NationStates Jolt Archive

As of right now, I've only gotten the modern and PT set, PMT needs additions and I'm working on a FT one at the moment, so without further ramblings...
A Brief Brief on Nation States Modern Tech vs. Real Life Technology

A recent encounter with an RP inspired me to write this up, so tell me what you think, and add to it!

For all the newbies out there, there are two main technology sectors in the Modern Technology epoch. There is NS technology, which means that it was something designed by a person here on the forums, like my ISF-17 (http://z7.invisionfree.com/Illiorian_Arms/index.php?showtopic=37). There is also modern technology, which means that the stuff was made and designed by some real life company, say the F-22 Raptor (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22.htm). Also, the generally accepted time period for NS modern tech means that it needs to be feasible within the next 5-15 years.
"You start to move out of MT when you need to make up science to get things to work. Fusion, for example. We do not currently understand the science behind fusion reactors in order to build one capable of sustaining a reaction. We know about the reaction itself, which is why we can build nuclear bombs, but not how to sustain it on earth. Equally, matter-antimatter. We do not know how to produce enough antimatter quickly enough for this to be a worthwhile endevour, even though we can produce anti-matter and understand broadly what it is and how it works. Then there are more obvious examples like FTl drives, which as far as we know may never be possible".
With that explained we can move on to the original objective: why NS tech tends to be better than RL tech.


As stated above, NS tech means that it needs to be RL feasible in the next 15 years. It’s this gap in time that allows MT RPers to take experimental technologies and make them feasible and realistic. A quick example would be the NS super radars, which are insanely hard to get around thanks to “advances” in the amount of bands that can be broadcasted, the almost instant links to IR scanners which seem to be so sensitive they can pick up heat trails from long distances. Now the reason that these are allowed, is that all the technology to do this exists today, or the concepts are feasible, but are costly due to lack of sufficient materials. “Why then,” most ask, “don’t nations like the US or Russia use them?” There are several parts to this answer. One is that it’s just too costly for the US to produce that type of system. Another could be that the US has that technology, but hasn’t declassified it. The last is that the US or Russia could feel that it has such a good lead in the field over the rest of the world, they don’t need that system.

The other main factor that allows NS tech to have superiority over Modern tech is the amount of money that nations are willing to spend on defense developments and procurements. Illior has a defense budget of over $110.5 trillion, compared to the US’s stated one of 405 Billion (Department of Defense’s annual statement). Companies like The Macabee’s Kreigzimmer, Isselmere’s Royal Shipyards, or Illior’s Haaj-Frimmel Airworks all tend to have some base in real life for their technologies, and tend to have seemingly limitless budgets when it comes to developing technologies, where RL companies need to produce profits and can only spend so much on Research and Development. These large budgets allow them to make the process of producing their base materials standardized and cheaper, allowing better technologies, like Aluminum-Lithium Alloys for aircraft skins and frames, to be produced much cheaper than they ever could in real life.

Lastly, a large question seems to be left unanswered. “If NS tech is based off of RL tech, then how could NSers be producing these massive Super Dreadnoughts as there’s nothing in RL like them?” The thing about Super Dreads is that they are feasible in RL, just not practical or cost effective. There is no need for a country like the US to have a 1km ship, as it would most likely be stuck in one ocean, as it would be hard for a ship that large to traverse the southernmost points of South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Australia, and hard to go through the Indonesian shoals, impossible to pass through the Panama canal, and lastly where would they dock? These ships have a Draft (the height from water level to the deepest point on the boat) of up to 100 feet. As far as I know, there is no port in the world that could handle that size of ship. Now the reason they are feasible in the NS world is that the geography of each nation is decided upon by the player. Illior, for instance, is a humungous inactive volcano island ring that is somewhat isolated from the rest of the world. It is easily feasible to move around in the NS world in ships of over a Kilometer in length as there’s been no attempt, as it would be incredibly hard, to make a map of the whole NS world. This means that people can generally move large amounts of things unhindered till they reach a mapped region of nations, or a nation that has a map.

The construction and armaments are all feasible again in Real life, but are useless, as there’s no ship in the world that the US can’t take out with a missile spam. In the NS world, Point defense weapons are so numerous and generally good, and armor is generally so thick, that it has come down to projectiles again, bringing back memories of WWI where battleships would duke it out with their guns. The solution to the betterment of the CIWS was to put a lot of big 30” guns on a ship with even more 5” guns and more 88mm than a single German corps had during WWII. Another reason for the return of guns is as Questers says:
the armour [on the ships] has made missiles ineffective. Shells have both a higher penetration and HE/AP value than missiles, and they're cheaper.
Vault 10 also Adds that In my opinion, the real reason is that guns look cooler [than missiles]. He also notes that Guns are not the only solution to penetrating armor. Already in WWII the Germany used Fritz X, anti-ship missile proven capable of easily penetrating and sinking a battleship. Torpedoes are another way to put ship's armor against her, damaging the structure directly.
In real life, there’s no need for these 30” guns or insane amount of 88mm guns on one ship, but it’s still all feasible.

To sum it all up once again, NS tech outclasses Modern tech. NS nations and corporations have budgets that are exponentially larger than their RL counterparts, allowing them to develop and standardize more costly things faster making them less costly. Nations like the US have no need for something like a Mach 3.5 swing-wing Air superiority fighter, whereas NS nations do, to combat the Mach 2.7 Agile Air superiority fighters. Most of the technology is feasible in real life, but just not practical or needed, whereas in the NS world, these incredibly large or fast craft are needed to keep one’s nation safe from other nations with similar weapons systems. And that’s it all folks!

A Brief Brief on PMT and PT

PMT: Post Modern Tech: the tech levels vary, but most PMT RPers stay in the 2020-2050 area if my memory serves me correctly. PMT is basically taking NS modern tech to the next level, like taking a chemical based laser, and fitting it on a fighter that can go mach 5 and has forward swept wings. The Basic guidelines for Post modern tech is that the tech is normally conceptualized today, but made practical for military usage. A good example here is New Empire using nuclear reactors in tanks. As far as development trends in Real Life, this isn’t even close to happening, but they are used in ships. New Empire, being the practical guy he is, made it so it had a fault: It had to be refueled once a week, which is what allowed it to be used because he recognized that a reactor that small would burn through its fuel quicker than a normal reactor. There are numerous more examples, ranging from fusion reactors, to trans-orbital (Going from space to earth) planes, arming those craft with chemical based lasers, Orbital artillery (Although there is a simplified MT version which drops 30ft long tungsten rods on things) Advanced AIs, powered armor, etc. The list goes on for quite a while, but you get the idea. It could also be as Praetonia mentioned, you have to “Make up Science” to explain the concept. A good example Praetonia used was fusion.
Fusion, for example. We do not currently understand the science behind fusion reactors in order to build one capable of sustaining a reaction. We know about the reaction itself, which is why we can build nuclear bombs, but not how to sustain it on earth.
Quickie summary: Taking any concept in MT and making it practical (IE Nuclear reactors from ships to tanks, or fusion)

PT: Past tech: The tech level that deals with any era before today. This tech level covers everything in history, from alternate WWII scenarios to ancient roman times and possibly even prehistoric. There tend to be a lot of history buffs here, so if you want to start an RP using say, a WWI tech level, I know there’s a bunch of battleship guys on the draft-room that’d be all over it, but that’s really true for every PT era, as I personally like the Mongols and WWII stuff, but I haven’t gotten into it yet.
Quickie summary: Anything before Today basically (Could be the invasion of Afghanistan, WWII, or whatever)

Czardas' Quick Tech Summary
Basic summary:

MT is wankery backed up with experimental models.

PMT is wankery backed up with conceptual science.

PT is stuff that already has been wanked over.

FT is "Laws of physics shall cease to apply after 2050".

Some Credits
The Silver Sky for being the first one to read this over
Isselmere for always being there to read my random works
Praetonia For his contributions to both the MT and PMT sections
Aequatio For his helpful comments and his idea of combining all three sections
Czardas for a quick laugh and the easiest summary of NS tech Ever
Questers for his further expansions on the development of gun based ships
Vault 10 For a reason I never considered, but now that I think about it is too damn true.
The Rest of the Draftroom Crew For their support and lookovers
All the other people I PMed but who never answered

I'm thinking this sums it up pretty nicely. Touch on some points I didn't even think about. I enjoyed.

It's good. And no, I'm not just saying that because you quoted me. Although that helps. ;)

That pretty much sums up what I understood about NS tech. Nice going.

Very, very good. A nice summary of the idea of Modern Tech.

I'd point out that whether the users of SDs like it or not, no point defense is or ever will be perfect, and thus a return to WWI style naval battles isn't going to be happening around here any time soon. The statement "In the NS world, Point defense weapons are so good, that it has come down to projectiles again" is quite simply, a lie and a pipe dream.

Also, primitive fusion reactors could be considered high-MT-- they're building a few in various places now.

I'd point out that whether the users of SDs like it or not, no point defense is or ever will be perfect
Agreed
and thus a return to WWI style naval battles isn't going to be happening around here any time soon.
But with naval manufacturers like Macabees making what he calls a "Galleon" which is basically a Superdreadnought killer using mainly guns, wasn't it? I do agree that aircraft totally change the equation, but there are seemingly more gun laden ships.
The statement "In the NS world, Point defense weapons are so good, that it has come down to projectiles again" is quite simply, a lie and a pipe dream.
So I misinterpreted the reason for the development of the SD and its killer classes. Mind offering a suggestion of how to fix it?

Also, primitive fusion reactors could be considered high-MT-- they're building a few in various places now.

True, but as Praetonia mentioned, we barely understand fusion, and we still are working on how to control the reaction.

Bump for viewage

Right on...

