own weapons. In some cases, the wielders of the stolen weaponry became more effective with them than the people they stole the guns from, like the Rif rebels and Spain. Don't underestimate the abilities of an opressed people to figure out how their enemies opress them. Even if they can't make more, they can steal more. There are examples of african tribes that had european firearms even before they met europeans!

A possible solution to the SD problem... Shutup whining and surrender to my overwhelming naval superiority. Eg, british empire pulls a battleship+ co outside of Fiji what does Fiji do? DEVLEOP EARTHQUAEK BOMBS, BIG TROPDEO, no, it surrenders.

Hogsweat, this is a GAME. No lives to lose from resistance.

Now, I thought of a system sort of like the DREAD gun system, 'cept it fires AP shaped rounds and is much smaller. Now, if I could adapt this to anit-ship weaponary, then a few well placed rounds could rip through an SD's surrounding fleet and leave the captial ship vulnerable to aircraft attack. I also sorta got an idea to avoid anti-missle CWIS systems. Now I don't need that meter-bore cannon.

The DREAD gun is partially a hoax, there are a great number of technical reasons why it wouldn't work as portrayed, and many that would make it extremely inconvenient to implement.

I don't agree with the statements about the 'Earthquake bombs' and the 'big torpedoes' (well, I deploy the former myself, one role specifically being a part of my anti-SD tactics); however, it is important to once again note that seeking 'one-stop-killer' methods is nothing short of a grossly wasteful expenditure of valuable time if you develop such weapons on the basis that the usage of them would terminate any hope among the enemy that the SD would survive. No, it wouldn't. You attack a SD with your mind, not with 'miracle weapons' that will suddenly turn the table around to your favour; you learn to counterbalance the threats posed by a SD and her escorting forces with the progressive use of strategy, tactic, and the acknowledgement of the strengths and weaknesses of every weapon and method you use in the process (no, even if these 'miracle weapons' indeed produce miracles, it won't be perfect either), as opposed to pretend as if these 'wonder weapons' will always give you a short ticket to a SD-free utopia; and finally, you learn to improvise to the situation at hand, and learn to react to surprise enemy movements and actions at sea, as opposed to pretending that your 'undefeatable weapons' will work every time regardless of the situation.

And this is why for the last time, you don't defeat SDs with supernatural DREAD cannons that will somehow defeat an entire hundreds-ship fleet, meteors that seems to be able to make a SD-led fleet beg on their knees, supertorpedoes that will hit a SD regardless of how the carrying platform would fare against enemy fleets, and any other wonder weapons, miracle weapons, or any other weapons of such nature that seems to give you an almost instantaneous advantage. It won't work, and if one insists to ignore this reality, he or she shall face the consequences generated from the total, deliberate ignorance of such facts.

Yes, it is a game. However, you learn combat just about any threat with your mind as well, instead of pretending that you are under a virtual state of invincibility and that these 'miracle weapons' will always work beyond success to your advantage. In fact, the assumption of such is no less than the long-mocked and long-ridiculed assumption that SDs are invincible.

Have you guys discussed the effectiveness of normal "bunkerbuster" bombs?

Sorry, new to the thread.

If ortillery fires at an SD, the SD -WILL- get hit unless the firing platform's aim was off-- an SD is far too massive to make any sort of evasive maneuvers or even to change it's speed quickly, so it's just a matter of predicting it's course and leading it a bit.

You could nail an ordinary aircraft carrier the same way.
Sorry, I just saw this and had to do a double-take. Artillery isn't terribly accurate, especially when it involves moving targets, particularly when both the object and the target are moving. In World War I, battleships and battlecruisers firing at maximum range, which is essentially what one would be doing against a super-dreadnought or from orbit (period), had a 2-5% hit ratio. With improved targeting technology and metallurgy/materials science, that might increase to 10-12%, possibly a little more, without guided munitions. Taldaan and Omz had it right: torpedoes, especially wake homing torpedoes using the pressure wave caused by the detonation of their warheads, would have a far better chance at killing an SD than space-based weapons, and those torpedoes can be used for other purposes as well.

Have you guys discussed the effectiveness of normal "bunkerbuster" bombs?

Sorry, new to the thread.
Just like using AP shells.

Hogsweat, this is a GAME. No lives to lose from resistance.

Now, I thought of a system sort of like the DREAD gun system, 'cept it fires AP shaped rounds and is much smaller. Now, if I could adapt this to anit-ship weaponary, then a few well placed rounds could rip through an SD's surrounding fleet and leave the captial ship vulnerable to aircraft attack. I also sorta got an idea to avoid anti-missle CWIS systems. Now I don't need that meter-bore cannon.

WRONG.
This is ROLEPLAY. You are not SUPPOSED to win, or lose, in roleplaying there is no winning or losing, it's about writing and cooperation, not techspam and I BEET U.

So why not use a guided orbital munition. Say, a large conventional winged bomb, launched in the same way as these tungstan rods I hear so much about, but with the ability to manuver in flight in order to achive a much better chance of hitting a target than a unguided rod.

A guided orbital munition (GOM, let's say) is, again, a less profitable research and development field for SD destruction as the GOM would have to decelerate in order to manoeuvre (and to guide at all), then accelerate in order to be as effective an SD killer as an unguided munition. The unguided munition has better killing power because it is simply a solid shot. Tactics, torpedoes (or mines, or air power, or...), and timing will kill an SD.

Well, any air or sea launched munition will be vunrable to both point defenses and air attack, and guided muntions ensure much greater accuracy. Explain your decelerate to manever thoery, because manuvering would only be used to make minor corrections if the ship is turning or making some other sort of evasive action.

I know you guys want to stay away from Nuclear Weapons...so what about chemical or biological?

Who says you have to destory the SD outright? Why not kill it's crew?

Very true. Air and ship launched munitions are also way less expencive and complex, meaning you can saturate the point defence with them, unlike Ortillery.

Deceleration is nesissary because godrods travel so fast that almost any guidence would be fried and any manouvering would likely rip the thing apart.

And while I argue for disabling the SD instead of killing it, biological and chemical weapons would be ineffective... most warships are secured against NBC threats.

What about pentrating the hull with a BB bomb equiped with a delyed fuse chemical warhead?

The problem with that is you still need to hit the warship and you still need to penitrate the hull. And chemical weapons are dangerous and difficult and expencive to use. And many countries would consider it a warcrime =)

But still, if you can break the NBC seals, a chemical weapon would seriously inconvenience the crew.

