In Defense of Galleons sinking Submarines

[DrFell]

Originally posted by EvilKosh


With a phalanx onboard, it ought to be of use against tanks!

Ok ok - it's a poor allusion to the spearman/tanks situation

[Sava]

I'm sorry that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. A wooden boat cannot support the weight of modern guns. I think you fail to comprehend the size of naval vessels. Even a small WWII destroyer dwarfs even the largest of wooden vessels.

[Sava]

Next thing you know I'm going to see a thread "In Defense of Archers shooting down F-15's".

[Jerry Sindle]

Originally posted by Sava
Next thing you know I'm going to see a thread "In Defense of Archers shooting down F-15's".

Archers could be issued shoulder-fired surface to air missiles carried in addition to their bows and arrows and still be called archers...

V/R

Jerry

[Kataphraktoi]

umm,i dont think stinger missles could even touch f-15s...

[dawidge]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm sorry that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. A wooden boat cannot support the weight of modern guns. I think you fail to comprehend the size of naval vessels. Even a small WWII destroyer dwarfs even the largest of wooden vessels.

I have a very good understanding of the size and scale of the vessels in question.

I'm not suggesting that you can mount a triple-16" battery or a VLS pod on a Frigate. I'm suggesting that the old frigate can be made into a reasonable weapon without cahnging the fact that it is a wooden-hulled frigate.

The PT boat (wooden hulled 2-ply teak) was an effective weapon in world war II carrying torpedoes and anti-air guns. I'm not sure offhand if any of them carried depth charge racks or hedgehogs, but it wouldn't surprise me if they could. They sank quite a few destroyers with those small wooden vessels, too. No 5" DP gun. No heavy bombardment batteries. Just a couple torpedoes stolen from aviation (the air-dropped torps worked better than the tube-launched variety), and a variety of anti-aircraft weaponry (.50s, 20mm and 37mm autocannon and eventually 40mm mounts fore and aft)

The Japanese and Chinese used junks as weapons platforms (including ASW, Beach's RSRD is based on his experience as a sub captain) on a limited basis during WW2. We used junks in Korea for espionage work. They didn't have a lot of firepower, but mortars and machine guns can accomplish quite a bit.

I'd suggest that outfitting an old frigate with a couple standard infantry light (40mm) and heavy (80 mm) mortars combined with a couple of 50 caliber machine guns is a decent, modern replacement for the broadside cannon of old. Chop the masts and install a diesel and voila, you have a coastal bombardment platform at a negligible expense. So negligible that it doesn't cost any "upgrade" fees in CIV terms. It's a sitting duck for counterfire, but if you don't see that torpedo coming your way, so are you.

[Kataphraktoi]

and i think a wooden ship coulnt take even 1 good hit from a fish...

what kind of subs are we comparing to?

[Kataphraktoi]

mortars and machine guns are not very effective against subs....

[dawidge]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
mortars and machine guns are not very effective against subs....

No, but hedgehogs and depth charge racks are.

[Akka]

Just a question : if it's possible and efficient to put modern weapons on old wood ships that allow them to sink submarines, why not a single navy in the world did it ?

[Jerry Sindle]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
umm,i dont think stinger missles could even touch f-15s...

In Afghanistan, where there is a tangible Stinger threat, F-15s fly and bomb from above 15,000 feet. This is not because that's the best altitude to bomb from, it is because of the respect they have for the Stinger threat.

An F-15 can certainly use his flares and sharp maneuvers to avoid a Stinger. BUT, (my emphasis), he has to know the missile is on the way. If he's at low altitude and he doesn't know the missile is coming for him - then the advantage swings dramatically to the Stinger.

A rock or an arrow could bring down an F-15 if he injested one in each engine.
Foreign Object Damage (FOD) has caused many a good aircraft to be lost.
Naturally, he would have to flying well below his normal low operating altitude to be vulnerable to them. This is something a wise pilot would not normally do. However, another threat or mission requirements could force the pilot to fly that low for a short period of time...

