Galactica type battlestar vs McKenna class WarShip

[Eviscerator]

We are talking about space fight. You point and shoot. Your weapons are either energy beam or propelled, but there is no real gravity effect.

Even if, the computer makes it so that the barrel is pointed at the right spot to hit - or du you think they aim with eyeball at multi-kilometer ranges? Then, the laser recharges or the new missile/grenade is put in - you just push the fire button again, since the targeting is done by the computer.

There is virtually no delay even by the most stupid operators. You could have Bob the janitor sitting there tipping on the screen to mark the target and then hit the shiny red button. Given reload times and even flight times of the projectiles, the difference is minuscule.

You are discounting the known delays between laser and ballistic weaponry. You are also discounting the fact that both vessels will most likely not be standing still and will be moving at quite a speed. To illustrate, an event of a Rifleman firing against a helo on Hachiman has the lasers arriving first and the shells later. And of course a laser beam travels at the speed of light and ballistic doesnt, even gauss slugs. Even talking about space flight and hypothesing all energy weapons, one must take into account operator familiarity with the unit. Just as an example, an expert pilot would know exactly how much g-force the plane can stand, how quickly it turns, accelerates and so on, be able to compensate for computer-aided targeting failure and so on.

Ah, but what will Bob the janitor do when the screen tells him "critical failure of targeting system, switch to manual control"? can he lead a movin target and know when to squeeze the trigger to hit the target? " or "ammo hopper jam, clear jam"? Will the janitor, without any prior knowledge of where the switches are know what exactly to push , and at what time? What if he hits the "ammunition jettison" button by accident? Real life cockpits are a mass of switches even compensating for multi-function displays.

Even the best autoloader or computer-aided targ system will fail, and it is at that point that training kicks in.

Even if, the computer makes it so that the barrel is pointed at the right spot to hit - or du you think they aim with eyeball at multi-kilometer ranges? Then, the laser recharges or the new missile/grenade is put in - you just push the fire button again, since the targeting is done by the computer." The computer cannot make the decision which type of shell to load, or which target to aim at. If we go that way, we may as well dispose of human control entirely. In an RL context, the computer may be able to identify for example 3 T-72s in the front firing arc, but which one to fire at? The one who's barrel is swiveling on you, the one who's engaging another tank, or the one that has demonstrably suffered an ammunition explosion? This decision is up to the tank commander. In a Btech context, what missile do i fire at the oncoming warships? do i fire barracudas, killer whales or white sharks? how many do i fire and at which warships do i fire at?


I know for a fact that artillery pieces are not aimed by line of sight usually and they rely on informations supplied by external factors like UAV,spotter planes, forward observation and/or targeting beacons. No, they dont aim by eyeball at multi-kilometer ranges, they need info supplied by others.

[Eviscerator]

We are talking about space fight.
There is virtually no delay even by the most stupid operators. You could have Bob the janitor sitting there tipping on the screen to mark the target and then hit the shiny red button. Given reload times and even flight times of the projectiles, the difference is minuscule.

All sci-fi scenarios of a unit-vs-unit engagement should state expliclity who is in control of the units on both sides. To illustrate, Justin Xiang Allard was able to fight a Rifleman in a Valkyrie and stood an actual chance of winning. A green pilot would not have been able to do so.

To suggest in anyway training does not make a difference in weapons operation times nulls out the whole purpose of military training. Which is, to quote an Battle of the bulge account "while the germans were oncoming, i heard an voice in my head ""SQUEEZE the trigger, S Q U E E Z E the trigger, not jerk the trigger" while an force of german infantry was charging his position. IIRC he shot over 20 soldiers. This was accomplished by endless after hours dry runs of M1 Garand training.

As video evidence i show you two links, the first one is the US Army Pistol competition shooter Travis Tomasie
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/04/03/army ... ing-title/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgdq1FBYTUE - an example of how fast he reloads an IPSC racegun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3GR6XvO ... re=related - some random guy who really praticed doing a bullpup reload.

Suggesting in anyway that a 1st day recruit can achieve such quick reload times is impossible and i invite u to try the same.

[Eviscerator]

Further (admittedly hollywood influenced) video evidence that training makes a difference

Al Pacino's character would not have been able to make the final shot if it was his first time using a rifle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR1nQnK4 ... re=related

Recently graduates of US Army BCT training will not be able to move or shoot as these SEALs could (heck they dont even learn about the M-14 )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnLK-Af9 ... L&index=61

Additionally, with enough practice it is possible to field strip an M16 in 40 secs or less. A LOT OF PRACTICE. Which, to say again, a first or even 2nd week recently enlisted soldier will NOT be able to do.

[LaCroix]

Stop avoiding my points by walls of text irrelevant to the topic. Yes, stories about trained people firing handguns better is irrelevant to the matter of auto-loading, computer targeted space guns.

Second, the gun operator doesn't choose targets for his single gun, the weapons officer does that. He selects the target, and the gun crews get the coordinates fed into their computers. This has noting to do with the rate of fire the crews can put out until the target is destroyed.

At multi-kilometer distances, manual targeting, including lead on is luck, pure luck. No not so experienced crew can lead onto a target at ? Range with ? speed and ? heading they can't even see without targeting sights with the flight times involved.

