torpedo vs missile.

[Timo]

...As weapons that cause small dents on warship hulls when they hit, yeah.

(A Tomahawk might cause a large dent, but I'm not aware of an antiship application. Unless one means tactical nukes, which would be quite useful against Soviet surface ship formations. Except there aren't any Soviet surface ship formations any more.)

And no, piercing and igniting the aluminum sheeting of a modern tin can doesn't count as "more than a small dent"... A torpedo kills. A missile wounds. (Or, as the name implies, misses.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Rii]

They're both arbitrary terms, and "torpedo" sounds better.

Now here's a question: is the VA-111 Shkval a torpedo or a missile?

 

[Timo]

Well, "missile" still retains the generic meaning of "projectile used as weapon", and thus includes everything from thrown rocks to arrows to computer-guided jet aircraft to deadly underwater cigars driven by a propeller.

In contrast, "torpedo" (literally, "ray", as in the flat type of fish) has only had two very specific meanings in history, first as a towed/rammed/moored/attached explosive charge used for sinking ships, then as a propelled (and later also guided) explosive charge used for sinking ships. While WWI saw the use of "aerial torpedoes" (which sometimes literally were torpedoes with wings bolted on) against ground targets, the meaning of the word "torpedo" itself never stretched to encompass such devices: these experiments were specifically known as "aerial" torpedoes throughout their short lives, much as one might refer to an "aerial" tank when speaking of the A-10 attack plane without extending the definition of "tank" to encompass aircraft.

Admittedly, Trek torpedoes are not strictly limited to ship-destroying applications - but it would be fitting if the name once again referred to some limited type of weapon, while missile remained a generic term that includes all torpedoes but also includes weapons that do not meet the exacting specifications of a Trek torpedo.

As for "rocket" in Trek, it could be related to the current military definition (unguided, rocket-propelled, ballistically flying missile weapon, such as fired from air or ground or sea, often in ripple fire to compensate for lack of guidance). Or it could merely indicate that this antiquated weapon still moves across space by using a rocket for propulsion, whereas a torpedo has a more advanced propulsion system not based on the rocket principle at all.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JuanBolio]

...As weapons that cause small dents on warship hulls when they hit, yeah.

(A Tomahawk might cause a large dent, but I'm not aware of an antiship application. Unless one means tactical nukes, which would be quite useful against Soviet surface ship formations. Except there aren't any Soviet surface ship formations any more.)

And no, piercing and igniting the aluminum sheeting of a modern tin can doesn't count as "more than a small dent"... A torpedo kills. A missile wounds. (Or, as the name implies, misses.)

Timo Saloniemi

Tomahawks do indeed have an anti-ship variant. Harpoons are specifically designed for this, but have shorter range. Either will put a crippling hole in any modern frigate, destroyer, or cruiser, perhaps even sink it. Mark 48 torpedoes have enormous warheads that could break a ship's back and sink it in one hit, but the smaller Mark 46's carried on surface vessels are not nearly as powerful.

 

[bryce]

Wow...I was just about to ask the same question - but I googled it first and found someone already saved me the trouble!

I am trying to come up with weapon systems for a Battlestar-type spaceship I'm imagining, and I was hoping to have something called a "torpedo" that was somehow distinguisably seperate from a "missile" - but I wasn't sure if IRL there was any real fundamental difference betwen the two other than the medium the projectile traveled through...

And I guess there really isn't...just two arbitrarily different names for the same thing...

I think that torpedoes (at least, the ones I've see in films) have propellers for propulsion - something spinning to swirl the water for thrust, as opposed to missiles which use rockets to create thrust to propell them through the air and/or space...


So maybe my fictional "torpedoes" could be distinguished from my "missiles" because instead of rockets they would use some other kind of propulsion device that maybe somehow does to the fabric of space-time - or to local gravitational fields (same thing, really) - or maybe even nearby magnetic fields - what a propeller does to water to generate thrust...maybe like a rotating "spatial impeller" or non-moving "magnetospatialdynamic" thingimagiger that twists and swirls space much like a propeller blade swirls H20...???

Though...I really was kinda hoping to keep my weapons limited to only real-world technologies - rail guns, EMP weapons, lasers, particle-beams, rockets, etc - stuff based on either existing tech, cutting edge experimental tech, or forseeable near-future tech - or at the very least a theoretical technology that's considered possible within the laws of physics as we currently understand them...no "magic tech"...and a magic device that swirled space-time would be an exception to that...

...so if anybody has any suggestions along those lines...?

Another possible difference I could invent between a "missile" and a "torpedo" is that maybe for their initial launch, my "torpedo" could use a magnetic catapult of some sort (like the one used in nuBSG to propel Vipers down & out a "launch tube") - and/or maybe a pressure-differential between the vaccume of space and the ship's internal atmosphere - to propel the "torpedo" far enough away from the main ship for the "spatial propeller" to safely activate...(though the latter would waste valuable oxygen - so only be a fall-back option if the magnetics where disabled or off-line...)?

