Space combat?

LOL
@AlexT:Anway, what I said still stands. I believe for particle or plasma weapons you will spend more energy, because you have to store them and then bring them to the proper state you need and then accellerate them. Also the higher the temperature the lesser the range because of higher gas velocity. What will be successful will be some cold matter cannon or soild matter cannon. As for particle weapons...that's the worst because it needs at least one immediate 'thing' to create the particles you want. Usually this means you shoot something against some plate from which the particles are created etc.

@spoor:So you want to discuss designs, right? But to understand why something has to be done like it is you have to understand the cause and effects of the designs. So you can't skip the detailed trailing off discussions. That's why I said weapon's freak actually know nothing.
So

I liked this one https://i.servimg.com/u/f60/13/80/95/88/hms_dr11.png
The layout of turrets seem interesting - each of 3 frontal guns cover certain angle + space for additional turrent on top. But it must look different than ship, it must be some unique design that will say "i'm not a ship, i'm a gun platform" So far i have triangular shape mind...but more complex to ensure optimal coverage of all guns.
Medium caliber comes first...about 6 guns tops at nose...and behind them is largest caliber - 1 gun on top and 1 at bottom. If there's too many guns it will not look very good...
But it still looks like a ship. We need fresh ideas here - something totaly different from ships.

Well, triangular is the basic in 3D space but you can't have it complex and have all guns available. You don't gain more 'use' efficiency by having more complexity or guns. There is a limit to efficiency here. Which ranges between 100% and 66%.
Of course there is a way to increase that to 100% all the time, but with the tech we are talking....

actually, the design of HMS Dreadnought was/is the least effective design for the style of combat for which it was envisioned. All of the battleships whose pictures were shown were designed with broadside battle in mind (aka take two roughly parallel courses and duke it out). Best case scenario is capping the enemy battle-line's T (aka your broadside is exposed to them, while their bows are exposed to you). With HMS Dreadnought's design, regardless of which broadside the enemy is approaching, you will always have 1 turret inactive. In an unrelated note (as seakeeping isnt a huge issue in space), Dreadnought's design was very wet because of its low freeboard and lack of a clipper bow (the pictures of North Carolina and Bismarck have a upward curving bow, this is called a clipper bow, and helps keep the ship design dry). Another reason why it is inefficent is that the armor of Dreadnought had to be spread out to guard all the individual turret loading ports (the big essentially empty cylinders under the turrets from which the shells are loaded), instead of being consolidated in stacked turrets like the Bismarck's armor was.

As for a space battleship, honestly, i would have to say that the best design (from an armor efficency and ammo storage/accessibility/protection standpoint) would be a turret layout more akin to North Carolina's, aka stacked triple mounts on both top and bottom, with a single triple mount on either side, and MAYBE one on both top and bottom aft. Without the necessity to incorporate a clipper bow into the design, that allows 18 guns to fire forwards, with a broadside of (if the aft turrets are included) 18 as well. As Almael said, efficency isn't always about the guns, but with the correct turret and armor layout, you could feasibly pack a relatively large amount of variable angle firepower into a centralized and easily armored warship.

Although i know very little about sci-fi or spaceship design, the arrangement of 2 fore and 1 aft triple turret became the standard layout of WW2 era "superbattleships" (Yamato, Musashi, and the Iowa class), and i dont see why this would change in space

Yes, but the first shot is always the most important one and as you said T attack is the best there is. Dreadnough can deliver higher first front attack and then run through her broadside with equal number of cannons despite one turret less.

Edit: @schwenk: this is what you meant, right?

In that case this is something my 9 year old self came up with.

Top turret and any number of lower turrets which can traverse the whole ring. 100% coverage.

I think somebody needs to decide if platform is intended to fight as kind of artilery or it may find itself in the middle of a fight from time to time. I though about artilery most of the time - the one that stays behind the fleet and provide heavy support.

