You sunk my...

[Billy Joe Bob]

Ok, back on the subject of missiles: Suppose that you have decided to use missiles, and you're loading up your ship to try to beat the snot out of your enemy. Where are you gonna put all these missiles? Any reasonably sized ship isn't gonna have very much room for ammunition, next to all the other systems (life support, navigation, sensors, fuel tanks, escape pods, targeting systems, crew quarters, lots of storage space for food and water, airlock, etc.). The alternative would be to build a huge ship, but that would require you to build it in orbit, as it would be impractical to try to get a thing like that off the ground. .......

I remember that in the Halo books it is described that Archer missiles were in very large pods with a sort of silo door on them. They are in a large rack and the doors open firing a massive amount out of them. Missiles could be stored in such racks as this, though it also described the Pillar of Autumn being hit by plasma and setting off a bunch of Archer pods causing serious damage. I'm not sure how one could reasonably store shells; What if the weapons using shells were something like a very large autocannon with a belt like system, rather than the big guns on WWII ships?

[Hypothetical Wisdom]

Heat cannot travel through space. Only infra-red light can, which heats stuff up.

For our purposes, I think that 'heat' and 'infra red radiation' can be used interchangably, bien.

User was warned for this post.

[Anna]

Heat cannot travel through space. Only infra-red light can, which heats stuff up.

For our purposes, I think that 'heat' and 'infra red radiation' can be used interchangably, bien.

Okay, that's it. You've been told repeatedly to stop making spammy one-line posts without adding content. Kaelis has continuously told you this, and you keep doing it. So here's one warning for spam, and five RETROACTIVE warnings, for all the times Kaelis warned you.

Oh, and a warning for this post, too:
http://www.wyrdysm.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... 7418#87418

Feel free to enjoy your tempban.

[Aralonia]

I would like to make my entry into this discussion with the general statement that the term "dreadnought", spelled properly with an O, should not be a phrase used to describe heavy capital ships of the line for any non-Earth based militaries.

Why, do you ask?

The HMS Dreadnought has a very high chance of not existing in any situation off the planet.

"But wait! What's so special about HMS Dreadnought?"

It's the ship that gave its name to a wholly revolutionary class of heavy capital lineships. Previous to the advent of this ship, ships-of-the-line were slow (reciprocating engines as machinery) and possessed excessively confusing armaments layouts (2x dual 12", 10x single 9.2", all for the same purpose? Augh, logistic hell!). While designs for proper "all big-gun capital ships" were in the works in the Japanese and American militaries, the HMS Dreadnought was the first ship of the all big-gun design to also possess steam turbines as propulsion, complementing the 10x 12" guns mounted aboard the ship. It was faster than anything on the seas (for the next year) and could shoot harder than anything on the seas (for the next half year).

"Wait. What was that history lesson for?"

"Dreadnought," as it is used in common terminology today, stems from the name of this 1905 revolutionary battleship. A 1905 revolutionary Earth battleship. As a result of its excessive use, it irks the hell out of me when people use it any more, because it's just absolutely bloody overdone. As well, any cultures that stem from off the planet Earth, and consequently away from British naval design, should not use the "Dreadnought" moniker to describe a class of ships, due to cultural differences.

Please use other, more educated-sounding terms, like "supercapital battleship" or "large ship of the line."

Thank you, and have a nice day! Next time, we're going to get into the deeper differences between a "cruiser" and other ships of the line, and note why no cruiser-type ships exist today!

[Aerth Child]

As well, any cultures that stem from off the planet Earth, and consequently away from British naval design, should not use the "Dreadnought" moniker to describe a class of ships, due to cultural differences.

Please use other, more educated-sounding terms, like "supercapital battleship" or "large ship of the line."

Due to cultural differences, namely the language, the terms an alien race would use to describe their "supercapital" ships would translate to Dreadnought. It is simply a representative word to replace the alien word no one would understand.

[Exethalion]

As well, any cultures that stem from off the planet Earth, and consequently away from British naval design, should not use the "Dreadnought" moniker to describe a class of ships, due to cultural differences.

Please use other, more educated-sounding terms, like "supercapital battleship" or "large ship of the line."

Due to cultural differences, namely the language, the terms an alien race would use to describe their "supercapital" ships would translate to Dreadnought. It is simply a representative word to replace the alien word no one would understand.

The term Dreadnought was coined for that type of ship because of the hope that it would "fear God and dread nought" ie: it should fear no smaller type of warship. In the space era, where smaller vessels such as Destroyers and small attack craft (in tandem with carriers) would reign dominant, the Dreadnought term could hardly be less appropriate. This was also the case throughout the first and second world war where the big gun battleships and their superdreadnought successors were often outperformed by smaller ships and aircraft. It was found that the only role they could play efficiently was in coastal bombardment.

