capturing airplanes? and airlifting arty

[Sir_Lancelot]

Of course it's possible to capture ships, even the modern ones. Have you never seen when a helicopter comes and throughs down a rope so the troops can capture the ship? what happens is this...

1. Helicopter loads troops.
2. Helicopter lifts off (Maybe from an aircraft carrier, or from coastal land).
3. Helicopter releseas rope onto enemy ship.
4. Troops go down rope (although, the rope may pull them down automatically instead of them sliding.)
5. Troops come abourd and kill the crew in the ship.
6. If that isn't enough, more troops come from the helicopter and repeat the above steps.

This works against civil ships, not very realistic against military ships.
Sometimes it even does not work against civilian ships either... Arrested trawler kidnapping coastguard. But I assume the officers boarding the trawler did not carry much weapons, if any at all.

 

[Aceman101]

No, I don't give up. I find these debates very entertaining as well as mentally stimulating.

I've realized that!

Point the First: a unit of soldiers told to guard the fleet in the harbor will do just that. It is not unheard of for the crew of the ship to arm themselves and defend their ship by hand either. Assuming the garrison is completely overwhelmed, the ship will attempt to escape - just because it's docked, as you said, doesn't mean it can't up anchor and move out.

If troops suddenly come out of the bushes and have guns, (I'm not talking about 10 troops, I'm talking 100's) I think no one would want to come out and get shot in an attempt to winch the anchor. I think what would happen is the troops come out first to attmept to kill the attackers, then if the attacking troops are too overwhelming the sailors will attempt to scuttle the ship but they wouldn't have enough time because the land troops will already be climbing on killing the people. And why would they winch the anchor if their purpose is to defend the area anyway?

For the ship to be captured, the garrison and crew must be overcome so thoroughly and swiftly that there is no time to escape or scuttle the ship. This is difficult not only in the physical reality of performing such a feat in such a short time (that is, actually being able to kill everyone that quickly), but also that the crew of the ship will almost certainly have had advanced warning and will be prepared to either escape or blow up the ship.

Fair point, however if the ship was surrounded with other ships and troops there would be a high chance of surrender because they would know they are going to be beaten anyway and there's no point in fighting. However, if they are deeply engaged in battle and are hated enemies, then they probably wouldn't surrender. But if it's a swift attack then it is possible to capture the ship, but very difficult. That is, if there isn't any warning.

Point the Second: Helicopter capturing ship... not bloody likely. Sorry, again, while theoretically possible, there are a host of real problems with it. As said, the sea would have to be extremely calm to allow such a stunt.

Well if the engines are down then that might not be a problem. I mean that because if a few Bombers from the carrier bomb the top of the ship (making sure the ship still floats) then that would blow up all the machinery which controls the engines and the engines would halt.

Second, what happened to the ship's radar?

The bomber also blew that up, as well as the ships captain . Remember this was a swift bomb that was unpredictable. I know the radar would detect the bomber but a few ships bombarding the windows inside the ship (Again, making sure it still floats) would do a good job distracting the troops. And if the bomber goes down low then it would have almost 100% chance of bombing the roof of the ship making it still floatable.

Third, even by eye the AA gunners should have had a field day shooting down an incomming heli. Fourth, how many men does a helicopter carry? In large captial ships, there are usually more than a thousand crewmen. Even if only one out of 50 had a weapon, that still makes 20 crewmen with weapons, and around a thousand who can simply rush attackers all at once and overwhelm them before they can all be shot. But then, the heli has a 1 in 10000 chance of escaping detection, not getting shot down, and actually landing men on the deck, to say nothing of the odds of the attackers actually succeeding.

I didn't say just 1 but about 20 helis coming in. If the carrier is big enough it can carry a lot of plains and helicopters, remember the BB's come in first and start bombarding the windows to kill some troops inside. While the troops are distracted the bomber flies in and comes down low, shoots a massive hole in the roof and a few more bombers come and shoot more holes the troops are now 100% confused as to what is going on because first a few BB's come in and start bombarding and then bombers come and shoot massive holes in the rroof and kill about half the crew and all the equipment in the ship. While the troops are confused a heli comes in and troops jump out (The heli flies down really low) and kill some troops aboard, while troops are occupied killing the troops landed in from the heli's and shooting the BB's more helis come in and more troops come in and start shooting everyone. The enemy is outnumbered and the attackers have now killed all the crew on board and have captured this brand new ship with no roof, blood everywere, dead bodies, engine failure, no equipment and no side (It's basically just a floating piece of metal) . Now how was that?

Well now, Interesting, eh?

I await your inevitable retort.

This is probably the most inevitable retort .

This works against civil ships, not very realistic against military ships.
Sometimes it even does not work against civilian ships either... Arrested trawler kidnapping coastguard. But I assume the officers boarding the trawler did not carry much weapons, if any at all.