A tungsten-tipped head will do the job. Or perhaps a secondary charge to blow a hole through the armor, allowing the main warhead to pass through.

If it were that easy to penitrate an SD's armour... we wouldn't need this thread. SD's are tough, some have over a meter of armour. They have internal bulkheads, void spaces, so even if you do manage to penitrate the armour, the chemical warhead will only have local effect. One of the only ways to penitrate the armour is with a very very big shell... which is why SDs carry such heavy guns.

It's rediculous to think that you can kill an SD with a silver bullet... they are so big and tough that it takes many different weapon systems working in concert. It was impossible to kill battleships with a single shot in WWII, why should it be any different now, especially when the ships have only gotten larger and tougher. Bismark took over a hundred direct hits from heavy guns, and still she needed to be put down with a torpedo salvo. SDs are similar. There's no magic tool.

Another idea of mine is to build the traditional enemy of the battleship--the carrier--but super-size it. For example, if Nation A has a 1 km long trimeran super-dreadnought with 1 meter armor, build a 1 km long trimeran super-carrier with 1 meter thick armor. The length of the ship alone will probably let you land B-2s on it....

Another idea of mine is to build the traditional enemy of the battleship--the carrier--but super-size it. For example, if Nation A has a 1 km long trimeran super-dreadnought with 1 meter armor, build a 1 km long trimeran super-carrier with 1 meter thick armor. The length of the ship alone will probably let you land B-2s on it....

Ya, and then the B-2s could die of salt corrosion inside a week.

Worse, what the hell is the point of a carrier that carries planes of this size (Read: Intercontinental range)

Given that you could just start them from, ya'know, your home turf.

Well... The He-111 Zwilling is more like two outdated WWII tactical bombers (that never wasn't designed for strategic operations) into one. Although aircraft can be huge in size, you aren't going to get something as large as a SD.

However, if you really insist to fly the bombers blindly into an enemy fleet (like "other" people "suggested" with their astronomically expensive B-2s), then... prepare for some thousands of crying mothers and wives on your soil.

BTW, it's Exocet, not "Exorcet".

When nation A(lets say you) attacks nation B(me in this case) then A is outnumbered. You cant send 100% of your airforce and navy to me so I will always have nummerical superiority in the air as well as at sea.
Now anyone who knows something of modern tactics will automacily say: Nation A has the initiative! air superiority = initiative!!!(You are naive if you deny that, or need tactics lessons)
Which means that if I send 10.000 aircraft and make an all out naval attack, I can keep your outer ring of ships busy while my airfleet bombs you to pieces. And yes, I'll take alot of casualties, realize that the amount of aircraft that you can take out will never be enough to stop my attack. In the end most of your fleet will be destroyed or damaged to the extent that they can no longer be used in combat.
I can just finish you off with some submarines from then on.

Note: Someone said battleships werent sunk with one shot, Try reading up on the Battleship Suffren, sunk with one torpedoshot taking 1600 with it to the bottom of the ocean.

Furthermore i have provided you with a way to easily take out SD with the use of a missile with a DU tip, SCRAMjet and ONC charge.
Praetonia said the SCRAMjet is based on test but fails to realize that the trimaran SD is based on ... pure theory (If it has been built, then do surprise me).
He called my Thermite solution, 'not as effective'. How does he know? Has Thermite ever been used against a Superdreadnaught? or a battleship? Not that I can remember.
Its easy to say that there are no ways to kill an SD easily when you argument with ad hominem reasons.

Now anyone who knows something of modern tactics will automacily say: Nation A has the initiative! air superiority = initiative!!!(You are naive if you deny that, or need tactics lessons)

That statement causes me actual pain. Modern air defence systems and carrier aircraft mean you do not have 'the initiative' just because you have some planes.

Which means that if I send 10.000 aircraft and make an all out naval attack, I can keep your outer ring of ships busy while my airfleet bombs you to pieces.

Keep the outer ring of ships busy with what? And why won't the SD be firing back?

Note: Someone said battleships werent sunk with one shot, Try reading up on the Battleship Suffren, sunk with one torpedoshot taking 1600 with it to the bottom of the ocean.

...A pre-Dreadnought battleship built in 1899 and sunk in 1916, having already suffered heavy damage from Turkish coastal guns before she was torpedoed and been reduced to nine knots by accumulated damage? That's hardly impressive. And her crew was 648, not 1,600.

Also, the request was of battleships killed in one shot in World War Two. The only thing that comes to mind is Hood, and she wasn't a battleship.

He called my Thermite solution, 'not as effective'. How does he know? Has Thermite ever been used against a Superdreadnaught? or a battleship? Not that I can remember.

That'd be because Thermite is so difficult to deploy in such a manner that nobody's ever tried.

Its easy to say that there are no ways to kill an SD easily when you argument with ad hominem reasons.

'Ad hominem' refers to attacking the man instead of his arguments, then acting as if his arguments have been defeated. Calling a solution using thermite 'not effective' is not an ad hominem unless you happen to be made of thermite.

Calling a solution using thermite 'not effective' is not an ad hominem unless you happen to be made of thermite.

RAAR! Thermite-Man!

http://www.chem.umd.edu/chemathon/97/thermite.gif

That statement causes me actual pain. Modern air defence systems and carrier aircraft mean you do not have 'the initiative' just because you have some planes.
Modern air defense systems dont give you superiority or the initiative. How can you attack the nation if you dont have the initiative. Whats the use of sending out a fleet if its just going to sit and fire a couple shots at random?
The nation that has control of the skies will be deciding on the next move and its not because you have some sams and AAA that you'll stop the enemy airfleet, thats just wishful thinking (very common on NS though).



Keep the outer ring of ships busy with what? And why won't the SD be firing back?
rubber boats

Now really, do you think that the defending nation will leave its fleet in port? Did I say the SD wont fire back? let it fire back, wont be doing that for long.



...A pre-Dreadnought battleship built in 1899 and sunk in 1916, having already suffered heavy damage from Turkish coastal guns before she was torpedoed and been reduced to nine knots by accumulated damage? That's hardly impressive. And her crew was 648, not 1,600.

Also, the request was of battleships killed in one shot in World War Two. The only thing that comes to mind is Hood, and she wasn't a battleship.
Your source is incorrect, Suffren was the first ship of the French squadron to turn and thus escape the Turkish Coastal artillery(yes it took damage but not that much that it was so slow), By the time the U-52 saw it near the coast of South Portugal is was in good condition and fully operational.
I'll check the crew later, could be wrong on that.