Also, I can't see how you are trying to defend that crew training improves firing rate on a fully automated system massively by citing worst-case catastrophic errors. Do you expect the targeting system to fail every second shot? If it doesn't, firing is a simple repeat cycle of 'press fire, wait, light goes green, press fire' every new trained group can do as fast as an veteran group, since everything else is done by computers.

[Eviscerator]

You'll accept this for the moment. I am not now contenting the standard or the naval ppc terms of damage, i am talking about ancillary equipment that has been introduced like heavy gauss rifles, new energy weapons, WOB super-jump KF drive, VDNI/ Enhanced imaging control systems.

So? No one is arguing otherwise.

.

You have, in previous posts made the statements of " This translates over to the Jihad, their only tech advantage over SL warships are in terms of construction exotics."which completely glossed over the Super-KF Drive and "The LCS Invincible did not gain a *10 jump in firepower just because the WOB got their paws on her."

This then refutes the employment of the WOBS Immortal Spirit to destroy the LAS Arthur-Steiner Davion with novel information that a much larger jump signature was detected and the Sprit was stranded thereafter. and the handwaving of known references in TR:3075 and House Book: Steiner which say the Invincible when deployed in 2853 bore very little resemblance to original-as-intended Tharkad battlecruiser.

HB:Steiner: To most, the battlecruiser LCS Invincible, stationed near
zenith jump point of Tharkad, was merely a relic from the Star
League. When the crew of grey-haired veterans of House
Steiner’s defunct fighting navy boarded her, it was like retuning
home. Her massive lasers and particle cannons might groan
and protest, but they were still capable of unleashing searing
death. Though the Invincible’s engines threatened detonation at
any moment

and further on
Even the LCS
Invincible was lost, along with its crew of 200,

Given stats from TR:3075 of a total ïntended crewing level of 474 (all ranks), this means that the Invincible was operating at a half crew level. Even allowing for Veterancy, old crew do not move as crisply or have the equal strength of crew half their age. This has direct consequence as ive repeated Ad nauseum.

TR:3075
The Invincible, herself badly mauled in a fierce engagement over Moore, was reduced to an orbital musuem by 2850, destined for mothballs.
Then came 5 DEC 3067 when the LCS Invincible reappeared over Tharkad with an WOB crew. Even as the vessel's guns fired on the hapless world below, ir was clear that the Word had completely refurbished the ancient vessel. Moreover the ship had been retrofitted with an lithium-fusion battery - a feature not present on any of the original Tharkad-class ships. The allied forces that reclaimed the Invincible were stunned by this discover, both because of the extent and expense of the refit.

From gathered information we know that 2853 Invincible was battered by the succession wars and in no way did it resemble the stats of the original Tharkad-class cruiser design. Even allowing a very generous base 10% reduction in weapons functionality, the WOBS Invincible that reappeared over Tharkad was completely refitted to the stats of the original Tharkad blueprint as intended in 2690. And they've added a LF battery - a feature not present on any of the original Tharkad-class ships which gives it an additonal 50LY jump. An extra jump, i hear comes in very handy whether transiting to or egressing from a planet.

[Eviscerator]

Second, the gun operator doesn't choose targets for his single gun, the weapons officer does that. He selects the target, and the gun crews get the coordinates fed into their computers. This has noting to do with the rate of fire the crews can put out until the target is destroyed.

At multi-kilometer distances, manual targeting, including lead on is luck, pure luck. No not so experienced crew can lead onto a target at ? Range with ? speed and ? heading they can't even see without targeting sights with the flight times involved.

Also, I can't see how you are trying to defend that crew training improves firing rate on a fully automated system massively by citing worst-case catastrophic errors. Do you expect the targeting system to fail every second shot? If it doesn't, firing is a simple repeat cycle of 'press fire, wait, light goes green, press fire' every new trained group can do as fast as an veteran group, since everything else is done by computers.

By saying that you are now saying Mr Bob must peer through the sight, decide what targets is more important to engage at the time, press the required buttons to load required shell (and know what shell is required for what target), all of which jobs are normally done by trained personnel. Would Mr Bob know NOT to use an ATGM against disembarked infantry? Or would he go, "Gosh durn, thats the biggest weapon i can fire heah. I gonna fire it!"


You are also cancelling the effects of the aforementioned modern fire-control systems by saying that even with the FCS, aiming at multi-K ranges is by luck. An M1A2's abrams FCS which compensates for all the nitty-gritty is publicly acknowledged as "The ballistic solution generated ensures a hit percentage greater than 95 percent at nominal ranges". The Abrams can be moving at a good speed, fire while moving, and still have a high hit possiblity. (As an asides, it's said that a certain SS Tiger Ace's Gunner was capable of firing on the move when accepted doctrine of the day said u had to stop to fire accurately)

Besides, an experienced crew would know how to correct shot fall based on results observed and also suggesting that a 21st century sniper cannot make confirmed kills at multi-kilo ranges

The job of a crew on a military unit (not limited to aerospace) is to operate, maintain and repair among other things. What does Mr Bob do when the autoloaders cut out because of power failure due to battle damage? Does he use his trusty multi-cleaner? One doesnt fight battles when everything is clean and polished, one must take into account battle damage.

in an aerospace scenario, a Warship crewman is expected to handle both his normal job E.G Lookout and when at Battle Stations he may be expected to help out in the infirmary or be assigned to a damage control party. In a ground crew scenario, the ground crew is responsible for refuelling, rearming, and repairing the fighter. As i have said, a trained ground crew can do what would take a normal untrained crew in twice the time at least. A trained mech bay crew, etc etc, you get the idea.