Look above^ .

 

[psweetman1590]

If troops suddenly come out of the bushes and have guns, (I'm not talking about 10 troops, I'm talking 100's) I think no one would want to come out and get shot in an attempt to winch the anchor. I think what would happen is the troops come out first to attmept to kill the attackers, then if the attacking troops are too overwhelming the sailors will attempt to scuttle the ship but they wouldn't have enough time because the land troops will already be climbing on killing the people. And why would they winch the anchor if their purpose is to defend the area anyway?

In modern ships the anchor can be lowered and raised from the protection of the control room/bridge.

Ships do not dock in harbor to defend the area. If they wanted to defend the area they would be a mile off shore blasting the enemy.

You're still assuming that the troops would be able to surprise and overwhelm both the defending army guarding the harbor and the crew itself. Chances are highly against that given a decently trained, led, and inspired group of defenders. Battles take time, it's not like in the movies. It could take a day or more to clear the harbor, let alone get to the ships. This is plenty of time for escape or to scuttle the ship. With warning and preparation, I don't think (don't really know exactly, but an educated guess) that it wouldn't take more than an hour to sink the ship in harbor.

Fair point, however if the ship was surrounded with other ships and troops there would be a high chance of surrender because they would know they are going to be beaten anyway and there's no point in fighting. However, if they are deeply engaged in battle and are hated enemies, then they probably wouldn't surrender. But if it's a swift attack then it is possible to capture the ship, but very difficult. That is, if there isn't any warning.

Here now, you keep introducing new variables into the problem. Who said there's ships outside the harbor preventing the escape? Anyhow, if escape is out, the crew would scuttle the ship, then surrender. I can't imagine how utterly hopeless a crew would have to be to turn over their ship intact when given the option of sinking it first.

Well if the engines are down then that might not be a problem. I mean that because if a few Bombers from the carrier bomb the top of the ship (making sure the ship still floats) then that would blow up all the machinery which controls the engines and the engines would halt.

Yet again you change the circumstances.... but I don't mind because this is quite easy to reject...

First, killing the engines has nothing to do with how calm the sea is.
Second, the engines are located deep inside the ship. On a smaller ship, using enough bombs to kill the engine would likely sink the ship. On larger ships, destroying the engine by airborne bombing is nearly impossible.
Third, airborne bombing is not that accurate.
Fourth, gee, that ship will be VERY valuable after you blow up the engines and all the other machinery.... I bet you'll be able to use it within two years. (NOT). This is a good example of, How Not to Capture a Ship.

The bomber also blew that up, as well as the ships captain . Remember this was a swift bomb that was unpredictable. I know the radar would detect the bomber but a few ships bombarding the windows inside the ship (Again, making sure it still floats) would do a good job distracting the troops. And if the bomber goes down low then it would have almost 100% chance of bombing the roof of the ship making it still floatable.

What is "swift bombing"? Nothing is unpredictable with radar, unless you're using stealth aircraft.

"Bombarding the windows"? Do you know how impossible this is? Battleships often engaged in duels lasting days without hitting each other with any sort of consistency, and you think they're accurate enough to bombard the WINDOWS? Also, just what was this crew doing while they were being surrounded, playing checkers? Anyone can capture a ship that's manned by idiots. I was assuming that the ship was actually manned by, you know, actual navy personnel. Silly me.

And that bombardment would also ruin the ship.

Hey, are you trying to actually capture a useable peice of hardware, or are you just going to capture a smoking peice of metal and look all proud and say "yeah, look, you CAN capture ships!"?

(I didn't mean for that to come off as mean in any way. Just trying to point out the fallacies in your reasoning.)

I didn't say just 1 but about 20 helis coming in. If the carrier is big enough it can carry a lot of plains and helicopters, remember the BB's come in first and start bombarding the windows to kill some troops inside. While the troops are distracted the bomber flies in and comes down low, shoots a massive hole in the roof and a few more bombers come and shoot more holes the troops are now 100% confused as to what is going on because first a few BB's come in and start bombarding and then bombers come and shoot massive holes in the rroof and kill about half the crew and all the equipment in the ship. While the troops are confused a heli comes in and troops jump out (The heli flies down really low) and kill some troops aboard, while troops are occupied killing the troops landed in from the heli's and shooting the BB's more helis come in and more troops come in and start shooting everyone. The enemy is outnumbered and the attackers have now killed all the crew on board and have captured this brand new ship with no roof, blood everywere, dead bodies, engine failure, no equipment and no side (It's basically just a floating piece of metal) . Now how was that?

Looks like I didn't need to say that bit above then, you recognize your own shortcomings.

So, I have to ask....

How many carriers are there that carry 20 helo's that are meant for manned assualt (anti-sub helo's don't count)?

What was the ships crew doing while being surrounded by BB's?

