Human Torpedoes and Midget Submarines.

[Rigel Stardin]

Yesterday, I saw an article on the discovery of a midget sub by the Australian Navy at Rabaul. http://news.yahoo.com/japanese-wwii-submarine-found-off-papua-guinea-094359650.html

I know this might be a controversial topic because of the present world view on terrorism and suicide bombers. However, if you look at history this is not the first time such attacks have taken place. World War II saw such actions carried out by both the Germans and Japanese. Midget subs played a role in major naval engagements as well. Therefore, it is quite possible such actions could and would take place in and around the Imperium.

Midget subs are short range submarine which either carry large explosives mines which they place under a ship with the resulting explosion causing damage to said vessel. Or they were armed with torpedoes which they fired at enemy vessels in harbors which were inaccessible by larger subs.

Human torpedoes were either piloted to their target by frogmen and sank beneath a vessel or rammed their target killing the pilot as well.

Thou no strategic goals were gained in these attack. There were propaganda coos and fear which tied up resources in protecting harbors and anchorages. Therefore it is easy to assume such attacks do take place. The “Dagger of Effate” is one such attempt at an attack.

I see at least two scenarios where such attacks might work.

The question then becomes could a small vessel carry enough firepower to destroy a Imperial battleship or large ship of the line? Or would the Imperial authorities back away from a situation where suicide attacks were taking place?

I’m post two small vessels which fit into the niche of being called midget or human torpedoes in Spacecraft section of the gallery. Take a look and tell me what you think?

 

[BytePro]

Not really seeing the analogy - midget subs relied on stealth, with humans to maneuver for effect. Basically they allowed 'mining' a harbor in such a way that the mine could avoid detection and removeal by methods of the day. Suicide torpedos just utilized humans in place of automated targeting systems.

The former doesn't seem applicable to space and the latter is overruled by technology (even today). High speed 'weapon' ships would easily be taken out by large weapons (esp. spinals) long before they could become threats to 'ships of the line'.

(BTW: Nice designs though!)

 

[Rigel Stardin]

People seem to forget, space is a noisy, especially in the EM spectrum. A small powered object maybe able to get close enough to it's intended target using this background noise as a mask. Finding such an object with optics may take days or even weeks.

Space warfare is simular to sub warfare in this aspect. Warships are design with this in mind, otherwise it would be just like aerial combat today, even then you have the stealth fighter which can avoid most radars. If you think along these lines then midget craft are possible.

 

[shadowcat20]

First. the Italians used manned torpedos also and the British had the X-subs they used to place charges under the Tirpitz in WWII. Not sure if the Italians had a war head or were used for transport though.

In traveller with the different government types that abound fanatics being released at close range with small fighters loaded with explosives or a nuke are very possable.

Just have a wave of them follow a battlewagon in close using it as a shield then they become the follow up attack after the big boys pass each other...or at least distract the target so the big one can get away....:devil:

 

[shadowcat20]

As a add on, how many fighters could you hide behind a black globe ship drifting for the target area? The globe would shield the wave from detection until it got closer.

 

[BytePro]

This people ain't forgetting a thing. :nonono:

Space 'warfare' is only comparable to sub warfare in the context that it is 4D. Other than that, the analogy fails pretty comprehensively.

Midget subs can take advantage of sonar clutter near the plane of the surface - there is no real analogy for this in space. The 'noise' density in space doesn't change significantly except near large bodies - where the relative ship sizes are pretty irrelevant. Space is orders of magnitude more transparent to EM/optical signals and lacks a viscous medium that completely changes the nature of detection, movement and energy transfer. The nearest analogy to a thermocline is a massive gravity source and that is a poor substitute at best, and while sound is dampened with distance to the point of extinction, radiation only requires minute quanta of energy to be detected to provide distance, chemical composition and relative motion. Totally different from acoustic detection. (Worked R&D for transducers, RFEC and photonic...)

Within range to do anything, or with a low enough relative velocity to maneuver with a max of 6Gs relative to the maneuvering of an opponent - the EM 'noise' of space and optical concealment isn't happening - too much relative displacement to the background optical 'noise' .

Not saying the game needs to even account for these realities (won't find me referring to Traveller as anything remotely resembling realistic...).

Minimal crewed spaceships - sure. But manpower is cheap compared to the ships, so not seeing an advantage there that is anything but setting background - the game mechanics don't offer any that I can see. The ships are cool, but not seeing any real advantage to taking on larger ships or special ability to implement the sneak attack approach of midget subs or suicide torpedoes. After all, midget subs and suicide torpedo men are really surface ship hunters - not subs hunters.

 

[aramis]

People seem to forget, space is a noisy, especially in the EM spectrum. A small powered object maybe able to get close enough to it's intended target using this background noise as a mask. Finding such an object with optics may take days or even weeks.

It's NOT terribly loud in the IR spectrum.... We can spot satellites in orbit in the IR easily as long as they are not between the scope and earth. The -270°C background is very LOW energy.