I am making a lot of extrapolations based on real world counterparts as nobody in their right mind would even consider including such detail in the Technical Readout as Jane's does in their reference books. (the entry on a typical system is 3 pages long)

[Eviscerator]

Stop avoiding my points by walls of text irrelevant to the topic. Yes, stories about trained people firing handguns better is irrelevant to the matter of auto-loading, computer targeted space guns.
.

My original intent was to show that trained, competent crew operate weapons systems better than green crew or even untrained personnel.
As i have just point out, this applies across the board on all fronts whether technical, mechanical , or hell, even adminstrative.

Travis tomasie is not a story and it'a safe bet to say he can achieve more lethal centerbody shots in an engagement than the average pistol shooter. likewise neither is Carlos Hathcock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock
In 1967 Hathcock set the record for the 20th century's longest combat kill with a Browning M2 .50 BMG machine gun mounting a telescopic sight. The distance was 2,286 meters (2,500 yd / 1.420 mi).

Who achieved this feat without electronic ballistic computer, laser rangefinder, or any other of the fancy aids snipers now have.

Even at the most basic crewing level which is Operator, the pilot/captain/mech pilot uses the units to the level of his abilities whatever they may be. Or are you suggesting that a wet behind the ears trainee mech pilot will be able to use an CN9-YLW as effectively as Kai allard-liao?

[LaCroix]

Can you even look around your own wall of ignorance?

I say that hand-gun skill is no indicator of better targeting with FCS systems, you repeat your claim that a trained marksman aims better than an untrained -> YES, because there is no computer targeting! What the fuck has that to do with firing a computer targeted weapon at ranges you can't even see that target without the computer's help!

I say that with guns having only one type of ammunition (like the fucking lasers or space-autocannons we are talking about) it is irrelevant which target you aim at, you just fire, and you counter by 'he better not uses ATGM agains infantry'. A LASER doesn't have different ammo, and ALL these missiles do work against his targets and only his targets because you can't aim at people with that huge fucking spacelasers/guns/missiles.

I say that manual targeting (that means NO FCS, moron) in space at multi (double digit) kilometers range is sheer luck and you counter 'but there is even FCS in an M1A1!' Are you kidding me?

I say that manual targeting (NO FCS) in space at multi (double digit) kilometers range is sheer luck and you counter that even now a sniper is able to hit at high range.

That means WITH a fucking scope -> that counts as FCS at that range. Try it without scope at two kilometers and THEN you have an analogy. Once AGAIN!! -> HAND GUN SKILL does not equal operating an computer targeted weapon system.

[Eviscerator]

[quote="LaCroix"]Can you even look around your own wall of ignorance?

I say that hand-gun skill is no indicator of better targeting with FCS systems, you repeat your claim that a trained marksman aims better than an untrained -> YES, because there is no computer targeting! What the fuck has that to do with firing a computer targeted weapon at ranges you can't even see that target without the computer's help!

I say that manual targeting (NO FCS) in space at multi (double digit) kilometers range is sheer luck and you counter that even now a sniper is able to hit at high range.
Can you then look around your own errors then?

You said
We are talking about space fight. You point and shoot. Your weapons are either energy beam or propelled, but there is no real gravity effect.

There is virtually no delay even by the most stupid operators. You could have Bob the janitor sitting there tipping on the screen to mark the target and then hit the shiny red button. Given reload times and even flight times of the projectiles, the difference is minuscule.


Even discounting no gravity effects in space, are you saying then that an ballistic weapon firing along side an laser which is known to travel at
The speed of light (usually denoted c) is a physical constant. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second,approximated as 300,000 kilometres per second will reach the target at exactly the same time as the ballistic weapon? I did tell you of an Mech firing on an aerial target and the autocannons did not hit at the same time as the energy weapons.

By cutting out the FCS, bob the janitor cannot now compensate for it and he may not very well know that the laser and ballistic weapon does not reach the target at the same time. Your argument just now was that a janitor could operate the weapon just as well as a trained gunner.

[Eviscerator]

Second, the gun operator doesn't choose targets for his single gun, the weapons officer does that. He selects the target, and the gun crews get the coordinates fed into their computers. This has noting to do with the rate of fire the crews can put out until the target is destroyed.

firing is a simple repeat cycle of 'press fire, wait, light goes green, press fire' every new trained group can do as fast as an veteran group, since everything else is done by computers.

But the weapons officer does not have freedom to select his own target. the captain gives him his orders through the gunnery master.

A sample order by the captain to the gun crews might go like this: Gunnery master! starboard batteries, 2 full salvoes against that cruiser and then targets of opportunity as required! port batteries, continue the bombardment against that frigate group, shift fire as necessary, bow batteries, concentrate fire against the battlecruiser! full missile salvo against that battleship transiting from our port side to our bow, all available batteries ready to shift target on my command!

