Asymetric warfare
Discussion
Suppose my arch enemy had a fully armed 18th century Battleship, something like the Victory in it's prime, and I had a small modern patrol boat with one machine gun and plenty of ammunition. Would I be able to damage the ship significantly while staying out of range? Other than disengaging, what would be the best tactic for me?
Dr Jekyll said:
Other than disengaging, what would be the best tactic for me?
Maneuverability. Keep harassing them on the edge of their engagement envelope. Their crew will never have seen a vessel with no sails doing 30kts+ so will have a hard time trying to bring their guns to bear on such a small fast target. Remember, these old ships of the line liked to get in close and fire broadsides. It was all about firepower.What are you armed with? Even the humble GPMG will reach out to 2 miles in the indirect fire role, a .50 M2 even further.
If I were a betting man, I think I would fancy your chances of a soft kill, if not a complete disablement. That's the beauty of asymmetric warfare, you play to your strengths.
This is essentially the strength of the current Iranian Navy. Lots of small fast attack craft using swarming and hit-and-run tactics. Harder for modern defensive systems to deal with than one larger vessel.
LimaDelta said:
.............This is essentially the strength of the current Iranian Navy. Lots of small fast attack craft using swarming and hit-and-run tactics. Harder for modern defensive systems to deal with than one larger vessel.
As demonstrated by various warships trying to despatch Somali pirate boats. Once the 'fire across bow' stage is over it still takes an age and much ammunition to sink them.Steve
As your modern boat is not reliant on the wind and you have a massive speed advantage i would have thought fast slashing attacks would be your best tactic, but i still don't fancy your chances i think you would run out of ammunition before you could do enough damage.
you are going to need a bigger gun
you are going to need a bigger gun
citizensm1th said:
I still don't fancy your chances i think you would run out of ammunition before you could do enough damage.
Attack obliquely from behind (where Victory has only a couple of main guns, and would struggle to bring them to bear on a fast moving target) and shoot the rudder to pieces?Equus said:
citizensm1th said:
I still don't fancy your chances i think you would run out of ammunition before you could do enough damage.
Attack obliquely from behind (where Victory has only a couple of main guns, and would struggle to bring them to bear on a fast moving target) and shoot the rudder to pieces?irocfan said:
ramp it up a little - what's the smallest modern ship that could take out something like the Bismark/Yamato/Rodney?
Pedalo with a Davy Crockett strapped on it.Madness60 said:
citizensm1th said:
anything that could carry something like harpoon
A WW2 battleship would barely notice a Harpoon, not designed to penetrate the massive armour belts of those sort of battleships.with a penetrating warhead and its pop up mode your 19th century anti torpedo armour belts are just so much ballast.
ww2 era warships did not fare to well against dumb bombs dropped from aircraft i doubt they would do much better against smart 21st century missiles
Dr Jekyll said:
350kt (over 20 Hiroshimas) sounds a bit unnecessary for an anti ship missile.
The target would likely be an entire carrier group, rather than a single vessel. And the 15kt Hiroshima bomb was particularly tiny. The Hiroshima bomb in a van at Heathrow's T5 drop off* would not significantly affect the British Airways facility at the eastern end of the airport.Link courtesy of Alex Wellerstein's Nukemap.
*I am not advocating the use of nuclear weapons at Heathrow airport.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff