Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests

A question about the destruction of Admiral Filareta

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: A question about the destruction of Admiral Filareta
Post by HB of CJ   » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:05 pm

HB of CJ
Captain of the List

Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:46 pm
Location: 43N, 123W Kinda

I have not read all the answers. Yep; that was the same thing I thought of when I first read that book. Perhaps it was just a brief lapse by the Author.

In addition to the Sollies NOT quickly learning that something was going on, and communicating that with Honor, she herself acted out of character.

She should have just taken the Sollie missile storm. After all, the Sollie launch was not launched at anything in particular; it was a vomit.

The Sollie second in command could have easily self destructed the Sollie launch. Why didn't they? Honor did not have to launch back at all.

Just an observation by me. As good as the books are, they are not perfect. Yep ... two things that should not have happened, but there you have it.

HB of CJ (old coot) Cm. I love this forum!
Top
Re: A question about the destruction of Admiral Filareta
Post by Duckk   » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:09 pm

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm

So basically you didn't bother to read David's response from half a year ago which actually addresses your points.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top
Re: A question about the destruction of Admiral Filareta
Post by Hutch   » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:28 pm

Hutch
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1831
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 12:40 pm
Location: Huntsville, Alabama y'all

SWM wrote: They didn't have to take command and give orders to fire. The orders had already been made--by the commander of the fleet. Once those orders went out, the ships simply followed those orders.

As for how 60 ships managed to survive without damage, that is probably simply a matter of probabilities. Not every ship was targeted equally, and the defenses did not counter all missiles equally. Each defending ship was not trying to target only the missiles aimed at that ship. No, the ships coordinated their counter-fire. It is purely a matter of chance which ship a destroyed missile had been assigned to. So, by chance, all the missiles assigned to Ship A might be taken out by point defense while none of the missiles assigned to its neighbor Ship B are taken out. The undamaged ships could simply be the lucky ships whose assigned missiles were all taken out by the coordinated defensive fire.


fallsfromtrees wrote:The probabilities don't seem to work out. Of the 427 SDs that Filareta brought with him, 296 were destroyed outright (69.3%), 71 damaged but repairable (16.6%) and 60 untouched (14.1%). At the battle of Spindle, which is the only one for which we have SD defense numbers, there were 9200 missiles fired at 23 SDs, and the entire task force would have been defending. Of those 9200 missiles, 1007 (11% were stopped), and all 23 were effectively destroyed. At the BoM II, Honor has available over 25 million missiles, she would have used at least as many per ship as were used at Spindle (for a total of 170,800 missiles for Filareta's fleet), and since she had much better information on the capabilities of Halo, an even higher percentage of her missiles would get through, so of the 170,800, at least 152,000 missiles attack the SLN fleet. I submit that there is not a chance in hell that any of the SLN ships would have survived unscathed in that maelstrom unless they were deliberately spared.


Dammit, fallsfromtrees, I had just worked out the numbers for Spindle (11%), Zunker (15%) and Saltash (1.4%), and then you went and beat me too it.

*Hutch goes and sulks in a corner with his Old Tillman...*
***********************************************
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow.

What? Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here! Boom. Sooner or later. BOOM! -LT. Cmdr. Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5
Top
Re; Of Course I Have Not Read Any Specific Explanations ...
Post by HB of CJ   » Mon Dec 08, 2014 5:02 pm

HB of CJ
Captain of the List

Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:46 pm
Location: 43N, 123W Kinda

No; I have not read any specific explanations by the author. Would it make any difference? The shortcomings still remain the same. It is not that big of deal; these things happen. Just a couple of things that to me seemed out of place. Just me. HB of CJ
Top
Re: A question about the destruction of Admiral Filareta
Post by Potato   » Mon Dec 08, 2014 5:06 pm

Potato
Captain of the List

Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:27 pm

:roll:

You raise complaints about why people did or did not do something, yet plug your ears when people try to explain things to you. You are as bad as Skimper.
Top
Re: Re; Of Course I Have Not Read Any Specific Explanations
Post by Duckk   » Mon Dec 08, 2014 5:14 pm

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm

HB of CJ wrote:No; I have not read any specific explanations by the author. Would it make any difference? The shortcomings still remain the same. It is not that big of deal; these things happen. Just a couple of things that to me seemed out of place. Just me. HB of CJ


David gave the precise reasoning behind why what happened, happened. He gave you a direct look into Honor's thinking. He gave several examples from real naval history about how quickly things move in combat. What more could you possibly want? This isn't a series populated by logic driven Vulcans who happen to have the super speed of the Flash. This is a series based on human reactions and human reasoning, and there is nothing unbelievable about how people reacted at Second Manticore.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top
Re: A question about the destruction of Admiral Filareta
Post by Armed Neo-Bob   » Mon Dec 08, 2014 5:37 pm

Armed Neo-Bob
Captain of the List

Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:11 pm

Potato wrote::roll:

You raise complaints about why people did or did not do something, yet plug your ears when people try to explain things to you. You are as bad as Skimper.


Potato

That is a bit unfair, if you've read HB's posts in the past. Why he didn't take time later to read posts about the event is his business.

Accepting the action as written requires a willing suspension of disbelief; HB is just saying that scene didn't cut it with him. Fine. He read the BOOK. Which is more, sometimes, than some others do.

In the end, a reader reads for his own pleasure.

Rob

ps I see Duckk is responding to HB. Trouble is, he's addressing the logic of the issue.

