| Cray |
| (General) |
| 07/06/09 12:27 PM |
| 147.160.136.10 |
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
Quote:
More war changes the more it stays the same.
The Strategy and tactics of navel combat has not really changed in centuries.
Two questions:
1) What submarine hunting tactics did Nelson use at Trafalgar to prevent his ships-of-the-line from being torpedoed, and do they differ from today's submarine hunting tactics?
2) Do European navies today still deploy their battleship squadrons in line formations, or have naval strategies changed such that they no longer have active battleships?
While pondering the answer to those questions, I recommend you read Friedman's "U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History," and the associated Carriers, Cruisers, and Battleships books. The extremely rapid change in naval tactics through the 20th Century are discussed in those books as equipment, technology, and fleet composition changed.
At the grossest, most handwaving level, you can say strategy hasn't changed in centuries because navies still attempt to blow each other up. However, at a slightly lower level, strategies are very different because of the capabilities of modern technology - nuclear weapons, aircraft, and telecommunications have allowed fleets to achieve very different effects than their predecessors. A 1940s, 1900s, or 1800s fleet could never have participated in a war in Afghanistan because they couldn't lob shells more than a few miles inland (and Afghanistan is landlocked), while now US Navy carriers are able to act as mobile air fields. (And, indeed, with the closing of Central Asian bases to US forces, the US Navy provides key air fields for US forces in Afghanistan.) The ability of essentially every single US ship to be nuclear-armed (via Tomahawks) caused a radical shift in Cold War naval strategies, because the USSR no longer "simply" had to worry about US carriers and SSBNs, but every single surviving US ship.
Tactics usually change every 5 to 10 years as new equipment and capabilities come on line, and warfare can change tactics on a time scale of months. WW2 is a case study in how rapidly tactics can change as new radar, new sonar, new anti-submarine weapons, and new anti-aircraft weapons came on line. Friedman's "Destroyers" book captures this in with descriptions of the endless, rapid cycle of new destroyer upgrades, modifications, and deployments in WW2. The tactics of US destroyers in 1945 were vastly, vastly different than those of 1941, and much different than the "torpedo destroyer boats" of 1915. The tactics of US destroyers in 1989 were...well, by then about the only thing US destroyers were incapable of doing was carrying a sizable air wing or large marine force. They could shoot down aircraft, engage submarines, deploy rescue helicopters, and launch nuclear cruise missiles at targets over 1000 miles away.
So, I really have to take exception to the idea strategies and tactics haven't changed in centuries.
Quote:
The only difference between naval combat and space combat is a third dimension. Other than that there is no difference.
That's another unsupported statement that I'd have to take exception to. It's particularly contradicted the instant you review the sensor and detection rules.