Having said that, I recognize, that the case just mentioned is the rediculous extreme, and not the norm. The point I'm stressing is not that ancient units can kill modern units under wierd circumstances. The point I'm stressing is that even ancient units can be issued modern weapons and sensors, and become somewhat capable units in their right without transiting to the next technological rung of the evolutionary ladder.

An archer unit in today's world is populated by people from today's world. People who can grasp the dumb-downed instructions for firing a shoulder-fired SAM - point it at the plane, wait till you hear a loud tone. When the red light goes on, pull the trigger. Throw away launcher and head for cover!" Afghanies whose only schooling has been studying the Koran in Madrasses have been taught to fire them. The kid can't tell you how much two plus two is, but he can fire a Stinger.

Very respectfully,

Jerry Sindle

[korn469]

Jerry

what you fail to grasp is the difference between a possible weapon platform and an effective weapons platform

while indeed stingers do pose a threat to low flying aircraft they have done little to hamper the US bombing campaign in afganistan, so what f-15's aren't bombing from optimal altitudes? they are still able to carry out their mission virtually undetered and with great precision

afaik not a single aircraft has been lost to anti-aircraft fire in afganistan so far

also about the wooden galleon/frigate, they are too slow to keep up with a modern submarine, even if they could carry weapons to attack one, and while they might have some benefits of low noise signature they would still show up on radar, and would be completely vulnerable to any attack, basically one hit of any type would sink them...a single pt boat with a 50 cal could make quick work of them...plus in bad weather they would have problems with their sails, and they would be a poor allocation of valuable manpower and training, because sailors would have to be taught how to manage the sails and that is manpower intensive compared to using diesel engines

all of these problems stem from a poor upgrade tree, which is easily fixed

[dawidge]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Just a question : if it's possible and efficient to put modern weapons on old wood ships that allow them to sink submarines, why not a single navy in the world did it ?

There are lots of reasons not to, the main reason is that they wouldn't last long against a modern opponent unless they got in a lucky shot, but that lucky shot is possible. They are also more manpower-intensive than their modern counterparts, but steps can be taken to alleviate that. Shallow-draft sailing vessels were used extensively in the Phillipines and Solomons during WW2 as light transports. PT boats ate them for lunch, but were subject to return fire and took casualties. They sometimes took enough return fire that the boat had to be replaced. A PT boat vs. a capital ship is hardly a fair fight, but the PT might have the opportunity to get in a lucky shot that can remove the capital ship as fighting force.

There are two possibilities of what the "galleon" unit type represents in the modern age: an actual wooden galleon with upgraded weaponry (and perhaps engines installed) , or some modern equivalent in fighting ability.

It is an abstraction.

[dawidge]

Originally posted by korn469
afaik not a single aircraft has been lost to anti-aircraft fire in afganistan so far

That should be "in the current campaign". The Russians lost a hell of a lot of aircraft to Stingers.

also about the wooden galleon/frigate, they are too slow to keep up with a modern submarine, even if they could carry weapons to attack one, and while they might have some benefits of low noise signature they would still show up on radar, and would be completely vulnerable to any attack, basically one hit of any type would sink them...a single pt boat with a 50 cal could make quick work of them...plus in bad weather they would have problems with their sails, and they would be a poor allocation of valuable manpower and training, because sailors would have to be taught how to manage the sails and that is manpower intensive compared to using diesel engines

I don't think a .50 would do much more than scratch the paint on a 19th century sailing ship. torpedoes and AA guns, on the other hand would chew it up quite well. If that sailing vessel had its masts chopped and engines installed, then it becomes a weapons platform on par with the PT boat, and you have a fair fight on your hands.

A sailing vessel can easily make the 10 knots that a WW2-era sub made while submerged, under common wind and sea conditions. If a WW2-era sub skipper wandered into the patrol zone of a sailing vessel equipped with WW2-era hydrophones and ASW weaponry, it stands a (small) chance of losing.

all of these problems stem from a poor upgrade tree, which is easily fixed

The upgrade tree does suck. There should be some kind of forced retirement/upgrade for units to make this kind of debate disappear. Frankly, I vote for a return of the "partisan" unit, and all the obsolete infantry-type units, from Spearmen to muskets, auto-upgrade to. Something similar could be created for the naval units.