A small offtopic...
Not long ago i've seen a strange french millitary ship which class i could not recognize (i'm not very good with ships). It was medium sized i'd say but big enough to host a helicopter.
It had unusual design - very strict lines, very futuristic - it wasn't anything like most of the modern ships - with massive monolithic superstructure on top of it. Looked like F117 type of ship, probably missile light cruiser?
Here's the closest thing i found, but the one i've seen was a lot (and i mean lot) more futuristic http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/4633/medium/Formidable2.jpg
Since no weapons or anything could be seen - i failed to determine it's purpose, but it looks surprised me so maybe you ship experts know more? I can try to draw it, unfortunately i din't take the picture.
Anyway - i can easily imagine that ship flying in space

I think you are mistaken. France has been building stealth ships for the last 15-20 years but I haven't heard of such a design.
I think you meant the british or the US copy of which.



or this unknown "Type" series class ship

The class I am talking about was intended to actually be in the thick of things like Patrol ships, but only there to inflict what I'd like to call "spike damage" which would be to instantly severely damage or destroy a particular target before moving on. These ships can brawl just as well (if not then perhaps just slightly better) than their patrol counterparts.

Yea, this one looks like it...stilll different though, but kinda close.

Here, these are the ones i saw quite often. I know these are "LaFayette" stealth ships.
(smaller one )
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pGOnGM04xgk/SQe12Dhi7yI/AAAAAAAADCg/EwliTI5ir7k/s1600-h/FS-Courbet-(F-712).jpg

And what about this one?
https://media.photobucket.com/image/france%20stealth%20ship/Wyrmshadow3/Civstuff/ArsenalShip/Big.png

spoor356 wrote:The class I am talking about was intended to actually
be in the thick of things like Patrol ships, but only there to inflict
what I'd like to call "spike damage" which would be to instantly
severely damage or destroy a particular target before moving on. These
ships can brawl just as well (if not then perhaps just slightly better)
than their patrol counterparts.

So something like the USS Defiant but with more stamina or battle endurance?
Basicly a torpedo boat attack combined with a gunboat resourcefulness...Well that's the Roil class or beefed-up as the Caubh class or closer would be the UMK assault ships with their 4 fusion missiles.

AlexT wrote:Yea, this one looks like it...stilll different though, but kinda close.
And what about this one?
https://media.photobucket.com/image/france%20stealth%20ship/Wyrmshadow3/Civstuff/ArsenalShip/Big.png

This is the future SC-21 cruiser, there is also the DD-21destroyer both are US.
Basictly the navy changes from normal ship design to massive missile ship design....our Abh/UMK mine firing behemots. So instead of firing 40 at once with 2xx in reserve they fire about 100 at once with xxx in reserve.
Both now have some (politian?) name but I don't track much military stuff, just notice them when they come up/by. lol

something like that? sorry for the gargantuan picture, but thats a REALLY rough sketch of what id imagine. sadly its impossible to impart any form of grace into a picture with a nipple mouse, but i got the turret layout across, which is what matters

NOTE: concentration of fire, assuming 3 gun turrets, would be as follows
18x forward
12x aftward
6x up or down
18x broadside

Looks sound to me except:
you got 12x up

and MS paint isn't bad it's still the most used graphic program I'm using. If only it had layers and can do vectors, that would be perfect. For any work except vector I would rather use it than Corel Draw or worst photoshop/illustrator. I admit MS paint from XP on got bad. Win95/98 has best MS Paint.

I really appreciate the effort, I think the picture is better than what I may have thought of.

Then again I was thinking there would be 18 fore and aft so that no matter which side is attacked (at least for patrol craft) you're always facing the same amount of fire power. As for the starboard and port turrets, they can say. Granted three guns bring up the problem Almael continued to mention to me earlier and that was ammo consumption (which is partly why I envisioned twin gun turrets).

I think the drawing is a bit too large as I can only pick up the side view and not of the bridge or anything else.Could you please post the bridge view separately if you can?

@mitsuki: There is an easy trick to this. Right click and select 'view image' the browser should resize for you for an overall view or you can magnify and scroll.

