In Defense of Galleons sinking Submarines

[DrFell]

Re: Re: In Defense of Galleons sinking Submarines

Originally posted by EvilKosh


With a phalanx onboard, it ought to be of use against tanks!

Ok ok - it's a poor allusion to the spearman/tanks situation

[Sava]

I'm sorry that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. A wooden boat cannot support the weight of modern guns. I think you fail to comprehend the size of naval vessels. Even a small WWII destroyer dwarfs even the largest of wooden vessels.

[Sava]

Next thing you know I'm going to see a thread "In Defense of Archers shooting down F-15's".

[Jerry Sindle]

Originally posted by Sava
Next thing you know I'm going to see a thread "In Defense of Archers shooting down F-15's".

Archers could be issued shoulder-fired surface to air missiles carried in addition to their bows and arrows and still be called archers...

V/R

Jerry

[Kataphraktoi]

umm,i dont think stinger missles could even touch f-15s...

[dawidge]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm sorry that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. A wooden boat cannot support the weight of modern guns. I think you fail to comprehend the size of naval vessels. Even a small WWII destroyer dwarfs even the largest of wooden vessels.

I have a very good understanding of the size and scale of the vessels in question.

I'm not suggesting that you can mount a triple-16" battery or a VLS pod on a Frigate. I'm suggesting that the old frigate can be made into a reasonable weapon without cahnging the fact that it is a wooden-hulled frigate.

The PT boat (wooden hulled 2-ply teak) was an effective weapon in world war II carrying torpedoes and anti-air guns. I'm not sure offhand if any of them carried depth charge racks or hedgehogs, but it wouldn't surprise me if they could. They sank quite a few destroyers with those small wooden vessels, too. No 5" DP gun. No heavy bombardment batteries. Just a couple torpedoes stolen from aviation (the air-dropped torps worked better than the tube-launched variety), and a variety of anti-aircraft weaponry (.50s, 20mm and 37mm autocannon and eventually 40mm mounts fore and aft)

The Japanese and Chinese used junks as weapons platforms (including ASW, Beach's RSRD is based on his experience as a sub captain) on a limited basis during WW2. We used junks in Korea for espionage work. They didn't have a lot of firepower, but mortars and machine guns can accomplish quite a bit.

I'd suggest that outfitting an old frigate with a couple standard infantry light (40mm) and heavy (80 mm) mortars combined with a couple of 50 caliber machine guns is a decent, modern replacement for the broadside cannon of old. Chop the masts and install a diesel and voila, you have a coastal bombardment platform at a negligible expense. So negligible that it doesn't cost any "upgrade" fees in CIV terms. It's a sitting duck for counterfire, but if you don't see that torpedo coming your way, so are you.

[Kataphraktoi]

and i think a wooden ship coulnt take even 1 good hit from a fish...

what kind of subs are we comparing to?

[Kataphraktoi]

mortars and machine guns are not very effective against subs....

[dawidge]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
mortars and machine guns are not very effective against subs....

No, but hedgehogs and depth charge racks are.

[Akka]

Just a question : if it's possible and efficient to put modern weapons on old wood ships that allow them to sink submarines, why not a single navy in the world did it ?

[Jerry Sindle]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
umm,i dont think stinger missles could even touch f-15s...

In Afghanistan, where there is a tangible Stinger threat, F-15s fly and bomb from above 15,000 feet. This is not because that's the best altitude to bomb from, it is because of the respect they have for the Stinger threat.

An F-15 can certainly use his flares and sharp maneuvers to avoid a Stinger. BUT, (my emphasis), he has to know the missile is on the way. If he's at low altitude and he doesn't know the missile is coming for him - then the advantage swings dramatically to the Stinger.

A rock or an arrow could bring down an F-15 if he injested one in each engine.
Foreign Object Damage (FOD) has caused many a good aircraft to be lost.
Naturally, he would have to flying well below his normal low operating altitude to be vulnerable to them. This is something a wise pilot would not normally do. However, another threat or mission requirements could force the pilot to fly that low for a short period of time...

Having said that, I recognize, that the case just mentioned is the rediculous extreme, and not the norm. The point I'm stressing is not that ancient units can kill modern units under wierd circumstances. The point I'm stressing is that even ancient units can be issued modern weapons and sensors, and become somewhat capable units in their right without transiting to the next technological rung of the evolutionary ladder.

An archer unit in today's world is populated by people from today's world. People who can grasp the dumb-downed instructions for firing a shoulder-fired SAM - point it at the plane, wait till you hear a loud tone. When the red light goes on, pull the trigger. Throw away launcher and head for cover!" Afghanies whose only schooling has been studying the Koran in Madrasses have been taught to fire them. The kid can't tell you how much two plus two is, but he can fire a Stinger.