That'd be because Thermite is so difficult to deploy in such a manner that nobody's ever tried.
If it hasnt been tried it means its ineffective? Good, I can throw whatever i want at the SD and i'll destroy it because it has never been tried and must thus be ineffective or even impossible.
Please, half the weapons that you see on NS have never been tried.



'Ad hominem' refers to attacking the man instead of his arguments, then acting as if his arguments have been defeated. Calling a solution using thermite 'not effective' is not an ad hominem unless you happen to be made of thermite.

Meh, who cares, its all the same.

Furthermore i have provided you with a way to easily take out SD with the use of a missile with a DU tip, SCRAMjet and ONC charge.
You would make a small hole in the SD and then (if it was a Praetonian ship anyway) vapourise some food and cause a small fire in a sealed cargo space. ONC is just a different (more efficient) form of explosive. It isnt a mini-nuke, and doesnt overcome the fact that an SD is so huge than any reasonably sized missile cannot carry enough explosive to create anything more than minor localised damage.

Praetonia said the SCRAMjet is based on test but fails to realize that the trimaran SD is based on ... pure theory (If it has been built, then do surprise me).
Trimaran ships have been built, and only money and resources stops you from making bigger and bigger ships.

He called my Thermite solution, 'not as effective'. How does he know? Has Thermite ever been used against a Superdreadnaught? or a battleship? Not that I can remember.
Thermite is aluminium mixed with a metal oxide (usually iron). It must be confined and then ignited in order to burn, and then it quickly forms liquid iron and aluminium oxide. Not only is in extremely difficult to create these conditions having hit the solid metal side of a battleship at mach 4, even if the thermite does not simply drop off the side into the sea (the reaction takes some time to get hot enough and then melt through even thin metal) it would immediately fill any hole it makes with liquid iron which will then solidify as the rest of your charge burns above it. Thermite is completely impractical as a military weapon.

Praetonia said the SCRAMjet is based on test but fails to realize that the trimaran SD is based on ... pure theory (If it has been built, then do surprise me).
Oh wait... So NS wouldn't possibly exist because it's impossible to have thousands of nations on the same globe? If so, what makes your idea, as a weapon system feasible? Is it not, just a theory?

Modern air defense systems dont give you superiority or the initiative. How can you attack the nation if you dont have the initiative. Whats the use of sending out a fleet if its just going to sit and fire a couple shots at random?
No, the don't give you the initative to start the offensive before the enemy makes the move; however, they can fire preemptively if they discover a huge raid that is flying towards them, can't they? Are you also forgetting about the airborne CAPs? It's not like that the defence does not have necessarily is always disadvantageous just because they lack the true initative. Nor is it going to 'fire a few shots at random' - a commander who actually uses his brain will start organizing silent 'SAM traps', arrange regular CAPs, have fighters on stand by, and generally being far from 'solely firing a few shots' when the aircraft posing the threat really comes.

The nation that has control of the skies will be deciding on the next move and its not because you have some sams and AAA that you'll stop the enemy airfleet, thats just wishful thinking (very common on NS though).
Well, it will if your commander is an absolute idiot and sends 10,000 aircraft blazing right through. Provided if it's actually possible to assemble an operation with 10,000 aircraft (they had enough problems in assembling the Thousand Bomber Raids, and thats 1/10 of that). No, it wouldn't stop all aircraft alone, but what do you suppose, as said before, fleet defence aircraft are for? Besides, what suddenly makes one assume that being hit by shrapnel and having fire coming out of your tailpipe is the only thing that can lead to a disrupted mission?

rubber boats
Do you really think that the same crew who controls the air defence systems will also man the machine guns and autocannons? Did you ever thought of why ships has such of a high crew member? No, the machine gun crews would just deal with your 'rubber boats' with extreme ease, while the actual operators of the air defence systems would still be concentrating on engaging the air raid, save perhaps hearing the news of the rubber boats. It's highly unlikely that the skilled sailors of a professional navy would be idiotic enough that rubber boats would completely sway them from their attention on the air raid.

Modern air defense systems dont give you superiority or the initiative. How can you attack the nation if you dont have the initiative.

You do, you have a huge fleet steaming towards them. I'd call that initiative.

The nation that has control of the skies will be deciding on the next move and its not because you have some sams and AAA that you'll stop the enemy airfleet, thats just wishful thinking (very common on NS though).

No, you'll stop them with an effective barrier CAP from your carrier based aircraft, your SAM and AA defences and short-range ballistic and cruise missile attacks on their airfields. And if you're feeling like having some fun, you could just throw tacnukes into the path of this huge formation of aircraft.

Your source is incorrect, Suffren was the first ship of the French squadron to turn and thus escape the Turkish Coastal artillery(yes it took damage but not that much that it was so slow), By the time the U-52 saw it near the coast of South Portugal is was in good condition and fully operational.

It was further damaged in other engagements. It was most certainly not fully operational, and it was still a ship from 1899 which does not fulfil Verdant's request for a WW2 ship.

If it hasnt been tried it means its ineffective?

No, it hasn't been tried because it would be ineffective, like nobody's ever tried modifying the PIAT to throw custard pies at enemy tanks.

Oh wait... So NS wouldn't possibly exist because it's impossible to have thousands of nations on the same globe? If so, what makes your idea, as a weapon system feasible? Is it not, just a theory?
You should check what i said earlier, I accept the existence of the SD and the Scramjet.

No, the don't give you the initative to start the offensive before the enemy makes the move; however, they can fire preemptively if they discover a huge raid that is flying towards them, can't they? Are you also forgetting about the airborne CAPs? It's not like that the defence does not have necessarily is always disadvantageous just because they lack the true initative. Nor is it going to 'fire a few shots at random' - a commander who actually uses his brain will start organizing silent 'SAM traps', arrange regular CAPs, have fighters on stand by, and generally being far from 'solely firing a few shots' when the aircraft posing the threat really comes.
When i say its gonna fire a few shots at random, that is as a figure of speach.
I'm not just going to fly blindly into my enemy. I'm one of those who is constantly telling his allies they should work on inetlligence gathering. But it does not change much, escort fighters or lead squadron can deal with CAP patrols.
Also an intelligent aircommander wont fall for your SAM traps more than once, you'd constantly have to alter your tactic to remain succesfull, but in the meantime your enemy could do similar things.


Well, it will if your commander is an absolute idiot and sends 10,000 aircraft blazing right through. Provided if it's actually possible to assemble an operation with 10,000 aircraft (they had enough problems in assembling the Thousand Bomber Raids, and thats 1/10 of that). No, it wouldn't stop all aircraft alone, but what do you suppose, as said before, fleet defence aircraft are for? Besides, what suddenly makes one assume that being hit by shrapnel and having fire coming out of your tailpipe is the only thing that can lead to a disrupted mission?
for the absolute idiot thing, see above. I'll know what i'm facing and where i'll face it and i'll decide what to do should the problem arise.
I do believe it is perfectly possible to assemble 10.000 aircraft for an operation like its possible to build a 1km long trimaran ship. And your fleet defence aircraft will be outnumbered (like i said before)


Do you really think that the same crew who controls the air defence systems will also man the machine guns and autocannons? Did you ever thought of why ships has such of a high crew member? No, the machine gun crews would just deal with your 'rubber boats' with extreme ease, while the actual operators of the air defence systems would still be concentrating on engaging the air raid, save perhaps hearing the news of the rubber boats. It's highly unlikely that the skilled sailors of a professional navy would be idiotic enough that rubber boats would completely sway them from their attention on the air raid.

Oh no my rubber boats!!!
To be attacked by air and naval weapons remains a fight on two fronts. One will distract men from the other. It is not because a paper said they can deal with two threats that they can in reality. NS is a bit to much stat-based.

If you have more responses, arrange with the others to put them together, thats easier for me

You do, you have a huge fleet steaming towards them. I'd call that initiative.
Even if i'm not moving at them, I have initiative.


No, you'll stop them with an effective barrier CAP from your carrier based aircraft, your SAM and AA defences and short-range ballistic and cruise missile attacks on their airfields. And if you're feeling like having some fun, you could just throw tacnukes into the path of this huge formation of aircraft.
First of, satelites are not enough to guide cruise missiles to a target, many people believe they are but in the meantime forget the US military operates U2 recon aircraft. I didnt know it until I researched it when that one U2 crashed in the UAE.
And your defenses will make alot of casualties but not enough to stop a fleet of this size(especially when combined with a naval fleet).
tacnukes, that must be very effective...



It was further damaged in other engagements. It was most certainly not fully operational, and it was still a ship from 1899 which does not fulfil Verdant's request for a WW2 ship.
Fine drop the subject, If you people jkeep posting like this it might be better to drop some stuff so i can reply faster.


No, it hasn't been tried because it would be ineffective, like nobody's ever tried modifying the PIAT to throw custard pies at enemy tanks.
It hasnt been tried because there is no need for it.

Wait...air launched tungesten rods...lots of em...we can use rubber boats for cover...

You would make a small hole in the SD and then (if it was a Praetonian ship anyway) vapourise some food and cause a small fire in a sealed cargo space. ONC is just a different (more efficient) form of explosive. It isnt a mini-nuke, and doesnt overcome the fact that an SD is so huge than any reasonably sized missile cannot carry enough explosive to create anything more than minor localised damage.
debateble


Trimaran ships have been built, and only money and resources stops you from making bigger and bigger ships.
I'm not so sure of that, but i've always accepted the SD as possible and will continue to do so until i've heard an experts opinion.


Thermite is aluminium mixed with a metal oxide (usually iron). It must be confined and then ignited in order to burn, and then it quickly forms liquid iron and aluminium oxide. Not only is in extremely difficult to create these conditions having hit the solid metal side of a battleship at mach 4, even if the thermite does not simply drop off the side into the sea (the reaction takes some time to get hot enough and then melt through even thin metal) it would immediately fill any hole it makes with liquid iron which will then solidify as the rest of your charge burns above it. Thermite is completely impractical as a military weapon.
Why would it fall of the ship? Besides I dont need it to burn through the ship, I want to use that to take out all external weapons(which it can) and thus render the SD useless.
And if it were impractical then making it practical is a matter of finetuning the weapon.

Between between on of you people and me would probably end in an OOC discussion.

Wait...air launched tungesten rods...lots of em...we can use rubber boats for cover...

I've got some really good ones

So why not use a guided orbital munition. Say, a large conventional winged bomb, launched in the same way as these tungstan rods I hear so much about, but with the ability to manuver in flight in order to achive a much better chance of hitting a target than a unguided rod.

i mentioned that and made (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435530&highlight=HPDS) it, and then got critisiced and realised how ineffective it is.

I bring the SD problem a new fourth dimension

THE Psycological Weapon

get an object that will scare shit out of people in SDs or the people using them and you wont have a problem

Wait...air launched tungesten rods...lots of em...we can use rubber boats for cover...

I believe I'm going to start marketing remote controlled pulse jet rubber raft drones with 2 Exocet missiles on them. Imagine the possiblities, surround an enemy with annoying droning drones (drony drone!) and flood their Tactical/Strategic Maps. I'm sure you have computers large enough to deal with it, but it would be a bother.

Why not just use a really, really big torpedo? Far less expensive, and more accurate.


That's what I was thinking. What's wrong with a good old fashioned torpedo?

Sure you'd probally have to make it huge, but would it really have to be nuclear?

When i say its gonna fire a few shots at random, that is as a figure of speach.
It certainly didn't work to refute the absolute fact that air defence operators does have initative. It's that they don't have the initative to actually move before you launch your aircraft, but that doesn't change the fact that once you are identified as a raid, they will shoot at you. However the problem is, you are still once again not paying attention to the very basic, fundamental, critical fact that the enemy will detect your movements and prepare for it, especially when you are launching something stupendously huge such as a thousands-aircraft raid.

I'm not just going to fly blindly into my enemy. I'm one of those who is constantly telling his allies they should work on inetlligence gathering. But it does not change much, escort fighters or lead squadron can deal with CAP patrols.
...again, how are you to make sure that your lead escorts aren't going to be under a barrage of attacks from both SAMs, CAP patrols, and fighters scrambled off carriers as a result of the detection of your raid, which by the way, will be huge? Intelligence is only one aspect of the grand scheme of things; tactically, by the way, just blasting your aircraft into range of the enemy fleet's airborne and surface anti-air armaments, only with the escorts in front, is flying blindly.

Also an intelligent aircommander wont fall for your SAM traps more than once, you'd constantly have to alter your tactic to remain succesfull, but in the meantime your enemy could do similar things.
...provided that he actually knows what a silent SAM trap is, although you are correct that one does need to be flexible, you are still turning a blind eye towards the fact that it wouldn't work when you just blast your aircraft in and depend on numbers to win.

for the absolute idiot thing, see above. I'll know what i'm facing and where i'll face it and i'll decide what to do should the problem arise.
No, the point of mine that you are currently talking about is irrelevant to 'the above'. I'm talking about the fact that without previous preparations, you are going to run into serious trouble if you just depend on the numbers as a way to overwhelm the defences - which by the way, is what you are suggesting.

