[SPOILERS]Should have brought a BC(P) or three to the party.

I'll certainly concede that there might well be very valid logistical reasons to use less than ideal weapons. If you have weapon A but really want weapon B it serves no useful purpose to spend time figuring out what you might do in a slightly less imperfect world where you have weapon B.

TFLYTSNBN wrote::D

runsforcelery wrote:


The Mk-16G is capable of taking out any BC (and most SDs) in the various navies of the galaxy. It has an equally long effective range (assuming a ballistic phase; it just takes longer to get there), its ECM is capable of penetrating Havenite long range missile defenses, you can carry 40% more of them, and they are available (now) in considerably greater numbers than the Mark-23.

The Mark-23 can kill anything in space with a very small number of hits; the Mk-16G can kill almost anything in space with about twice the same number of hits. It can, however, kill anything in the SLN's inventory,

It might, indeed, have been better to send a few Agamemnons along to Hypatia . . . if they'd been available. Most of them are being used with Grand Fleet, Tenth Fleet, and the covering forces earmarked for places like Erewhon and Maya should the Sollies find out about certain plans maturing in those areas, and the intended covering force for Hypatia would have been fully adequate to dedend it against Hypatia.

Insisting that the Aggies be loaded with Mk-23s to deal with Solarian raiding forces is sorta like insisting that every world war ii heavy cruiser had to carry 12" guns.

The advantages of 8" gun cruiser vs 12" gun cruiser become very apparent when you have the Des Moines-class cruisers with autoloading 8" guns. Savo island demonstrated that under the right circumstances, even 8" and 6" gun cruisers could mission kill even a battleship. A 12" gun Alaska makes sense only when the threat of German and Japanese fast battleships and battlecruisers had not yet been eliminated and you were starting to build Kentucky class BBs rather than continue production of the much faster Iowas.

The logistical advantages are obvious.

Intended covering forces fully capable of defending Hypatia from Hypatia? Typo? Defending Hypatia from the SLN?

Two things, first the battle you are referring to is first Guadalcanal. When a U.S. Navy Cruiser destroyer group engaged a IJN battleship group. The thing is it was a very, very close range fight for the time period. The average range of combat was under 3,000 yards. With ships capable of shooting between 25,000 and 36,000 for the major combatants it was the equivalent of a gun fight in a elevator. To quote one naval historian, " The first naval battle of Guadalcanal was the equivalent of a bar brawl after the lights had been shot out".

Second there is no Kentucky class battleship. The Kentucky was the last of the Iowa class battleships. There were proposals to commission her as a BBG capable of firing Talos Terrier SAM's and Regulas cruise missiles but was never carried out due to cost and time.

kzt wrote:Each missile does significantly less damage and is easier to intercept. And has a much shorter effective range. And, due to BC(P) control channel limitations, you can't control that many missiles anyhow, so you might as well use the most effective missiles.

I think you hit the nail on the head! I would prefer to have 3600 Mark-23 missiles with double the efficiency than 5040 Mark-16G missiles. And, as you pointed out, the salvo size is limited by the fire control of the BC(P) not by the number of missiles in a pod. The only disadvantage of Mark-23 is a 40% increase of the time between the salvoes you can realistically control. They have better seekers, better EW, much better lethality and much better range.
The only other 'disadvantage' is they may tempt their captains or admirals into thinking they can take on enemy SD(P)s. For me there is no such 'disadvantage', since being able to seriously hurt the enemy most powerful units with your units one or two classes below is called Distributed Lethality and is A Good Thing (TM).

runsforcelery wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:40% more missiles isn't a good reason?

The Mark-23 can kill anything in space with a very small number of hits; the Mk-16G can kill almost anything in space with about twice the same number of hits. It can, however, kill anything in the SLN's inventory,

My reason for Mark-23 is simple:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ ... keOverkill

runsforcelery wrote:Insisting that the Aggies be loaded with Mk-23s to deal with Solarian raiding forces is sorta like insisting that every world war ii heavy cruiser had to carry 12" guns.

Supposing those 12" guns could be mounted on WWII CAs with only a 40% reduction in magazine size, no increase in weight, no decrease in the rate of fire and a minimal price tag, why not??? Even more,

I think even putting a 16" guns on CAs would make sense in those conditions. Beside the fact that the number of our ships that can kill enemy BBs and BCs doubled or tripled, think only of the psychological effect on the enemy ! He can no longer afford to treat our CAs as second rate ships and concentrate on our BBs/BCs, now most of our warships can sink an enemy BB! It is called Distributed Lethality.

Re Saber,

I meant the Montana class.

When the USN started evaluating what to do with ships after WW2, they realized that the large number of young light cruisers were very suitable for conversion into guided missile cruisers. All they had to do was pull the turret and magazine decks, install rotory missile racks, deck it over and install a rotating and elevating missile launcher. Oh yes, thry needed radar to.

The heavy cruisers and battleships were not at all amendable for conversion into guided missile ships.

kzt wrote:I'll certainly concede that there might well be very valid logistical reasons to use less than ideal weapons. If you have weapon A but really want weapon B it serves no useful purpose to spend time figuring out what you might do in a slightly less imperfect world where you have weapon B.

I think that Weber ismaking the point that production capacity for Mk16 greatly exceeds production capacity for Mk23 and Apollo control missiles. This was the case prior to Oyster Bay and more so afterwards.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I think that Weber ismaking the point that production capacity for Mk16 greatly exceeds production capacity for Mk23 and Apollo control missiles. This was the case prior to Oyster Bay and more so afterwards.

That makes no sense. How many Mk16s got fired at BoM vs Mk23s?

The largest use of missiles is loading up a SD(P) pod bay after construction and filling the log carrier for that squadron. They built a LOT of SD(p)s and went through a whole lot of ammo in the various battles. I can’t remember any fights where they had 200 Mk16 combatants fire a thousand missiles each. There are not very many Nike’s that got built and the total ammo needed for a squadron of mk16 armed DDs won’t even half fill a SD(p) pod bay.

The only user of M16 pods are the BC(p), so it’s a special purpose munition. What is the total pod capacity of every BC(p) vs the total pod capacity of every SD(p) in the AIN, RMN, and GSN? I’d guess about 1/5th without looking anything up or doing any math.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

kzt wrote:I'll certainly concede that there might well be very valid logistical reasons to use less than ideal weapons. If you have weapon A but really want weapon B it serves no useful purpose to spend time figuring out what you might do in a slightly less imperfect world where you have weapon B.

I think that Weber ismaking the point that production capacity for Mk16 greatly exceeds production capacity for Mk23 and Apollo control missiles. This was the case prior to Oyster Bay and more so afterwards.

That is one — one — of the points I am making.


Let me try this one more time, because apparently some people have access to technical and tactical manuals on the Royal Manticoran Navy's war-fighting hardware which are unavailable to me.

First, what part of "they already have distributed lethality" are we missing here? I am completely familiar with both the term and the concept, and that's precisely what they already have.

Second, where are people getting the fact that the Mark 16's ability to penetrate defenses is significantly less than that of the Mark 23? Whoever may have told you that, it certainly wasn't the author. The ECM and EW capability of the Mark 16 is virtually identical to that of the Mark 23. So are the support penetration aids they can carry. Am I the only person who has noticed that Mark 16 salvos are also covered by Dragon's Teeth and Dazzlers which are exactly the same as those which cover Mark 23 salvos? Am I the only person who has noticed that the base EW capability of the two warheads is exactly the same? For that matter, the individual birds' seekers are just as capable as the Mark 23's. What they lack is the data sharing and FTL telemetry node of the Mark 23-E, which limits what they can do with what their seekers and sensors can see.

Third, if you can sink everything up to the Yamato with a puny little 12" gun with no problems at all, and you can even sink Yamato herself, if you have to, with the same gun (albeit with a lot more hits), then why is everyone in such a tearing rush to use up 16" rounds on battlecruisers, which is what the Agamemnons are actually intended to fight and the only Solarian target they are likely to encounter?

There isn't even a difference between the rate at which salvos can be fired. You can launch just as quickly from just as many pods whether you are firing Mark 16s or Mark 23s, and you can control the birds just as well whether they are Mark 16s or Mark 23s until the range exceeds that at which the Mark 16's light-speed telemetry links can accept corrections. That — the extremely long range engagement — is the only attack regime in which the Mark 23 has any advantage over the Mark 16 in penetration and targeting ability. The Mark 23 does have heavier — and more numerous — lasing rods, so you get more shots and somewhat more powerful shots per missile that does penetrate, but it's no better at penetrating in the first place, and because you can pack fewer of them into a pod, you get less dense salvos, which means that the defenders have fewer threats with which to deal. That is, each bird to gets through is more dangerous, but the bigger, denser Mark 16 salvo is more likely to saturate defenses and get through in the first place.

The Mark 16 may take longer to reach its target, assuming that you have to incorporate a ballistic phase to get it there (and that the Mark 23 wouldn't have required one for the same range), but that is the difference in flight time for the individual salvo, not for follow on salvos. They will arrive just as tightly sequenced whether they are Mark 16s or Mark 23s.

So, to recap.

(1) The Mark 16 is just as inherently accurate as the Mark 23, except at extremely long ranges.

(2) The Mark 16 has exactly the same penetration capability as the Mark 23.

(3) The Mark 16 can kill any target it's going to face.

(4) Salvos of Mark 16s can be sequenced just as tightly as salvos of Mark 23s, so the density of fire is identical [but see point (8), below].

(5) The maximum range of the Mark 16 and the Mark 23 are identical, in that both of them can reach well beyond their continuously powered acceleration envelope by incorporating ballistic phases and still have the second/third stage available for terminal attack.

(6) The Mark 16 is available in much greater numbers than the Mark 23s, and will be for some time to come.