Very respectfully,

Jerry Sindle

[korn469]

Jerry

what you fail to grasp is the difference between a possible weapon platform and an effective weapons platform

while indeed stingers do pose a threat to low flying aircraft they have done little to hamper the US bombing campaign in afganistan, so what f-15's aren't bombing from optimal altitudes? they are still able to carry out their mission virtually undetered and with great precision

afaik not a single aircraft has been lost to anti-aircraft fire in afganistan so far

also about the wooden galleon/frigate, they are too slow to keep up with a modern submarine, even if they could carry weapons to attack one, and while they might have some benefits of low noise signature they would still show up on radar, and would be completely vulnerable to any attack, basically one hit of any type would sink them...a single pt boat with a 50 cal could make quick work of them...plus in bad weather they would have problems with their sails, and they would be a poor allocation of valuable manpower and training, because sailors would have to be taught how to manage the sails and that is manpower intensive compared to using diesel engines

all of these problems stem from a poor upgrade tree, which is easily fixed

[dawidge]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Just a question : if it's possible and efficient to put modern weapons on old wood ships that allow them to sink submarines, why not a single navy in the world did it ?

There are lots of reasons not to, the main reason is that they wouldn't last long against a modern opponent unless they got in a lucky shot, but that lucky shot is possible. They are also more manpower-intensive than their modern counterparts, but steps can be taken to alleviate that. Shallow-draft sailing vessels were used extensively in the Phillipines and Solomons during WW2 as light transports. PT boats ate them for lunch, but were subject to return fire and took casualties. They sometimes took enough return fire that the boat had to be replaced. A PT boat vs. a capital ship is hardly a fair fight, but the PT might have the opportunity to get in a lucky shot that can remove the capital ship as fighting force.

There are two possibilities of what the "galleon" unit type represents in the modern age: an actual wooden galleon with upgraded weaponry (and perhaps engines installed) , or some modern equivalent in fighting ability.

It is an abstraction.

[dawidge]

Originally posted by korn469
afaik not a single aircraft has been lost to anti-aircraft fire in afganistan so far

That should be "in the current campaign". The Russians lost a hell of a lot of aircraft to Stingers.

also about the wooden galleon/frigate, they are too slow to keep up with a modern submarine, even if they could carry weapons to attack one, and while they might have some benefits of low noise signature they would still show up on radar, and would be completely vulnerable to any attack, basically one hit of any type would sink them...a single pt boat with a 50 cal could make quick work of them...plus in bad weather they would have problems with their sails, and they would be a poor allocation of valuable manpower and training, because sailors would have to be taught how to manage the sails and that is manpower intensive compared to using diesel engines

I don't think a .50 would do much more than scratch the paint on a 19th century sailing ship. torpedoes and AA guns, on the other hand would chew it up quite well. If that sailing vessel had its masts chopped and engines installed, then it becomes a weapons platform on par with the PT boat, and you have a fair fight on your hands.

A sailing vessel can easily make the 10 knots that a WW2-era sub made while submerged, under common wind and sea conditions. If a WW2-era sub skipper wandered into the patrol zone of a sailing vessel equipped with WW2-era hydrophones and ASW weaponry, it stands a (small) chance of losing.

all of these problems stem from a poor upgrade tree, which is easily fixed

The upgrade tree does suck. There should be some kind of forced retirement/upgrade for units to make this kind of debate disappear. Frankly, I vote for a return of the "partisan" unit, and all the obsolete infantry-type units, from Spearmen to muskets, auto-upgrade to. Something similar could be created for the naval units.

[Jerry Sindle]

Originally posted by korn469
Jerry

what you fail to grasp is the difference between a possible weapon platform and an effective weapons platform.

also about the wooden galleon/frigate, they are too slow to keep up with a modern submarine, even if they could carry weapons to attack one, and while they might have some benefits of low noise signature they would still show up on radar, and would be completely vulnerable to any attack, basically one hit of any type would sink them...a single pt boat with a 50 cal could make quick work of them...plus in bad weather they would have problems with their sails, and they would be a poor allocation of valuable manpower and training, because sailors would have to be taught how to manage the sails and that is manpower intensive compared to using diesel engines

Actually, I grasp it quite well. I'm not talking in terms of absolutes here, but "once in a whiles". Once in a while, a Galleon beats a submarine in the game.
Many players have said that can never happen. Well, it can under the circumstances I described.

The most formidable anti-submarine weapons platform in today's world is another submarine. Practically, everyone agrees with that statement. The second most formidable anti-submarine platform in today's world is a helicopter equipped with dipping sonar and homing torpedoes. Usually, only submarine captains and naval tacticians are aware of that. Practically, any ship, even a Galleon could be configured to carry a helicopter. Additionally, a 120 knot helicopter can easily catch up with, outmaneuver, and destroy a 30 knot nuclear submarine. If, in fact, the submarine is traveling that fast - and making that much noise from all the steam coursing through his rattling steam pipes, the noise the water is making passing by his louver holes, and the cavitation from his screw (propellor).

Why would anyone put a helicopter pad and a passive tail sonar on a Galleon in the real world? I couldn't possibly give you a plausable answer to that question.

Then why do players keep Galleons in their navies well into modern times? Because they're cost-concious and have higher priorities for their hard-earned gold shields. Consequently, in the game - Galleons do occasionally confront and, once and a while, defeat submarines. This drives players, those who tend to think in terms of absolutes, absolutely crazy. It shouldn't. A little "outside the box thinking" would increase their enjoyment of the game immensely.

That was the whole point of my beginning this discussion thread.

Very respectfully,

Jerry Sindle