WW1

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7370
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: WW1

Postby Condottiere » Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:07 am

I first came across the concept when reading Triplanetary, Smith's idea was the cone, which allowed a rather heavy concentration of fire power at one point. Some later writer evolved it to something like a stepped ladder, which unlike the Honorverse wall advanced rather than tried to parallel.

I look at the concept as more Nelsonian, in that you split into two columns at a slight diagonal, in which the rear guns can also be brought to bear, both closing the range, minimizing the ship's profile and maximizing fire power, with the intent of preventing the enemy of disengaging, and making a run for it.

This assumes you catch the enemy in column.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: WW1

Postby phavoc » Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:16 pm

Crossing the 'T' had advantages, and disadvantages. If you are at top of the 'T' you are able to bring the majority of your guns to bear on the enemy, but you also present your entire broadside to be hit and you make yourself more vulnerable to torpedo spreads.

If you are at the bottom of the 'T' you can only bring your forward guns to bear, and no torpedoes (unless you are the Starblazers Yamato, in which case you have forward missile launchers). But you also present a smaller target since you are head-on towards the enemy.

The naval literature seems to favor being at the top of the 'T' and hope that your gunners were good enough to lay their shells on to the enemy targets while only being exposed to perhaps half of their weapons.

Like with everything else, there are pro's and con's.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests