A bit OT - Kamikazi = Cruise Missile? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Lockmart Lawndart -> A bit OT - Kamikazi = Cruise Missile? (12/19/2009 12:51:42 AM)

I've always wondered a bit about the resilience of Modern day Ships versus their WWII counterparts, Specifically Carriers and Super Carriers. I know USS America was subject to a Torpedo, Cruise Missile and whatever else the Navy decided to throw at it and didn't sink until the controlled sinking. But in any case would You suppose a Kamikaze, say an Explosives laden Zero, would be equivalent to a modern day Tomahawk?

I know penetration on the Cruise missile would be better then a flimsy Zero, but I suppose a Betty could penetrate nearly as far with a greater warhead.



witpqs -> RE: A bit OT - Kamikazi = Cruise Missile? (12/19/2009 1:08:22 AM)

Well, one thing is that AFAIK today's military explosives are a good deal more powerful.



Ametysth -> RE: A bit OT - Kamikazi = Cruise Missile? (12/19/2009 1:33:36 AM)

Modern ships carry great deal less armor than their WWII counterparts. They mainly rely on 'don't get hit' tactics instead. Also purpose built anti-ship missiles (Harpoon, Komoran, Exocet etc.) carry less explosives than Kamikazes did. I suspect that modern Guided Missile Cruiser, like the ones USN uses to protect their carriers, would be in deep trouble if actually hit even by Zero carrying 250 kg bomb.

Naturally chances of actually getting that plane to hit through CG cruiser's missile- and close-in-weapons systems are almost nil. They can stop sea skimming, low radar cross-section anti-ship missiles coming towards them at double the speed of sound. Kamikazes would be plotted out of the sky long before they even see the ship.



bsq -> RE: A bit OT - Kamikazi = Cruise Missile? (12/19/2009 1:55:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ametysth

Modern ships carry great deal less armor than their WWII counterparts. They mainly rely on 'don't get hit' tactics instead. Also purpose built anti-ship missiles (Harpoon, Komoran, Exocet etc.) carry less explosives than Kamikazes did. I suspect that modern Guided Missile Cruiser, like the ones USN uses to protect their carriers, would be in deep trouble if actually hit even by Zero carrying 250 kg bomb.


USS Cole??

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ametysth

Naturally chances of actually getting that plane to hit through CG cruiser's missile- and close-in-weapons systems are almost nil. They can stop sea skimming, low radar cross-section anti-ship missiles coming towards them at double the speed of sound. Kamikazes would be plotted out of the sky long before they even see the ship.



Don't be so sure. If you saturate a modern layered defence you will still get 'leakers' and something the size of a jet fighter doing Mach 2+ in a steep dive isn't going to be completely stopped by your 20mm CWIS. You just need to attack from multiple angles. with sufficient missiles all with the same TOT (time on target), something both the Soviet/Russian LRA and USAF/USN practiced for years.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: A bit OT - Kamikazi = Cruise Missile? (12/19/2009 2:01:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ametysth

Modern ships carry great deal less armor than their WWII counterparts. They mainly rely on 'don't get hit' tactics instead. Also purpose built anti-ship missiles (Harpoon, Komoran, Exocet etc.) carry less explosives than Kamikazes did. I suspect that modern Guided Missile Cruiser, like the ones USN uses to protect their carriers, would be in deep trouble if actually hit even by Zero carrying 250 kg bomb.

Naturally chances of actually getting that plane to hit through CG cruiser's missile- and close-in-weapons systems are almost nil. They can stop sea skimming, low radar cross-section anti-ship missiles coming towards them at double the speed of sound. Kamikazes would be plotted out of the sky long before they even see the ship.


Modern anti-ship wepaons (except some older, huge, Soviet-era monsters) are all based on mission-kill rather than sinking the target. Kill the sensors, and the platform is useless.

What armor there is mostly consists of Kevlar or similar products. But the best defense is shooting first, and EMCONing your way into range to do so.



bklooste -> RE: A bit OT - Kamikazi = Cruise Missile? (12/19/2009 7:48:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ametysth

Modern ships carry great deal less armor than their WWII counterparts. They mainly rely on 'don't get hit' tactics instead. Also purpose built anti-ship missiles (Harpoon, Komoran, Exocet etc.) carry less explosives than Kamikazes did. I suspect that modern Guided Missile Cruiser, like the ones USN uses to protect their carriers, would be in deep trouble if actually hit even by Zero carrying 250 kg bomb.


USS Cole??




Exactly she was almost lost , a zero would be about the same . The fuel would have made DC a lot more difficult.




oldman45 -> RE: A bit OT - Kamikazi = Cruise Missile? (12/19/2009 8:04:09 AM)

Cole is a bad example, they weren't ready for an attack. What you would have to worry about is fuel from the plane starting the superstructure on fire. Aluminum burns really hot and there were quit a few messages sent out on lessons learned from the Falklands.

I am not sure how effective it would be against one of the Nimitz class but hitting one of the DDG's or FFG's would be a damage conrol nightmare if the fuel burned hot enough to cause the metal to start burning.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.21875