The gunnery master relays the orders to the respective sections who then choose targets and fire as ordered. the starboard crews then know if the cruiser is travelling at X speed, they have to fire their lasers at so-and-so time and the ballistics at so-and-so time to hit the cruiser. an experinced crew may even anticipate certain maneuvers that the enemy has been known to employ and adjust in anticipation. after the requisite two full salvoes are fired, the starboard gun master then has freedom to choose what other targets to employ his guns against. He may choose to divide his guns against the cruiser, other targets present, or shift fire fully to the cruiser or other targets in the starboard fire arc.

The port batteries have been instructed to keep up the fire on the frigate group and to shift fire as required when ships are destroyed/disabled. freedom is released to port gun master to retarget as he sees fit.

While all this is going on, instructions are issued to missile battery commanders to set their targets for the battleship and they do so accordingly.

At the captain's order, all available direct-fire weapons that can target the battleship will retarget, ignoring previously issued orders.

Bow batteries have been ordered to fire against the battlecruiser in exclusivity of all targets and they will do so until further orders.

The janitor will not have gone through gunnery training and so he will not know how to lead laser/ballistic weaponry, select appropriate targets based on threat level, or anticipate known enemy maneuvers.

[Eviscerator]

We're looking at a quantitative difference in offensive capability (IE particle cannon putting out more energy as a result of technical advances, using heavier missiles, or something to that effect.)
.

No you dipshit. You were told to demonstrate that 3072 WEAPONS are more powerful than 2750. You didn't.

.

Im going to settle this once and for all NOW. using these numbers
Given a large laser with 8 standard damage points can melt/vaporize a half ton of armor grade steel, that would mean that 8 capital size points would melt 5 tons. 1 Point is therefore in the ballpark to .6 tons of steel.
melting 450 j*600 kg*1800K = 486 mJ
vaporizing 450*600*3100K = 837 mJ

gives us a scale of a single standard point calc from this as
60.75 mj to 104.6 mj as a base value for a single ingame damage point caused by weapons
so we get

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Weapons_and_Equipment_Lists to work from, and just to give a max value we'll take the damage a weapon does at short range and using the higher end of the scale . and here we go
PPC - 10 points = 607.5 - 1046mj
IS Heavy PPC 15 pt = 1569mj
Clan ER PPC : 15 pt = 1569 MJ
IS ER PPC : 10 = 1046 mj
Light ppc: 523mj
Binary laser cannon:1255.2mj

base AC/5 damge one turn using standard ammo: 5pts = 523mj
rotary AC/5 one turn, same ammo, max ROF: 6 x 5pts = 30 pts =3138mj

Clan large heavy laser: 16 points =1673mj
IS Large laser: 8 pts:837 mJ

Basic Gauss rifle: 15 pts = 1569mj
heavy gauss at short range : 25points = 2615mj


so to sum up, i have fufilled the original requirments of showing that 3072 tech weapons are more powerful both in game and in a real energy level.

[Batman]

The stupid, it burns. The experience of the gunnery crews (if any, given that a lot of what used to be done by gunnery crews in the past is ALREADY automated TODAY) is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT because a computer is doing the targeting. Valen the experience of the gunnery crew was irrelevant in WW1 because even back then the targeting was done ELSEWHERE AND using technology.
The guy firing the gun could be dumb blind and deaf and as long as he manages to find the FIRE button will achieve the exact same accuracy as a trained professional.

[Batman]

so to sum up, i have fufilled the original requirments of showing that 3072 tech weapons are more powerful both in game and in a real energy level.

No you haven't. Not only do those calcs NOT include capital ship weapons, which would make up the vast majority of a warship's firepower, but as per your post the vast majority of those weapons have a firepower measured in millijoules and can thus safely be ignored.
That small craft CAN have slightly more firepower was never under contention (in fact IIRC it was Painrack who originally mentioned HPPCs and such). Given the firepower discrepancy between small craft or even dropships and warships that is completely irrelevant. Show WARSHIP weapons are.

[LaCroix]

Can you even look around your own wall of ignorance?

I say that hand-gun skill is no indicator of better targeting with FCS systems, you repeat your claim that a trained marksman aims better than an untrained -> YES, because there is no computer targeting! What the fuck has that to do with firing a computer targeted weapon at ranges you can't even see that target without the computer's help!

I say that manual targeting (NO FCS) in space at multi (double digit) kilometers range is sheer luck and you counter that even now a sniper is able to hit at high range.
Can you then look around your own errors then?

You said
We are talking about space fight. You point and shoot. Your weapons are either energy beam or propelled, but there is no real gravity effect.

There is virtually no delay even by the most stupid operators. You could have Bob the janitor sitting there tipping on the screen to mark the target and then hit the shiny red button. Given reload times and even flight times of the projectiles, the difference is minuscule.


Even discounting no gravity effects in space, are you saying then that an ballistic weapon firing along side an laser which is known to travel at
The speed of light (usually denoted c) is a physical constant. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second,approximated as 300,000 kilometres per second will reach the target at exactly the same time as the ballistic weapon? I did tell you of an Mech firing on an aerial target and the autocannons did not hit at the same time as the energy weapons.

