"Spinal, Broadside, and Turreted Weapons " Topic

A little old… but still interesting article here…

"Wherever nerds Science Fiction fans gather to debate the future of space warfare there are several debates that almost always pop up sooner or later, and which seldom generate a consensus. One of the most popular is the debate over fixed Vs turreted weapon mounts, with the fixed weapons divided into spinal mounts, and less commonly broadside mounts. Related is the discussion over which of the three main direct fire weapons likely to be used in space combat – Laser, Particle Beam, and Kinetic – are most suited to each of the three mounting options. In this blogpost I'm going to attempt a analysis of the specific strengths and weaknesses of each type of mounting, which weapon fits them best, and the tactical scenarios in which they offer the biggest advantages. I'll also cover the worldbuilding needed to justify each option in your 'Verse…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Well, if Winchell's given his seal of approval…

Also, be sure to look at part one, and when will we get part three?

My issue with this is that it does feel like the speculation doesn't give enough credence to the idea of new technologies changing the game, altogether.

Just because we don't have the crystal ball, doesn't mean we shouldn't make allowances.

Also, of course, the difference between fixed and turret isn't as clear as you'd think. Most 'fixed' have some play in the launcher, and even the dumbest weapon has some 'smarts.'

Doug

I've come to the conclusion that turrets should be for defence and fixed positions should repesent, for want of a better phrase, offensive batteries.

OK this is wet-fleet based, Turrets are like anti-air close range guns and fixed batteries like cruise missile launching bays.

Hope that makes sense.

It makes to me!.

Amicalement
Armand