I'd point out that whether the users of SDs like it or not, no point defense is or ever will be perfect, and thus a return to WWI style naval battles isn't going to be happening around here any time soon. The statement "In the NS world, Point defense weapons are so good, that it has come down to projectiles again" is quite simply, a lie and a pipe dream.

Also, primitive fusion reactors could be considered high-MT-- they're building a few in various places now.

Actually, the armour has made missiles ineffective. Shells have both a higher penetration and HE/AP value than missiles, and they're cheaper. As in RL, the best way to take out a battleship is with bombs, heavy guns, and torps, not missiles.

But this isn't an SD thread, and we all know AN is a total hypocrit anyway because he has flying battleships, which is even worse than a floating battleship.

Very good piece of work Illior. Reccommendation +++.

This thread gets my stamp of approval (tm):)

Thanks guys, and Questers, I'll add in that piece about the guns to further clarify...

Badumpabump/ Uhn tiss uhn tiss uhn tiss (I really like that song too much these days)

Bumpalump

Actually, the armour has made missiles ineffective. Shells have both a higher penetration and HE/AP value than missiles, and they're cheaper. As in RL, the best way to take out a battleship is with bombs, heavy guns, and torps, not missiles.

But this isn't an SD thread, and we all know AN is a total hypocrit anyway because he has flying battleships, which is even worse than a floating battleship.

Very good piece of work Illior. Reccommendation +++.

Hold on, how can a shell have more penetration power than a missile when a missile can be made similar to a shell but also add in its own propulsion to make it faster (increasing penetration)? Sorry I'm not a shell expert just wanted to know this.

Hold on, how can a shell have more penetration power than a missile when a missile can be made similar to a shell but also add in its own propulsion to make it faster (increasing penetration)? Sorry I'm not a shell expert just wanted to know this.
I believe shells are more dense. This gives them greater momentum at equal speeds, and missiles can't make up the difference through speed alone.

Either that, or their talking about penetrating point defenses, in which case a shell is much harder to stop with bullets.

Actually, the armour has made missiles ineffective. Shells have both a higher penetration and HE/AP value than missiles, and they're cheaper. As in RL, the best way to take out a battleship is with bombs, heavy guns, and torps, not missiles.

But this isn't an SD thread, and we all know AN is a total hypocrit anyway because he has flying battleships, which is even worse than a floating battleship.

Very good piece of work Illior. Reccommendation +++.

Your ships arn't a solid block of armor, and missiles can be scaled as neccesary.

I find it quite telling that instead of arguing your point you choose to flame me instead, while displaying ignorance of what you're flaming.

Well, most anti-ship missiles barely top Mach 2 (Correct me if I'm wrong), while most shells can travel five times as fast. I don't think a missile can catch a shell, unless its an ICBM warhead coming down at Mach 20+.:)

Well, most anti-ship missiles barely top Mach 2 (Correct me if I'm wrong), while most shells can travel five times as fast. I don't think a missile can catch a shell, unless its an ICBM warhead coming down at Mach 20+.:)

There are many SAMs that can travel faster than Mach 2.

Umm... back to the point...AN, if you don't like the part I wrote, how would you fix it?

Umm... back to the point...AN, if you don't like the part I wrote, how would you fix it?

I'd say that missile defense is a great deal more efficient, but I wouldn't indicate that it's as perfect as it currently claims.

Guns can be the solution in a situation where you cannot saturate your opponent's defenses.

Questers, AN: It's not an 'either/or', it's a both, true armor on ships is much more then even their heavily armored WWII Iowa counter parts (who are barely stratched by Harpoons and Exocets), but this does not render missiles ineffective, neither does more advanced CIWS (wether it be gun or missile based), however, it does reduce the effectiveness of missiles so much that a missile spam against a NS battleship/dreadnaught is no longer cost effective.

Long gone are the days of USN Admirals running like rats with their aluminum hulled ships from big bad soviet sunburn missiles, but we have yet to return to the Jutland style battles of the dreadnaught/battleship glory days.

Questers, AN: It's not an 'either/or', it's a both, true armor on ships is much more then even their heavily armored WWII Iowa counter parts (who are barely stratched by Harpoons and Exocets), but this does not render missiles ineffective, neither does more advanced CIWS (wether it be gun or missile based), however, it does reduce the effectiveness of missiles so much that a missile spam against a NS battleship/dreadnaught is no longer cost effective.

Long gone are the days of USN Admirals running like rats with their aluminum hulled ships from big bad soviet sunburn missiles, but we have yet to return to the Jutland style battles of the dreadnaught/battleship glory days.

Cost-effective means different things to different people, you know. =p

(also the Sunburn is a piece of crap)

bumpalumpa

Bump

Well, most anti-ship missiles barely top Mach 2 (Correct me if I'm wrong), while most shells can travel five times as fast. I don't think a missile can catch a shell, unless its an ICBM warhead coming down at Mach 20+.:)

Mind naming a single shell that goes Mach 10, or even Mach 3? Most RL anti-ship missiles barely top Mach 2 because they have no need to. Ones that have needed to, have gone faster. Up to Mach 5 during terminal dive I believe.

Excellent work, Illior.

If I may point out,

Rail guns fire shells at great speeds and are used in the super-dreadnoughts of NS.
according to wikpedia, Rail guns fire fast enough to shoot down missiles

"Due to the very high muzzle velocity that can be attained with railguns, there is interest in using them to shoot down high-speed missiles."

Also SCRAM-jets can propel missiles mach 12 to 24+

Ive seen both techs used in NS, but some think SCRAM jets are PMT.

TPF: Name two superdreads that use railguns that are also MT.

In any case! This is a very nice thread, useful for those new players that don't know much of the Brave New World they have entered through NS! Very nice.

OK, try picking up a rock and throwing it at a brick wall. It doesn't matter how fast you throw it, the brick wall will only ever be dented. Seriously, try it yourself. Try all kinds of different velocities and you'll find that velocity is not nearly as much as impotant as an armour piercing cap. Shells have higher density and higher mass, and shells are also more robust. They're also cheaper.

Shells can do everything that missiles can do at a tenth of the price, although they do have alot less range (actually arguable - some NS naval guns have longer ranges than exocet and harpoon, and thats with non-rocket munitions.)

Furthermore, shells do not have RADAR and cannot be jammed. They are also far harder to shoot down.

Cost-effective means different things to different people, you know. =p

(also the Sunburn is a piece of crap)
You sure about that, mate? She looked pretty impressive to me from that article I read about her..said article (http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=263&linkid=1687)

OK, now to settle this, both missiles and shells have their respective advantages, and I may have overdone the CIWS, but it was just an example of evolution and why NS tech tends to be better than Real Life tech. Now, if you all want to start arguing about superdreadnoughts, please start another thread. Now, the sunburn, yes AN it may be a piece of crap on NS, but it's pretty damn good in RL, just not well known, so let's leave it at that.

OK, try picking up a rock and throwing it at a brick wall. It doesn't matter how fast you throw it, the brick wall will only ever be dented. Seriously, try it yourself. Try all kinds of different velocities and you'll find that velocity is not nearly as much as impotant as an armour piercing cap. Shells have higher density and higher mass, and shells are also more robust. They're also cheaper.

And missiles can be equipped with armor piercing warheads as well and go faster. They can also be made bigger as needed. Also, according to the Air Force National Museum, the WWII era Fritz X had 28 (711mm) inches of armor penetration. (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an41a.htm) Replace the Fritz's cap with tungsten or DU and give it a rocket or jet to slam it into the target at a couple Mach, and I do believe that the Fritz X would penetrate even the most wanked of NS vessels.


Shells can do everything that missiles can do at a tenth of the price, although they do have alot less range (actually arguable - some NS naval guns have longer ranges than exocet and harpoon, and thats with non-rocket munitions.)

Great, you've got longer range than a Harpoon. Want to try longer range than an SS-N-19 Shipwreck? There's also no reason why the latest versions of the Kh-55 with its 3000+ kilometer range couldn't be adapted to anti-ship warfare.


Furthermore, shells do not have RADAR and cannot be jammed. They are also far harder to shoot down.

They're also far more inaccurate if they're unguided, as any round relying solely on ballistics is. Furthermore, a missile is not limited to using radar. Personally I use RORSAT guidance with IR/contrast terminal guidance. I'd also consider it harder to shootdown or otherwise evade a missile that is either stealthy or flies high enough that it makes engagement of it very hard (surface to air missiles do not have a very far range at max altitude, I've heard 15 miles for the S-400 at max altitude) than a shell that comes in on a ballistic path.

WAAAH! Take that argument to another thread please

Bump!

Bump!

Bump!

(Illior, GET ON MSN.)

(Illior, GET ON MSN.)
I am...

Bump!

OK, try picking up a rock and throwing it at a brick wall. It doesn't matter how fast you throw it, the brick wall will only ever be dented. Seriously, try it yourself. Try all kinds of different velocities and you'll find that velocity is not nearly as much as impotant as an armour piercing cap. Shells have higher density and higher mass, and shells are also more robust. They're also cheaper.
If you stand several thousand metres above the brick wall and drop the rock down at it, regardless of whether it has the armour piercing cap or not it will make a damn big hole in it anyway. That's the whole principle of ortillery....

But, point taken.

BUMP For Visibility

something thata starts with a "b" and ends witha.... god damn it, trhat key just brike last night, thanks to TIOR...

Weee!

Bump!

New Page of BUMPs for visibility

sheesh... not many people really like this... that sucks... oh well... there went an hour or two of my time....

sheesh... not many people really like this... that sucks... oh well... there went an hour or two of my time....
ooc: It is/was a good read.

ooc: It is/was a good read.
thanks...

Bump!!!

bump!

bump!