By cutting out the FCS, bob the janitor cannot now compensate for it and he may not very well know that the laser and ballistic weapon does not reach the target at the same time. Your argument just now was that a janitor could operate the weapon just as well as a trained gunner.

We are talking about space fight. You point and shoot. Your weapons are either energy beam or propelled, but there is no real gravity effect.

Even if, the computer makes it so that the barrel is pointed at the right spot to hit - or du you think they aim with eyeball at multi-kilometer ranges? Then, the laser recharges or the new missile/grenade is put in - you just push the fire button again, since the targeting is done by the computer.
There is virtually no delay even by the most stupid operators. You could have Bob the janitor sitting there tipping on the screen to mark the target and then hit the shiny red button. Given reload times and even flight times of the projectiles, the difference is minuscule.

You are a fucking liar.

How convenient that the one paragraph you had cut out (and killed your quote tags by doing so) was the one where I said that the computer would take care that the barrel is pointed at the right spot to hit. This is clled lead, something you have to do if projectiles have flight time.

And you conviniently snip out me calling you an your bullshit evasions.

Then you compare to how an expert SINGLE operator of a Mech, thus having to steer his machine, chose target and push the buttons of his weapons systems is superior to a novice SINGLE operator of a mech, to the use of a system where all the crew does is push a button, again using the same fallacy like before with the handgun example you used.

Again, in bold: THE OPERATION OF FULLY AUTOMATED SYSTEMS DOES NOT RELY ON THE SKILL OF THE OPERATOR. That is WHY they are fully automated. Congratulations, you have proven yourself being completley retarded or a fucking liar. Pick your favorite.

Also, you were dishonest enough to call that an experienced team is able to fire without FCS, and when I said that this is pure luck, since they couldn't even see the target, you turn around and say I'm ignoring FCS capabilities that even a M1A1 tank has.

And you still keep ignoring that even at your much quoted battleship, the guys firing the gun don't even know what they are firing at. They load the gun and fire. The coordinates are set somewhere else. They don't know if they are firing at a frigate group or a battle cruiser. They know elevation this, heading this, press fire.

[Eviscerator]

The stupid, it burns. The experience of the gunnery crews (if any, given that a lot of what used to be done by gunnery crews in the past is ALREADY automated TODAY) is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT because a computer is doing the targeting. Valen the experience of the gunnery crew was irrelevant in WW1 because even back then the targeting was done ELSEWHERE AND using technology.
The guy firing the gun could be dumb blind and deaf and as long as he manages to find the FIRE button will achieve the exact same accuracy as a trained professional.

Just let me try to tell you a little bit of the skills taught to military personell

basic skills: personal weapon, usage of, care of, cleaning, immediate action drills. military discipline, military organisation, basic defence against NBC/other attacks, international conventions on combatant behaviour

basic infantryman: usage of support weapons, employment of support weapons, preparing a field position, cover and concealment, fire and movement, tactics such as :contact drills, break contact drills, anti-aircraft fire, recognising friendly/enemy units

pilot: characteristics of aircraft, landing, taking off, aerial refueling, mission profiles like CAP, Escort, etc etc, unit recognition, charetristics of weapons both friendly and enemy

Artillery crew man: duties of the commander, gunner, layer, etc, cross-training in all roles, bringing a piece into action, breaking it down and moving off, operation of radio equipment, firing mission, adjusting for forward observation on shot fall, characteristics of the various artillery shells available.

To suggest in any way that Bob The Janitor can do any of these roles except for basic firing and reloading of a weapon is ignoring the years it requires to produce any contemporary weapon system operator.

[Eviscerator]

so to sum up, i have fufilled the original requirments of showing that 3072 tech weapons are more powerful both in game and in a real energy level.

No you haven't. Not only do those calcs NOT include capital ship weapons, which would make up the vast majority of a warship's firepower, but as per your post the vast majority of those weapons have a firepower measured in millijoules and can thus safely be ignored.

Show WARSHIP weapons are.

I was doing that post in respects to painracks statment that "A Naval PPC or even an standard PPC in 2750, 3025 and 3072 has no fucking difference in terms of damage. " I have proven that availble tech in recent eras have differences in terms of damage because unlike then, we can employ other type of PPCs.

Alright then i will now SHOW that a WARSHIP weapon has more damage compared to 2750 levels. Specifically, Missiles
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Barracuda - 2 capital points damage, max range 31-40 hexes
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Killer_Whale - 4 capital points, 25 - 36 hexes
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/White_Shark - 3 capital , 25 - 36 hexes
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Kraken-T - 10 capital points of damage The entry further says "The largest capital missile in common use" and "a larger target hit by a Kraken will take severe damage from the massive warhead it carries."

I have gone over all existing capital ship details in detaild and Kraken-Ts are not present on any SLDF or Clantech warships. It only came into use around 3058 , and it is now present on Overlord-A3 and Excalibur Pocket warships. WHICH are NOT available in a 2750 timeline scenario.

[Eviscerator]

time. Your argument just now was that a janitor could operate the weapon just as well as a trained gunner.

[/quote]

We are talking about space fight. You point and shoot. Your weapons are either energy beam or propelled, but there is no real gravity effect.

