Anshun Class (oceangoing Submarine)

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

21

Sunday, May 24th 2009, 10:30pm

You know I find that point rather amusing!

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

22

Monday, May 25th 2009, 12:43am

Accuracy is going to be within a mile or two with only two weapons available. Launching from a submarine throws up more accuracy problems, especially if you can't fix your position.

Go to the top of the page

Vukovlad

Me too !!!

Posts: 4,137

23

Monday, May 25th 2009, 12:58am

Doesnt really matter, China fires of two rockets towards the Canal and iberia gets the CB against Mexico they have been looking for!

Go to the top of the page

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

24

Monday, May 25th 2009, 12:39pm

There can be no practical use for this submarine, accuracy is too low, that's why I said Hong Kong. It can only hit large coastal towns/cities in the Far East region. Surprise would hamper counter-measures but I reckon my planned overseas radar stations would provide enough warning.

Go to the top of the page

parador

Sage

Posts: 3,829

25

Monday, June 1st 2009, 7:14pm

Why only Far East region ? May be Europe or America or Atlantis ? I think there are many targets, not only Far East !!!!

Go to the top of the page

AdmKuznetsov

Sage

Posts: 2,918

26

Monday, June 1st 2009, 10:05pm

Sure there are lots of targets!

And going to the huge expense of building large submarines configured to inaccurately deliver 2x850kg warheads each against city-sized targets is certainly something China should spend every available resource on!

I mean, this totally has early strategic bombers beat as a prodigiously cost-ineffective method of inaccurately delivering trivial explosive loads to utterly non-decisive targets! Why it's even better than the fast battlecruisers the Poles were building for operations in a Baltic Sea thick with mines and buzzing with torpedo bombers-until they sold 'em off in a fit of common sense!

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "AdmKuznetsov" (Jun 1st 2009, 10:09pm)

Go to the top of the page

Vukovlad

Me too !!!

Posts: 4,137

27

Monday, June 1st 2009, 10:17pm

Really dont get these overreactions, if China needs a retalatory weapon to counter Supertanks, Intercontinental bombers, and so on so be it it isnt like a couple of hundred kilos of mustard or nervegas is going to do any difference.

Go to the top of the page

perdedor99

Sage

Posts: 4,026

28

Monday, June 1st 2009, 10:21pm

Tend to agree. Any war between Satsuma and the European nations would be far away from Europe. This is a small way to bring the war closer to the Europeans' Home Front. Terror tactics, not a lot in the overall picture but affecting the morale of the enemy nevertheless.

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

29

Tuesday, June 2nd 2009, 12:27am

Italy has two vessels along similar lines but with rather simpler flying bombs. I figured that lobbing a few into Bombay would cause a lot of hassle and tie up Indian resources for very little expense.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

30

Tuesday, June 2nd 2009, 1:34am

Wow you guys love fishing for comments don't you!

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Really dont get these overreactions,

Over reactions huh? Who resurected this thread? The "over-reactions" stem from China suddenly aquiring tech without any lead up to that tech. No rocket developement, no home grown sub builds. Even aquiring that tech from another country is going to take some time to peice together.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
....if China needs a retalatory weapon to counter Supertanks, Intercontinental bombers, and so on so be it it isnt like a couple of hundred kilos of mustard or nervegas is going to do any difference.

My "supertanks" strategic bombers and yes, my nations moral are quite safe from these subs. Britain got hit by hundreds of V-1's and V-2's and still pressed on. As for use of chemical weapons, by all means use em. It gives your enemy's reason enough to repay the favor, and it will be more cost effective for them too, what better way to kill hordes of ill equiped troops than chemical weapons.

Go to the top of the page

Vukovlad

Me too !!!

Posts: 4,137

31

Tuesday, June 2nd 2009, 1:42am

And WTF would you call building Radar stations allround the British Empire? And how many fighter squadrons were withdrawn to fight the V-1´s? Britain btw was a secondary target for V-rockets...

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

32

Tuesday, June 2nd 2009, 1:54am

How many V-1's and 2's were fired at Britain? Are you expecting China to sail halfway round the world and fire as many missiles? If so your being VERY optimistic.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

33

Tuesday, June 2nd 2009, 2:02am

Any SLCM missions against Europe will require about the same amount of effort as the German Uboats trying to run into the Indian and Pacific Oceans. They may not have much opposition once they arrive, but such missions are going to be expensive in terms of wear-and-tear on ships, staging, and so on. If we were talking armed merchant cruisers, then the cost would be more in line with the benefit; but IMHO the benefit is completely out of line for the cost. So I'm perfectly happy to see yall wasting money on these ships!

Go to the top of the page

Vukovlad

Me too !!!

Posts: 4,137

34

Tuesday, June 2nd 2009, 2:29am

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
How many V-1's and 2's were fired at Britain? Are you expecting China to sail halfway round the world and fire as many missiles? If so your being VERY optimistic.

They dont have to fire as many missiles as the germans did, just enough for the civilian population to start screaming at the navy to assign more ships to prevent new attacks.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

35

Tuesday, June 2nd 2009, 2:37am

Heh; and in this day and age, without youtube or television or internet to spread that, then the government is more capable of saying "Sorry Charlie, we're assigning those ships to bombard Beijing in response." Modern media has made losses much less palatable to the public.

Go to the top of the page

Vukovlad

Me too !!!

Posts: 4,137

36

Tuesday, June 2nd 2009, 3:02am

That depends on what kind of goverment you have, look at the limited damage done by Zeppelins in WW1 and the response

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

37

Tuesday, June 2nd 2009, 3:14am

And how quickly that response resulted in zeppelins becoming antiquated as a strategic bomber.

(The answer is "Under three years", by the way.)

Go to the top of the page

Vukovlad

Me too !!!

Posts: 4,137

38

Tuesday, June 2nd 2009, 3:24am

Being replaced by heavy bombers but did the switch make the RAF redeploy homebased units to France? Ofcourse the RN also claimed between the wars that subs were obsolete with the introduction of ASDIC. But to take another exampel the fairly ineffective Regulus armed subs were replaced by what?

Go to the top of the page

parador

Sage

Posts: 3,829

39

Tuesday, June 2nd 2009, 11:38am

Quoted

Over reactions huh? Who resurected this thread? The "over-reactions" stem from China suddenly aquiring tech without any lead up to that tech.
No rocket developement, no home grown sub builds. Even aquiring that tech from another country is going to take some time to peice together.

China is working very closely with the largest submarine nation. I think therefore, the exchange of technologies, in particular
the expertise in submarine construction, not pose any major problems.

And if everyone thinks that it is a waste of materials, but then why are all somehow worried ?