Zhou Tai An (kain@pacific.net.sg)
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:33:24 +0800 (SGT)

> Probably so, but what about the duration of the I-field? It's one
>thing to talk about a warship-sized generator, another to talk about the
>generator/project built into a beam saber hilt.
> And..

It only needs to penetrate the Field, shouldn't need too long a duration.

> And this is the smart thing to do. Get too close, and you get
>swamped by MSes, so you have to stay at range to pound. Yes, MS are more
>effective at ship killing than other capital ships, mainly because their
>speed, size and numbers allows them to slip in close before they get
>hammered too badly.
> It's like the Pacific War in WWII, where the introduction of
>carrier-borne aircraft caused a drastic change in naval tactics. However,
>the battleships then didn't die out immediately -- most prominently,
>Guandacanal and a few other naval battles were fought without air support in
>the main. The situation is similar in the OYW era.
> The strange thing about UC era ships is that as time goes by, more
>and more capital-class beam weapons seems to be mounted on the bigger ships,
>the carrier/battleship class. This implies that the designers of these ships
>expect the crew to use the weapons in combat..
> In real life, if you look at our naval ships and compare them to
>WWII naval ships, you will realize how little projectile weapons they carry.
>True, a lot of the weapons are replaced by guided missiles, but overall,
>less and less guns are being carried because air power has became integrated
>as part of fleet naval tactics.

Are you supporting or arguing against Edmund's point here? I can't tell. ^_^

> Not really. IIRC, all combat that we've seen involved warships that
>are already in visual range -- given Minovsky particles' habit of soaking up
>sensor data, they had no choice. It's probably possible to hit a target at
>this kind of range, although it's difficult.
> The above applies to single ship action, of course. When it comes to
>fleet action though, the most obvious tactics is to saturate the area with
>beam weaponry -- in which case, whether you can see him or not doesn't
>matter, since you are soaking the area in beam weapons, with which a single
>hit could be fatal for him!

Doesn't seem too effective, judging from the amount of ships that get
destroyed by this beam saturation fire.

> Hmm. Idea -- fleet defense I-field ships? Sort of an Aegis-class

Perhaps. But them, they'd just be targeted and taken out.

>> Are you sure about that? Other than the first Gundam series, I don't
>>remember seeing any battleship that doesn't carry MS - all of them can carry
>>at least a few of them, as the battleship cannot protect itself against MS
> Right, but IMO at least, those battleship/carriers could have
>carried more MS. Instead, the designers opted to give the ship more guns. Why?

Perhaps it would be wasting all that reactor power if it didn't have the
guns. Also, the beam weaponry on ships is also intended to keep enemy MSes
away, not just attack ships...in fact, I think attacking ships is it's
secondary purpose.

Actually, a better theory comes to mind. Before the advent of MSes, ships
probably were the best methods of killing other ships. When mobile suits
were invented, ship designs were deemed too expensive to change (remember,
these are BIG ships) and they continued to use stuff like the Magellan and
Salamis until shifting to White Base later.

>> I think you are "too sure" of the battleship's offensive role in the
>>wars - I just think that with the Minorsky particle and that most of the
>>time you can barely see the target, most ships cannot properly aim to be
>>really effecitve...
> I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. A warship's
>offensive role is probably not as useful as I thought, but also probably not
>as useless as you think..

I'm with Edmund here, but what you say has merit...

Zhou Tai An (kain@pacific.net.sg)

"There is no one simple truth." - Rune Walsh

Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Nov 14 2000 - 00:18:20 JST