How much time elapses between the first airstrike and the final success by these 20 helo's of marines? Don't you think that it would tend to be more than enough time to rig some explosives in the belly of the ship and open all the valves?

This entire argument is in the context of capturing ships in civ. If all you ended up capturing was.....

this brand new ship with no roof, blood everywere, dead bodies, engine failure, no equipment and no side (It's basically just a floating piece of metal)

.... then how does this translate into civ terms? It's not really a destroyer, BB or carrier anymore is it?

If you can answer those questions satisfactorily, I'll admit defeat. As it is, the holes in your explanations are large enough to sail Nimitz class CVN through.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

Aceman, you can always change the circumstances to fit any improbable theory. But it doesn't make it realistic. I think you lose this one.

 

[Taras Bulba]

You don't keep/enslave pikemen/archers/cavalry etc you defeat on the battlefield though. Why should you keep planes and ships...

because unless it is a dogfight and/or sea fight (called anything special?) those units just sat there in the harbor or airfield/airport.....

as for land military units, those units must be killed to take the city.... once taken, those air and sea units just sit there, thusly, why would they be destroyed? I agree that air and sea units should be capturable

but isn't the only way to make units capturable to give them 0 defense? that would mean that every time a unit attacked your sea unit on the sea it would be taken, and air superity would be useless because it would have no defense to intercept other air units.... that is why you couldn't make them capturable


As for units leaving harbors or airports before the city is taken.... yes, in real life they could do this, but lets face it, in civilization, in reality, you take the city in minutes, when the war ends up lasting like 100 years.... haha

 

[psweetman1590]

air superity would be useless because it would have no defense to intercept other air units.... that is why you couldn't make them capturable

Actually, when a fighter intercepts your bomber, it is the fighter's attack that is applied against the bomber's defense. Thus, you could set fighter's defense to 0 and that would make them capturable.... but it would mean that you couldn't send out your fighters on bombing missions to kill the enemy's air-superiority fighters either.

 

[Taras Bulba]

Actually, when a fighter intercepts your bomber, it is the fighter's attack that is applied against the bomber's defense. Thus, you could set fighter's defense to 0 and that would make them capturable.... but it would mean that you couldn't send out your fighters on bombing missions to kill the enemy's air-superiority fighters either.

i knew it had something to do with air missions of some sort but all i know is that it is fine the way it is, and im just gunna leave it before i mess up my computer

 

[Aceman101]

In modern ships the anchor can be lowered and raised from the protection of the control room/bridge.

Ok then that's new.

Ships do not dock in harbor to defend the area. If they wanted to defend the area they would be a mile off shore blasting the enemy.

Guns like the sniper have enough firepower to shoot boats a mile off sea. I know this will cause sinkage. But since you can zoom in you can pretty accurately shoot the people in the boat. And if they scuttle the ship then they all die because they'll drown. So they would have to first jump out of the water (Who knows there could be sharks???) and then swim to shore while snipers are killing them off. So if there was enough snipers then most of the crew would die before the get to shore. And their gunners would be outnumbered because the attacking force is massive.

You're still assuming that the troops would be able to surprise and overwhelm both the defending army guarding the harbor and the crew itself. Chances are highly against that given a decently trained, led, and inspired group of defenders. Battles take time, it's not like in the movies. It could take a day or more to clear the harbor, let alone get to the ships. This is plenty of time for escape or to scuttle the ship. With warning and preparation, I don't think (don't really know exactly, but an educated guess) that it wouldn't take more than an hour to sink the ship in harbor.

since you said this..

Ships do not dock in harbor to defend the area. If they wanted to defend the area they would be a mile off shore blasting the enemy.

The situation is now altered . I already answered this above on reply one ^ .

Here now, you keep introducing new variables into the problem. Who said there's ships outside the harbor preventing the escape? Anyhow, if escape is out, the crew would scuttle the ship, then surrender. I can't imagine how utterly hopeless a crew would have to be to turn over their ship intact when given the option of sinking it first.

Ok I stayed up a bit late last night and i didn't exactly say a smart answer, but I thought it was funny, anyway...

Again look above, on reply 1.

Yet again you change the circumstances.... but I don't mind because this is quite easy to reject...

Ok I do admit I changed the circumstances a little tiny bit .

First, killing the engines has nothing to do with how calm the sea is.

Ok, Ok. But let's just say were not in the middle of an ocean. Just a mile off coast and the seas are calm.

Second, the engines are located deep inside the ship. On a smaller ship, using enough bombs to kill the engine would likely sink the ship. On larger ships, destroying the engine by airborne bombing is nearly impossible.

umm well urr I can umm explain that... well... Ok Ok. Bombing won't help. But lets say it was just bombed with tiny bombs that just made a hole in the roof. Nothing more. The hole will help the troops to jump in from the heli. The heli will come down really low.