I do believe it is perfectly possible to assemble 10.000 aircraft for an operation like its possible to build a 1km long trimaran ship. And your fleet defence aircraft will be outnumbered (like i said before)
Even considering the most liberal estimates, it would take hours to launch 10,000 aircraft, let alone having enough ///combat/// aircraft that are actually ready and prepared for the strike, on the carrier themselves. If you really think that the enemy isn't going to notice if you spend hours launching the aircraft. Outnumbering the CAP is irrelevant; timing is much more important. And this is in most cases, with a raid of thousands of combat aircraft, nearly impossible considering that the enemy will notice, and consequently prepare his defences while organizing a counterattack themselves. No, not even a 1km, giant SD-sized carrier can launch an aircraft per second. If you are telling me that you can have say, several of those in the ocean at one time in one area, watch out for your accountant lying on the floor in a state of total shock.

Oh no my rubber boats!!!
To be attacked by air and naval weapons remains a fight on two fronts. One will distract men from the other. It is not because a paper said they can deal with two threats that they can in reality.
Incorrect. A modern ship may be a ship, but at the same time its weapon systems, electronic systems, and crew requirements are fitted to ensure that it can fight multiple threats at one time. The difference lies in that 'a fight on two fronts' is a strategic concept with multiple groups of multiple platforms, whereas what you are suggesting is more on the tactical side. Thus, the comparison proves no point other than that such comparison itself is fundamentally and woefully flawed; it would be only a fantastic dream to think that you can have a ship, designed for air defence and escort, solely engaging these useless and meanless rubber boats in a turkey shoot when there's a grave threat above. If people can be distracted that easily, then I'd suppose that you could just parachute a division of paratroopers into someone's city and claim it as yours.

Here the answer, a SD Hunter
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2781/phoenix6ee.jpg

I LOVE IT! WE'll TAKE 500!

Just kidding.

How many crew-members are on board an SD?

It certainly didn't work to refute the absolute fact that air defence operators does have initative. It's that they don't have the initative to actually move before you launch your aircraft, but that doesn't change the fact that once you are identified as a raid, they will shoot at you. However the problem is, you are still once again not paying attention to the very basic, fundamental, critical fact that the enemy will detect your movements and prepare for it, especially when you are launching something stupendously huge such as a thousands-aircraft raid.
Even if they're prepared i can get to them. Dont forget i combined my air attack with an naval attack. Its no longer a point of surprise here, I'm here to overwhelm you and by using decoys and countermeasures to their full extent, i know i can get to you and hit you were it hurts.
I already know that will cause alot of casualties, but If i win, that doesnt matter because I defeated my opponent.

...again, how are you to make sure that your lead escorts aren't going to be under a barrage of attacks from both SAMs, CAP patrols, and fighters scrambled off carriers as a result of the detection of your raid, which by the way, will be huge? Intelligence is only one aspect of the grand scheme of things; tactically, by the way, just blasting your aircraft into range of the enemy fleet's airborne and surface anti-air armaments, only with the escorts in front, is flying blindly.
Depends on how far I will send them up before the raid troop follows.
And Intelligence gathering does not limit itself to a spy plane or a sat. Its much more than that. But these are, honestly, details that i hope you know as well as i do.

...provided that he actually knows what a silent SAM trap is, although you are correct that one does need to be flexible, you are still turning a blind eye towards the fact that it wouldn't work when you just blast your aircraft in and depend on numbers to win.
I wont blast my way in, but i will depend on numbers essentially and apologize me but i'm certain that it'll work.

No, the point of mine that you are currently talking about is irrelevant to 'the above'. I'm talking about the fact that without previous preparations, you are going to run into serious trouble if you just depend on the numbers as a way to overwhelm the defences - which by the way, is what you are suggesting.
I can win through sheer numbers, As any normal military i will take necessary perparations, but i'm not going to make a list here of all the stuff and details that i should do. An armoured unit doesnt attack a position before a recon verhicle checked the area, we all know that but noone writes it.


Even considering the most liberal estimates, it would take hours to launch 10,000 aircraft, let alone having enough ///combat/// aircraft that are actually ready and prepared for the strike, on the carrier themselves. If you really think that the enemy isn't going to notice if you spend hours launching the aircraft. Outnumbering the CAP is irrelevant; timing is much more important. And this is in most cases, with a raid of thousands of combat aircraft, nearly impossible considering that the enemy will notice, and consequently prepare his defences while organizing a counterattack themselves. No, not even a 1km, giant SD-sized carrier can launch an aircraft per second. If you are telling me that you can have say, several of those in the ocean at one time in one area, watch out for your accountant lying on the floor in a state of total shock.
I'm not discussing an attack of fleet against fleet, I have previously stated that its about fleet attacking nation where i'm the nation and thus I make use of land based aircraft(but i could include carrier based aircraft). I'm not an imperialist, I only go to war if i really have to (doesnt happen much) so I base this discussion on how I would defend against an attacker with a(several?) SD(s).


Incorrect. A modern ship may be a ship, but at the same time its weapon systems, electronic systems, and crew requirements are fitted to ensure that it can fight multiple threats at one time. The difference lies in that 'a fight on two fronts' is a strategic concept with multiple groups of multiple platforms, whereas what you are suggesting is more on the tactical side. Thus, the comparison proves no point other than that such comparison itself is fundamentally and woefully flawed; it would be only a fantastic dream to think that you can have a ship, designed for air defence and escort, solely engaging these useless and meanless rubber boats in a turkey shoot when there's a grave threat above. If people can be distracted that easily, then I'd suppose that you could just parachute a division of paratroopers into someone's city and claim it as yours.[/QUOTE]

When you drop parachutes, ground AA units will take you out. If your navy approaches a beach coastal artillery will fire and when you land, tanks will drive you back into the sea. In each case it is a weapon that is designed for one and only one purpose(although a Vulcan for instance can also be used in a ground support role, but its essentially not designed for that task). Once a weapon is built to counter two threats it becomes less effective(there are exceptions but you get the point), there are even SD that combine two in one, but i'm not getting even into that.


Thats it with this discussion, I'm gonna quit here. Maybe Omz i'll go on with this if you want on another day in another place. Right now, i'm kinda tired of talking about ships I dont like(I dont like navies in general tbh) so if you'll excuse me i'm dropping out here.

