Quote:
Originally Posted by DAB
I've owned SSN and read the book someone wrote on Tom Clancy's behalf to go alongside that game. I'm sure that if I downloaded the game, I could do what you are suggesting with the torpedo's
What I'm questioning is the assertion that because something can be done in an arcade(ish) like game, it must be proof positive that this capability exists. Likewise, an inability to do the same in another game (let's say Dangerous Waters) doesn't prove that the capability doesn't exist. The second half of my post then questions under what senario in real life a naval commander would stay put and make use of this ultra-secret niche capability when the prudent thing to do is turn tale and open up the range.
In research, journalism, intelligence and academia; something is not proven until there are (at least) two independent sources to colloberate it. A mass market computer game, whether it be SSN, 688I or Command:MANW is not a reliable source. If you want to to prove that this capability exists: then you will need to provide alternative, rigourous sources. Until then, saying that something is technically possible and could be done is no reason to insist that it "must" be added into a simulation.
|
1- I did not say it "MUST BE ADDED", I said: "Then again,
NO COMMAND DETONATE of torpedoes, and that is unrealistic". I don't distribute directives around here.
2- True, because showed in SSN, technically possible, and presenting a certain edge in combat, those facts mean that it is done or not done in reality. It does not mean anything, it is neutral!
3- As I said earlier "Moreover, I don't think that anyone in their right mind would deliberately prove your point or sustain my description, by producing a page of a manual explaining how things get done in a combat environment." If it is classified and technically possible or probable (as you would not classified something impossible except for counter-intel. purpose), the info will be denied or ignored. Now, it can also be ignored or laughed at, when totally impossible or irrelevant without discarding a counter-intel angle.
4- I am not into proving something right or wrong, especially about Sonars or Torpedo technology.
5- In intelligence work, theories are developed based on possible moves to reach a goal based on a possible motive as much as there are moves on a check board for a given piece. Sometimes to get a theory started then checked, a single iota of info is enough. Corroboration is always open to interpretations. Finally, intel theories are often proved after the facts, yet it comes with the territory.
6- In research papers in the Academia environment, you list the source and reference of info. But your interpretation is not cited as it is your perception based on interpretation of existing information. To make a point, you use your materials as stepping stones to cross a river, and a leap of faith is necessary to step from one stone to the next. Eisnstein started his theory of time relativity by wondering how it would be to travel on a beam of light. Vision and imagination are almighty.
Now you take a book like "Anti-Submarine Warfare" from David Owen published by Naval Institute Press Annapolis Maryland in 2007, ISBN1-59114-014-5, and you will find interesting stepping stones on page 214.
You can also take the "United States Submarines" from David Randall Hinkle, Harry H Caldwell, Arne C Johnson, the Naval Submarine League, and Sonalysts Inc., published by Barnes & Noble books in 2004 ISBN 0-7607-6219-8.Then read the chapter called "The Future". More stepping stones and also probable info that became reality, since. Then on page 342 a description of a future submarine combat system to provide operators with detailed knowledge of their environment and the tactical scene in 3D, which reminds me of a "low-fidelity sim bordering on arcade". Which 3D system alike is available for ordinary people to admire in a documentary presented by Boeing called "Fighter Pilot, Operation Red Flag" ID4879K28D by Stephen Low, originally an IMAX movie. There are also, Jane's "Underwater Warfare System, XXXX-XXXX" and Jane's "Fighting Ships, XXXX-XXXX". I haven't looked into Jane's "Unconventional Weapons" and Jane's "Pocket Book of Naval Armament".
7- True, I agree. Turning tail and opening up the distance to fight another day is also within the range of possible behaviors to attack the same sub later in its baffle. You can do that, when a torpedo has been launched at you from a long range to outrun it, if you know the torpedo range, speed and bearing. i.e. A stealth/long range torpedo is fired at you 5 miles away at 000. That Torpedo has a top speed of 36kts and a range on average (following the game you are playing) of 10 miles. You will outrun that missile by turning away at 1/2 speed(LA class depending of the game), as the torpedo will run out of fuel approximately when it closes to one mile away from you. Or you can unload some noise makers, fire a MOSS, reach the next Thermocline, shoot down/up that incoming torpedo, scare the hell out of the enemy skipper, and give him a finger!...You are the "Pasha", you can do whatever you want.