Bump For Illior

TPF: Name two superdreads that use railguns that are also MT.
[OOC: The Kriegzimmer Conglomerate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409787)'s Feathermore-class (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10646417&postcount=1326)? And also the Aristaqis-class (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10793494&postcount=1419) by the same producer. The RSIN Corporation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=484448)'s Europa-class (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11023309&postcount=7) also uses rail-guns, as a secondary defense weapon however.]

ooc: It is/was a good read.
Seconded.

About SDs, I gave up ranting about them, but here I go again. As someone said earlier, they aren't a solid brick of armour. Aim above the deck (missiles could be programmed to sea-skim and then climb a few metres) and you'll disable the vessel in 10 hits, 20 at the very most. Another target's the sensors mast(s), which has to be quite high and unarmoured for it to be effective. Blow that up with a single missile and the SD turns into a useless metal husk.

No, but most armoured warships have deck armour? Ever thought of that one? Ever thought about auxiliary systems? I guess that we will just call aircraft carriers useless because you can disable then by knocking out their capability to launch aircraft.

And yes, it was a good read Illior, but to be honest with you I don't think many people are interested in reading anything a.) contrary to what they believe b.) past a paragraph.

Well, I can't do much about that Questers, but all I can do is hope that this may someday be read by all in a hope to help define that which is very gray.

No, but most armoured warships have deck armour? Ever thought of that one? Ever thought about auxiliary systems? I guess that we will just call aircraft carriers useless because you can disable then by knocking out their capability to launch aircraft.
That's why I said 10-20 hits instead of just 1. It can only have so many auxiliary systems, and as it was said can't be a solid block of armour (and deck armour is usually MUCH more thinner than belt armour). It'd naturally have weakpoints, vulnerable areas like any war machine to date has.

I never said they were useless. They aren't practical and cost effective in my opinion, the cost-to-benefit ratio is horrendous. With the 500 billion it'd take to build a fairly average SD, you could build 100 fairly average aircraft carriers, and I very much doubt a single warship can be more useful than all those vessels. Yeah, shells are cheap and all that, but the cost of the ship speaks by itself, not to mention the maintenance expenses. Just because NS nations have exponentially larger budgets it doesn't mean they should start burning money like there's no tomorrow.

Anyway, I don't want to cram this topic any further. Please direct any replies through telegrams or add me to your MSN contact list, whichever you prefer.

Let this count as a *BUMP!* :D

BUMP for more visibility after a couple weeks sitting on some random hard drive.

Pretty good, I must admit.

Thanks man, I'm just hoping this tends to help clear things up for people...

BUMP!

No more comments?

France has a fusion reactor?

others are in development?

confused?

OK, try picking up a rock and throwing it at a brick wall. It doesn't matter how fast you throw it, the brick wall will only ever be dented.

You don't understand physics. If I throw a rock at the speed of light at a brick wall the wall will utterly explode. As the energy has to be accounted for, the wall will not have the shock absorption to sustain the force of the rock. thus the wall will crack unless it's total intert structural energy (F=m*a) is more then the rocks (f=m*a) since the rock is say 1 kg and the wall is say 1000 kg then the rock would have to move at 1000 times the speed of the wall to displace the wall, not counting friction and any gravitational forces etc.. plus a whole bunch of other factors.. but I am fairly confident a 1 kg rock moving at the speed of light faster then then the brick wall within the trajectory of both items will indeed cause the wall to shatter as it cannot resist the greater force. (of course the rock will be perhaps beyond plasma but that isn't the point.

Using "human level empirical science while worthy to explain physics, is just that, however, in my experience, this is in the same field as "the wolrd is flat and you will fall off the edge if you go past it (sorta true in space but not quite i.e. perpetual freefall orbiting) or disbeleif that a large chunk of metal can fly on an extended basis.

Now if my physics are off say.. but to say that a rock going at a greater accelleration then a walls structural objects in relation to the mass ratio, not having an effect at the wall.

examples asteroid strikes, THE WTC. It is not only how much mass it has.. but also how fast it is going.. (and how much energy is contained in the latice and compositions of the material.. which gets into strong and weak nuclear forces etc. not even going to get into qm.)

that is like saying, this bullet I chuck at you.. no matter how fast i shuck it, it wont go through you. (hardness may be a factor, but pure, physics, ammount of energy in the tragjectory and the bonds of clumps of enegy is all that matters.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;11866885']You don't understand physics.

I don't think he meant that in terms of theoretical physics, as opposed to human limitations on how fast that rock could be thrown.

I'd point out that whether the users of SDs like it or not, no point defense is or ever will be perfect, and thus a return to WWI style naval battles isn't going to be happening around here any time soon. The statement "In the NS world, Point defense weapons are so good, that it has come down to projectiles again" is quite simply, a lie and a pipe dream.

Time after time I have destroyed Missile Spam with Electronic Countermeasures and Firewalls of Fuel Air Explosives. Even using timed Explosives on Cannon shells to destroy missiles. Then returning with high arching Shells that cannot be confused by steath abilites, missile frying lasers, EMP (In post modern tech) or any sort. Gunbattles happen.

Well, exactly. There's tons of measures you can use to shoot down waves of missiles. People think launching 10,000 missiles is going to guarentee you a kill. Precisely opposite.

I don't think he meant that in terms of theoretical physics, as opposed to human limitations on how fast that rock could be thrown.

maybe you just don't know me


rarrrRRRr!!!!!

I am hethor


shesh, limitation... what is next tutu's

I suppose a kilotonne of Katyusha rockets might be able to bleed CIWS reserves enough...

But the whole Shell vs Missile debate is really very close to the FT equivalent, which shows up more often - Lasers vs Missiles;

The whole debate boils down to the simple question:

Can your point defence shoot down enough of my missiles to make it no longer cost effective to use missiles?

This comes up a lot in polarised debates on any offense/defence battle - nobody wins without pages of evidence and calculations to show how it will take X of A to beat Y of B.

Without it, both sides just say 'no' and it goes round and round.

In the case of Nationstates, the defender has the advantage in that they determine losses. IN THEORY a fuel-air screen would stop missiles, but only if you managed to pull it off perfectly. IN THEORY a missile should be able to shoot straight through and blast the offending ship 90% or more of the time.

However, the defender is allowed to play the all powerful card - no.

There is no mechanism to say that a given CIWS emplacement will knock out a given missile in 2-6 seconds, there is no mechanism to say that a given ship's armour is going to stop a missile 60% of the time, nothing to say that your guns will hit only one in three times even if they get through CIWS.

In NS, at least, the rules of reality are up for contention, and the imagination reigns supreme above all else.

That is its charm, yet also its curse.

Cheap projectiles. - need cheaper smaller countermeasures. Or harder and resistant materials. It isn't just the ability to stop it but at what price, what about "netting" for instance firing a net around an incoming missle, wham. it explodes in that area. Or just using naval gun point defences like gatling guns.

but what it ends up being is rail guns. stopping rail gun blasts are just so hard because they are going so fast.. make the shells with reflective materials then the laser would bounce back... or what if it was thermally resistant?

so to the missle what if the missle fired nets? etc.. it is cost though.

What ever happened to the age of ironclads, just ramming into the other ship.. then boarding it? crazy.

Rail guns "are the best" and least defendable so far though. ugly.. even worse rail launched missles. they also have mach 4 and mach 5 missles + they have air laucned high mach missles.. you arn't going to be able to hit them let alone, breath in time.

Maybe I'm mistaken, so what it comes down to is "strucutre" like blast out compartments 10 ft synthetic absorption.. "airguns".. supercaviated underwater craft...

etc... it picks up the speed of combat.. it is not so much stoping hits but evasion and countermeasures, as mentioned. just hitting down stuff becomes harder.. it is more about not getting hit by it. Of course there are responses.. but if you have 1000 missles in the air or 5000 missles in the air then that is A hell of a lot of money... a rocket ain't going to do much to a modern ship of the line. (it shouldn't anyway)

gasp things made out of steel are actually being outdated now.. there are better building materials.

what about a bunch of ball bearings shot out of gattling guns? or better yet what about ice? or how about water? got lots of that.. or what about flame?

etc.. etc..

lots of options

p.s. how about 10 layers of nets around ships.. each spaced and thermal fabric.. just like the stryker body armour slat.

in this case you don't need 10 ft of steel... you need a mustsmaller amount of material.. and the ship is lighter


http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/num/

Hmm... I like it, imported_Illior. I would like to see a tiny snippet on FT though. Czardas is pretty much right on with his comment unfortionatly :P it would be nice to give FT a little more... 'sanity.' Or at least establish that there are kinda greyish divisions in there that some people look at.




ICCD: what the hell are you trying to say?

I suppose a kilotonne of Katyusha rockets might be able to bleed CIWS reserves enough...

The problem being that a Katyusha rocket, and I assume you use that as something to cover all cheap, disposable rockets, have a very limited range, and things with longer ranges tend to be called missiles, or be similarly expensive and large. The problem with low range dumb rockets like a Katyusha, which are cheap and could be thrown at a ship in large numbers, is that their limited range forces the ship firing them to get close to its victim, which opens said ship to its enemy's guns and missile stores. Furthermore, there's a physical limitation on how many missiles $_random_ship can carry, so you might not have enough dumb rockets to 'bleed one' through - let alone penetrate the armour of a ship.

Can your point defence shoot down enough of my missiles to make it no longer cost effective to use missiles?

Given the sheer amount of CIWS NS ships carry, and the absurd level of accuracy of these systems, even if it's not 'realistic' - which is impossible to get around, since realism or not it's a prevailing thought on NS - makes the answer to this question 'yes'. Well, then again, that's not necessarily true either. There's a difference between using missiles and missile spam, and I think it's more a problem of lack of imagination, more so than CIWS being the end-all be-all.


even worse rail launched missles. they also have mach 4 and mach 5 missles + they have air laucned high mach missles.. you arn't going to be able to hit them let alone, breath in time.


