UCS Shadow
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Much like modern RL torpedoes, eh? There's a reason the UK submariners still chose on occasion to use WWII unguided torps during the Falklands War - modern torps are smarter but less reliable, while the old-school ones were "good enough" to hit the available targets and packed more punch.The round nosed ones are an older design. They are relatively slow, not very agile, not very smart, but they are reliable and they are very high yield.
The other is an advanced tactical torpedo. The spike on the nose is a Mark 1 AMP cannon. One of the roles for fighters is to shoot down incoming torps; the ATT is capable of fighting back. It's also much faster, much more agile, and a lot smarter. But it loses some yield because it gives up warhead space for the other systems, and it's quite newfangled and not the most reliable thing around.
I'm sure Seafort will be able to give me the Mark numbers of the two types, and the actual shipping against which each was used. Please don't.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
You're right - I could. Another advantage of the older torps was that they had a much bigger warhead.Mikey wrote:I'm sure Seafort will be able to give me the Mark numbers of the two types, and the actual shipping against which each was used. Please don't.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
Exactly so. That's just what I had in mind when I designed the torpedoes actually.Mikey wrote:Much like modern RL torpedoes, eh? There's a reason the UK submariners still chose on occasion to use WWII unguided torps during the Falklands War - modern torps are smarter but less reliable, while the old-school ones were "good enough" to hit the available targets and packed more punch.
I'm sure Seafort will be able to give me the Mark numbers of the two types, and the actual shipping against which each was used. Please don't.
And in the Falklands the new torps were Tigerfish, but they used good old fashioned Mark 8s instead if I remember right; designed in 1925, would you believe, nearly 60 years before. The buggers worked, though.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Ironically, the target was only a decade or so younger.GrahamKennedy wrote:And in the Falklands the new torps were Tigerfish, but they used good old fashioned Mark 8s instead if I remember right; designed in 1925, would you believe, nearly 60 years before. The buggers worked, though.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
Actually one of these ships couldn't destroy a planet, though it could redecorate the surface very effectively and make it non-liveable.
The battleships and battlecruisers can have planetbusting super-cannon attached, though.
The battleships and battlecruisers can have planetbusting super-cannon attached, though.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Speaking of planet-busting, what's the yield of that supergun attatchment for the battleship that you mentioned in the size-comparison thread?GrahamKennedy wrote:Actually one of these ships couldn't destroy a planet, though it could redecorate the surface very effectively and make it non-liveable.
The battleships and battlecruisers can have planetbusting super-cannon attached, though.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
It's the gravitational binding energy of an Earth sized planet, calculated by using the formula for KE and plugging in the mass of the planet and its escape velocity. I pulled the numbers from here.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.