I'm sure that alien species would encounter a similar case with supercapitals, and that the Dreadnought term or any translation of it would not be used.

[Skrim]

Please use other, more educated-sounding terms, like "supercapital battleship" or "large ship of the line."

Thank you, and have a nice day! Next time, we're going to get into the deeper differences between a "cruiser" and other ships of the line, and note why no cruiser-type ships exist today!

"Dreadnought" simply means "fear nothing". Though, I agree, it should only be used for revolutionary Earth(or human faction) battleships.
However, if your alien faction has similar large battleships, it is inevitable that humans would refer to it as a "dreadnought" - though the aliens may call it whatever they want.

Hence, the Hecate and Athena are actually called "Dreadnoughts", while the Terran Navy refers to a particular kind of large Nanz ship as the "Alien Dreadnought" - what exactly the Nanz call it, we don't know.

[Hypothetical Wisdom]

So, what's a Corvette? I hear that term being thrown around a lot, and I'm not really sure what it is.

[ArcaneDude]

A small vessel, usually applied in anti-fighter defense, patrol,... Fast and lightly armoured. Between a frigate and a gunboat, really.

[DoomBringer]

In space distances are large so weapons would miss frequently, so what is required are proximity weapons with large warheads with high yield nukes so a miss would not matter. Fighting in space would be shooting fish in a barrel so it would be easier to just blow up the barrel you can expect Strategic Doomsday devices to come into play in the future, but what to deliver such a weapon? a ship that could both survive one and last long enough to use one....Titan Classes. They would require top of the line guidance because of inaccuracy and large and heavy munitions because if you can only hit a ship once you might as well just only need to hit it once. The Titan class ships should be both a carrier and a dreadnought and provide a metal wall to other ships for protection. The should be fielded with care because of the expense but worth deploying because of its high anti-ship capabilities and should be the solution to dreadnoughts. So heavy shielding is needed along with thick ablative armor and super heavy weapons for roles such as planetary cleansing and station bombardment. The Titan class ship could be used as a long ranged siege weapon by flooding an enemies fleets defenses with overwhelming firepower and a sheer amount of projectiles i.e. easier shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun or a rocket launcher. Therefore a ship class larger than a dreadnought would be perfect for space fleet engagements. 8)

[Exethalion]

Why would weapons be inaccurate? We can fire missiles halfway across the Earth to within centimetres of their target. In space, where the variables of gravity and air resistance are taken out, targets are 500m long hunks of steel and there's nothing else but you and the enemy for light seconds around, AND we've had at least a century to research and improve missile technology, what makes you think mega splash damage munitions are needed, and that they would be superior to missiles?

And why would a lumbering behemoth be any better at fielding these weapons than a much more inexpensive, flexible and maneuverable frigate? Why would such huge ships be built in the first place? Why use a 'metal wall' when you can simply create a faster-moving and smaller target? How would an anti-matter thermonuclear warhead distinguish between a 500m long and a multi-kilometre long ship? Think on these things. So-called 'Dreadnoughts' and 'Titans' are inadequate today and will continue to be in the space combat era.

[DoomBringer]

And why would a lumbering behemoth be any better at fielding these weapons than a much more inexpensive, flexible and maneuverable frigate?

Yea but Mass Drivers, Nukes, FTL missiles, antimatter, Beams, Large ships are better at surviving. And as I said, for planetary bombardment big ships would be used, can a frigate field enough force to cleanse a planet?

what makes you think mega splash damage munitions are needed, and that they would be superior to missiles?

Whats the use maneuvering when you get blown out of space and time with a mega splash damage munition and distances in space are huge a large radius weapon here would be useful.

[Exethalion]

Yea but Mass Drivers, Nukes, FTL missiles, antimatter, Beams, Large ships are better at surviving.

They're all made of the same material. Thrust:Weight ratio is not such a problem in space so a Frigate can be hugely armoured if needed, so long as it is constructed off-surface.

And as I said, for planetary bombardment big ships would be used, can a frigate field enough force to cleanse a planet?

Planetary bombardment and space combat engagements are two different things. In recent times, Battleships have been used for coastal artillery bombardment, but not in fleet engagements.

Whats the use maneuvering when you get blown out of space and time with a mega splash damage munition and distances in space are huge a large radius weapon here would be useful.

You're talking about radii of tens of light-seconds to achieve what you're implying. That would most probably affect your own craft. Like setting off a MOAB in the middle of a street firefight.

I'm not trying to annoy you! Just trying to make you see that huge ships would not be effective in space combat situations. A task force of frigates, destroyers, carriers, support craft, corvettes and small attack craft would be much more flexible in use and effective in combat. The combined cost and resource use of these would most probably equal that of a 'Titan'.