 

[BlackBat242]

First. the Italians used manned torpedos also and the British had the X-subs they used to place charges under the Tirpitz in WWII. Not sure if the Italians had a war head or were used for transport though.

The first human torpedo (the Italian Maiale) was electrically propelled, with two crewmen in diving suits riding astride. They steered the torpedo at slow speed to the enemy ship. The detachable warhead was then used as a limpet mine. They then rode the torpedo away.

The Italians were the most effective of all "manned torpedo" operators... gaining multiple successes (actual sinking of enemy ships) in both WW1 and WW2.

1 November 1918: Two men of the Regia Marina, Raffaele Paolucci and Raffaele Rossetti, in diving suits, rode a primitive manned torpedo (nicknamed Mignatta or "leech") into the Austro-Hungarian Navy base at Pola (Istria), where they sank the Austrian battleship Viribus Unitis and the freighter Wien using limpet mines. They had no breathing sets and they had to keep their heads above water, and thus they were discovered and taken prisoner.

19 December 1941: The Decima Flottiglia MAS attacked the port of Alexandria with three maiali. The battleships HMS Valiant and Queen Elizabeth (and an 8,000-ton tanker) were sunk in shallow water putting them out of action for many months. Luigi Durand de la Penne and five other swimmers were taken prisoner. De la Penne was awarded the Medaglia d'oro al Valor Militare after the war.

6 May & 10 June 1943: Italian maiali from the Olterra, now under the command of Lt Ernesto Notari, sunk six Allied merchant ships in Gibraltar, for a total of 42,000 tn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_torpedo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decima_Flottiglia_MAS#Chronicle_of_operations

 

[Rigel Stardin]

I'm going to rephase my original question because the difference of opinion concerning "stealth" technology on starships and our disagreement on whether or not a spacecraft could hide in space.

Could a small craft carrying Traveller tech Torpedoes or explosives do major damage to Imperium Ship's of the Line?

 

[aramis]

I'm going to rephase my original question because the difference of opinion concerning "stealth" technology on starships and our disagreement on whether or not a spacecraft could hide in space.

Could a small craft carrying Traveller tech Torpedoes or explosives do major damage to Imperium Ship's of the Line?

Easily IF it has a long enough run, or nuclear warheads.

But getting them there is difficult, and getting them there undetected is exceptionally unlikely. Play the lottery, winning is easier.

 

[Matt123]

I'm going to rephase my original question because the difference of opinion concerning "stealth" technology on starships and our disagreement on whether or not a spacecraft could hide in space.

Could a small craft carrying Traveller tech Torpedoes or explosives do major damage to Imperium Ship's of the Line?

Operationally, the examples discussed were all used against moored ships. If you changed your premise slightly and asked the question, could I get close to an IN ship moored at a Highport the answers may demonstrate the task is only extremely difficult, rather than virtually impossible...

 

[Easterner9504]

There already are useless mini-sub analogs in TRAVELLER. They are called fighters.

 

[Enoki]

On the other hand, the history of midget subs in combat has been pretty dismal. Causalties among the crews approaches 100% and the rate of success is very low. I think that would make them unattractive in most cases to most militaries except those with a suicidial streak.....

 

[BytePro]

Given time constraints, 'hiding in space' isn't necessarily impossible or even extremely difficult depending on range. However, staying undetected within striking range and reaction times would be (in CT where 6G is the limit). With lots of delta V the problem is that it doesn't take much to miss a torpedo or smaller vessel and the target has 360 degrees of freedom to make for such a miss - so its a crap shoot as aramis indicated (and only one real chance per at high delta V).

Bear in mind, the OP designs appear to be CT to me (?, well 6 G limited), so I assumed the context was CT style limits. MgT has higher accel fighters and torps which make them more useful (er, potentially useful). Not familiar with other versions.

Within the context of the CT RAW (what I have) there doesn't seem much allowance for torpedoes to be as effective. Hull explosive, designed to penetrate armour, should work to an extent (if you can get close enough). But, like RW vessels that have been attacked in similar fashion, success should be limited. Spacecraft have the advantage of not having to worry about 'sinking' or boilers exploding when 'taking on space' (ala taking on water - military being presumed designed to handle decompression). Puncturing a ship's hull allows the awesome power of sea and gravity to facilitate a 'kill'. While space is harsh, it generally lacks that level of damage that results from one or two successful hits.

Of course, nothing stops you from introducing custom fictional tech to handle things - reflects incoming, emits obscured and directionally radiates radiation (across spectrum - incl. optical, thermal, etc).

(BTW: Don't think black globes are a solution - as they would obscure and absorb the background noise. However, the RAW, IIRC, has them as 'stealth' tech - though fairly useless without manuever and detection of incoming targets...)