Well, faster missiles have to fly at higher altitudes - rules of physics, after all. Well, unless you don't mind the friction of the lower atmosphere tearing your missile apart. ;) Higher flying missiles are easier targets, and faster flying missiles tend not to maneuver very well. It's all part of the greater scheme of things. Nothing is invincible.

No Endorse- (Sorry to nitpick, but the name's Illior, jolt screwed up on the changeover from the old forums) To me putting in a blurb about FT: I was planning on doing so, but the problem I had was a lack of time and resources, as school came on like a freight train. When I originally thought about doing it, I was also thinking about the sheer amount of text I would need to describe every facet of FT.

If you and other FT fans feel like putting a blurb together, I'll edit it and put it in there with my own observations and such.

ICCD: This isn't about theoretical or pure physics, and it really isn't supposed to be a massive discussion about the theoretical advantages of missile spams vs gun on gun. I just used that as an example. I don't mind the discussion of theoretics, but I think that's what NS Draftroom's for.

I'd be happy to help with some form of FT blurb, we could all work on it together, get it nice and polished and all-inclusive, with lots of dos and don'ts :)

I'd be happy to help with some form of FT blurb, we could all work on it together, get it nice and polished and all-inclusive, with lots of dos and don'ts :)

Perfectly fine with me, as long as it includes the following
-What it is
-Some basic characteristics (Such as FTL propulsion, weapons, etc.)
-Examples of FT type tech (Game based vs. pure imagination)
-Linked examples for people to look at.
-no spelling errors (grammer ;) nazi ftw!)

I'd be happy to help with some form of FT blurb, we could all work on it together, get it nice and polished and all-inclusive, with lots of dos and don'ts :)

YAAAAAY!

I was thinking hitting on the following topics at least a little, what do you think?

=A little blurb on Hard and Soft FT, plus some Near and Far FT (and how you can sorta relate them in some cases)

=FTL/STL travel

=the infamous FTLi (headaches FTW!)

=Genetic engineering

=uberships

=if we're cocky, then we could /try/ to go for power sources a little

=weapons (general overview)

ICCD-Intracircumcordei]You don't understand physics. If I throw a rock at the speed of light at a brick wall the wall will utterly explode. As the energy has to be accounted for, the wall will not have the shock absorption to sustain the force of the rock. thus the wall will crack unless it's total intert structural energy (F=m*a) is more then the rocks (f=m*a) since the rock is say 1 kg and the wall is say 1000 kg then the rock would have to move at 1000 times the speed of the wall to displace the wall, not counting friction and any gravitational forces etc.. plus a whole bunch of other factors.. but I am fairly confident a 1 kg rock moving at the speed of light faster then then the brick wall within the trajectory of both items will indeed cause the wall to shatter as it cannot resist the greater force. (of course the rock will be perhaps beyond plasma but that isn't the point.It's worse than you think. Per Winchell Chung's “Atomic Rockets (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#kinetic)” site (the furnished link is to the page on kinetic weapons), an object moving at just 3km/s delivers kinetic energy equal to its mass in TNT; at 200km/s, it imparts kinetic energy equal to a nuclear weapon of equivalent mass; at 86.6% of light speed, it imparts kinetic energy equal to its mass in antimatter.

At the speed of light it won't just shatter the wall: it will vaporize it. In fact, a pebble would probably blast it into plasma.

Hyperrelativistic weapons are probably the most lethal weapons in existence.

YAAAAAY!

I was thinking hitting on the following topics at least a little, what do you think?

=A little blurb on Hard and Soft FT, plus some Near and Far FT (and how you can sorta relate them in some cases)

=FTL/STL travel

=the infamous FTLi (headaches FTW!)

=Genetic engineering

=uberships

=if we're cocky, then we could /try/ to go for power sources a little

=weapons (general overview)
Power Sources I think would do good as well. Additionally, I think shielding types, energy v projectiles in the weapons, and how to deal with population numbers to clear it up for everyone.

Population is a fun one. I know what I do, but some people don't agree with it, and I'm not sure what others do. Let's see if I can make a reasonable start on a population section:

Some nations have a population that their nation has ICly (Say... 20 billion or so), and don't use their NS pop ICly. That way, planets are sanely habited, we're dealing with a reasonably realistic population value for a multi-system nation. However, when they are figuring military numbers, they only use the NS population to find out how many troops they can have. For example, following the .5% I like to use, at about 4 billion NS pop, I can have 20 million troops. That ignores the fact that ICly, I have at least 20 billion citizens. (7 heavily habited worlds, 3 lightly habited ones)

Some people like to use NS pop for both. I dunno about this, it means that worlds are questionably underpopulated. Earth has ~6.5 billion people in it IIRC. That means that an average NS nation should be able to pretty well fill up an entire planet, but that's about it. There's no drive to colonize, there's so much room still on the home planet. Also, what FT civilization would start with 5 million people, and in a few dozen years, boast billions?

Then there are the few, the proud, the ones who make up numbers. They use realisticly large populations for their nations, but then they use that number to figure their military strength. By far and away the most realistic of the group, however, it is the most open to wankage. Some use this to excellent effect. Others not so much.

So population in FT is a touchy realm. When you have a dozen habited worlds, you need to have a high population. Trantor in Issac Asimov's Foundation, the capitol of the Galactic Empire, has in excess of 40 billion sentients living on it during its peak. This is probably a VERY low shot, one might expect at least twice that. (especially considering how the whole planet is one massive city) But if we throw around huge numbers without thinking, the game becomes a stat-fest instead of an RPG.



There. There are some mangled bones that we can mold into something respectable.

Shielding types are painful... I mean, there's Dimensional, Energy, Particle, Reflector, Recycle, Singularity, et cetera. (wow, I made that alphabetical without even knowing it :P) But I guess writing something would be better than nothing.

Sticky this...

It's worse than you think. Per Winchell Chung's “Atomic Rockets (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#kinetic)” site (the furnished link is to the page on kinetic weapons), an object moving at just 3km/s delivers kinetic energy equal to its mass in TNT; at 200km/s, it imparts kinetic energy equal to a nuclear weapon of equivalent mass; at 86.6% of light speed, it imparts kinetic energy equal to its mass in antimatter.

At the speed of light it won't just shatter the wall: it will vaporize it. In fact, a pebble would probably blast it into plasma.

Hyperrelativistic weapons are probably the most lethal weapons in existence.

don't you need a vapourizer to vapourize? but if not that is the way.. for sure.

shatter I was refering to the wall not being "a wall" anymore.

although I think that "overall vapourization of the wall structure would be dependant on heat defusion and the size of the wall. (although it is fairly safe to say that the energy conversion of the object moving at a fast rate will cause much heat to occur. although I'm not totally certain how much dispersed energy the thing would hold?

like area of effect.. for instance a bullet passing through a few inches of steel.

it "punches" the steel, but it does not " necisarily cause an area of effect much greater then the size of the round.

since the trajectory is in "a slight curve" approximately a straight line, then the object would "buckle" away from the 'fired' object. depending on the size of the "blast" radius.. although I tend to agree that a substancial ammount of mass moving at near the speed of light will most likely have a large effect of heat, for instance look at high band EM energy one comic ray can mutate DNA strands, the effect of an equivlent mass of cosmic rays or other quarkal matter would undoutely pack a lot of heat and cause an area effect creating "beyond slag mass" as essentially you talk about the speed of light etc.. or speed of energy for instance (10^30) ºC is undboutedly enough to melt most everything.. although I'm not about to do the math on this. I tend to agree at any really fast speed any reasonably sized wall and surrounding area is likely vapourized (or is disintegrated) a better word.


then again when you talk about temperatures hotter than the sun, that is pretty fast. (or perahps I am assuming too much about jointive thermogravitational spacetime transpositioning.

Sticky this...

DAMMIT! Just when I thought I haven't..Ive been beaten to it!! Oh the pain....
:headbang: :upyours: :headbang:
But yeah.. STIKY!!

I meant Stikie!

However the hell you spell it its 5:14 in the morning here...holy cow:eek: .. off to bed! :D

Again guys, please take the physics discussions elsewhere, and if you want this stickied, talk to the mods.

@NE: Great start on the populations basics, and I like the reference to modern literature (Love the foundation series).

An interesting take on the tech matter. However, I think too much generalization is used when FT is labeled as "Laws of physics shall cease to apply after 2050". I generally tend to view FT as technology that is pretty well understood theoretically in todays terms but which is applied in practice in FT E.g, I dont mean stuff like black hole cannons, nano clouds that can construct starships, zero point energy and so on.

Ofcourse there are exceptions. Even an FT nation with mostly plausible future technology can have something that we cant really explain today, such as FTL travel and FTL communications. However, if most of the other technology is theoretically plausible, I think it would be unwarranted for such a nations future tech be categorized into: "Laws of physics shall cease to apply after 2050".

Besides, if one is clever enough, its very easy to create concepts for very nasty weapons that are either possible with todays technology, or theoretically very much possible. I think many people choose quasi-scientific über tech mainly because they think that is the only way they can get an edge over others. But this is just off-topic babble. :D

Again guys, please take the physics discussions elsewhere, and if you want this stickied, talk to the mods.

@NE: Great start on the populations basics, and I like the reference to modern literature (Love the foundation series).

:P It is by FAR one of my favs. I'm going to add a little more to it, I think about clones, hive-minds, AIs, and other stuff. However, we should prolly try to get Otagia and Hyperspatial Travel to comment on the AI end of things.

Otagia has humans at home, but uses AIs for military purposes. An AI (Quetzal) controls the nation.

Hyperspatial Travel is a Hive Mind I believe with everything subordinate to the Maker Mind.



