Zhou Tai An (kain@pacific.net.sg)
Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:14:49 +0800 (SGT)


> There is NO point in putting a weapon on a warship to "scare" the
>opponent. In a war, you might have some advantage if you can intimitade an
>opponent, but essentially the idea is to KILL the bugger. Deterrent the beam
>weapons may be, but they must be able to inflict damage to be a deterrent.
>And if it can do damage, I may as well inflict the damage instead of
>"scaring" the enemy, right?

I don't believe the Edmund meant that the beam weaponry on a warship was
meant just to scare, just that it became a secondary purpose. Of course the
beams are meant to kill, but they don't do so very effectively, which I
believe is our collective point.

> I've been consistently not arguing that countermeasures would
>appear. I've just been saying that I-fields would be a good idea! In fact,
>if you keep saying that countermeasures are necessary, then I-fields are
>probably a good idea!

We're only saying that countermeasures are necessary when your I-Fields come
up. ^_^

I'm also not saying that I-Fields are bad - it's just that the cost, power
and abundance of countermeasures don't make them very feasible.

> Right. I'm not arguing that MS are useless or unnecessary -- they
>are -- but the fact that your newer warships can carry MS and still have
>beam weapons makes your arguments a bit weak. If the MSes are so good that
>traditionally armed warships are not needed, why have the beam weapons?

What is the point of sending a carrier with absolutely no means of defense
into the battlefield?

> If they are there as a deterrent for other warships, this means that
>the other warships can still inflict sufficient damage to the carrier to
>have a deterrent. If they are there to sink other warships, then warship
>conflicts are still a major part of the UC world. Either way, the presence
>of capital beam weapons on a warship implies strongly that ship-to-ship
>combats are frequent enough to warrant their existance -- and indirectly
>suggest that a beam weapon defense is a good idea.

I still believe that the beam weapons exist mainly to provide a saturation
effect, rather than do actual damage to the enemy ships. Without this beam
barrage being put up, MSes would just make a beeline for the opposing ships
and sink them; the absence of the barrage would also make the sinking that
make easier. The beams also do occasionally hit MSes and ships and makes the
battlefield a lot more dangerous - that's why aces are so neccessary; they
can evade the constant light show and do lasting damage.

>> Of course - I never said ship-to-ship fights are useless and
>>meaningless - I just mean that MS-to-ship fight happens more often and more
>>effective...
>
> Except that we see more MS-to-ship due to the emphasis of the
>series. We can't draw conclusions based on biased reporting...

I'd argue that it's not really biased reporting - surely, if ships were
effective, we'd see at least SOME ship kills. As it is, we see next to nothing!

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 Wed Nov 15 2000 - 21:59:34 JST