Even if, the computer makes it so that the barrel is pointed at the right spot to hit - or du you think they aim with eyeball at multi-kilometer ranges? Then, the laser recharges or the new missile/grenade is put in - you just push the fire button again, since the targeting is done by the computer.
There is virtually no delay even by the most stupid operators. You could have Bob the janitor sitting there tipping on the screen to mark the target and then hit the shiny red button. Given reload times and even flight times of the projectiles, the difference is minuscule.

And you still keep ignoring that even at your much quoted battleship, the guys firing the gun don't even know what they are firing at. They load the gun and fire. The coordinates are set somewhere else. They don't know if they are firing at a frigate group or a battle cruiser. They know elevation this, heading this, press fire.[/quote]

My post has told you that the trained crew man has training. Which is to say, they know what to do in the event of targeting system failure/error, what happens if the missile/round misfires, and corrective action for such an occurence. What does the janitor do when the ammo feed jams? I have made the point repeatedly that crew competency counts for something on a military warship! Let me just give you some historical real life precedents for my statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire
To sum it up, the accidental discharge happened because normal pre-flight safety checks were abbreviated thus causing the discharge and accompanying fire, the older ordnance had a lower ignition point which exploded causing "killed the entire on-deck firefighting contingent, with the exception of three men who survived with critical injuries" Further damage control was done by other crew which "Due to the first bomb blast killing nearly all of the specially trained firefighters on the ship, the remaining crew, who had no formal firefighting training, had to improvise" In sum total the fire caused "134 crewmen dead and 161 more injured Many planes and armament were jettisoned to prevent them from catching fire or exploding. Twenty-one aircraft also sustained enough damage from fire, explosions and salt water to be stricken from naval inventory. Not to mention the withdrawal of the Carrier from the area for repairs , thus removing its air wing from the theater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sarato ... t_incident
Due to miscommunications, "Specifically, the Target Acquisition System operator issued the command "arm and tune", terminology the console operators understood to require arming of the missiles in preparation for actual firing. The officers supervising the drill did not realize that "arm and tune" signified a live firing." Which resulted in the firing of two live missiles at another vessel, which then caused "missiles struck Muavenet in the bridge, destroying it and the Combat Information Center, killing five, including the commanding officer, and injuring most of the Turkish ship's officers."

And to illustrate that a weapon system can and does fail in both wartime or peacetime with accompanying horrendous results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dart_missile
"unable to cope with low level targets as it suffered multiple path crossings and targets became lost in radar clutter from the surface of the South Atlantic, this resulted in Sea Dart being unable to lock onto targets at distance obscured by land, or fast-moving low-level targets " This may have been a factor in a loss of an UK Warship in the falklands war. Interestingly thre is a well known clip of an sea dart missile being fired and failing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IosXz9rN ... playnext=1 Thank goodness it was an drill missile, not a live one, and most of the missile went over the side. There's also footage of an torpedo not leaving the tube when fired
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MypSMspXMaE

There are also uncountable verifiable video clips of military accidents, but i'll confine them to these. Please remember these are footage of REAL accidents which in one case resulted in real loss of life. All of these happened because of pilot error /equipment or some other failure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex-oH7AzKvQ F-14 midair explosion, both pilots ejected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoHd5LePyVc CH-46 sea knight landing accident causing some deaths, further details here
http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Se ... C-1999.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFjmEM-vHXw SU-27 carrier landing accident, arresting wire failed resulting in total aircraft loss.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUpV8cSk ... re=related SU-27 flanker air show crash

If you really need some more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2wYvr20nAg&feature=fvw F-117 nighthawk's wing falls off during aerial maneuevers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZCp5h1gK2Q B-2 spirit crashes slightly after takeoff. Ouch.

[Eviscerator]

Valen the experience of the gunnery crew was irrelevant in WW1 because even back then the targeting was done ELSEWHERE AND using technology.
The guy firing the gun could be dumb blind and deaf and as long as he manages to find the FIRE button will achieve the exact same accuracy as a trained professional.

This is an example military aircraft cockpit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C-5M_Cockpit.jpg

This is an example of an modern tank interior, in this case an Leopard 2A4
http://www.43tankbataljon.nl/43-Tank-Bi ... zijde.html
Where are the autoloader controls? The gunner's sight? commander's sight? the shell selection buttons? The BIG red button marked "FIRE"? Even if he finds it how does he traverse the turret, know what shell to use for tank/infantry and punch the appropriate button? Firing an flechette round at a tank does not help your survival.

This is an example gun director, part of the FCS for a naval weapon system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mk51_Director.jpg

This is an bombsight
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lature.jpg

Here is an short list of US Field Manuals (which are downloadable as zip files containing PDFs)
http://www.stevespages.com/page7c.htm
Download any one of them and then tell me an average civilian with no training can know all this information? Riiiiiiiighhhhhht....

[PeZook]

By Lacroix's statements, all armies anywhere are total idiots for giving their SAM operators extensive training. After all, modern SAMs are mostly automated, so it's all just "mark the target and shoot", right? Any idiot could do it, and do it well.

There are many automated systems everywhere in both military and industry, and their operators invariably need at least some training to use them. Often much more than in the ye olden days, actually.