Third, airborne bombing is not that accurate.
Fourth, gee, that ship will be VERY valuable after you blow up the engines and all the other machinery.... I bet you'll be able to use it within two years. (NOT). This is a good example of, How Not to Capture a Ship.

Look above ^. But a piece of metal will sell for about $20 right. That's a profit .

What is "swift bombing"? Nothing is unpredictable with radar, unless you're using stealth aircraft.

I just said "Swift Bombing" because swift means speedy. Umm, did I mention I'm using stealth bombers?

"Bombarding the windows"? Do you know how impossible this is? Battleships often engaged in duels lasting days without hitting each other with any sort of consistency, and you think they're accurate enough to bombard the WINDOWS?

Well if you say they can blow their artillery miles away then they should be able to bombard the windows from close up.

Ships do not dock in harbor to defend the area. If they wanted to defend the area they would be a mile off shore blasting the enemy.

Also, just what was this crew doing while they were being surrounded, playing checkers? Anyone can capture a ship that's manned by idiots. I was assuming that the ship was actually manned by, you know, actual navy personnel. Silly me.

Hey, your calling my troops idiots??? . You think they'd be idiots if they can successfully navigate BB's. If I chose to employ idiots I'd use them on land as all they do is shoot.

And that bombardment would also ruin the ship.

But if it only punctured a few holes in the side of the ship it wouldn't cost too much to repair.

Hey, are you trying to actually capture a useable peice of hardware, or are you just going to capture a smoking peice of metal and look all proud and say "yeah, look, you CAN capture ships!"?

I made the scenerio not so bad anymore...


"Bombing won't help. But lets say it was just bombed with tiny bombs that just made a hole in the roof. Nothing more. The hole will help the troops to jump in from the heli. The heli will come down really low."

And the BB's are only going to pierce a few holes.

(I didn't mean for that to come off as mean in any way. Just trying to point out the fallacies in your reasoning.)

No, I thought it was funny .

So, I have to ask....

How many carriers are there that carry 20 helo's that are meant for manned assualt (anti-sub helo's don't count)?

There are massive carriers out there, enough to carry 20 helicopters and a few small bombers.

What was the ships crew doing while being surrounded by BB's?

Trying to gun off the stealth bomber that was a suprise attack because it didn't show on the radar, (As with all stealth aircraft) The crew saw the BB's coming on the radar and attacked but there were like 5 BB's and the ship was outgunned. One or two BB's were destroyed but the rest kept bombarding the sides of the ship (Again, making sure it doesn't sink).

How much time elapses between the first airstrike and the final success by these 20 helo's of marines? Don't you think that it would tend to be more than enough time to rig some explosives in the belly of the ship and open all the valves?

Well the troops in the helis are about 1 kilometre behind the bomber (Making sure the explosion isn't in range of the helis). And it only takes a few tens of seconds for a heli to fly 1 kilometre.

This entire argument is in the context of capturing ships in civ. If all you ended up capturing was..... .... then how does this translate into civ terms? It's not really a destroyer, BB or carrier anymore is it?

This is a little non-civish. It's more of a real life thing.

If you can answer those questions satisfactorily, I'll admit defeat. As it is, the holes in your explanations are large enough to sail Nimitz class CVN through.

I think I came up with more "logical" answeres today.

Aceman, you can always change the circumstances to fit any improbable theory. But it doesn't make it realistic. I think you lose this one.

I didn't think of it as serious, I thought this was just a bit of fun.

 

[Sashie VII]

You guys are really getting creative

Anyone wanna bet how many pages this would go on?

 

[Aceman101]

^ I better not guess .

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

Amazing how much energy you put into coming up with creative ideas explaining how something almost impossible could happen. Isn't this about realism?



Edit,

I just noticed this:

I didn't think of it as serious, I thought this was just a bit of fun.

OK, your goal is to discuss, not to prove something. I misunderstood.

 

[psweetman1590]

Oh boy! This IS gonna be fun!

Guns like the sniper have enough firepower to shoot boats a mile off sea. I know this will cause sinkage. But since you can zoom in you can pretty accurately shoot the people in the boat. And if they scuttle the ship then they all die because they'll drown. So they would have to first jump out of the water (Who knows there could be sharks???) and then swim to shore while snipers are killing them off. So if there was enough snipers then most of the crew would die before the get to shore. And their gunners would be outnumbered because the attacking force is massive.

First: most positions on modern boats are on the interior of some sort of armor... Snipers wouldn't be able to kill very many at all.

Second: the crew would not all drown when the ship was scuttled. Have you ever heard of a liferaft? Not to mention the fact that it's rather silly to assume that a sailor can't swim well.

Third: most civilized countries would rather take the sailors prisoner than simply shoot them in the water.