[Jerry Sindle]

Originally posted by korn469
Jerry

what you fail to grasp is the difference between a possible weapon platform and an effective weapons platform.

also about the wooden galleon/frigate, they are too slow to keep up with a modern submarine, even if they could carry weapons to attack one, and while they might have some benefits of low noise signature they would still show up on radar, and would be completely vulnerable to any attack, basically one hit of any type would sink them...a single pt boat with a 50 cal could make quick work of them...plus in bad weather they would have problems with their sails, and they would be a poor allocation of valuable manpower and training, because sailors would have to be taught how to manage the sails and that is manpower intensive compared to using diesel engines

Actually, I grasp it quite well. I'm not talking in terms of absolutes here, but "once in a whiles". Once in a while, a Galleon beats a submarine in the game.
Many players have said that can never happen. Well, it can under the circumstances I described.

The most formidable anti-submarine weapons platform in today's world is another submarine. Practically, everyone agrees with that statement. The second most formidable anti-submarine platform in today's world is a helicopter equipped with dipping sonar and homing torpedoes. Usually, only submarine captains and naval tacticians are aware of that. Practically, any ship, even a Galleon could be configured to carry a helicopter. Additionally, a 120 knot helicopter can easily catch up with, outmaneuver, and destroy a 30 knot nuclear submarine. If, in fact, the submarine is traveling that fast - and making that much noise from all the steam coursing through his rattling steam pipes, the noise the water is making passing by his louver holes, and the cavitation from his screw (propellor).

Why would anyone put a helicopter pad and a passive tail sonar on a Galleon in the real world? I couldn't possibly give you a plausable answer to that question.

Then why do players keep Galleons in their navies well into modern times? Because they're cost-concious and have higher priorities for their hard-earned gold shields. Consequently, in the game - Galleons do occasionally confront and, once and a while, defeat submarines. This drives players, those who tend to think in terms of absolutes, absolutely crazy. It shouldn't. A little "outside the box thinking" would increase their enjoyment of the game immensely.

That was the whole point of my beginning this discussion thread.

Very respectfully,

Jerry Sindle

[Akka]

Originally posted by Jerry Sindle
Why would anyone put a helicopter pad and a passive tail sonar on a Galleon in the real world? I couldn't possibly give you a plausable answer to that question.

Then why do players keep Galleons in their navies well into modern times? Because they're cost-concious and have higher priorities for their hard-earned gold shields. Consequently, in the game - Galleons do occasionally confront and, once and a while, defeat submarines. This drives players, those who tend to think in terms of absolutes, absolutely crazy. It shouldn't. A little "outside the box thinking" would increase their enjoyment of the game immensely.

That was the whole point of my beginning this discussion thread.

Very respectfully,

Jerry Sindle

I think you're perhaps reasoning in the wrong direction.
You say that if player keeps galleon in their navies, it's because they are cost-conscious and have higher priorities.
The fact that it's cost-efficient to keep completely obsolete ships in a world using battleships and submarines IS the problem. As long as you allow galleons to sometimes sink submarines, sure, it won't be cost-efficient to upgrade galleons to something more actual.
You can try to find a way where a galleon could sink a submarine - if equiped with top-notch weaponry and so - but in reality, it would be nearly as costly to equip a galleon with this stuff than to build another modern ship. So to make your galleon able to fight subs, you should have to pay a substantial upgrade => upgrading unit.

[Jerry Sindle]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


I think you're perhaps reasoning in the wrong direction.
You say that if player keeps galleon in their navies, it's because they are cost-conscious and have higher priorities.
The fact that it's cost-efficient to keep completely obsolete ships in a world using battleships and submarines IS the problem. As long as you allow galleons to sometimes sink submarines, sure, it won't be cost-efficient to upgrade galleons to something more actual.
You can try to find a way where a galleon could sink a submarine - if equiped with top-notch weaponry and so - but in reality, it would be nearly as costly to equip a galleon with this stuff than to build another modern ship. So to make your galleon able to fight subs, you should have to pay a substantial upgrade => upgrading unit.

