Transcribe
Translate
Scientifictionist, issue 2, after 1945
Page 4
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
[title made from symbols] POINT OF VIEW One fan's opinion by Lynn Bridges [text is in two columns; first column] SPACE WAR Countless times have the authors of science-fiction presented their views as to what an all-out space war between neighboring planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. would be like. Lots of times the ideas have been good. More often they have just been slam bang, adventure affairs following generally the lines of a mammoth naval engagement on earth. What would be the special requirements of war at space? Let us begin by assuming what the war is between two planets in the same system. Fundamentally, the basic requirement of either warring planet is the reduction of the opposing planet -- just as in our present wars the chief objective is the reduction of the enemy nation. All special weapons, including spaceships, would be built with that objective in mind. Probably it is because so many of science-fiction's top writers are also naval experts that makeup of a space fleet in a fictional war almost invariably follows, line for line, the makeup of the older style navies of earth. Thus, in stories, we find space battleships as the all-powerful lords of the void; with smaller cruisers, and even smaller destroyers and patrol boats. Assuming for a moment that the makeup of a space fleet will correspond with that of a naval fleet, we find that our writers have already forgotten the prime naval lesson of this war -- that wars, even on earth, are now fought in 3 dimensions. The heart and most powerful striking element of a fleet is no longer the heavy battleship capable of destroying anything within range of its guns, but is now the aircraft carrier with its far more versatile and long ranging complement of attack bombers and fighter aircraft. Aircraft carriers, in the late ware, were the most damaging elements of any fleet, and the principal targets for enemy action. By analogy, it would seem to be indicated that the most valuable ship on our space fleet would be a space carrier, a large base for smaller ships, with re-[pair] [second column] [re]pair and storage facilities, containing powerful armament in its own right, but depending mostly upon the smaller ships which it houses for both striking power and protection. Such a ship would sit back well out of range of land based guns and send its smaller attack planes forth to do the damage. The battle ships of space, which are so talked of in stories, would have to get close enough to the planet under assault so that their guns would do damage. One of the prime tenets of combined naval and land warfare is that a land based gun, because of its firmer foundation, can outrange a naval based gun. Thus, as in present wars, until the land based guns have been effectively dealt with, it would pay to keep such a large investment in men and materiel [sic] as a battleship out of the way. But would a space fleet necessarily follow present naval lines? Space battle is obviously completely 3 dimensional in nature, and the present day specialists in 3 dimensional warfare are the air forces, almost without exception, are based upon either army lines or upon lines of their own. In our own Air Force, we have 3 types of combat aircraft. There is the long range heavy bomber, exemplified by the Fortresses and Superfortresses, carrying terrific bomb loads and generally committed to the large scale destruction of important military and industrial targets; there are the medium and attack bombers, generally assigned specialized targets, and faster and carrying heavier loads than their naval torpedo bomber equivalents; and there are the fighters, very fast and powerful and assigned such jobs as combatting [sic] enemy bombers, providing protection for our own bombers, and even doing assault strafing and light bombing on their own. Generally speaking, given the same technology, a land based plane in the same [centered, in box] page 4
Saving...
prev
next
[title made from symbols] POINT OF VIEW One fan's opinion by Lynn Bridges [text is in two columns; first column] SPACE WAR Countless times have the authors of science-fiction presented their views as to what an all-out space war between neighboring planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. would be like. Lots of times the ideas have been good. More often they have just been slam bang, adventure affairs following generally the lines of a mammoth naval engagement on earth. What would be the special requirements of war at space? Let us begin by assuming what the war is between two planets in the same system. Fundamentally, the basic requirement of either warring planet is the reduction of the opposing planet -- just as in our present wars the chief objective is the reduction of the enemy nation. All special weapons, including spaceships, would be built with that objective in mind. Probably it is because so many of science-fiction's top writers are also naval experts that makeup of a space fleet in a fictional war almost invariably follows, line for line, the makeup of the older style navies of earth. Thus, in stories, we find space battleships as the all-powerful lords of the void; with smaller cruisers, and even smaller destroyers and patrol boats. Assuming for a moment that the makeup of a space fleet will correspond with that of a naval fleet, we find that our writers have already forgotten the prime naval lesson of this war -- that wars, even on earth, are now fought in 3 dimensions. The heart and most powerful striking element of a fleet is no longer the heavy battleship capable of destroying anything within range of its guns, but is now the aircraft carrier with its far more versatile and long ranging complement of attack bombers and fighter aircraft. Aircraft carriers, in the late ware, were the most damaging elements of any fleet, and the principal targets for enemy action. By analogy, it would seem to be indicated that the most valuable ship on our space fleet would be a space carrier, a large base for smaller ships, with re-[pair] [second column] [re]pair and storage facilities, containing powerful armament in its own right, but depending mostly upon the smaller ships which it houses for both striking power and protection. Such a ship would sit back well out of range of land based guns and send its smaller attack planes forth to do the damage. The battle ships of space, which are so talked of in stories, would have to get close enough to the planet under assault so that their guns would do damage. One of the prime tenets of combined naval and land warfare is that a land based gun, because of its firmer foundation, can outrange a naval based gun. Thus, as in present wars, until the land based guns have been effectively dealt with, it would pay to keep such a large investment in men and materiel [sic] as a battleship out of the way. But would a space fleet necessarily follow present naval lines? Space battle is obviously completely 3 dimensional in nature, and the present day specialists in 3 dimensional warfare are the air forces, almost without exception, are based upon either army lines or upon lines of their own. In our own Air Force, we have 3 types of combat aircraft. There is the long range heavy bomber, exemplified by the Fortresses and Superfortresses, carrying terrific bomb loads and generally committed to the large scale destruction of important military and industrial targets; there are the medium and attack bombers, generally assigned specialized targets, and faster and carrying heavier loads than their naval torpedo bomber equivalents; and there are the fighters, very fast and powerful and assigned such jobs as combatting [sic] enemy bombers, providing protection for our own bombers, and even doing assault strafing and light bombing on their own. Generally speaking, given the same technology, a land based plane in the same [centered, in box] page 4
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