And it's not just about accuracy. Lacroix is right in that accuracy is mostly out of operator hands if the computer does the targetting, but effective firepower isn't. Even things like communications between crewmembers can have a tremendous impact on effective firepower, hence why it's all framed in rigid procedures and constantly drilled. Knowledge about different failure modes of the systems under your control can also mean the difference between death of your ship (or city) and total victory and is a major part of any training. Because things have a tendency to go, you know, bad in battle.

[LaCroix]

How do those accident have anything to do with the topic?

1. An electric malfunction fired a missile on the USS Forrestal. No crew training could have prevented that.
2. Uss Saratoge, in a manouver, someone ordered to use live ammunition, and they did. You may notice that that EXPERIENCED gun crew did fire that life ammo because they DIDN'T KNOW they were targeting a friendly ship, thus proving MY point.
3. A sea dart missile can misfire if it looses sight of the target. Duh! I'm shocked. Guess what, Sidewinders do that, too. But what does that have to do with crew training, does an experienced crew jump onto the missile and use a bridle to ride it manually into the target?
4. People steering manually controlled aircrafts fuck up sometimes. Also, this has noting to do with our topic.

Then you post some pictures of the manual controls of various stuff, which is something completely different, again.

The topic is: How does a more experienced crew increase the rate of fire on an fully automated (automatically loading and computer targeted) weapon? You didn't address that point even once in all your posts, and keep spouting that experience is important when you operate a device MANUALLY! Guess what - NO ONE DOUBTS THAT. But this is not the topic! Address the point or concede it, but stop running circles around it.

[LaCroix]

By Lacroix's statements, all armies anywhere are total idiots for giving their SAM operators extensive training. After all, modern SAMs are mostly automated, so it's all just "mark the target and shoot", right? Any idiot could do it, and do it well.

There are many automated systems everywhere in both military and industry, and their operators invariably need at least some training to use them. Often much more than in the ye olden days, actually.

And it's not just about accuracy. Lacroix is right in that accuracy is mostly out of operator hands if the computer does the targetting, but effective firepower isn't. Even things like communications between crewmembers can have a tremendous impact on effective firepower, hence why it's all framed in rigid procedures and constantly drilled. Knowledge about different failure modes of the systems under your control can also mean the difference between death of your ship (or city) and total victory and is a major part of any training. Because things have a tendency to go, you know, bad in battle.

That's correct, but Eviscerator claimed that an very experienced crew would vastly increase rate of fire over a normally trained crew. I used the 'Janitor' joke - which Eviscerator promptly used as a sign that I don't think you need any training at all - to say that even a poorly trained crew is not much slower in pressing a few buttons then an expert.

[PeZook]

That's correct, but Eviscerator claimed that an very experienced crew would vastly increase rate of fire over a normally trained crew. I used the 'Janitor' joke - which Eviscerator promptly used as a sign that I don't think you need any training at all - to say that even a poorly trained crew is not much slower in pressing a few buttons then an expert.

...oh. I must've missed that, sorry.

Crew experience mostly shows in things unrelated to the actual act of firing, that are nevertheless critically important in battle, though. It becomes more important as the battle goes on, and damage begins to cause system malfunctions, casualties, information shortages, etc - and experienced and/or well-trained crew will be able to keep their systems operational, their fire directed and effective, where an inexperienced or poorly trained one will disintegrate and effective firepower will diminish, either due to malfunctions or degrading fire direction, reaction time etc.

Naturally, those are all unquantifiable matters, hence why most vs. scenarios assume the crews are equally competent

[Eviscerator]

That's correct, but Eviscerator claimed that an very experienced crew would vastly increase rate of fire over a normally trained crew. I used the 'Janitor' joke - which Eviscerator promptly used as a sign that I don't think you need any training at all - to say that even a poorly trained crew is not much slower in pressing a few buttons then an expert.

Rate of fire DOES not equate to rounds hitting target. To put it into persepective, i hand you a machine gun and i tell you to put sustained fire on a target lets say 300 meters away. Sure the MG will operate at its stated Rounds Per Minute which lets say is 700. An untrained operator will not know the effects of recoil, of the effects gravity has on a bullet, how to correct an ammo belt jam, and how to change a barrel quickly so that you can sustain fire.

In reality holding down the trigger on a MG means you are putting a LOT of lead out the barrel but very little if any is hitting your intended targets. An trained MG gunner would know how to fire in controlled bursts, how to create a ""beaten zone" of fire to impact on the other side, how to change the barrel when the rifling is worn away (quickly!) and most importantly how to stop a MG that is "running away", which means the MG is firing when the trigger is not depressed.

Reference points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaten_zone
Video clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sFNXRvMbIg M60 firing until the barrel glows red hot
By the final stages of fire the weapon has sustained approximately 3 minutes of fire which at a RPM of 600/min means 1,800 rounds has gone through the barrel. The barrel's rifling has been worn away and the rounds fired near the end are NOT hitting the target. Oh, and that red hot barrel? Don't touch it with your bare hand.

[Eviscerator]

How do those accident have anything to do with the topic?