There will be a newer version of that thing up later today.

EDIT: Bleh, it's becoming more of an essay on Population in NS than Pop in FT, and most certainly un-brief. :p

Yeh, it is, so go ahead and work up a brief on the stuff and then either post it here or email it to me.

Bumpla

Bump...

Well, as for a "brief" on FT, I haven't gotten very far. I've mostly been working on this: (which has been cut down considerably)

Population in NS

Population is always a good question when FT matters are concerned, or even for any time frame. There are so many factors that weigh in the population decision that it is oftentimes more of a judgment call than any cut and dry method. You have to come up with your own numbers and tweak from there, but here are some considerations and options to keep in mind.

Pure Numbers: Under Human or Human-Like Circumstances

Some nations have a population that their nation has ICly and don't use their NS pop ICly. For example, let’s pick 20 billion or so for an FT nation. That way, planets are sanely habited, we're dealing with a reasonably realistic population value for a multi-system nation. However, when they are figuring military numbers, they only use the NS population to find out how many troops they can have. For example, following the .5% I like to use, at about 4 billion NS pop, I can have 20 million troops. That ignores the fact that ICly, I might have at least 20 billion citizens. This option is used by many FT nations.

Some people like to use NS pop for both. As an FT nation, I’m not so sure about using this in an FT setting; it means that worlds are questionably under populated. Currently, the planet Earth has ~6.5 billion people in it. That means that an average NS nation should be able to pretty well fill up an entire planet, but that's about it. There's no drive to colonize, there's so much room still on the home planet. Also, what FT civilization would start with 5 million people, and in a few dozen years, boast billions? From what I can tell, this method is adored by MT and PMT Roleplayers, and those who follow the game mechanics very closely.

Then there are the few, the proud, the ones who make up numbers. They use realistic populations for their nations, but then they use that number to figure their military strength. By far and away the most realistic of the group, however, it is the most open to wankage. Some use this to excellent effect. Others not so much. This is a great idea if you are a Past-Tech Roleplayer. Also, some FT Roleplayers use this method. Imagine that you hold a Galaxy. Shouldn’t you realistically have access to the massive population inherent in such a large area? Plus, Napoleon didn't have a billion people, neither should your 1800s nation.

Past the Numbers: Multiple Species, AIs, Hive Minds, and Other Situations

Everything we’ve touched on thus far is merely in a situation where each member of the civilization can be roughly equated to a Human in the modern world. Each member has a certain standard productivity, and is a separate biological organism. However, when we look at the plethora of Magic or Future Tech nations that don’t fit this stereotype, we realize that there is far more depth to the problem. You're going to have to decide for yourself in these situations. Every situation is different.

Conclusion

In conclusion, population numbers in any timeframe is a touchy realm. When you have a dozen habited worlds in an FT empire, you need to have a high population. Trantor in Isaac Asimov's Foundation, the capitol of the Galactic Empire, has in excess of 40 billion sentients living on it during its peak. This is probably a VERY low shot based on Asimov's point of view thinking that 40 billion is huge; one might expect at least twice that in a galactic capitol. (Especially considering how the whole planet is one massive city several kilometers thick. Read the end of I Robot to get a sense of how he could be off in terms of population numbers...) If we RPers just throw around huge numbers without thinking, the game becomes a stat-fest instead of an RPG. On the other end, if we all stick to the idea that NS population is the end-all beat-all, we will find highly unrealistic situations in which past era nations have more people than the whole world had at that time, or where massive future civilizations are only as populous as the average city in China.

Now, it's not complete, and can probably have quite a bit cut out. It evolved from Population in FT to population in NS, since you can pretty well extend the same concepts across tech levels. Definatly not brief, but possibly helpful.

Actually, the excitement about kinetic rounds is excessive.

The abovementioned Winchell Chung's "Atomic Rockets (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#kinetic)" analysis misses an important thing - how will that energy be delivered. Actually the rock so fast will simply mostly vaporize yet in the air, unless it is really big (where a TNT-filled shell would suffice as well).
For lower speeds, or if it is reached, there's some interesting observation. It's well known that wearing body armor sometimes does increase damage: a round which would pierce one and fly away instead basically smashes the person with the vest. Yes, an unarmored ship will as well be more resistant to kinetic rounds than an armored one: the more armor, the more damage ultra-KE weapons do.



But the thing I really don't understand is where does the notion that missiles have less KE than projectiles come from. I can't bet on it, but according to some data, one test of the Shipwreck missile (SS-N-19, P-700, Granit) brought very interesting results. The target was a decommissioned destroyer-size ship, and the missile had dumb warhead, not intending to sink the ship. But it turned out that, after the missile hit the ship, it flipped inside on its way, and turned the ship into a barely floating mess of scrap metal.

That happens not only because missiles are heavier (several tons instead of one for the heaviest shell). A missile reaches its maximum speed when approaching and hitting the ship, while a shell has max speed when leaving the barrel, always slowing down. If you've at least took a glance at aerodynamics, you know that the drag is proportional to cube of the speed. Or, v^3. That means that if a 800 m/s projectile loses, say, 10 kJ each mile, then a 1600 m/s one will lose 80 kJ. This is not as easy for higher losses, as the loss is proportional to speed. But not hard to find.

As we only need a ratio, k will always be any coefficient. I will be talking about energy, not speed, as energy is important here. So, E=kv^2; v=kE^0,5; so dE=k*v^3*dx, or dE=k*E^1,5*dx. Precisely, it would take some equations to solve, but, to be brief, you probably get it: losses grow with the third power of velocity (per weight) with constant range, or fourth power if range is increased proportionally to velocity. So, the ratio of energy lost is roughly proportional to v. More correct figure would be loss=1-(1-loss)^(v1/v2), or efficiency=efficiency^(v1/v2).
Actually, of course, the graph will be not as simple. We're dealing with supersonic flow, not subsonic, and the losses depend on terminal velocity as well. This is very rough, but it gets you to the right qualitative difference. Just keep that in mind: energy losses for delivery increase as terminal velocity, and add the same if you want to boost range as well (getting the same velocity in the end). They may be not extreme at practical speeds, but are extreme at higher ones.

Don't get me wrong: it doesn't mean you can't fire projectile at higher speed. It just means it will lose most of it in flight. The loss is so high, that at long ranges, in fact, most of the power will be from just falling, and the muzzle velocity makes little difference. Even many high supersonic projectiles end the flight at subsonic velocity. A super-railgun round will, probably, end at supersonic. But it will at best match the speed of a conventional one at close range. Half of the speed is lost at least.

There are ways to improve efficiency. Doubling the caliber will halve the drag; but generally it is not an option, as it increases everything 8 times. Using flechette and sabot also works, but decrease is as well high. Otherwise, be prepared to see the railgun from 100 miles and a normal gun from 50 to arrive at similar speeds.
None will even have the speed of Shipwreck.


Ever wondered why most cannons have about the same speed, usually 700 to 900? Or why does a tank round flechette has a caliber of only 40 mm instead of 120? Or why the speed difference between secret SR-71 Blackbird and mass, cheap MiG-25 is only the margin between Mach 2.8 and Mach 3.3, or just 14%?
The reason is that at supersonic speeds drag is really high; and power required grows even faster. Cannons and planes - and everything else - has a certain optimum speed range, and going above is not practical. A MT plane reaching 3.3M is going to be as weak in other aspects as SR-71 or MiG-25. But what about a MT or reasonably PMT cannon with higher power?


Well, let's examine it closer.

Railgun consists of two primary elements: barrel and power source. The fact that some railgun can accelerate some projectile to extreme speeds doesn't make any railguns capable to accelerate any projectile to such speeds. While the barrel itself isn't easy, it can benefit from technologies; power requirements aren't going to disappear.

A shell for 16" weights around 1000 kg (I'll use metrics, it's easier this way). But if you want better terminal velocity, you need better BC and more elongated shells, about 2000 kg. Say, you want the terminal at 500 m/s, and the speed loss is 50%.
To give it 1000 m/s, you need 1000^2/2*2000=1e9 Joules, or 1 GJ. However, railguns are only 25% efficient in perfect situation: First, there are always some distance towards the projectile to make it accelerate, and some angle, which cut 50%; then, half of the energy is spent on creating and then removing the field for each coil; so you need 4 GJ of electric energy.

Normally nobody goes beyond 50 cal with guns; and railgun barrel is even heavier, due to lots of electric equipment. But even you go overboard and use 20"/250 caliber railgun, or 100 meter barrel, the total energy must be delivered in 0.2 seconds. To each coil the energy must get in very short time, about 0.002 seconds if coils are each meter; 0.01 at the very highest with coils each 5 meters average. Switching circuits at such power is impossible; only static superconductive lines can work. This means 200 GWe, with energy consumed 4 GJ, or 1.1 MWh. The power is the factor.
Check this picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Supercapacitors_chart.png
Supercapacitors need entire second to discharge, so they won't work. You can use normal capacitors.
The power required is about 11 MWh, and power 200 GW. But I know what you'll say... yes, let's say that in some years, with much funds, tech is very perfected and something superior appears, with 20,000 W/kg and 0.06 Wh/kg, just what you need. This will provide the power. I intentionally make it ideal solution. So you need, obviously, 200*1e9/20*1e3, or 1 million kgs of capacitors for each gun. It is 1000 tonnes.

Not that overboard, in fact. At the really modern tech, caps are about 5 times worse, and would take 4000 tonnes per gun, but we assume that with tremendous funds it improved 4 times, which is a lot, as caps already almost touch the physical limits. Or it can take 7000 tonnes with more feasible 50 meter barrel. And, if you have 100,000 tons of displacement, you can get 200 MWe of power, and rate of fire will be pretty high, 3 rounds per minute.
So, railguns, per se, with speed similar to normal guns, but big barrels and big caps, are feasible.

But what if you want to double the terminal velocity?

Double the muzzle velocity: the efficiency falls from 50% to 35%; not enough. If you quadruple it, efficiency is 12,5%, but the power is 16 times higher, so you get E2=E1*4, or v2=v1*2, double speed.
Here, the energy is 16 times higher, and needs to be delivered 4 times faster. It requires 16 times more energy, or 176 GJ, and 64 times more powerful caps, providing 12,800 GW. They will weigh 64,000 tonnes. For each gun. The rate of fire with the same reactors and generators will fall to 1 round each 5 minutes, even with 100% curcuit efficiency. A dedicated 200-kt displacement unarmored ship, with 2 GWt/500 MWe reactor, will provide 1 round each 2 minites.

We're still talking about speed at the same range; increase power and weight proportionally if you need more, so, for double range, mount 128,000 tonnes.

If you prefer 20" guns instead, the shell is twice heavier, ballistic coefficient is 25% better, so it's about 200,000 tonnes. Terminal velocity 1000 m/s, double range.

For 32" gun, shell is 8 times heavier, BC is 2 times better, so use 128,000*8/2=512,000 tonnes of capacitors alone. Your CapacitorShip with a single 32" railgun will weight 1.5 million tonnes if there is almost nothing else, and 3 millions with things like armor, crew, smaller guns, et cetera. Of course, less monstrous 20" will be about 600,000 and 1,200,000 correspondingly, for single-gun vessel.

So feel free to mount railguns, but remember the weight cost, for just 1,000 m/s terminal velocity. In MT.
Forfeit MT and feel free to retain your designs, of course; as someone here said, tech starts to exceeds theoretical limits after 2020, and laws of physics totally disappear after 2050. I personally will use tech from Douglas Adams if needed.



But as the bottom line I would like to say a different thing.
I could crack most of the superdreadnoughts as wank if I wanted. In fact, many of more lifelike wanna-be-MT designs in all areas turn out to be not even reasonably PMT if analyzed. But that would be unnecessary realism-wanking for superdreadnoughts.
They are already impractical large targets.
So, for the bottom like, I'll prefer to return IC.

If your MT or MT+1 nation has an opponent using superdreadnoughts, just contact us in any appropriate topic or via telegram, and Clambake Task Force will provide you inexpensive means to dispose of them. Feel free also to contact us if your opponent has something that seems real, but you feel that there's something wrong with it. If real militaries haven't yet applied such wunderwaffe, likely there is, and we'll help you to find either the flaw which makes that inoperational, or a way to defeat it.

Well, you reach a problem with the Shipwreck. When it impacts, it is nothing more than a delicate guidance system, your warhead, and a long hollow tube where the rocket fuel used to be, all wrapped in sheet metal. So yes, it may be heavier upon launch. But when it hits, there's nothing left but sheet metal, electronics, and a warhead. (well, a little more than that, still...) Any modern-day ASM would crumple up like tin foil if it hit an Iowa's armor.

A shell doesn't have that problem. A 16" 27,000 pound shell will retain every ounce of that mass until it hits the target. Plus, the shell is terribly dense and compact, all the better for getting through the insane armor values on NS dreadnoughts. With all the spaced armor on NS, an ASM will probably end up like this: (assuming like most ASMs, its fuel is spent before it hits the target, and that it tries to penetrate before exploding. Oh, and assuming it isn't intercepted by CIWS)

1) impact on spaced armor, front is crumpled beyond belief, slowed considerably by impact due to how the spaced armor can withstand for a few milliseconds while the nose of the missile collapses
2) impacts on main armor belt, insufficient momentum to continue on through (unless your explosives can take more stress than sloped layered composites, steel, and ceramics, backed by of anti-spall layers)
3) missile detonates outside main armor belt, thinking that it's penetrated the hull, damaging belt and severely damaging spaced armor. No significant (mission-related) damage to the vessel.

A shell will have a slightly different profile:
1) Impact on spaced armor. Penetrates almost instantly, as nothing on it can collapse, it's just a wad of metal. No delicate electronics coated in tin foil.
2) Shell impacts on main armor belt, imparting all of its energy upon impact. Limited damage to spaced armor, massive localized damage to the main belt, penetration likely, at which point it becomes a question on the quality of internal divisions.



The only reason that missiles are used so often nowadays is that they have longer ranges and modern ship hulls are so thin. (plus, they're easier to fire from aircraft and smaller vessels than a 16" gun is) There have been numerous instances in which modern day vessels have destroyed incoming missiles. Kinda hard to destroy a shell.

Well, you reach a problem with the Shipwreck. When it impacts, it is nothing more than a delicate guidance system, your warhead, and a long hollow tube where the rocket fuel used to be, all wrapped in sheet metal. So yes, it may be heavier upon launch. But when it hits, there's nothing left but sheet metal, electronics, and a warhead. (well, a little more than that, still...) Any modern-day ASM would crumple up like tin foil if it hit an Iowa's armor.
The only reason that missiles are used so often nowadays is that they have longer ranges and modern ship hulls are so thin.
It is simple. If a missile hit Iowa, it would not just crumble - even worse, it would... explode. The ability of missiles to explode is the actual reason why they are used today.


A shell doesn't have that problem. A 16" 27,000 pound shell will retain every ounce of that mass until it hits the target.
That is right. Still... What? 27,000 pound? Didn't you mean 2700?
OK, so, still, their energy would be close. I repeat, the story about the Shipwreck actually smashing the interior of a modern (unarmored at all) ship is not theory.


2) impacts on main armor belt, insufficient momentum to continue on through (unless your explosives can take more stress than sloped layered composites, steel, and ceramics, backed by of anti-spall layers)
Hey, Clambake is supposed to be secret. Don't hint it all out.

2) Shell impacts on main armor belt, imparting all of its energy upon impact. Limited damage to spaced armor, massive localized damage to the main belt, penetration likely, at which point it becomes a question on the quality of internal divisions.
First of all the shell needs to reach the ship.

[/QUOTE]The only reason that missiles are used so often nowadays is that they have longer ranges and modern ship hulls are so thin. (plus, they're easier to fire from aircraft and smaller vessels than a 16" gun is) There have been numerous instances in which modern day vessels have destroyed incoming missiles. Kinda hard to destroy a shell.[QUOTE]
Don't give out the Clambake; it is supposed to be secret IC, and I will have nothing to sell if someone builds it before me, as I respect even roleplay patents.
You see, these things are empirical, and they are caused by... well, let me just say that every weapon is made against targets of its era, and it is not as much about technology as about design.

By the way, shell is not that hard to hit. Destroying might be different, but it is a slower, and not that much smaller target.


But actually the post above was directed to railgun builders. Just to think it over.

Vault 10, I believe you're misunderstanding something here, no MT nation on NS with a player that has half a brain uses railguns, simply because as you said, the capacitors are too big and cannot discharge fast enough.

However, a railgun is not a cannon with electromagnetic coils down the side, but rather two electromagnetic superconducting rails down the side of the cannon, and also that you need an explosive (or really powerful compressed air stream) to start the projectile down the barrel (modern rail guns cannot accelerate from 0.)

Also, instead of expensive and unwieldy capacitors, NS nations use something much more efficient, good old solid explosives, although with all the modern propellants developed since WW2 it would be expected that shells could go faster for any given size. And your assesment that even a long ranged railgun would be lucky to strike at subsonic is wrong.

Even the guns of the Iowa could fire their 1225kg shell at around 761m per second, thats Mach 2.3, and they would strike their target 38,400+m away at a speed of 516m/s (when fired at 45 degrees) which is mach 1.5 and be able to penetrate . Besides this only requires a propellant charge of 660lbs, compared to the metric tons required to get a Shipwreck up to speed. And even then, as No Endorse said, it will be unable to penetrate the armor of an Iowa type battleship.

And also, you're assuming that NS ships are unarmored as RL ships are. They are not, on NS you see heavy cruisers the size of nimitz with superior armor protection and speeds similar to the Nimitz and Iowas while carrying guns similar to the yamato. And of course, let's not get started about 600m fleet battle ships and 1000m+ supercapitals with their 27inch plus guns capable of propelling a light shell or an APDS to well over 200km.

NS is very much different then RL.

the Shipwreck features a 750kg warhead and weighs 7000kg at launch. even assuming the rest of the missile, sans fuel weighs 250kg (pretty generous)
so, what's the top speed of this missile (The missile it hits the target at,) Mach 2.5. So even at only slightly less than the 16in. shell, it hits at more than twice the speed, That works out to much more KE than your 16in. Shell. The only real drawback is cost, but that hasn't stopped every RL navy from switching over.

As I've said before, I love the discussion about theoretics, but that isn't the point of this thread. All that may be discussed on the NSDraftroom. This thread is meant for comments on the Brief Briefs, and also adding to and amending them.

Vault 10, I believe you're misunderstanding something here, no MT nation on NS with a player that has half a brain uses railguns, simply because as you said, the capacitors are too big and cannot discharge fast enough.
That applies to MT+1 as well.

However, a railgun is not a cannon with electromagnetic coils down the side, but rather two electromagnetic superconducting rails down the side of the cannon, and also that you need an explosive (or really powerful compressed air stream) to start the projectile down the barrel (modern rail guns cannot accelerate from 0.)
I've seen both versions in design. However, that doesn't change the things radically: energy is the same.

Also, instead of expensive and unwieldy capacitors, NS nations use something much more efficient, good old solid explosives, although with all the modern propellants developed since WW2 it would be expected that shells could go faster for any given size.
Yes, reasonable nations do use them; and explosives actually work better for heavy loads. Railguns are nicer with lightweight ones.