I am forced to agree with your conclusion.

V/r

Jerry

[michaelmagnus]

Originally posted by Jerry Sindle
Archers could be issued shoulder-fired surface to air missiles carried in addition to their bows and arrows and still be called archers...

But then they aren't archers, they're modern infantry armed with SAM's. The game should have a such a cheap unit available to represent irregulars, guerillas, etc., but ancient units are ancient units. There is no way a division of guys with spears can defeat a division of guys with machine guns.

Obsolete units should dissaper from all OOB's after, say, 10 years elapse from the point that 75% of civilizations posess the technology that makes them obsolete. (Like galleys would disappear after 75% of civs can build frigates, or somesuch.)

I think your ASG (anti-submarine-galleon) would also have some trouble keeping station with the fleet, doing what, 4 knots?

Your servant.

[Zachriel]

There's no way a little harbor boat could possibly damage a modern warship of any class, much less a sophisticated destroyer like the U.S.S. Cole.

Couldn't happen.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel
There's no way a little harbor boat could possibly damage a modern warship of any class, much less a sophisticated destroyer like the U.S.S. Cole.

Couldn't happen.

Could it survive the battle ?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Could it survive the battle ?

Of course, it depends on the element of surprise, the type of weapons used, and the number of mistakes made the superior force. In the case of the Cole, the training and dedication of the crew is credited with saving the ship.

[Zachriel]

Ooops! Sorry, Akka le Vil. You were referring to the little boat.

In Civ3, a galley costs 30 shields, a destroyer 120 shields.

In Life, the Cole cost about a billion dollars. The cost of repairing the Cole about a quarter of that. The cost of the boat is negligible. They could buy a fleet and have extras. They could even rent it from U-Haul. Or steal it. Or plant a mine.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Ooops! Sorry, Akka le Vil. You were referring to the little boat.

In Civ3, a galley costs 30 shields, a destroyer 120 shields.

In Life, the Cole cost about a billion dollars. The cost of repairing the Cole about a quarter of that. The cost of the boat is negligible. They could buy a fleet and have extras. They could even rent it from U-Haul. Or steal it. Or plant a mine.

What I meant is that the boat had to make a suicide attack that was planned against this ship for long. It was not a fight in the middle of the sea where it has to use its weapons to bring down its ennemy. So it was more of a sabotage than a fight.
If we have to simulate this in the game, then we should have a "suicide attack" order to give to the obsolete unit, which will destroy itself in an attempt to inflict 1 or 2 damage points to the more modern unit.

In no case the boat that attacked the Cole was supposed to make it back in one piece.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

In no case the boat that attacked the Cole was supposed to make it back in one piece.

Think of the boat as a manned-torpedo. It was a legitimate military target, at least, unlike some other recent attacks.

For the record, I do think that the naval combat could be improved with a few deft modifications. A simple analogy with land units would probably work:

Subs for bombard;
Cruisers for cavalry;
Battleships for infantry;

Something like that.

[Theodrik]

It's been done, way back in WWII, for pete's akes!. The Brits called them covettes. They were wooden sloops, rigged with radios, sonar, and a limited amount of depth charges. They could attack, but mostly acted as listening posts, directing the heavier armed boys to the targets. The Brits didn't have very many, and many used them within a few hundred miles of base. They were difficult to attack, not being magnetic enough to trip the German magnetic warheads and too quiet for the acoustic ones. The Lufwaffe had fun with them when they found then though, there was no room for AA.

[Slyspy]

My Grandfather served on RN corvettes during the war. I hate to break it to you, but they were little tin cans bobbing about on convoy runs to the US and USSR, not wooden ships. The vessels which you refer to were merely coastal listening posts, not corvettes.

As for the subject of this thread, do you really think an antique wooden ship could take the stresses of carrying and firing modern weapons? They could barely cope with their regular armament. Even adding a few cannon would destabilise the ship (the Mary Rose is a prime example). Plus many older ships couldn't fire their entire arsenal for fear of breaking apart.