Fourth: who, exactly, is outnumbering the gunners on the ship? The snipers? I'd rather have a 15 inch cannon than a wimpy springfield myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psweetman1590
You're still assuming that the troops would be able to surprise and overwhelm both the defending army guarding the harbor and the crew itself. Chances are highly against that given a decently trained, led, and inspired group of defenders. Battles take time, it's not like in the movies. It could take a day or more to clear the harbor, let alone get to the ships. This is plenty of time for escape or to scuttle the ship. With warning and preparation, I don't think (don't really know exactly, but an educated guess) that it wouldn't take more than an hour to sink the ship in harbor.

since you said this..

Quote:
Originally Posted by psweetman1590
Ships do not dock in harbor to defend the area. If they wanted to defend the area they would be a mile off shore blasting the enemy.

The situation is now altered . I already answered this above on reply one ^ .

Well, which situation are you arguing for? Is the ship in the dock, or is it off the coast? Pick one and stick with it!

But let's just say were not in the middle of an ocean. Just a mile off coast and the seas are calm.

Ok, got it.

umm well urr I can umm explain that... well... Ok Ok. Bombing won't help. But lets say it was just bombed with tiny bombs that just made a hole in the roof. Nothing more. The hole will help the troops to jump in from the heli. The heli will come down really low.

What's the point of bombing it at all, then? Your original purpose was to kill the engine. Now that you admit it's impossible, why bother bombing at all? That hole will not help the heli or the people aboard it.

I just said "Swift Bombing" because swift means speedy. Umm, did I mention I'm using stealth bombers?

No, you didn't...... grrrrrr.....

Look above ^. But a piece of metal will sell for about $20 right. That's a profit

Which is worth, as far as I can tell, about 1/1000 of a gold piece.

Well if you say they can blow their artillery miles away then they should be able to bombard the windows from close up.

The closer the surrounding BBs get, the more fire they're going to take from the "surrendering" vessel. Plus, if you're going to fire one of those monster guns, why aim for the windows? Just hit the ship within thirty feet of the guy you're trying to kill, he'll be dead just as sure as if you hit him dead on. Oh, and approaching to distance from which the fire is that accurate will take more than enough time to scuttle the ship.

And the BB's are only going to pierce a few holes.

But if it only punctured a few holes in the side of the ship it wouldn't cost too much to repair.

Depending on where the hole is, even just one is enough to sink it. Above the waterline, patching up "a few holes" is rather expensive, seeing as how the holes are each going to be somewhere around 20 feet in diameter, and will have destroyed any electronic or mechanical apparatus in that radius.

No, I thought it was funny

Okay, good.

Trying to gun off the stealth bomber that was a suprise attack because it didn't show on the radar, (As with all stealth aircraft) The crew saw the BB's coming on the radar and attacked but there were like 5 BB's and the ship was outgunned. One or two BB's were destroyed but the rest kept bombarding the sides of the ship (Again, making sure it doesn't sink).

The AA gunners are different people from the main gunners. Meaning, the ship can fire it's AA guns at the same time as it fires it's main battery. Also, you speculate that two attacking BBs are destroyed... are you willing to take that many casualties just to capture one ship? You just defeated your own argument.

Well the troops in the helis are about 1 kilometre behind the bomber (Making sure the explosion isn't in range of the helis). And it only takes a few tens of seconds for a heli to fly 1 kilometre.

Where does the bombardment from the BB's come in then? It seems to me that you've got the bombing, then around 1 minute before the troops land... that's enough time for a BB to fire off 2 salvoes AT MOST, most of them will miss, and the rest won't be accurate enough to ensure that the ship doesn't sink.

There are massive carriers out there, enough to carry 20 helicopters and a few small bombers.

The question is, how many ACTUALLY DO carry that many helis, to say nothing of the men aboard them. Carriers are designed for planes. Most carriers might carry one or two anti sub helis that cannot carry personnel. I've never heard of a carrier that specialized in carrying heli's, though that doesn't mean there isn't one, somewhere....

Hey, your calling my troops idiots??? . You think they'd be idiots if they can successfully navigate BB's. If I chose to employ idiots I'd use them on land as all they do is shoot.

If the sailors on the victim ship aren't aware of the presence of the encircling BBs or of the land battle, they are idiots indeed, and deserve the watery grave that they may soon find.

This is a little non-civish. It's more of a real life thing.

I didn't think of it as serious, I thought this was just a bit of fun.

NOW you tell me. Oh well, fun is fun, isn't it?

I think I came up with more "logical" answeres today.

Better, but still porous enough to admit a Spraunce class DD through.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

What are BB's?

AA must be AntiAircraft.

 

[psweetman1590]

BB's = Battleships.

For future reference...

DD's = Destroyers
CA's = Heavy Cruisers
CL's = Light Cruisers
CV's = Carriers
SS's = Submarines

Then after WWII there were other classes added in, like nuclear powered ships, and missle ships.... but these are the basic designations.

 

[Aceman101]

BB's = Battleships.

For future reference...

DD's = Destroyers
CA's = Heavy Cruisers
CL's = Light Cruisers
CV's = Carriers
SS's = Submarines

Then after WWII there were other classes added in, like nuclear powered ships, and missle ships.... but these are the basic designations.

Most of those aren't in the game .

Oh boy! This IS gonna be fun!

Indeed!

First: most positions on modern boats are on the interior of some sort of armor... Snipers wouldn't be able to kill very many at all.

But snipers without a doubt can pierce a hole in the ship and also killing a person(s) that was in the radius of the bullet.

Second: the crew would not all drown when the ship was scuttled. Have you ever heard of a liferaft? Not to mention the fact that it's rather silly to assume that a sailor can't swim well.

Ok I think this is a misunderstanding. I didn't say anything about their swimming abbilities but lets say most of them are average swimmers and som e good. The good swimmers will die first because the snipers will most likely pick on the people in the front .

Now, this just proves that sailors regardless if good or not will have at least an equal chance. But usually the better swimmers will not have as much chance to survive because of the reason above.

And even if they were A+ swimmers (Which is very unrealistic to assume that) they would still die because the coast is 1 mile away and the snipers (About 15 of them would have more than enough time to kill them.

About the liferaft: That was one of the / statements I've heard from you yet. If one bullet get's in the liferaft it would just sink.

btw I didn't mean that as offensive I just thought it was kind of (Or should I say Very) untrue .

Unless your not talking about those plastic liferafts but even if it was made out of metal, bullets can pierce it. And besides the snipers can still shoot their heads if they zoom in on them. And, There probably wouldn't be enough of them for the whole crew.

Third: most civilized countries would rather take the sailors prisoner than simply shoot them in the water.

Not if they are going to come out and try to kill them. However those hundreds of prisoners would just need too much food and they will not work properly. It's not the crew the army is interested in, it's the ship .

Fourth: who, exactly, is outnumbering the gunners on the ship? The snipers? I'd rather have a 15 inch cannon than a wimpy springfield myself.

You get what your given .

Well, which situation are you arguing for? Is the ship in the dock, or is it off the coast? Pick one and stick with it!

Since you said the boat would be about a mile off rather than staying at coast the situation changed. So yes, this is basically about option 2.

What's the point of bombing it at all, then? Your original purpose was to kill the engine. Now that you admit it's impossible, why bother bombing at all? That hole will not help the heli or the people aboard it.

No, you didn't...... grrrrrr.....

Oh come on Mr. Psweetman1590! You can handle that.

Now now. Nice little puppy

The closer the surrounding BBs get, the more fire they're going to take from the "surrendering" vessel. Plus, if you're going to fire one of those monster guns, why aim for the windows? Just hit the ship within thirty feet of the guy you're trying to kill, he'll be dead just as sure as if you hit him dead on. Oh, and approaching to distance from which the fire is that accurate will take more than enough time to scuttle the ship.

Yeah, well whatever method kills the most . And I did say my porpuse was to scuttle the ship. Ie. My BB's won't destroy the ship, they'll aim a little better than that!

Depending on where the hole is, even just one is enough to sink it. Above the waterline, patching up "a few holes" is rather expensive, seeing as how the holes are each going to be somewhere around 20 feet in diameter, and will have destroyed any electronic or mechanical apparatus in that radius.

Not as expensive as building a new BB ;. Okay if it sinks it sinks, but the crew is trying hard to not sink it.

Also, you speculate that two attacking BBs are destroyed... are you willing to take that many casualties just to capture one ship? You just defeated your own argument.

No, if the enemy ship is armed with deadly weapons I shall destroy it. If the ship is not as advanced, I shall capture it. Meaning: I will only take the casualties that I gain, no more.

Where does the bombardment from the BB's come in then? It seems to me that you've got the bombing, then around 1 minute before the troops land... that's enough time for a BB to fire off 2 salvoes AT MOST, most of them will miss, and the rest won't be accurate enough to ensure that the ship doesn't sink.

As said above if it sink, it sink. I am not losing mt new BB's just to capture an enemy one.

The question is, how many ACTUALLY DO carry that many helis, to say nothing of the men aboard them. Carriers are designed for planes. Most carriers might carry one or two anti sub helis that cannot carry personnel. I've never heard of a carrier that specialized in carrying heli's, though that doesn't mean there isn't one, somewhere....

Heli's are merely as big as bombers, I don't see why it's not possible to carry a few of them. I know some carriers can carry about 10-15 jet fighters. So why not 20 (smaller) helis?

If the sailors on the victim ship aren't aware of the presence of the encircling BBs or of the land battle, they are idiots indeed, and deserve the watery grave that they may soon find.

