Subject:
|
Re: Combat strategies and tactics in space. Was: Jormungand Carrier Strike Craft
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:06:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1419 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Erik Schroer wrote:
> In Wing Commander, the movie...
...has nothing to do with reality, physics, etc. No offense, but if this
thread is based on the idea of reality, the movies are a terrible place to turn
for justification. If you want to use the media, the best TV show in this vein I
can think of is Babylon 5 - not because it got it all right, but because it at
least addressed some of the more obvious gaffs (like proper orbital mechanics,
range of conflicts, 3-D combat). As to books, I'd suggest David Weber's stuff
(Honor Harrington - at least the early stuff). He invents physics (shields), but
does it in such a way as to allow him to *preserve* a lot of tradiational naval
techniques (or, at least, come close) and spin a pretty good space opera.
> Attacking a picketing fleet who is waiting for you...
How do you "wait for" anyone in space? Part of the problem with most "space
combat" discussions is they seem based on navel engagements. Why? An inherently
3-D enviroment, covert ops are next to impossible, inertia dominates (you don't
sit still... ever), heat rejection is one of your biggest problems, travel times
are drasticly different, etc. About the only commonality between naval warfare
and space warefare is that in both cases the units are commonly called "ships".
> Innacuracy goes away with good planning.
Only in the presence of perfect knowledge. An important constraint.
> Should the target be the Picket fleet then the most
> logical course of action would be to come out behind them
> and shoot them in the back or above and shoot them from
> above. Remember space is a 3d battlefield not 2d like on
> earth. In space, you can be attacked from any direction.
For that very reason (and several others), there's no such thing as a "picket
fleet" with a back to shoot at.
> During the time it would take for the heat weapon to
> overcome the superconductive armor...
Another minor problem: superconductors are *not* super-heat-conductors. Niven
got it *wrong* (along with a lot else - and understand, I like Niven's stories a
lot).
> but pure kinetic energy is unstoppable, assuming no
> shields of course.
Try dust - "chaff" is extremely effective against a kinetic weapon. Is it
fool-proof, no, but I'm trying to point out there are a lot of aspects that,
*IF* you want to try to follow reality (or even be self-consistant) need to be
addressed.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
45 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
