Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9814372" data-attributes="member: 4937">I strongly suspect that sensors and fire control are the dominant factor in space warfare.  Can you see them before they see you?  Can you calculate a firing solution?  Can you predict how they will try to evade?  If you are doing the Yamato vs. Iowa comparison and you are focusing on shell size, maximum speed and armor belt thickness and not on the Iowa's integrated mechanical computers and sub-millimeter wave all weather radar then you've missed 90% of what differentiates the two vessels in combat.  Fightability (how easily the weapon system can be employed and commanded) and information gathering and processing dominate over traditional "hard" metrics in real combat situations.  If I know sufficiently more than you know about the tactical situation and I have faster decision making loops, then I have a near absolute advantage.And we can see this in how WWII destroyer combat between USN and the IJN played out over time.  The side with the better information gathering and processing dominated its era nigh completely.  Viewed this way, the events at Samar weren't actually surprising.  If you view the two fleets by tonnage, weight of metal to throw, thickness of armor and so forth it should be a one sided IJN victory.  But if you view the two fleets by speed of the decision making loops, their ability to collect accurate information, and their ability to act on that information because of the fully integrated mechanical fire control and stabilized gun systems then it was like one side with a bunch of muskets versus the other side with automatic weapons.I suspect in space combat that is going to be even more true.</blockquote>

Verification