To paraphrase Cachat:
What part of "old coot" do you not understand? :)
Top
Re: A question about the destruction of Admiral Filareta
Post by n7axw   » Mon Dec 08, 2014 5:46 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

I don't know, fallsfromtrees. This sort of thing reminds me of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Applied in this situation, that means that what we have are probabilities, not certainty. Another way of putting it is what I call Murphy's Second Law. "Anything that can possibly happen eventually does no matter how carefully you plan."

You have three different fleets targeting the Sollies. It would be reasonable that the coordination would be less than perfect, overtargeting some, but undertargeting others and leaving some untouched.

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: A question about the destruction of Admiral Filareta
Post by lyonheart   » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:22 pm

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi FallsFromTrees,

Nice analysis and I concur, but here's a couple other points to keep in mind.

Given the far better data Honor had, I expected her to launch FEWER missiles per target because she was trying to conserve them, and since the Spindle post battle analysis indicated only 100-125 were needed to kill BF SD's, I expect HA-H to use only 200 each as her maximum [60% overkill] so only 85,400 total, which because of the short range could have been full power shots and not Apollo's to boot.

Thus the BF SD's had almost 3 minutes to surrender, and some did sooner than others.

So after the pod launch and the 13 second delay launching the broadside salvo, the BF TF CO's have a moment to realise they will be obliterated in the face of the GA's 85.4[+] K missile volley [possibly all from HA-H's ~40 SD's] if they didn't surrender, but the time for some to convince some CO's takes longer than others NTM their forward position reduced the amount of time needed to declare they were surrendering since dropping your wedge [in token of surrender] when missiles are flying is counter-indicated

Thus until you received an acknowledgement you were surrendering and the incoming volley would be immediately destroyed as soon as your wedges dropped, they stayed up; and sorting out who was or wanted to surrender and where got sorted out, the missiles kept coming, all the while the clock is counting down.

Just as at Saltash with Dubroskaya, time ran out for some earlier than others, so the missile salvo's aimed at the last 60 could be entirely aborted before they got in range, while some could be aborted in the case of the 71 damaged, while still too late for the 296 that were closer.

L


fallsfromtrees wrote:
SWM wrote:*quote="Hutch"*
Still, ten seconds is a relatively short time (the time that was mentioned in the after-action discussion between the SLN pods firing and the rest of the ships opening fire) to take command and provide fleet orders to open fire.

It may have been more of a personal choice by the various Admirals commanding the sub-forces under Filareta. Remember, at least 60 SLN SD's came through without damage at all (per textev from ART). Given the level of fire Honor and Lester would have launched, I've always found that improbable....unless those ships had NOT LAUNCHED under command of whatever admiral was in charge of that portion of the fleet and had dropped their wedges and surrended once the GA riposte showed exactly 0% of survival.


Might have been cowardice or strong-minded practicality, but it's the only way I could see those 60 ships surviving without a scratch.

IMHO as always, YMMV.*quote*
They didn't have to take command and give orders to fire. The orders had already been made--by the commander of the fleet. Once those orders went out, the ships simply followed those orders.

As for how 60 ships managed to survive without damage, that is probably simply a matter of probabilities. Not every ship was targeted equally, and the defenses did not counter all missiles equally. Each defending ship was not trying to target only the missiles aimed at that ship. No, the ships coordinated their counter-fire. It is purely a matter of chance which ship a destroyed missile had been assigned to. So, by chance, all the missiles assigned to Ship A might be taken out by point defense while none of the missiles assigned to its neighbor Ship B are taken out. The undamaged ships could simply be the lucky ships whose assigned missiles were all taken out by the coordinated defensive fire.

The probabilities don't seem to work out. Of the 427 SDs that Filareta brought with him, 296 were destroyed outright (69.3%), 71 damaged but repairable (16.6%) and 60 untouched (14.1%). At the battle of Spindle, which is the only one for which we have SD defense numbers, there were 9200 missiles fired at 23 SDs, and the entire task force would have been defending. Of those 9200 missiles, 1007 (11% were stopped), and all 23 were effectively destroyed. At the BoM II, Honor has available over 25 million missiles, she would have used at least as many per ship as were used at Spindle (for a total of 170,800 missiles for Filareta's fleet), and since she had much better information on the capabilities of Halo, an even higher percentage of her missiles would get through, so of the 170,800, at least 152,000 missiles attack the SLN fleet. I submit that there is not a chance in hell that any of the SLN ships would have survived unscathed in that maelstrom unless they were deliberately spared.
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
To Duckk And Maybe Potato; Some clarifications ...
Post by HB of CJ   » Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:05 pm

HB of CJ
Captain of the List

Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:46 pm
Location: 43N, 123W Kinda

To Duckk and maybe Potato; some clarifications. No, I did not read the author's explanations. Nor have I read all the excellent answers already given on this thread. I do not have the physical time to spend doing this.

What I tried to say was that based upon what I read in that excellent book, (and based upon nothing else) I came away with a frown regarding the events during and after the explosion on the Sollie bridge and Honor then shooting back.

Again, I have not read the author's explanations. It is not that big of deal. I'm sure others could bring other non consistencies to light. The Sollies could/should have self destructed their salvo. Honor could/should have held her fire.

Think of all the human life not taken and all the Manti missiles saved. I found it kinda out of character for the flavor and theme of the books. Not counting all the old Sollie ships that would have still been intact.

HB of CJ (old coot) Just me. I love this forum! :)
Top

Return to Honorverse