I've always asumed that Trek "photon torpedoes" use something along those lines - because when you look at close-ups of the TMP/TWoK launchers they have coil-like features lining the tubes...(although they seem to already be glowing as they leave the tubes, as if they were activated within the launch-tube for some reason...)


Sorry...I don't mean to rudely derail the OP's thread...I was just pondering how a space-based "torpedo" could be different enough from a space-based "missile" to justify a seperate name for it...some fundamental difference needing a seperate terminology of it's own...and so I googled "missile torpedo differences" hoping it would give me some ideas, and this came up...and I thought it would be redundant to start a whole 'nother seperate thread on the same subject...

 

[Timo]

Either will put a crippling hole in any modern frigate, destroyer, or cruiser, perhaps even sink it.

Sorry, I should have been clear that I was speaking purely in WWII terms - much as TOS would be doing. In WWII, only destroyers were thin-skinned enough that a modern missile would have hurt them; other ships from light cruiser up still carried armor, and would have shrugged off a Harpoon also because, unlike today, few of their exposed bits were vital sensors. OTOH, in WWII, there were no tiny antisubmarine torpedoes (and indeed just one verified case of a torpedo sinking a submerged submarine AFAIK): a torpedo was purely a ship-killer, designed to break the keel of a vessel that was not already in the process of being crushed by the pressure of hundreds of meters of seawater.

Trek space combat seems analogous to WWII "at most", and in many cases seems to have regressed to 18th century or preceding models - as valid an approach as any, because a competitive field such as weaponry will not develop in a linear fashion and may indeed seem to regress significantly as time passes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[sojourner]

My only problem is that as Trek moved to CGI the effects shots all started to look like jetfighter combat. It really breaks the sense of scale in my opinion.

 

[Timo]

I sort of like it. We know from "historical precedent" (including a very popular movie or two) that these are big and majestic ships, yet we now see them move almost like a starship should move... The contrast is delightful.

It might be even better if the ships moved with an agility greater than, not merely the same as, that of combat aircraft. Some scifi in our scifi every now and then is a good thing IMHO.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Myasishchev]

^Echo that. Next time a Reman warbird or whatever gets behind her, I'd like to see the Enterprise blast her port thrusters and turn literally on a dime (that is a dime that is moving at the same velocity of the Enterprise ) and bring her forward batteries to bear.

 

[Timo]

The thing is, TNG era starships are built so that they don't really need to turn in order to bring their weapons to bear: there are phasers and torpedo tubes pointing in all directions. Which is a pity, of course, from the dramatic point of view.

A ship like NCC-1701-A would indeed need to do fancy maneuvers in order point her torps. One exuberant maneuver I'd like to see would be in a chase situation: while maintaining full forward impulse thrust, the ship would suddenly start rolling like mad and apply positive or negative yaw, a process that would end up killing her original forward velocity and positioning her at straight angles to her former flight path, somewhat to the side, and pointing her bow guns at the pursuer for a nasty en passant shot. After which the continuing maximum thrust and roll/yaw would launch her to the direction from whence she came, and at no point would the enemy be capable of predicting the next velocity vector. It would all depend on the exact ratio of roll vs. yaw; a slightly different ratio would give you an escape spiral.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[USS Jack Riley]

I am trying to come up with weapon systems for a Battlestar-type spaceship I'm imagining, and I was hoping to have something called a "torpedo" that was somehow distinguisably seperate from a "missile" - but I wasn't sure if IRL there was any real fundamental difference betwen the two other than the medium the projectile traveled through...

...so if anybody has any suggestions along those lines...?

Bryce - [Tombstone] I'll be your Huckleberry. [/Tombstone]

When not let the missiles be point defense quick fire weapons used to destroy incoming torpedoes? Torpedoes are the offensive weapons. This way both can use the same type of propulsion method, but have different purposes - missiles protect the ship, torpedoes destroy other ships. This also limits the size of the warhead on a missile and its range.

Of course, if your fiction does not allow for this, just disregard everything I just said.

 

[Praetor]

I sort of like it. We know from "historical precedent" (including a very popular movie or two) that these are big and majestic ships, yet we now see them move almost like a starship should move... The contrast is delightful.

It might be even better if the ships moved with an agility greater than, not merely the same as, that of combat aircraft. Some scifi in our scifi every now and then is a good thing IMHO.

Timo Saloniemi

I agree.

I am trying to come up with weapon systems for a Battlestar-type spaceship I'm imagining, and I was hoping to have something called a "torpedo" that was somehow distinguisably seperate from a "missile" - but I wasn't sure if IRL there was any real fundamental difference betwen the two other than the medium the projectile traveled through...

...so if anybody has any suggestions along those lines...?