1. An electric malfunction fired a missile on the USS Forrestal. No crew training could have prevented that.
.

'

The wiki article does not expand on the incident investigation like an Discovery Channel documentary did. To elaborate, you know those big tags that have a large red label which have REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT written on it in capital letters? like this http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/RAT-ROD- ... arQ5fParts

The tag is there for a reason, it physically blocks the firing circuit. To further elaborate, when you pull the trigger in the plane, you are sending a signal to the weapon to fire. An further level of safety is that the plug that supplies power to the weapon is physically NOT put into the outlet until just before take off. The fuller story behind the incident is that pilots raised an objection that inserting the plugs into all the weapons would impede their take-off time, and higher command decided to allow the plugs to be inserted on the flight deck.

To further continue, the tags are big, and they catch the wind. tags have been found loosened or even on the deck entirely which means the physical barrier to block the circuit is gone. Since now the plug is inserted physically into the launcher, there is no barrier to prevent a signal being sent. Further investigation revealed that the missile was fired when the pilot F-4 that carried the launcher flicked a switch to switch the fighter to onboard power rather then recieving power from the carrier. The resultant energy surge sent an signal to the launcher which fired accordingly.

This error was further compounded because older bombs with a lower cook-off temperature had been loaded on the carrier. Which to say
"According to their training, the fire team normally had almost three minutes to reduce the temperature of the bombs to a safe level, but the chief did not realize the "Comp. B" bombs were already critically close to cooking-off until one split open."

The resultant explosion as i said, killed off the trained damage control crew on deck and further fire fighting was done by crew untrained in fire fighting. Which to quote "On the one hand there were damage control teams spraying foam on the deck to contain the flames, which was the correct procedure, while on the other hand crewmen on the other side of the deck sprayed seawater, washing away the foam and worsening the situation by washing burning fuel through the hole in the flight deck into the decks below; burning fuel is not easily extinguished and can in fact be spread by water"

In response the USN intiated a program which resulted in "it is said that every US Navy sailor is a firefighter first. A large portion of basic training is dedicated to firefighting and prevention tactics. Though there were many firefighting tools available on the Forrestal, including emergency respirators, the general crew were not trained in their use and failed to use them correctly"

[Eviscerator]

How do those accident have anything to do with the topic?

2. Uss Saratoge, in a manouver, someone ordered to use live ammunition, and they did. You may notice that that EXPERIENCED gun crew did fire that life ammo because they DIDN'T KNOW they were targeting a friendly ship, thus proving MY point.
3. A sea dart missile can misfire if it looses sight of the target. Duh! I'm shocked. Guess what, Sidewinders do that, too. But what does that have to do with crew training, does an experienced crew jump onto the missile and use a bridle to ride it manually into the target?
4. People steering manually controlled aircrafts fuck up sometimes. Also, this has noting to do with our topic.

Then you post some pictures of the manual controls of various stuff, which is something completely different, again.
it.

point 2: On 2 October 1992 the Combat Direction Center Officer aboard Saratoga decided to launch a simulated attack on nearby opposition forces utilizing the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile system. After securing the approval of Saratoga's Commanding Officer and the Battle Group Commander, Rear Admiral Philip Dur, the Combat Direction Center Officer implemented the simulated assault plan. Without providing prior notice, officers on Saratoga woke the enlisted Sea Sparrow missile team and directed them to conduct the simulated attack. Certain members of the missile firing team were not told that the exercise was a drill, rather than an actual event.

As the drill progressed, the missile system operator used language to indicate he was preparing to fire a live missile, but due to the absence of standard terminology, the responsible officers failed to appreciate the significance of the terms used and the requests made. Specifically, the Target Acquisition System operator issued the command "arm and tune", terminology the console operators understood to require arming of the missiles in preparation for actual firing. The officers supervising the drill did not realize that "arm and tune" signified a live firing.

Point 3: The sea dart as i shown , and the video has subtitles which explain what is going on and the description also says: Contrary to what you might think, the boost motor worked just fine. You can see it clearly working and burning exactly as it is supposed to, right there on the port waist. What failed was either the accelerometer system or the exloding bolts which it operates.

Point 4: Today a whole lot of aircraft are computer controlled in part and manual inputs may be countered by the computer. Which is shown in the B2 crash footage and expanded on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersen_A ... 2_accident Which resulted in "The findings of the subsequent investigation stated that the B-2 crashed after "heavy, lashing rains" caused water to enter skin-flush air-data sensors, which feed angle of attack and yaw data to the computerized flight-control system. The water distorted preflight readings in three of the plane's 24 sensors, causing the flight-control system to send an erroneous correction to the B-2 on takeoff. The B-2 quickly stalled, became unrecoverable, and subsequently crashed"

My showing an example of the complexity of an modern military units controls are intended to push home the point that an untrained person will not know what to do or how to operate the equipment. So by simply looking at the pictures of an tank's interior, can u answer this questions "Where are the autoloader controls? The gunner's sight? commander's sight? the shell selection buttons? The BIG red button marked "FIRE"? ." And even if you do know the locations, can you operate all of them in quick enough time to re-target and hit another tank before it hits you? There is a reason why tanks have around 4 crew: commander, driver, loader, gunner.

Oh and there is no Big Red Button with FIRE clearly marked on it. There is a trigger but even if you operate it, the rest of the operations involved with operating the tan do not happen automatically.