 

[Enoki]

I would think that a "intelligent" self-propelled mine would be more effective. Say, something like a single missile attached to a robot computer and sensor system that can target a ship that comes within some preset distance. You could put these out as factors like ship weapons in a system (within the combat rules). Then if an enemy ship comes within the attack radius of the mines they launch like missiles from a ship and attack the target in the usual way.
Of course, space is a really, really big place so you'd need alot of mines to have any real effect......

 

[BytePro]

Like the idea of using 'factors like ship weapons in a system'.

Designed 'missile mines' like this myself, with some stealth features and option for external active sensor systems to detect and lock on to the ships from one location while the missile swarm came from another. (The later being akin to surface-to-air missile defenses with standoff radar.)

As missiles aren't as effective against spaceships as compared to surface ships (not having appreciable gravity and water pressure to work with) I came up with 'ship killer' missiles. These based on active defense and armour piercing anti-tank munitions. The missile is designed to deploy anti-CIWS counter measures and send a penetrator through an armored hull in order to detonate a low-yield nuke inside.

Never actually used it with combat mechanics - it was just a challenge to encourage players to come up with alternate plans. :devil:

 

[Selandia]

TL issue, and fireships attacks

Interesting conversation,

I will not speak on every points but focus on one forgotten (or did I missed it?) point: TL. To illustrate: 1940, you got the new gizmo called radar and believe you are the master of the sky... it just so happen that your enemy form outer space get F-99 stealth planes and that nightime nearly useless Eyeball Mk1 is your only detection device:devil:. With TL differentail based ECM (like TL 15 vs TL 10), you could recreate operationnal condition that would allow your player to play a scenario inspired from X-Craft against Tirpitz, or Gamma swimmer at Gibraltar.

Covert action against Port sensors (done by the players as part of the scenario or presumed successfull from NPC) is also a way to sneak an attack against a force with a similar TL but having a sensor down posture (like a moothballed fleet or capital ship having sensors repairs) relying on System defenses for its security.

If no stealth in involved it may look like a dive-bomber at Midway / Kamikase at Okinawa style scenario. Honestly, with the 6G limit, the analogy would be more like an age of sail Fireship attack, with damage worked as if one nuclear missile does X damages, how much damage will be done by X Tons of nuclear warhead? A MTM (italian explosive boat, see HMS York) or Shinyo (japanese suicide craft) attack may also be used as analogy, although they could be associated with attack that come too fast for proper reaction and as such be also associated with stealth attacks.

As to the punch of the attack, space is not sea and you cannot "sink" a starship, unless (closest analogy I could think) it goes down a gravity well and burn/crash. But Star War has provided Sci-Fi with a now classical answer for the question: in the mega techno age how do you succeed in the most glorious and romantic or pursuit: that is knightly slaying the dragon at one stroke? You do that by destroying the Death Star with one missile from one fighter. In YTU that is kinda saying: When the "techno mumbo-jumbo" detonate near the "techno mumbo-jumbo" the magazine/powerplant/spinalcapacitor/techno mumbo-jumbo goes boum/critical/kaput/off-line and the target is dead/useless/blown/sent trough a decaying orbit.

have fun

Selandia

 

[aramis]

Small problem with your idea there, selandia...

blackbody radiation.

Go, look it up.

It's that issue that makes stealth in space exceedingly difficult. Your ship has to have a shield that's -270°C (3 Kelvin) to be invisible against the background radiation - anything higher, and you start emitting an IR signature visible against it by being a different wavelength and energy state. Once you get to livable conditions (15°C, 288 Kelvin) you start getting to be a notable spot in space in the IR range. Just like how on a dark & overcast night, you can spot a match at half a mile, in space, you can spot a human in a spacesuit at a light second with a decent IR scope which is also in space.

Now, said human (or his 20-25° C ship) might hide against a planet, but the sneaking past isn't likely to be doable, since physics says the stuff is going to radiate IR no matter what.

 

[BytePro]

Sure. It wasn't mentioned, but it wasn't forgotten.

Spaceships in Traveller all start at a TL where the minimal sensor tech is more than sufficient to make such a scenario untenable and, the OP was referring to 'major damage to Imperium Ship's of the Line?'

Outside such OTU constraints, or RAW, anything is possible. Heck - if you use Star Trek (or psionics in some official rulesets) - simply teleport a nuke aboard the enemy vessel and problem solved.

 

[Matt123]

& the key phrase is difficult, not impossible.

Heat sink technology exists today, no doubt it will get better as tech increases. Combine that tech with using excess heat energy to power drives, etc (bring back steam engines!). And direct remaining excess heat to be radiated behind a shield (or body of the craft) which will give you a sizeable arc where you will be invisible. It wouldn't be effective in major systems or ports (too many sensors around), but you could use it in many back water systems. (eg the Tirpitz holed up in a Norwegian Fiord)

Or merely direct excess heat to a small black globe in the cargo hold and time the resulting BG explosion for after the main charges go off.

That we can't do it yet, does not mean we will not be able to do it.