Yea, and also, my idea of what the "bridge" should look like was based more on where i had a gap in the armament, as opposed to any overarching ship design philosophy (save centralization of command). The shape i drew is merely what i imagine a vaguely futuristic capital ship bridge would look like. Oh, and all the blank areas on the ship could easily be used for point anti mine defense or w/e. feel free to change the design, i was just getting at the central armament and armor layout

Oh, and Almael, i dont see the 12x up? Unless the turrets were built with almost 90 degree elevation in mind, all i can see for turrets aiming straight up would be the two side turrets. If I'm incorrect, then sweet, even better firepower projection

Hello there,

Once again though I do kind of wish that there would be an even balance, 18 fore and aft. Presumably a mirror design with the aft section possessing as much fire power as the bow would be not a bad idea.

I wish I could have helped com up with something like that, but perhaps I'll try something sooner or later. .. Thanks for the sketch though ^_^

Here is my amateurish design for the ship with equal turrets fore and
aft. I'm not sure how that will be used, but for now . . .consider it a
template.

Heh, i tried to do something of my own, but somehow it always end up more Abh style than UMK, but anyway - i alwyas believed that pyramid type form is the best, but i mostly had the fun with this 2 minue drawing
The aft guns can rotate 360 degrees so they can fire in almost any direction and all guns have pretty good coverage imo...there's 10 of them - the ones in the middle are highest "caliber".
And the guy in the corner is probably our admiral Almael, criticizeing

I hear the Cylon basestar has a good design based on the arm positions versus the core.

Spoor-
The only reason i didn't include all-round equal coverage is one of tactics. Unless something is wrong, a battleship should never have its stern facing towards the enemy, because there is less armor, and because (especially in the case of space battleships), the propulsion systems are exposed. However, i understand where you're coming from, and if thats what people wanna work with, then why argue?

@Alext: thanks for the portrait.

JGZinv wrote:I hear the Cylon basestar has a good design based on the arm positions versus the core.

I think that is refered to increased surface and hence more weapons mount. In any case, this means a very high weapons mass ratio to anything else so this is not always applyable if the other tech are not up to it.

Lt. Schwenkdawg wrote:Spoor-
The only reason i didn't include all-round equal coverage is one of tactics. Unless something is wrong, a battleship should never have its stern facing towards the enemy, because there is less armor, and because (especially in the case of space battleships), the propulsion systems are exposed. However, i understand where you're coming from, and if thats what people wanna work with, then why argue?

Propulsion exhaust can be used as a weapon, although, the opposition has to be stupid to be directly behind you on your axis. The most simple reason is you don't want to fly through the debris field of the enemy ship.

I guess it's no good

Anywyay - i see that there's no reason to call this thing gun platrofm - it's basically just a big ship with lots of guns. I still think that the best idea for gun platform is to be long range artilery type ship that uses it's range and powerful guns to deal with larger ships of the enemy at range - it doesn't want to be in the middle of battle. And if it's more like flying fortress then it's design must be realy different from the ship....

But anyway - i'll just wait till you guys decide on something and draw it well.

Hello there Alext,

The vessel you speak of I do have in mind. It is not a fortress per-se, but it is a heavy long range capable vessel, able to fire from a distance. I wanted to call it a so-called "Sniper Vessel" In which if could have one exceptionally large weapon capable of bombarding areas as you would like or to precisely deliver ordinance on specific targets.

I would say that this is just one huge cannon ship or something with a range that may even exceed mine/torpedo range. Granted that idea I've not thought of or worked on remotely as long as my large battleship idea.

Then again this may be in the vein of things that are bad ideas for me. This battleship I thought of, for my story would become unique to the United Mankind due to their history. They would develop it for the purpose that in the even all mines or spent, they would have a brawling advantage . . but more on that when I actually write the story.

What you're looking for vocabulary wise... is "seige ship" or something akin to the German Big Bertha rail based cannon.