20-07-2005 19:16									#31
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Subs still use torpedoes?

	20-07-2005 19:21									#32
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Subs still use torpedoes?

Of course, why wouldn't you?

They're harder to destroy than most missiles these days.

	20-07-2005 19:22									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asher Of course, why wouldn't you? They're harder to destroy than most missiles these days.

They're slow and have limited range and once you fire them, you're going to die.

	20-07-2005 19:24									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara They're slow and have limited range and once you fire them, you're going to die.

New torpedoes aren't all that slow, a lot of them are very quiet as well.

Given how easy it is for the subs to sneak around, it's not that simple.

	20-07-2005 19:32									#35
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

the russians developed faster then sound torpedoes...try invading that...

	20-07-2005 19:33									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: New torpedoes aren't all that slow, a lot of them are very quiet as well. Given how easy it is for the subs to sneak around, it's not that simple.

New torpedoes are not fast enough to make them any more effective. And no, Torpedoes are very loud be their very nature, not to mention that the vast majority are active. Torpedoes are not as deadly to surface combatants as popular perception thinks. But if they do find you it is all over.

Nobody really argues that it is not easy for subs to sneak around, but deisels also require snorkleing.

	20-07-2005 19:42									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

i say again...try saying: torpedo in the water before you are hit with a mach 1.1 torpedo fired at you from normal shooting range...

and before anybody is going to say: 'you are lying'...no i am not lying the developed 1.1 mach torpedos and tested them but never commissioned them this was in the 70's so with modern technology +1mach torpedos are a very good idea in my book...

	20-07-2005 20:00									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

you are lying

	20-07-2005 20:01									#39
	Increase Your PM Length

well atleast i talked my talk before you said it

	20-07-2005 20:04									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DeathByTheSword i say again...try saying: torpedo in the water before you are hit with a mach 1.1 torpedo fired at you from normal shooting range... and before anybody is going to say: 'you are lying'...no i am not lying the developed 1.1 mach torpedos and tested them but never commissioned them this was in the 70's so with modern technology +1mach torpedos are a very good idea in my book...

Link? Source ?? proof ??

Considering the speeds that "regular" torpedos attain, lets just say I am a little suspicious of Mach 1 torpedos

I call BS

	20-07-2005 20:06									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

the speed is attained by creating bubbles around the torpedo effectively suspending it in air instead of water. put a rocket behind that and done...i will look for some sources on the web but saw designs and photos of the thing during my aerodynamics and propulsion class

	20-07-2005 20:07									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

It was developed at the same time as sahrks with laser beams

	20-07-2005 20:08									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

As to surface navies generally, I would think they would still have good survivability on the open ocean ( assuming no one uses nukes) with a large exclusion zone. All the things people are saying about how easily planes and missiles kill ships would apply even more to to the small vessels approaching the US navy.

If the navy has air cover and a sub escort and creates a large exclusion

	20-07-2005 20:14									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

There are such torpedoes, but they proved more of a liability than they were worth.

And the fact that they can't turn, or they hit the water wall and are destroyed.

Remember the Kursk

	20-07-2005 20:21									#45
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

true enough (the liability of the torpedo is the reason it was never produced) but turning isnt really needed if they move with +mach speeds (what is the average range a torpedo is fired from?) i think and the concept i think can work properly

	20-07-2005 20:26									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: "Oye, vatos, dees English sink todos mi ships, chinga sus madres, so escuche: el fleet es ahora refloated, OK?"

	20-07-2005 20:34									#47
	Remove this text

Really though I hope we are paying attention to this "exculsion zone" with alot of diligence. Most of us have the illusion that a carrier battle group is impregnable.

	20-07-2005 20:43									#48
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Really though I hope we are paying attention to this "exculsion zone" with alot of diligence. Most of us have the illusion that a carrier battle group is impregnable.

That is the problem, we can't enforce the exclusion zone because 99/100 it will be some dumbass fisherman who just doesn't give a **** or doesn't understand our need to maintain such a zone for our safety (and theirs). So we just let them come up close, like 50 yards. So if you wanted to suprise us then 50 yards isn't hard to cover, even if I light you up with the .50 inertia will still get you to the ship.

quote: what is the average range a torpedo is fired from

2-5nm.

Of course you could fire much closer than that, and you could fire at a much greater range to.

	20-07-2005 20:48									#49
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

2-5 nanometers?!

	20-07-2005 20:52									#50
	Tired of ads?

NAUTICAL MILES. Never thought I'd have to explain that to a BRIT!

	20-07-2005 20:52									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Made my day

	20-07-2005 20:53									#52
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Saras NAUTICAL MILES. Never thought I'd have to explain that to a BRIT!

Oh really? I had no idea what you meant and was entirely serious in my question.

	20-07-2005 20:59									#53
	Support Apolyton

thank you for 2 minutes of sheer bliss

	20-07-2005 21:10									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Hmm. You been talking to my girlfriend?

	20-07-2005 21:20									#55
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Really though I hope we are paying attention to this "exculsion zone" with alot of diligence. Most of us have the illusion that a carrier battle group is impregnable.

I ave no such illusion. But I think that modern naval warfare is much like naval warfare on Smax in that those getting the first shot usually have a huge advantage.

The carriers biggest strength is its ability to kill pretty much everything on or over the ocean in a set radius around itself. If US airpower and missiles keep enemies a couple of hundred miles off, you seriously reduce the numbers and types of weapons that will be capable of hitting the carrier and you also give the escorts more time to take out incoming weapons.

The carrier's weakness is that it is huge. That can help if it gets hit though as my understanding is that a carrier can expect to survive (not sink) a single hit from even a major weapon BUT it may lose its fighting capability

My understanding is that it would be standard doctrine to try to mislead the enemy as to the position of the carrier group to the extent possible . Thats just not that easy in the persian Gulf

	20-07-2005 21:46									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DeathByTheSword true enough (the liability of the torpedo is the reason it was never produced) but turning isnt really needed if they move with +mach speeds (what is the average range a torpedo is fired from?) i think and the concept i think can work properly

So it is ENTIRELY THEORETICAL ??

My problems are the following

1. It doesn't sound like something that could be launched from a submarine

2. This creation of a "wall of bubbles" sounds very much like something a carrier group may notice so I'm thinking there would be a dozen torpedos and depth charges incoming before you got a shot off.

3. I'm no expert on torpedos but I'm thinking that and ability to turn would be key. There will always be all sorts of electronic interference so assuming your torpedo will be targetted dead centre is wrong. A sub would probably not be able to go active and survive in the vicinity of a carrier group and my understanding is that current torpedo technology is designed around the idea of firing pretty close to the target in the hope that you can guide it to contact or its own seeker systems will take it to target. I doubt that many fixes are such that you have a well defined position to target

	20-07-2005 21:52									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Can anyone tell me what weaponry a 'fishing boat' carries that could sink a carrier?

Mercury enhanced tuna.

	21-07-2005 00:03									#58
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

hay guyz surface navy pwns amirite we shud spend more $$$ on big boats nothing to learn from wargames at all

WOO AMERICA NUMBER ONE!1

	21-07-2005 01:18									#60
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

That's why America needs to start making sub carriers. Sure, they won't hold as much planes, but the stealth factor would be unbelieveable. Probably would only be able to hold up to 10 planes at most.

Or choppah's.