Gee, I see a lot of Sympathy from you . They're cheap laborers so to speak.

NOW you tell me. Oh well, fun is fun, isn't it?

That doesn't mean I'm not going to stop posting untill I win the debate .

Better, but still porous enough to admit a Spraunce class DD through.

What kind of judge are you? I was expecting an A+ for that!

Amazing how much energy you put into coming up with creative ideas explaining how something almost impossible could happen. Isn't this about realism?



Edit,

I just noticed this:
OK, your goal is to discuss, not to prove something. I misunderstood.

I concentrate my energy to prove my point!

 

[Pyrrhos]

But snipers without a doubt can pierce a hole in the ship and also killing a person(s) that was in the radius of the bullet.


My BB's won't destroy the ship, they'll aim a little better than that!

No, if the enemy ship is armed with deadly weapons I shall destroy it. If the ship is not as advanced, I shall capture it. Meaning: I will only take the casualties that I gain, no more.

Heli's are merely as big as bombers, I don't see why it's not possible to carry a few of them. I know some carriers can carry about 10-15 jet fighters. So why not 20 (smaller) helis?

That doesn't mean I'm not going to stop posting untill I win the debate .

I concentrate my energy to prove my point!

Whoooa! Steady on there Jesse James!

If you want to win the debate and prove your point, you have to resort to FACTS!

First, The hull plating itself on a BB was 1"-1½" thick in itself made of steel to the STS 52 standard. Look it up and pay special attention to the tensile strength of the steel and work out the energy required to penetrate such steel. There are formulae for that!

Modern AP bullets (AP=Armour piercing) fired by a rifle, even if that rifle is a .45 or .50, will only penetrate such plating if fired at very short ranges and if they do not strike at an oblique angle. Even a 1½" or 2lb anti-tank gun of the WW II era would find such plating not exactly soft cheese. Furthermore, not only do you have to penetrate the plate, you have to have sufficient behibd-plate effect to kill or wound. Then there is the small matter of the X-ray vision needed to see what is behind the plate...

Now, a BB of the WW II era typically had a side armour - Armour Belt - 12½ to 16" thick. Above that was a "Citadel Armour" belt which in the German Bismarck class was 145mm (5"75) thick. Not many tanks of WWII could penetrate even such flimsy armour as the citadel armour. The main guns and Armoured Control tower typically had armour 15"-18" thick. In comparison, your sniper rifle is less effective than a pea-shooter.

Usually, actions between battleships were decided at around 200hm (11 nautical miles, 12½ land miles, 20 km). The USS Iowa (or the New Jersey) onced fired on a Jap destroyer ata a range of some 340hm (almost 20 land miles!) and straddled her but scored no hits. This was exceptional shooting! The Hood was destroyed by the DKM Bismarck at a range of just under 200hm. I'm sure Rear Adm Lancelot Holland would have been delighted if he had had your superior aim at his disposal.

All is not doom and gloom for you! In one respect you are correct. The US Navy has a class of carriers (CVH) that carry nothing but Marines and helis. One of the three people who called for the construction of such ships in the early 1970s was science fiction author Jerry Pournelle.


(How do I know? well I only spent 20 years as a professional in the Army and specialised in infantry (anti-tank) weapons. I also have studie history and specialise in Military history. )

 

[Sashie VII]

Wow, Pyrrhos's an army guy

Alright, I'm curious. Let's say that you have a modern day BB. What kind of weaponry do I need to sink it? Is it doable with anything that's not a bomb/torpedo/missile?

I have almost no military knowledge btw, so if it sounded ridiculous..

 

[psweetman1590]

What kind of weaponry do I need to sink it? Is it doable with anything that's not a bomb/torpedo/missile?

Yup.... A really big shell, fired from a really big gun.... like the gun you'd find on another Battleship, maybe. Land artillery would also do, but it would be a sitting duck for the battleship's artillery to blast since it can't manuever like a ship would.

And there aren't really any modern day battleships. The US has a few Iowas left from WWII (they were modernized in the 80's IIRC), but I don't know of any country that has the spare money or need for a real modern battleship. Most navies settle for missle cruisers and destroyers these days.

The US Navy has a class of carriers (CVH) that carry nothing but Marines and helis.

Wait a sec, I think I HAVE heard of those.... the Tarawa class?

(How do I know? well I only spent 20 years as a professional in the Army and specialised in infantry (anti-tank) weapons. I also have studie history and specialise in Military history. )

Cool! It's good to have someone who knows their stuff around.

Most of those aren't in the game

Yes they are... Cruisers are lumped together, but they, as well as destroyers, subs, carriers and battleships are indeed in the game, Mr. Navy.

But snipers without a doubt can pierce a hole in the ship and also killing a person(s) that was in the radius of the bullet.