Here the answer, a SD Hunter
All big ships go with stats, where are your stats and a full explination of every bolt in your SD hunter

well going along with what McKagan, I believe that you dont need to hit the sd directly with a nuke, but detonate a tactical nuclear weapon directly under the sd possibly via a torpedo, I believe that the nuke would creat a large enough air bubble underneath to possibly sink it or do severe damage(such as breaking the hull in half). also the radiaton will be minimal and wont have so much environmental concequences. Just tell me what you think.

ok, this will probably sound stupid and semi-wacky.

But I remember on the Discovery Channel once on a show about the Bermuda triangle there was a theory where alot of bubbles of some sort of gas (it was common, but i fogot what kind now) could randomly rise from the ocean floor and cause a ship to suddenly just sink from the surface of the ocean.

They confirmed that was what happened to one large ship down there.

Could it be possible to cause some sort of problem like this manually under a large SD?

Why not use a smaller stealthy ship (such as the Sea Shadow)to either board the SD with marines) or sink it from the outside using C4?

that would be a godd idea excepting that most sailors have an old fashioned detecting device called 'the MK-1 eyeball' which allows them to 'see' ships by the electromagnetic radiation reflected off of it or not reflected off of it by the sun or other lights (battle fleets frequetly run lit up by massive amounts of searchlight) which pretty muh negates any stealt features the sea shadow has

I LOVE IT! WE'll TAKE 500!

Just kidding.

How many crew-members are on board an SD?

My soon to be WARSPITE dreadnaught (built in memory of that great ship, which thank god hit the rocks on the way to be decomissioned under the 47' labour government)
Will have 8500 crewmen, a regiment of marines, and some 6000 aircrew.
That's at 985 metres.

debateble
If it's debateable then //debate// it. Actually oppose my arguments and //explain// why they are wrong. Otherwise I can only assume that you ceade the point.

I'm not so sure of that, but i've always accepted the SD as possible and will continue to do so until i've heard an experts opinion.
Freethinker is an expert (well he has some kind of degree in ship design) and he's spoken to other people who are also experts, and they all say it's possible.

Why would it fall of the ship? Besides I dont need it to burn through the ship, I want to use that to take out all external weapons(which it can) and thus render the SD useless.
Because it's liquid metal perhaps? And because it doesnt ignite instantly? And how would thermite destroy external weaponary when it cant get through their armour. :S

And if it were impractical then making it practical is a matter of finetuning the weapon.
If you think that you can "finetune" it to make it practical, then please //explain how//. Otherwise ignored, because you cant just say "I make it practical because I say so :P and Im not telling you how because thats classified :P".

why not kamikaze the SD with a submarine, a stealthy one of course. but they would notice it when its too late to change course.
get an old soviet Victor class one and load it with explosives. or, use the submarine as a giant depth charge,

lie it on the sea floor (the deeper the better) and pack it with bombs. evacuate the crew through a smaller submarine or multiple submersibles. and blow the thing up.

well I was thinking to detonate a small nuke using a torpedo or a sub directly under the sd. The environmental effects would be minimal.

just correct me if i am wrong but i think it would work

Since you really insist and use lines like 'if you dont respond you're wrong'. Its the last response from me conbcerning this for while, i'm simply going to turn my back on this thread.
If it's debateable then //debate// it. Actually oppose my arguments and //explain// why they are wrong. Otherwise I can only assume that you ceade the point.
Dont assume! Its debateable to the point where it becomes a yes-no game. I dont want to get into that.


Freethinker is an expert (well he has some kind of degree in ship design) and he's spoken to other people who are also experts, and they all say it's possible.
With all due respect, i'm not saying he's a liar, but until i've seen proof that he actually knows what he's saying, I'll depend on the expert(s) that I know or consult.


Because it's liquid metal perhaps? And because it doesnt ignite instantly? And how would thermite destroy external weaponary when it cant get through their armour. :S
external weaponry, sez enough I think


If you think that you can "finetune" it to make it practical, then please //explain how//. Otherwise ignored, because you cant just say "I make it practical because I say so :P and Im not telling you how because thats classified :P".
I dont care about technical mumbo jumbo.

To continue about Freethinkers, while I respect him and his obvious knowledge of shipbuilding and naval technologies, SD's are not possible to build in real life. Technically it may be, on the drawing board it may be possible but in NationStates fact and fiction overlap each other. Economically spoken a dreadnaught cannot be built, rough estimates all conclude it takes roughly thirty years to build one. And all the steel put in one single SD can be divided over I-don't-know-how-many missile cruisers, which are a lot more cost effective. People say a lot about themselves on the internet, people like to brag about their own strong points. Freethinkers knows more about naval things than the average human, but to call him an expert? I'd call Macabees or New Empire an expert as well. Or Sarzonia, or me an expert in survival techniques.

Don't take all the "expert" talk for granted.

I dont care about technical mumbo jumbo.

Actually, if you strike an SD below it's CJC compartments were most of it's primary LADAR LIDAR RADAR LADIR etc systems are located with a missile approximately the size of yakhont SS-N-28 launched from a click away by an SSBN or maybe a DDGN and let it gather speed, maybe add a RAMjet engine and hit it to MACH7 it will be too fast for CIWS to shoot down, your FAPs and your SAPs would have to be taken care of, launch a missile from an aircraft like Tu-223C6, maybe use the M1001CJ AREOTAKE missile which sends off RBS from it's tip and also decoys making your AAGDS from the FAPs and SAPs confused, you'd get the missiles through if you spammed them, launch maybe twenty from a DDGN about two klicks away as I said and you'll do serious damage to the SD, also you can use 6500x101mm ETCS to knock out it's cannons because that's unstoppable (for $reason) especially if you use HEAT-C or ADU tips launched from a BBN's main cannons, then you'll do well.

Understand any of that? Didn't think so ;)

Why thank you Hog for hitting the nail on the II Rp head. War roleplays with all the technical chit chat has degraded into a wank fest you just kindly wrote. SD's, while being a nice addition to any naval force in II, are just tools of wankage. If I read a random entry to a war thread that's all I see: LADAR here, IRCAN there, whatever this and more blabbering that. I mean, I went along with it just to stay up-to-date. Not to my own amusement, rather to keep all the others at bay.

In Axis Nova's thread Der Angst(I do not always agree with him but he sometimes has a point) said it seems to be more about winning than about having plain fun.
Remember Belem going after someones SD, the onwer of the SD simply godmoded his way out by saying Belems missiles couldnt hit him. And if it isnt that then there's always someone with some technorant about how one of his systems will beat your weapon in some way. As I said before, battle with some people here would end in an OOC discussion(While I know Omz is an ok guy).

Furthermore there is accepted godmod, there are several people who use mass infantry attacks to beat there enemy eventhough its already been proven in WW1 that it doesnt work. If i suggest a mass airraid(which sofar has worked in all RL situations) on an SD then it isnt discussed, its simply declared impossible(followed by a 'technorant').
I dont care about tech, My enemies have equal weapons, even if they're new to the game(I still have an advantage by size, but i've only used that as a diplomatic weapon).

I've come to the point where think of doing the next, if someone doesnt accept damage on his SD, or accepts only an ridiculously low amount of damage i will simply claim low or no casualties. Much better than tacnukes imho.

Actually, if you strike an SD below it's CJC compartments were most of it's primary LADAR LIDAR RADAR LADIR etc systems are located with a missile approximately the size of yakhont SS-N-28 launched from a click away by an SSBN or maybe a DDGN and let it gather speed, maybe add a RAMjet engine and hit it to MACH7 it will be too fast for CIWS to shoot down, your FAPs and your SAPs would have to be taken care of, launch a missile from an aircraft like Tu-223C6, maybe use the M1001CJ AREOTAKE missile which sends off RBS from it's tip and also decoys making your AAGDS from the FAPs and SAPs confused, you'd get the missiles through if you spammed them, launch maybe twenty from a DDGN about two klicks away as I said and you'll do serious damage to the SD, also you can use 6500x101mm ETCS to knock out it's cannons because that's unstoppable (for $reason) especially if you use HEAT-C or ADU tips launched from a BBN's main cannons, then you'll do well.

Understand any of that? Didn't think so ;)
I'll be honest with you, I dont want to understand it.

Dont assume! Its debateable to the point where it becomes a yes-no game. I dont want to get into that.
Unless you're willing to actually offer reasons why you are right, then you cant do anything other than assume you are wrong. "Because I say so" isnt good enough and you know it.

With all due respect, i'm not saying he's a liar, but until i've seen proof that he actually knows what he's saying, I'll depend on the expert(s) that I know or consult.
Ah... so you think Freethinkers just made up a web of lies about him being a naval design student in order to trick you into accepting SDs which he didnt even field for some time after he designed the Doujin.

external weaponry, sez enough I think
...do you know what a ship looks like? Do you know what a "turret" is?

I dont care about technical mumbo jumbo.
In other words you're just going to claim to be able to do something that's impossible with the yet again oh-so-popular "because I said so" 'argument'?

Vermin, you still don't understand the point of the discussion here. The point is not whether you care about 'tech jombo'/whatever or not, it's about the feasibility. If you simply don't care about realism or the feasibility, practicability, and the technology that involves in it - and that is in essential, the whole point of the whole set of discussions - then why still use real-life examples (in which most, if not all, are still dotted with obvious inaccuracies - for example, the statements about the WWI battleship, and the uneducated declaration that mass air raids has 'succeeded' in all RL instances) to support your claims? You can go play with fantasy and magic, but that's not the point of the discussion now, is it?

I'll be honest with you, I dont want to understand it.
You do realise I was having a joke, and at least 50% of that is off the top of my head. Anything that came to mind.

You do realise I was having a joke, and at least 50% of that is off the top of my head. Anything that came to mind.
Yes I know its a joke, I made a similar (smaller) joke on the regional board of the region i'm in. I like jokes like this.

Once threw around with lots of words about economy like that and there was actually someone who tried to convince me that I was wrong by explaining everything about stockmarkets.

Vermin, you still don't understand the point of the discussion here. The point is not whether you care about 'tech jombo'/whatever or not, it's about the feasibility. If you simply don't care about realism or the feasibility, practicability, and the technology that involves in it - and that is in essential, the whole point of the whole set of discussions - then why still use real-life examples (in which most, if not all, are still dotted with obvious inaccuracies - for example, the statements about the WWI battleship, and the uneducated declaration that mass air raids has 'succeeded' in all RL instances) to support your claims? You can go play with fantasy and magic, but that's not the point of the discussion now, is it?
NS=/=realistic.
I wish it were realistic(or why else would i use rl examples?), it would be much more fun.

NS=/=realistic.
I wish it were realistic(or why else would i use rl examples?), it would be much more fun.I would tentatively disagree, as you would require a couple thousands player/ nation to run it properly.

Administration sucks :P

My suggestion would be land-based railgun systems, for defensive purposes.

A very large railgun, say, about a mile long, mounted on a 2-mile-wide turntable, could engage any threat with ballistic, fuel-air explosive, or nuclear shells within a 500 nautical mile radius in less than a minute (flight time). A tungsten slug about the size of a car or bus flying 2000 mph could penetrate up to about 10-30 feet of solid armor, depending on materials the armor is made of, and the angle of impact. The gun and its equipment would all be covered in concrete or alloy, armor, making it impervious to nuclear strikes.

The ultimate long-range, heavy target point engagement system.

My country is planning to construct at least one, although the cost would be very high, probably around 50-100 billion a pop.

I wish it were realistic
This is in every way, contradicting the last statement in one of your own posts:
I dont care about tech
I dont care about technical mumbo jumbo.

I don't want to automatically declare an assumption of hypocrisy, but without actual points supporting empty claims, there's some confusion generating from this.

Ah... so you think Freethinkers just made up a web of lies about him being a naval design student in order to trick you into accepting SDs which he didnt even field for some time after he designed the Doujin.


That Freethinkers, he's a dastardly ragamuffin that one. I hear he also eats babies.

Uhm, anyway. Speaking as a publicly declared expert, all ye mortals shall listen.

I really don't think its reasonable to counter a technical weapon without expecting to be technical yourself. If you don't want to RP with technical mumbo jumbo and would like to stretch whatever it is you're stretching, RP with someone else. I don't think every single nation here operates an SD (I don't). Instead of spending all this time coming up with half-baked ideas to counter SDs and expecting them to be accepted by the extremely technically knowledged community that generally builds and operates them, just RP someone else. If you don't want to RP with SDs, then just say so, and don't piss off anyone who has them. This goes for a lot of other tech, I don't see why people can't just move on and do so here.

Unless you're willing to actually offer reasons why you are right, then you cant do anything other than assume you are wrong. "Because I say so" isnt good enough and you know it.
I didnt say 'because I say so', there are no reasons that make my right in this particular case, as you cant provide reasons why you would be right. Why does an ONC charge create 'only a small explosion'? I hear others say it will cripple the SD.


Ah... so you think Freethinkers just made up a web of lies about him being a naval design student in order to trick you into accepting SDs which he didnt even field for some time after he designed the Doujin.
Dont make me angry, You know perfectly what I wrote.


...do you know what a ship looks like? Do you know what a "turret" is?
And whats going to happen to the turret, you think?


In other words you're just going to claim to be able to do something that's impossible with the yet again oh-so-popular "because I said so" 'argument'?
Dear, I dont care! Yes thats simple answer, but then, I'm tired of saying i want to end the dicussion to see you continue it and put me in a position where i'm wrong.

ONC only creates a small explosion because its only twice as powerful as regular explosives. It's not going to astronomically increase the power of your cruise missiles...

Also, if you want to end a discussion, don't keep arguing the opponent's points. If you keep doing that, even if its to save face, that's a way of saying 'I still want to argue'. If you don't want to argue, just stop posting.

(Now that I think about it, putting someone into a position where they're wrong is the entire point of a debate. To argue your case until it appears as the correct answer.)

This is in every way, contradicting the last statement in one of your own posts:



I don't want to automatically declare an assumption of hypocrisy, but without actual points supporting empty claims, there's some confusion generating from this.

I know what a gun can do, I do not knwo where every bolt or spring is hiddden
Again a realistic example, Guderian took place in the drivers position of every nnew tank so that he knew what it was capable of, he did not know the stats and never asked for them, neither did he know what type engine they had. None the less, he was one of the most important generals of WW2.
A more recent example is Saad Al Shazly, who knew what an SA-2 could do but did not care about its stats or the way it is built.
I dont see where i ever contradicted myself, I had a solution, without knowing every detail, some people said it would work and you people say it doesnt. So it ends as a yes or no game that i like to end here and now.

(Now that I think about it, putting someone into a position where they're wrong is the entire point of a debate. To argue your case until it appears as the correct answer.)
If someone tells me he wants to end a discussion with me i'll just stop responding, instead of a 'If you dont respond, i'll assume you are wrong' statement.

You are ignoring the fact that these people are operating on the strategic level, or at least at a level where small-unit tactics and every details about a system's auxiliary system is not as important. Since battling a SD would actually require you to actually have an idea of both the methods and the actual tools used to defeat it, then yes, you do need to know.

You are ignoring the fact that these people are operating on the strategic level, or at least at a level where small-unit tactics and every details about a system's auxiliary system is not as important. Since battling a SD would actually require you to actually have an idea of both the methods and the actual tools used to defeat it, then yes, you do need to know.

You told me that i was flying blind when I sent 'only escort planes' first, forcing me to tell you that there is more to it but I dont want to name all the details.
Now you say small unit tactics arent as important?

RP is a cooperative story, not a competition.

Small-unit tactics aren't quite the same with a naval combat fleet, for obvious reasons (namely: we're talking about fleets with dozens of ships and hundreds of airplanes, thousands of missiles. There's nothing small about engaging an SD battlegroup.)

You told me that i was flying blind when I sent 'only escort planes' first, forcing me to tell you that there is more to it but I dont want to name all the details.
'Don't want to name all the details'.

Now you say small unit tactics arent as important?
Read someone's statement before automatically coming with a reply. Yes, things such as small unit tactics is not as important for a decision maker who is dedicated to making decisions on the strategic level that can affect the performance of what he is responsible for, as you'd be dedicating yourself to inventing strategies instead of still wasting time on thinking about what should actually happen in the minds of a platoon leader of A Company, XX Battalion, XX Regiment, XXth Division, [whatever] Corps, when you are a general facing a map of an entire region. It is as important however, in general.

RP is a cooperative story, not a competition.
No, it isn't only a competitive game of warfare, even though acceptance and generally having a fun time is important as well. At the same time, does it give the opponent a reason to exploit your opponent's hospitality and acceptance, to suit something related to your own needs? No, role-play is and always will be free-form; but that isn't the topic here either.

Actually, if you strike an SD below it's CJC compartments were most of it's primary LADAR LIDAR RADAR LADIR etc systems are located with a missile approximately the size of yakhont SS-N-28 launched from a click away by an SSBN or maybe a DDGN and let it gather speed, maybe add a RAMjet engine and hit it to MACH7 it will be too fast for CIWS to shoot down, your FAPs and your SAPs would have to be taken care of, launch a missile from an aircraft like Tu-223C6, maybe use the M1001CJ AREOTAKE missile which sends off RBS from it's tip and also decoys making your AAGDS from the FAPs and SAPs confused, you'd get the missiles through if you spammed them, launch maybe twenty from a DDGN about two klicks away as I said and you'll do serious damage to the SD, also you can use 6500x101mm ETCS to knock out it's cannons because that's unstoppable (for $reason) especially if you use HEAT-C or ADU tips launched from a BBN's main cannons, then you'll do well.

Understand any of that? Didn't think so ;)

thepretically you could get a RAMjet to mach 7 but it would be wobbling so much it would be useless as any sort of even moderately precise weapon.

I didnt say 'because I say so', there are no reasons that make my right in this particular case, as you cant provide reasons why you would be right. Why does an ONC charge create 'only a small explosion'? I hear others say it will cripple the SD.
It depends how big the charge is. As I have said, all ONC is is a different kind of explosive. That's it. With any amount you could fit into a reasonably sized missile it would do very little to an SD.


Dont make me angry
:phear:


And whats going to happen to the turret, you think?
...nothing?


Dear, I dont care! Yes thats simple answer, but then, I'm tired of saying i want to end the dicussion to see you continue it and put me in a position where i'm wrong.
If you dont care then why are you arguing about it?

I was thinking. I've not delved much into SD armor recently, so bear with me.

You take a large, heavy slug projectile and fire at the SD, it hits the armor and causes imperfections in the armor and would weaken it with massive unfocused KE. After fireing this you would fire normal KE and HEAT shells at it. You would be firing on weakened armor.

Another variation of this would be to use a top attack she that would break up into very small munitions at the last second similar to runway and roadway bombs. These would cause the same imperfections and guid the way for more focused attacks.

You take a large, heavy slug projectile and fire at the SD, it hits the armor and causes imperfections in the armor and would weaken it with massive unfocused KE.

Listen, man, that's the EXACT principle behind the Hammerhead Anti Ship rounds I was developing - 'cept it's supposed to take out lighter-armored support ships to pave the way for combined attacks.