[SPOILERS] Now that the war is over . . .

Now that the war is over, isn't this the time to strengthen the protection of those systems who were screaming "We need more, more, more," because they actually do?

Will pickets everywhere be drawn down? Will the weight of metal at bases everywhere be at an all time low? I ask because if so, whenever the MA surfaces, the first few rounds may go all their way.

There should be plenty of time to make every system a hornet's nest.

cthia wrote:Now that the war is over, isn't this the time to strengthen the protection of those systems who were screaming "We need more, more, more," because they actually do?

Will pickets everywhere be drawn down? Will the weight of metal at bases everywhere be at an all time low? I ask because if so, whenever the MA surfaces, the first few rounds may go all their way.

There should be plenty of time to make every system a hornet's nest.

The big problem right now would be finding them assuming they use spider ships. Even parking half of home fleet at a distant system without massive system sensor arrays puts those ships at risk of being surprised by an Oyster Bay or even Silver Bullet type attack. Even SD(P)s caught effectively "at anchor" or on predictable routine patrols can be crippled or destroyed by even slow weapons that they can't see if those weapons can sneak into attack position.

There's an argument that the best answer is that except in the most important systems (those you can afford to cover with massive sensor arrays, rapid reaction forces, and globes of impeller block ships) that you should only put in defenders that you can afford to lose - while keeping your main fleet concentrated in those few heavily defended anchorages. (Largely what the Royal Navy did in WWI - keeping the Grand Fleet largely concentrated in the remote Scapa Flow unless the main German fleet came out - no lesser threat was worth risking them outside that secured anchorage)

So the end of the war might lead to fewer forward deployed forces. Or maybe politics is the overriding factor and there are relatively major defensive formations forward deployed to systems that can't be secured as well from virtually invisible attackers.

Jonathan_S wrote:There's an argument that the best answer is that except in the most important systems (those you can afford to cover with massive sensor arrays, rapid reaction forces, and globes of impeller block ships) that you should only put in defenders that you can afford to lose - while keeping your main fleet concentrated in those few heavily defended anchorages. (Largely what the Royal Navy did in WWI - keeping the Grand Fleet largely concentrated in the remote Scapa Flow unless the main German fleet came out - no lesser threat was worth risking them outside that secured anchorage)

LaLa U47 LaLa.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:Now that the war is over, isn't this the time to strengthen the protection of those systems who were screaming "We need more, more, more," because they actually do?

Will pickets everywhere be drawn down? Will the weight of metal at bases everywhere be at an all time low? I ask because if so, whenever the MA surfaces, the first few rounds may go all their way.

There should be plenty of time to make every system a hornet's nest.

The big problem right now would be finding them assuming they use spider ships. Even parking half of home fleet at a distant system without massive system sensor arrays puts those ships at risk of being surprised by an Oyster Bay or even Silver Bullet type attack. Even SD(P)s caught effectively "at anchor" or on predictable routine patrols can be crippled or destroyed by even slow weapons that they can't see if those weapons can sneak into attack position.

There's an argument that the best answer is that except in the most important systems (those you can afford to cover with massive sensor arrays, rapid reaction forces, and globes of impeller block ships) that you should only put in defenders that you can afford to lose - while keeping your main fleet concentrated in those few heavily defended anchorages. (Largely what the Royal Navy did in WWI - keeping the Grand Fleet largely concentrated in the remote Scapa Flow unless the main German fleet came out - no lesser threat was worth risking them outside that secured anchorage)

So the end of the war might lead to fewer forward deployed forces. Or maybe politics is the overriding factor and there are relatively major defensive formations forward deployed to systems that can't be secured as well from virtually invisible attackers.

I just re-read Uncompromising and have the impression that the Alliance could sneak up on some Silver Bullet drones ... I got the impression that there could be some on the other side of the Beowulf system that did not activate... and in a discussion between Daniel and Benjamin when they spoke about the system, one of them mentioned that the re charger should be able to keep up with the system but not for very long...
The only have to get one...

kzt wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:There's an argument that the best answer is that except in the most important systems (those you can afford to cover with massive sensor arrays, rapid reaction forces, and globes of impeller block ships) that you should only put in defenders that you can afford to lose - while keeping your main fleet concentrated in those few heavily defended anchorages. (Largely what the Royal Navy did in WWI - keeping the Grand Fleet largely concentrated in the remote Scapa Flow unless the main German fleet came out - no lesser threat was worth risking them outside that secured anchorage)

LaLa U47 LaLa.

Yeah, but that was another war. What worked in '14-'18 didn't work as well in '39 against a newer more capable (and more aggressively operated) uboat.

kzt wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:There's an argument that the best answer is that except in the most important systems (those you can afford to cover with massive sensor arrays, rapid reaction forces, and globes of impeller block ships) that you should only put in defenders that you can afford to lose - while keeping your main fleet concentrated in those few heavily defended anchorages. (Largely what the Royal Navy did in WWI - keeping the Grand Fleet largely concentrated in the remote Scapa Flow unless the main German fleet came out - no lesser threat was worth risking them outside that secured anchorage)

LaLa U47 LaLa.