Pyrrhos has taken care of that one for me. Too bad, I was going to have fun with it myself.

Ok I think this is a misunderstanding. I didn't say anything about their swimming abbilities but lets say most of them are average swimmers and som e good. The good swimmers will die first because the snipers will most likely pick on the people in the front .

Now, this just proves that sailors regardless if good or not will have at least an equal chance. But usually the better swimmers will not have as much chance to survive because of the reason above.

And even if they were A+ swimmers (Which is very unrealistic to assume that) they would still die because the coast is 1 mile away and the snipers (About 15 of them would have more than enough time to kill them.

About the liferaft: That was one of the / statements I've heard from you yet. If one bullet get's in the liferaft it would just sink.

btw I didn't mean that as offensive I just thought it was kind of (Or should I say Very) untrue .

Unless your not talking about those plastic liferafts but even if it was made out of metal, bullets can pierce it. And besides the snipers can still shoot their heads if they zoom in on them. And, There probably wouldn't be enough of them for the whole crew.

Obviously, you know not how to fight a proper war with prisoners, and ethics of combat and whatnot. Stalin would have loved to have you. Unfortunately, most countries these days would fire you, and you'd be tried as a war criminal once the war was over. Even the Nazis rescued prisoners from ships they sunk. Your assertion that the snipers would ensure that not a single man would reach the shore is highly unrealistic. Not because they couldn't do that (you're perfectly right that they wouldn't have much of a problem in physically doing so), but because that sort of thing isn't done by respectable people serving a respectable country.

Not if they are going to come out and try to kill them. However those hundreds of prisoners would just need too much food and they will not work properly. It's not the crew the army is interested in, it's the ship

Beg your pardon, that's just wrong. I can't even think of how to refute this logically without spending a page and a half to explain how things work, but everything you said here is just wrong.

Oh come on Mr. Psweetman1590! You can handle that.

You don't have to type out psweetman1590 all the time... you can just call me psweet.

No, if the enemy ship is armed with deadly weapons I shall destroy it. If the ship is not as advanced, I shall capture it. Meaning: I will only take the casualties that I gain, no more.

Okay, so here's what it boils down to....
Either the ship is advanced enough to harm your ships while you capture it... in this case you destroy it.
Or, the ship is not advanced enough to harm your ships. In this case, you capture it.

BUT, if its not advanced enough to hurt you, why bother capturing it?

Heli's are merely as big as bombers, I don't see why it's not possible to carry a few of them. I know some carriers can carry about 10-15 jet fighters. So why not 20 (smaller) helis?

Apparently, there are carriers that carry helis (thanks Pyrrhos). However...

US super carriers can carry, (IIRC) closer to 40 planes
Troop transport helis are not smaller than jet fighters.
Carriers do not carry heavy bombers. Transport helis would be larger than any other aircraft on-board.

Gee, I see a lot of Sympathy from you . They're cheap laborers so to speak.

Sorry, no. US Navy crewmen are highly trained professionals, not "cheap labor". I can't speak for Australia, naturally... maybe you do treat them like cheap laborers down there.

What kind of judge are you? I was expecting an A+ for that!

Think I'm tough? Wait'll you get to know your professors in college.

This last argument earned a B-, BTW. Too much extraneous, inaccurate, and tanget material. Keep your essays concise and to the point.

[quot]That doesn't mean I'm not going to stop posting untill I win the debate [/quote]
Just like that last debate you "won", right?

 

[Pyrrhos]

"Carriers do not carry heavy bombers."

The "biggest" aircraft carried aboard were the B-25 Mitchell medium bomber of the Doolittle raid on Tokyo. In all, 16 bombers took off from the carrier USS Hornet. There was, however, not a chance of landing once airborne, so it was a one-way trip. Also, it was a one-off in naval aviation.

Read more at http://www.doolittleraider.com/



PS. I forgot to add that I type as accurately as a barn owl on Bondi...

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

And there aren't really any modern day battleships. The US has a few Iowas left from WWII (they were modernized in the 80's IIRC), but I don't know of any country that has the spare money or need for a real modern battleship. Most navies settle for missle cruisers and destroyers these days.

You're right about the battleships are pretty much extinct. Carriers made battleships obsolete back in WW2. I'm not sure if some of the Iowa class still is in reserve.

The Iowa class was ranked as the best ever naval ship in a documentary film. It was introduced in 1942 and participated in the second gulf war in 1991! After the heavy cruiser class (forgot the name) that replaced the Iowa class was worn out, the US navy modernized the Iowa's instead of building new cruisers. Two Iowa ships fired its 16-inch guns and missiles at Iraqi fortifications - from the Medittteranian Sea! That's a huge distance! How many kilometers is that? Perhaps it was missiles only.

An excellent article here: The Iowa class

Is this what you want to pierce with a sniper?