And your assesment that even a long ranged railgun would be lucky to strike at subsonic is wrong.
No, no - I didn't say that, and sorry if it looked this way. It's that many artillery shells hit at subsonic. A heavy one at not too high range, or a railgun will strike at supersonic. But the point is that you won't get speeds like Mach 10 or something.

Besides this only requires a propellant charge of 660lbs, compared to the metric tons required to get a Shipwreck up to speed. And even then, as No Endorse said, it will be unable to penetrate the armor of an Iowa type battleship.
And also, you're assuming that NS ships are unarmored as RL ships are. They are not, on NS you see heavy cruisers the size of nimitz with superior armor protection and speeds similar to the Nimitz and Iowas while carrying guns similar to the yamato.
First of all: Why penetrate? Shipwreck can carry different kinds of explosives. TNT load, carried inside by kinetics, will blast a destroyer enough to make it useless, and this missile is designed to hit. Some other ships, like aircraft carriers or battleships require different approach and different explosives, which were readily available in the 70s.

Second, you're assuming... well. Actually, armor died out for a reason (it could not protect from newer weapons), and armor-piercing naval weapons died out in their turn, as there was no armor anymore. And, believe me, if specifically anti-battleship naval weapons will be reinvented, they won't be artillery shells. There are so many ready technologies that I can't even decide what to use. But that's another story.

And of course, let's not get started about 600m fleet battle ships and 1000m+ supercapitals with their 27inch plus guns capable of propelling a light shell or an APDS to well over 200km.
I actually was speaking, first of all, about them. Yes, you can build huge cannons. But they won't be a wunderwaffe. Their caps will take the entire ship, and they will still arrive at not all that impressive speed. Yes, high, but not much higher, and not always higher than a missile.

Vault 10... Please...

As I've said before, I love the discussion about theoretics, but that isn't the point of this thread. All that may be discussed on the NSDraftroom. This thread is meant for comments on the Brief Briefs, and also adding to and amending them.

not all of us would be available for comment on the NSD *coughwelliwouldbebutdontletthemhearaboutitcough*

anyway, you said yourself this is for adding to the brief, well, there's going to be some debate on what exactly should be added, that debate has to go somewhere, and not everyone is going to check the NSD for such discussion

not all of us would be available for comment on the NSD

anyway, you said yourself this is for adding to the brief, well, there's going to be some debate on what exactly should be added, that debate has to go somewhere, and not everyone is going to check the NSD for such discussion

True... but I'd rather this thread stay for discussion of just the basics of the Briefs... If people really wanted, I guess they could start a long thread discussing the theoretics of Guns Vs. Missile in either general or II, but I'd rather it not be here.

True... but I'd rather this thread stay for discussion of just the basics of the Briefs... If people really wanted, I guess they could start a long thread discussing the theoretics of Guns Vs. Missile in either general or II, but I'd rather it not be here.

OK. I understand, and will avoid further discussion here.

Actually, I didn't plan to discuss it, because there's really not much to discuss, but rather added a comment about the dreadnoughtwank to help people avoid creating unrealistic ships.


Just as the bottom line, nuclear technology simply made armor and its penetration obsolete techniques in naval battles. If anything can withstand it, it's distribution of forces into "mosquito fleet", and not packing more money into a single coffin. Tanks are not nuked because they are too cheap for that and are used by sub-nuclear nations; superdreadnoughts aren't.
Missile technology is another thing that made a great leap, and, though missiles are single-use strike fighters in construction and cost, they make expensive ships single-use targets.

As crossbow, gunpowder and tank antiquated, finished and buried knights, aircraft, nuclear bomb and computer in their turn antiquated, finished and buried battleships.

Having said that, I must note that I find them a magnificient addition to Fantasy Tech or Alternate History, where the highly intertwined computer, missile and nuclear technologies are not developed. It would only take quantum physics staying on paper.



P.S. In respect to the original writeup author, if you disagree, please don't reply in this thread, but rather start a new one appropriately named and post a link to it here.

Just a note, there are many players that will ignore the users of Nuclear weapons (be it for better or worse).

Bump

I think you are mistaken, rail guns are quite functionable today, it is just the number of uses they have before expensive maitenance is required. That is the only issue stoping railguns from major use, the wear on the firing rods.

It comes down to - speed of missles (missles fire faster than anything else, if large enough then they can do the most damage, they also have longer ranges and can change course)

regular shells are limited but are relatively effective in range

rail guns are the most effective but require large power plants and lots of maitenance and are expensive, but they are the most effective at long range.

each has a different use.

Rail guns are thought to be "untenable" but the real story is they are too dangerous and too effective.




They are very effective weapons I tend to disagree with you the Silver sky


- however railguns are perhaps more PMT because the development won't phase into actual production models for 10 or so years.. which means 20 years till standard deployment i.e. PMT but the technology and research projects exist today.. there just isn't a lot of interest in it.. yet because of other projects, and it is a new technology

-------
there was one other mention of distintigration ect..

disinitgration can be reduced by a stronger more thermally resistant material (melt off) this in a shiva star design can actually be used to "fire" plasma.. that is a plasma firing missle" or as a way to increase the speed of the missle and raise altitude. (making it more effective)

Vault 10, I believe you're misunderstanding something here, no MT nation on NS with a player that has half a brain uses railguns, simply because as you said, the capacitors are too big and cannot discharge fast enough.

However, a railgun is not a cannon with electromagnetic coils down the side, but rather two electromagnetic superconducting rails down the side of the cannon, and also that you need an explosive (or really powerful compressed air stream) to start the projectile down the barrel (modern rail guns cannot accelerate from 0.)

Also, instead of expensive and unwieldy capacitors, NS nations use something much more efficient, good old solid explosives, although with all the modern propellants developed since WW2 it would be expected that shells could go faster for any given size. And your assesment that even a long ranged railgun would be lucky to strike at subsonic is wrong.

Even the guns of the Iowa could fire their 1225kg shell at around 761m per second, thats Mach 2.3, and they would strike their target 38,400+m away at a speed of 516m/s (when fired at 45 degrees) which is mach 1.5 and be able to penetrate . Besides this only requires a propellant charge of 660lbs, compared to the metric tons required to get a Shipwreck up to speed. And even then, as No Endorse said, it will be unable to penetrate the armor of an Iowa type battleship.

And also, you're assuming that NS ships are unarmored as RL ships are. They are not, on NS you see heavy cruisers the size of nimitz with superior armor protection and speeds similar to the Nimitz and Iowas while carrying guns similar to the yamato. And of course, let's not get started about 600m fleet battle ships and 1000m+ supercapitals with their 27inch plus guns capable of propelling a light shell or an APDS to well over 200km.

NS is very much different then RL.

as for missle/shell defence..

THEL shot


-------

you could also convert the discharger for use as a spotlight!!

* just think of the fun you could have at a port of call if you could change the colour of the spotlight to red green or blue!

you are covered for giant UFO's - or flying disc's - music to your ears .. zinG!

perhaps a bit like a flamewall

As I've said before, I love the discussion about theoretics, but that isn't the point of this thread. All that may be discussed on the NSDraftroom. This thread is meant for comments on the Brief Briefs, and also adding to and amending them.
ICCD ^

BUMP to keep this somewhat viewable

*bump for Illior*

a two week +1 bump!

Nice. Now I actually understand NSTech instead of making up definitions in my head :)

rail guns are the most effective but require large power plants and lots of maitenance and are expensive, but they are the most effective at long range.

Not really, at long range. With extreme high velocity, one has also to deal with extreme drag. It's more efficient to cruise slowly and accelerate at the final stage.

The only exception could be railguns sending things right into orbit, like ballistic missiles, but that takes about 100 terawatts and 250GJ perfectly to launch just a ton at 8km/s from a railgun. With atmospheric drag (insane at low altitude) and part of the shell burning in the atmosphere it would really take over double that to deliver 1000kg to orbit, and over triple to let the reaching mass be 1000kg. Something with 300-400 terawatts and 800-1000GJ of energy? That won't fit on a ship, ever.

But, however, it will have 6km/s upon falling and so retain 18GJ of kinetic energy - equivalent to 4.5 tons of TNT, or about 2.5 tons of RDX. It wouldn't need anything inside, first, the explosive won't hold the heat, second, won't add anything (due to increasing drag).
It is all very cool, but such system can never ever fit on a ship; it would be a huge, expensive land-based project... capable of just launching small payloads from one place, and costing much more than a huge network of ballistic missiles.

Heloo there other player nations!
This is the Armed republic of Indepenants,
and I'd like to say this is an awsome refrence, I wish I had seen it when
I joined.
But some notes to keep in mind,
Boeing Aircraft manufactureing ( OR/WA USA )
Has built and tested a 747 which was equiped to fire a nose mounted
11 ton Laser turred. Which produced a 1 Magawatt laser beam who's
effective range was in excess of 200 miles. With the express perpuse of
shooting down ICBM's. I won't bore you with the details.
But to those nations who have build the " Uber Bismark" Battle ship of
Doom. This is exactly the kind of weapon which would completely devestate
such a sea fareing vessel.

I just wanted to remind folks that no matter what ultimate weapon of
hyper death you create, there's a guy ( or girl ) who's got the ECM for
it.

OK, try picking up a rock and throwing it at a brick wall. It doesn't matter how fast you throw it, the brick wall will only ever be dented. Seriously, try it yourself. Try all kinds of different velocities and you'll find that velocity is not nearly as much as impotant as an armour piercing cap. Shells have higher density and higher mass, and shells are also more robust. They're also cheaper.

Try taking a high-school physics course:
A fly traveling 10mph hits a windshield on a car traveling 55mph . . .
The same fly traveling 55mp his a car traveling 10 mph . . .