Jonathan_S wrote:Yeah, but that was another war. What worked in '14-'18 didn't work as well in '39 against a newer more capable (and more aggressively operated) uboat.

I understand those first U-boats had to get in very close because their torpedoes were not "steerable." They relied on timing, like shooting skeet.

Later U-boats had more capable torpedoes. The Torpedo Data Computer (TDC) was the US Navy's breakthrough. I envision the Malign producing something to that effect to strike from longer and longer distances. The same mammothly massive computer could be utilized that I envision would handle the CSAPPS over in the Eridani Edict thread.

cthia wrote:I understand those first U-boats had to get in very close because their torpedoes were not "steerable." They relied on timing, like shooting skeet.

Later U-boats had more capable torpedoes. The Torpedo Data Computer (TDC) was the US Navy's breakthrough. I envision the Malign producing something to that effect to strike from longer and longer distances.

Though in the specific action being discussed U47 snuck inside the harbor and was torpedoing a battleship at anchor. Don't need to lead the clay at all if you're skeet shooting one that \just sitting over yonder on a fence post.

So it wouldn't mater there that solving the intercept angles during WWI was a manual process involving slide rules (often specialized ones) rather than an (analog) torpedo data computer.



Of course without homing capability or wire guidance even WWII torpedoes launched based on computer calculations were no better than the initial data assumptions fed into the computer. If the target didn't hold course and speed, or you'd mis-estimated course, speed, or range all the computer power in the world couldn't help you get a hit. (Though against convoys the German pattern running torpedoes might have some chance to hit something in that area target even if the inputs were a bit off)

IIRC, U47 had about a 50% failure rate of their torpedoes, calling a low-order detonation as a failure.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:I understand those first U-boats had to get in very close because their torpedoes were not "steerable." They relied on timing, like shooting skeet.

Later U-boats had more capable torpedoes. The Torpedo Data Computer (TDC) was the US Navy's breakthrough. I envision the Malign producing something to that effect to strike from longer and longer distances.

Though in the specific action being discussed U47 snuck inside the harbor and was torpedoing a battleship at anchor. Don't need to lead the clay at all if you're skeet shooting one that \just sitting over yonder on a fence post.

So it wouldn't mater there that solving the intercept angles during WWI was a manual process involving slide rules (often specialized ones) rather than an (analog) torpedo data computer.



Of course without homing capability or wire guidance even WWII torpedoes launched based on computer calculations were no better than the initial data assumptions fed into the computer. If the target didn't hold course and speed, or you'd mis-estimated course, speed, or range all the computer power in the world couldn't help you get a hit. (Though against convoys the German pattern running torpedoes might have some chance to hit something in that area target even if the inputs were a bit off)

Indeed.

That was the MO of subs during that time. They were virtually kamikazes in their own right. They had to get in really close. Little wonder they'd be found inside harbors.

The unapproachable advantage of the TDC was multitasking. The TDC controlled both torpedo rooms and all 10 torpedo tubes at once.

I'd like to see your slide-rule genius accomplish that for hours.

But yea, if the target doesn't hold course, you're tanked. But you don't necessarily lose your shot because you are continuously tracking him. Data being fed to the TDC is continuously variable in real time. Another shot can oftentimes be gotten off very quickly if target's altered vector is still amenable. With slide rules, a follow up shot is often missed.

In wolf packs, the tactic is as wolves hunting a single prey at a time. In support of the pack. It would be akin to an RMN launch spreading its fire amongst only one ship! LOL

Altering course turns enemy ship into one of the others in the pack. Akin to the instance Honor arranged her wall in an inverted V to allow every ship in the wall at least one shot at target.

Oh yea, sitting ducks are like manna.

cthia wrote:But yea, if the target doesn't hold course, you're tanked. But you don't necessarily lose your shot because you are continuously tracking him. Data being fed to the TDC is continuously variable in real time. Another shot can oftentimes be gotten off very quickly if target's altered vector is still amenable. With slide rules, a follow up shot is often missed.

In wolf packs, the tactic is as wolves hunting a single prey at a time. In support of the pack. It would be akin to an RMN launch spreading its fire amongst only one ship! LOL

Altering course turns enemy ship into one of the others in the pack. Akin to the instance Honor arranged her wall in an inverted V to allow every ship in the wall at least one shot at target.

Oh yea, sitting ducks are like manna.

That's also why the ideal for torpedo bombers was the "anvil" attack where the squadron split in two and attempted to catch the ship in a crossfire of perpendicular torpedo tracks (preferably launched from 45 degrees off each side of the bow). Any attempt of the ship to turn and "comb the tracks" of one set of torpedoes would put it broadside on to the other.

Unfortunately this was often quite hard to accomplish in practice, and exposed the attacking (and usually pretty slow) torpedo bombers to prolonged fire from escorts and defending fighters.