(7) The yield on the Mark 16-G's warhead is approximately the same as that of the Mark 23; it simply has fewer and lighter lasing rods which means you get fewer potential hits per warhead.

(8) Given the same number of platforms rolling the same number of pods, the Mark 16 salvo will have 40% more birds in it, which means there are more 40% targets the defender has to stop. I.e., the Mark 16 is better at saturating its targets' defenses than the Mark 23 is.

(9) The Mark 16 cannot self direct its attacks beyond telemetry range of its mothership with anything like the Mark 23's capability because it doesn't have the Mark 23-E to coordinate the salvos; every missile is on its own, which is the reason that hit probabilities suck at maximum range compared to shorter ranges. I have made the point repeatedly that Mark 16 hit probabilities at extreme range are greater than anything the SLN has by a considerable margin; they are, however, markedly inferior to those of the Mark 23 at the same extreme range.

I'm not saying that the Mark 23 isn't a significantly more dangerous bird, although where people are getting the "double the efficiency of the Mark 16" yardstick for the Mark 23 puzzles me a bit, because I've never given you that number and I've never assumed that number. Now, if you want to talk about those extremely long range shots against Manticoran/Havenite level defenses, the Mark 23 definitely comes into its own. Those engagements are going to be rare, especially against the Solarian League, and have, in fact, been rare for battlecruiser-ranged actions even against the People's Republic before the end of the Havenite Wars.


What I am saying is that the Mark 16 is up to the job, particularly with the G warhead, of killing superdreadnoughts if it has to and of gutting battlecruisers like fish. That there are production issues which mean that it is available in far greater numbers than the Mark 23. That if the Grand Alliance needs to fight superdreadnoughts again, it would really rather have the Mark 23s to use against them, rather than wasting .50 caliber rounds on squirrels. That from a logistics perspective, it's better to have the highest possible number of effective rounds aboard each of your platforms, not simply because you might want to flush them all at an adversary in a single engagement, but so that you can continue to operate away from base/resupply between engagements, if necessary.

And so, despite any advice to the contrary, the Royal Manticoran Navy is going to persevere with its obviously mistaken policy of loading an absolutely and demonstrably lethal ship killing round into its battlecruisers in the greatest possible numbers consistent with production limitations and mission requirements.

And it will go right on tearing off other people's posteriors for the foreseeable future even as it pursues its wrongheaded operational doctrine.

(Oh, and by the by, the Demonic Duo at Bolthole are busy figuring out how to build the capability to launch Mark 23-Es in coordination with Mark 16 salvos to provide them with the same long-range telemetry and fire control capability. They already figured out how to put the data sharing node technology into the Mark 16; they just can't find a way to squeeze an FTL transceiver into a missile body that small. At the moment, they are looking at building one Mark 23-capable tube into each broadside of a Nike and/or fitting what amounts to a permanently attached external launcher with, maybe, a dozen cells apiece, each loaded with a Mark 23-E. If they can pull that off (which, I have to say, seems likely to me) then the Mark 16 will be just as accurate at extreme range as the Mark 23. I hope nobody who's read the earc for Uncompromising Honor missed the discussion that Honor had about Foraker and Hemphill's pairing Ghost Rider platforms and Hermes buoys as a sort of improvised Mark 23-E.)

My reason for expecting that Mk23s are harder to stop is that at all but SDM range they are moving a lot faster. And it has been noted that velocity matters to defenders.

If there are ridiculously more Mk16s on hand than Mk23s then it makes perfect sense to use them when a target doesn't absolutely need to be hit by a Mk23. This would be true for both the BC(P) and the SD(P), to conserve the rounds in short supply. So then logically you'd expect that SD(P)s facing SLN ships would employ Mk16s?

Realistically the only targets that really would need to be serviced with Mk23s are being operated by the people you are not fighting. But I understand can use mixed load and have the pod core ammo handling system move the desired pods around, so you could have some loaded 'just in case'.

kzt wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Just reading the snippets on Hypatia.
Saggy B's are powerful ships but a homogeneous force of Mark 16 combatants would have kicked ass.
I know that the RMN and GSN have about 100 of them.
Use them!

There is never a tactical reason to carry Mk16s in a BC(P). There might be logistic or plot related version, but I cannot think of anything that you can do with a Mk16 pod that isn't done better with a Mk23 pod.

Mk23's only give you more range over Mk16's. BC(P) Only have keyhole 1. so no Apollo, 10 missiles with 10 lasing rode 100 vs 14 missiles with 6 or 8 laser heads. 84 to 112 lasing rods.

Vs Solly BC, CA, CL, or DD Mk16 are plenty powerful.

BC(P), BC(L) should replace all smaller ships. Roland DD should be used as Heavy Attack Craft.

Snippet Attack force of 3 BC(L) and 4 BC(P) would offer a stand off range that would offer a better survival Chance. With a BC(L) "Nike" as the observer.

Nike has a similar crew to an old CL. BC(P) similar to the old tin can. Both can outrun any Solly ship.