Transphasic Torpedoes

[zen.]

Maybe there should just be a 'Theoretical Weapons' Category that allows certain powerful weapons that have drawbacks or are unstable, reflecting their experimental/prototype nature.

[Suicide Junkie]

Well, if MM gets around to implementing my "explode when destroyed" ability idea, then your unstable experimental weapon could do 500 damage to your own ship if it gets nicked by a meson bLaster

[zen.]

Sure, that'll teach them to build easily accessible exhaust ports.

[jc173]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magnum357:

As for the crusie missle idea going back in time say during WWII, I wouldn't be so sure of that. Unless the Cruise missles and a Tactical Nuke, I think some of the Crusiers and Battleships of the day could easily withstand a shot from a conventional cruise missle.

---

I don't know, some of the Russian anti-ship cruise missiles pack some pretty impressive warheads. Although what would probably be more dangerous is a modern homing torpedo.

[Baron Munchausen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magnum357:
As for the crusie missle idea going back in time say during WWII, I wouldn't be so sure of that. Unless the Cruise missles and a Tactical Nuke, I think some of the Crusiers and Battleships of the day could easily withstand a shot from a conventional cruise missle.

---

The German V1 was essentially a "Cruise Missile" though a very crude one. It's guidance was based solely on timing. It as designed ('programmed' is hardly the right word for mechanical timing) to simply dive into what was supposed to be its target after flying a fixed amount of time. A variation on ballistics, really.

As for contemporay weapons and older ships, this is really an odd 'blind spot' in peoples thinking. Do you suppose that armor and armor-piercing weapons have stood still for 50 years? Why? Just because weapons are delivered by planes and missiles instead of huge guns? Contemporary weapons would make swiss cheese out of WW II era ships. Did you hear about the bomb they developed during the Gulf War to cut through 100+ feet of soil and concrete to destroy underground bunkers? If they can do that to soil/sand/concrete which is far harder to penetrate than steel, what do you think they could do to a big fat battleship?

That doesn't mean there isn't any armor on modern ships, either. A lot of WW II era munitions would pretty nearly bounce off of a Nimitz class carrier, I suspect. You'd better believe they are armored. It's just that the fashion of bragging about how many inches thick your armored belt is like they used to with battleships has been changed. Now they don't even mention armor, but they've probably got all sorts of layers of metal and kevlar-type protection. Sure, it's better to have good ecm and not be hit at all, but if you are hit you still want at least some armor.

[geoschmo]

Modern laser-guided and computer controlled anti-ship cruise missles with high-explosive (non-nuclear) shaped charges, armor piercing tips, time delayed fuses (don't explode until they are past the armor) would decimate WWII era battleships.

Think about what we did to the Japanese at Laytee Gulf with roughly the same type shells on both sides, but ours were radar targeted. Now imagine much worse damage inflicted, with greater accuracy, by missles launched from a destroyer somewhere in the vicinity of Midway island. It would be no contest.

One air-launched anti-ship missle almost sank a British cruiser at the Falkland islands.

Geo

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 31 May 2001).]