Besides which, how much return fire do you think they could take? One explosive shell probably. A galancing hit from a torpedo. Even a burst from a 50cal wuld probably go right through and into the crew, let alone the damage which tracer rounds could do.

This whole discussion is laughable!

[Saint Marcus]

Also you can never upgrade a wooden ship to a steel ship without redoing the whole ship.

Hmmm...wasn't this done in the past? I recall some early ironclads to have simply been wooden ships with a reinforced iron hull...It was expensive, but cheaper than building a completely new ship.

Also, there have been many transport ships that have been converted to carriers.

And privateers could have been any kind of ship.

[dawidge]

Originally posted by Slyspy
As for the subject of this thread, do you really think an antique wooden ship could take the stresses of carrying and firing modern weapons?

I think the stresses of firing a couple of dual 40mm AA mounts are much lower than the stresses of firing a broadside of heavy cannon, particularly if you install reinforcing struts under the deck. I don't think a modern small patrol boat could handle the stresses of firing a single cannon, much less an entire broadside. The recoild from a 12'pounder would have puched clear through a WW2 era PT boat, yet they carried enough armament to sink capital ships. Depth charges might pose a problem if you don't have enough speed to get clear of the blast, but a stronger throwing arm can address that. We're not talking about putting a 5"DP mount on a galleon. Smaller weapons can be just as effective (although with decreased range). For that matter, the US has put harpoon box launchers on itty bitty patrol boats. There are no transferred stresses whatsoever from firing rockets (just remember to install blast deflectors)

Besides which, how much return fire do you think they could take? One explosive shell probably. A galancing hit from a torpedo. Even a burst from a 50cal wuld probably go right through and into the crew, let alone the damage which tracer rounds could do.

Not much, admittedly. Although a .50 HMG would have a pretty difficult time chewing through wood thick enough to repel cannonballs. It would take a *lot* of ammo. A vulcan minigun (lots of very fast 7.62 mm) would have more luck than a .50 cal at penetrating the strong, wooden hull.

I'm not suggesting this is the wises course of action in keeping your navy up to date, but it is possible. If your navy is still populated by wooden-hulled sailing vessels, and you go to war, you may be highly motivated to work with what you've got.

[redstar1]

Originally posted by Slyspy
As for the subject of this thread, do you really think an antique wooden ship could take the stresses of carrying and firing modern weapons? They could barely cope with their regular armament. Even adding a few cannon would destabilise the ship (the Mary Rose is a prime example). Plus many older ships couldn't fire their entire arsenal for fear of breaking apart.

Besides which, how much return fire do you think they could take? One explosive shell probably. A galancing hit from a torpedo. Even a burst from a 50cal wuld probably go right through and into the crew, let alone the damage which tracer rounds could do.

This whole discussion is laughable!

If we are assuming an ancient Galleon is being upgraded to carry ASW weaponry and equipment, can we not also assume that technology would give us stronger joints and better wood protection? Cannons are heavy things, very heavy. Replace them with a phalanx and there ain't much difference. Replace them with depth charge racks and a torpedo tube or 2 and you have certainly a first strike chance. Add a towed sonar array and you have yourself a very quiet sub hunter. If it is as effective as a modern frigate/destroyer is one question, but if its all you have It would work.

[Akka]

Originally posted by redstar1


If we are assuming an ancient Galleon is being upgraded to carry ASW weaponry and equipment, can we not also assume that technology would give us stronger joints and better wood protection? Cannons are heavy things, very heavy. Replace them with a phalanx and there ain't much difference. Replace them with depth charge racks and a torpedo tube or 2 and you have certainly a first strike chance. Add a towed sonar array and you have yourself a very quiet sub hunter. If it is as effective as a modern frigate/destroyer is one question, but if its all you have It would work.

As I said just few message up : if we are assuming that you're about to rebuild half of your ship to keep it up to date, if we are assuming you're upgrading its hull, its weapons, training its crew to use new systems, etc.
It's called "upgrading unit" and it's already in the game.