Basically according to you, if i throw a rock at about 90,000 meters per second I will only dent the wall, not crater, disintegrate and obliterate a large percentage of it in the process?

Uh, I'm pretty damn sure a fly will never break a car's window.

I also don't know of any rock that travels 90,000 metres a second.

Uh, I'm pretty damn sure a fly will never break a car's window.
That won't take much. Just shoot it out at 1800m/s like APFSDS round.


P.S.
"Armor has made missiles obsolete" - That phrase, in all variations, amuses me so much that I would put into the signature, if I had a habit of putting quotes there. It's like armor was invented in the XXI century, finally, to cope with these damn missiles.
In fact, armor is not something new. And anti-ship missiles were invented right in the rise of naval armor, during WWII. The armor disappeared together with their ongoing and well visible proliferation.
How come? Absurd, paradox! Missiles were proliferating - and armor which makes them obsolete was being removed, at the same time.


A display of human idiocy? Maybe. And maybe not, considering that the pretty primitive German Fritz X punctured the Warspite battleship deck to bottom. Went through all the decapping, armor, and normal decks like knife through butter.
That was a mobility and capability kill, at least. Only poor fuse timing (Germans underestimated the penetration) and luck let the ship stay afloat; be it a moment later, it would sink Warspite as well, exploding underneath like a torpedo.



Another of my favorite phrases from this thread is "Shell has no guidance and therefore you can't jam it". That sounds pretty much like "This ship has no keel and therefore the keel can not be broken". That's just like removing your car's brakes so that they can't break down.

Uh, I'm pretty damn sure a fly will never break a car's window.

I also don't know of any rock that travels 90,000 metres a second.

Quest:
Yeah, a fly can unch a tiny hole into your windshield, you just need it to acieve the insane velocity of 1,000 m/s+.

Godrods and meteoroids? (though I'm prtty sure these are considerably slower than 90 Km/s)

Any fly travelling that fast will disintegrate upon impact (and moving at that speed, but nevermind).

Any fly travelling that fast will disintegrate upon impact (and moving at that speed, but nevermind).
Who cares about the fly? We need the glass broken, not the fly alive.

To get a better idea of what speed means, imagine a cruise missile flying at 700m/s meets a wire mesh. What will happen, is it adequate to stop the missile?
Now imagine you take a machinegun and fire the entire clip into that missile. Sounds different, eh?

It's the same.


Now, how much does the horse-fly weigh... Well, maybe a gram. A one-gram fly launched at 1800m/s is the same as 4 grams at 900 m/s - M16 fired at the windshield. Of course, it isn't metal, lacks proper penetration, but still - a good car you have out there.
Well, the fly will, of course, stay smashed on the broken glass piece and won't be nearly as lethal as a bullet. However, do you know you can kill a person with a blank round? Of course, you'll have to make the barrel outright touching him, but still. That shows that even gas can have killing power; if you get it right.

Even after 200 odd posts (which technically means I'm still somewhat of a n00b, although slightly less than most) I still find some aspects of RP confusing. This thread rocks. Clear, concise, to-the-point, well-researched and the ensuing conversation is intriguing, relevant and complex. Top sh*t.

I know you can kill people with blanks. The point remains that you'll need a high speed missile - not something like Exocet or Harpoon - to do any appreciable damage to a battleship.

Again Gents, I must ask you to take this conversation of missile VS gun to some other area, the phrase in question was to point out a suggested reason for the development of such heavy naval guns instead of the movement towards Arsenal ships and the like. If you really want to discuss this, there's numerous other places to do it.

1. Start your own thread
2. Use NS draftroom
3. Use #draftroom on trillian
4. Get in a massive group chat on MSN or AIM
5. Meet in Amsterdam at some coffee shop, get high and discuss it (And have the conversation video tapped and sent to me please :p )
6. Meet in a mob Restaurant in New York

I truly don't care, but PLEASE, this thread is meant for the discussion of the brief in general. If you have a comment on how to make it better, I'd love to hear it.

Shit, sorry Illior, I forgot -.-

Don't worry too much about it...

I know you can kill people with blanks. The point remains that you'll need a high speed missile - not something like Exocet or Harpoon - to do any appreciable damage to a battleship.
Did you read post 114? I would appreciate if you do.

Fritz X was kind of crappy by modern standards. It's 60 years old, one of the first missiles. You can check the specs; I hope this is OK - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X
Yet that old toy punctured the battleship Warspite top to bottom, destroyed her mobility and fighting capability, and almost sank the ship. Not appreciable damage, huh?

A small AP modification to Shipwreck and it will do that with a much larger battleship - Shipwreck is more than twice faster and five times heavier. Well, and knows when to explode to do maximum damage.


Again Gents, I must ask you to take this conversation of missile VS gun to some other area, the phrase in question was to point out a suggested reason for the development of such heavy naval guns instead of the movement towards Arsenal ships and the like.
Well... you see... This is, sort of, your writeup. What can we suggest? If you want it to be consistently improved by others, put it on NSWiki.
In my opinion, the real reason is that guns look cooler. They aren't practical. Properly purpose-built missiles have better penetration, better accuracy, much higher damage, and can maneuver unlike just shells. The decline of armor was a response to introduction of torpedoes which make your armor work against you and missiles which puncture it no matter what.

The decline of armor, respectively, led to introduction of missiles with more explosives rather than AP capabilities - but that doesn't mean they can't return to AP.

V10, you just got quoted... and I rather dislike NSwiki (Personal reasons)...

Well, so, if you're open to advice, I'd like to say in a few things.
My generic criticism would be that it goes to advocating certain things rather than just explaining them, like what's called "NPOV" in WP. There are conflicting points of view; many players don't use SD and don't plan to. So it doesn't just come down to projectile exchange; it's rather a convention among people who like naval artillery battles.

I would appreciate if you added this to my quote:
Guns are not the only solution to penetrating armor. Already in WWII the Germany used Fritz X, anti-ship missile proven capable of easily penetrating and sinking a battleship. Torpedoes are another way to put ship's armor against her, damaging the structure directly.


P.S. Just in case you don't believe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Roma_%281940%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X
Roma, a pretty good 44,000 ton battleship, was sunk by two 1300-kg Fritz X missiles.
- So I'm not pulling things out of nowhere.

Bump!

I think of FT more as we have machinery that can change the laws of physics in any we want. We still have to figure out how to convince the other player on how the laws of physics are being changed. Thus wormholes, hyperdrives, antimatter energy devices are created. There really should be a separate category for hard future tech. Some players like to limit this to things like there is no FTL allowed.

There are also a few players who play with magic technology like Chronosia, magical flying ships, magic powered armor, and the Eternals which use future demon fighting technology. I don't really think this is categorized though. There are a few others as well. Fantasy is another category as well.

Um.. The fritz seems more like a rudimentary guided bomb than anything.. I didn't see anything on there about being rocket powered... or the Roma having an actual airdefense system to slap it out of the sky.. or a jamming system to prevent the gunner from sending the radio signals to the BOMB..

I think of FT more as we have machinery that can change the laws of physics in any we want. We still have to figure out how to convince the other player on how the laws of physics are being changed. Thus wormholes, hyperdrives, antimatter energy devices are created. There really should be a separate category for hard future tech. Some players like to limit this to things like there is no FTL allowed.

There are also a few players who play with magic technology like Chronosia, magical flying ships, magic powered armor, and the Eternals which use future demon fighting technology. I don't really think this is categorized though. There are a few others as well. Fantasy is another category as well.

Neither my ships or my power armour are magical.

Um.. The fritz seems more like a rudimentary guided bomb than anything.. I didn't see anything on there about being rocket powered... or the Roma having an actual airdefense system to slap it out of the sky.. or a jamming system to prevent the gunner from sending the radio signals to the BOMB..A very short ranged missile:

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o38/AkaHoshiRezo/fritz-x_04.jpg
See the mention of a rocket unit.

And of course,
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o38/AkaHoshiRezo/fritz-x_01.jpg
Tail's a blazing.

In any case. I do believe his point is that a high subsonic projectile of pretty much stardand mass when compared to modern missiles (Fritz X, Taurus KEPD 350 & Tomahawk all hover around 1500 kg, and Fritz X had a significantly smaller warhead (~ 320 kg as opposed to ~ 500 kg) can penetrate battleship armour with relative ease once it has a minimum degree of guidance and can hit weak points (Lets say... Deck armour - Fritz X could penetrate 130 mm at a launch altitude of 6000 m). Not enough to penetrate belt armour, no, but the deck looks so fluffy, it's gonna snuggle it for a bit.

Which, combined with the much greater payload/ total mass ratio you can get when your weapon doesn't have to withstand the conditions caused by being tossed out of a gun via several hundred kilograms of propellant burning up behind it in a matter of milliseconds, is actually fairly nifty.

And incredibly annoying as Vault 10 might be (Well, is) under most circumstances, he's kinda right there.

You're right, too, though - Fritz X eventually became pointless once the allies started to jam it (The same applies to just about every guided weapon Germany deployed, I.e. the Hs 293), plus teir tendency of shooting down the bombers that were launching it. Which - together with the lessons learned in Iraq 1991 - probably tells us that the side with the superior EW wins, as opposed to the side with bigger guns and/ or more missiles.

Oh, and the Roma had rather a lot of AA - 62 flak pieces, all told. Goes right in there with the tendency of gun-based CIWS not to shoot down missiles - that tends to get done with RAMs & co.

End of the story - unless you're giving the entire ship the kind of armour thickness you usually find on turrets or the belt, armour is more likely to fall to guided ordnance (Torpedoes and missiles) than it is to shells, as they have the awful tendency of just avoiding it. This doesn't apply to high supersonic missiles, of course, but they get the penetration characteristics of shells together with improved payload.

T3h Bump Part III