Bryce - [Tombstone] I'll be your Huckleberry. [/Tombstone]

When not let the missiles be point defense quick fire weapons used to destroy incoming torpedoes? Torpedoes are the offensive weapons. This way both can use the same type of propulsion method, but have different purposes - missiles protect the ship, torpedoes destroy other ships. This also limits the size of the warhead on a missile and its range.

Of course, if your fiction does not allow for this, just disregard everything I just said.

I think that's a good suggestion for Bryce.

 

[JNG]

I guess, if you extend the definition of "point defense" to "making it detonate 50 kilometers away or more." =\

(That's what it'd take to really minimize the impact on the shields from something with the juice of a photon torpedo, and considering how fast the torpedoes move and their ability to maneuver independently, it doesn't surprise me that this isn't really part of depicted Trek combat.)

 

[Praetor]

^Conceded, but Trek combat isn't realistically depicted visually within its own parameters anyway.

Ironically, I'd say the limited-effects capabilities of TOS that almost never showed two ships within good visual range of one another, and therefore at a more safe plausible distance for firing and avoiding weapons, was more realistic.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

Torpedos travel though subspace, and probably use some kind of subspace magic when impacting another ship. Missiles just impact in normal space.

 

[Praetor]

I rather doubt it. Subspace distortion requires more than just matter and antimatter... unless a torpedo's sustainer engine is a lot more powerful than we suspect?

 

[Omega_Glory]

Is there any canon evidence that indicates the torpedos have minature shields protecting them from a ship destroying them before they arrive? Or is it just fan speculation?

My take on torps is that they are just space going guided missiles....guided by the ship that launched them. If the ship can't get a lock, then they can't guide them. Funny, it doesn't make sense that Spock and McCoy had to put sensors on the torpedo to detect exhaust gas when the sensor of the ship could have done the same thing..and then guided the torpedo normally.

 

[Praetor]

Is there any canon evidence that indicates the torpedos have minature shields protecting them from a ship destroying them before they arrive? Or is it just fan speculation?

I don't think there's any canon evidence, but the fact that they can travel at warp seems to indicate a need for some type of deflector shield, otherwise the target wouldn't need to destroy them - microscopic matter would.

My take on torps is that they are just space going guided missiles....guided by the ship that launched them. If the ship can't get a lock, then they can't guide them. Funny, it doesn't make sense that Spock and McCoy had to put sensors on the torpedo to detect exhaust gas when the sensor of the ship could have done the same thing..and then guided the torpedo normally.

There seems to have been some effort to differentiate TNG torps from previous torps by declaring them 'indirect fire,' meaning they can be fired at a target without aiming the tube at it, and the TOS-movies torps as 'direct fire' meaning they did have to roughly point the tube at the target. This can be seen in the 'Starship Spotter' book designation.

Given the nature of the definition of 'torpedo' versus 'missile' I'd rather there be a more complex difference if both are to coexist. So far, it appears that for Trek, missiles are usually the more complex, bigger weapons - such as the Cardassian dreadnought missile from 'Dreadnought.'

 

[Albertese]

Wow...I was just about to ask the same question - but I googled it first and found someone already saved me the trouble!

I am trying to come up with weapon systems for a Battlestar-type spaceship I'm imagining, and I was hoping to have something called a "torpedo" that was somehow distinguisably seperate from a "missile" - but I wasn't sure if IRL there was any real fundamental difference betwen the two other than the medium the projectile traveled through...

...

Sorry...I don't mean to rudely derail the OP's thread...I was just pondering how a space-based "torpedo" could be different enough from a space-based "missile" to justify a seperate name for it...some fundamental difference needing a seperate terminology of it's own...and so I googled "missile torpedo differences" hoping it would give me some ideas, and this came up...and I thought it would be redundant to start a whole 'nother seperate thread on the same subject...

Hey man, no worries. In fact, I originally posted this question as an indirect way to figure out quite the same thing you are working on. I'm designing a setting for a Role Playing Game to play with some gaming buddies of mine. The high-concept-Hollywood pitch is "imagine the Star Trek format with nuBSG sensibilities." I'm trying to figure out the capabilities of the technology, trying to stay in the land of believable tech (+ FTL drive and artificial gravity).

After some thought, and reading the above posts, I've decided that in Trek Photon Torpedos are medium sized M/AM warheads attached to some sort of warp sustainer mechanism. Big Explosion. Missiles are extra big devices that tend to fitted out with some sort of exotic payload. There are exceptions.

For my RPG setting purposes, I've decided the reverse: Missiles are smallish devices that are self-propelled by means of an internal rocket motor. They can be mounted on a ship either internally in magazines and be brought to launch tubes, or else they can be mounted on external racks which they launch from. Torpedos are much larger affairs which must be launched from a tube. I imagine they would launch much as a viper does; though some sort of accelerator tube but then only having thrusters to steer it around a bit instead of really speed up or slow down. Bigger device = really big boom.

So, thanks guys!

--Alex

 

[Omega_Glory]

So the shields are just speculation.

Thanks