Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Or it might have been the opposite: if Second Hancock hadn't proven that LACs could actually go on the offensive up against warships, they may have remained a defensive asset.

I was about to point that out - Adcock had a difficult time getting the Minotaur approved and built - and Jonathan and I ha discussed before, we believe only because there were old idle DN slips available for the construction. If 2nd Hancock hadn't proved the concept, would the "gun club" been enough to stop wide spread use of the CLAC and LAC concept? would the LACs have been built in large enough #s to be usable?

If the conventional war started with an early Andermani reinforcement, would the disdain for DNs still occur? would they still be built in lower #s to fill defensive roles? and if so, would those old slips be available for a Dreadnaught sized LAC carrier, or would building one steal vital resources away from a successful military program?

And the best question, would the war still be going on by the time of 2nd Hancock for it to matter?

Fester, I must say this is a well written memo. If the IAN didn't circulate something similar, that was also a blunder.

I still think an additional eighty Wallers added to the Alliance's OOB in 1905 would have been decisive. Eighty additional wallers represents a Bolthole of its own, and remember, the RMN would be assimilating whatever the edge is in IAN tech. Also, the Alliance would not have had to waste its time frittering away at peripheral systems. And any attack at the jugular would have come at a complete surprise, with nary a clue of the additional wallers.

A possibility for a real, short victorious war?

munroburton wrote:Going in the other direction, I wonder whether Brooks' law was at work. The increased bureaucratic inefficiencies and political interference may have more than offset the additional resources - but even Reynaud admits the search for the seventh terminus had been under-resourced.

Could they even do it while the Peeps held the Trevor's Star Terminus? Having an RMN ship with highly proprietary technology in the vicinity of the Junction could be a tempting target for a Peep hit-and-run. Not an all-out attack, but maybe go in, fire, and then dive back. No other ship loiters in the vicinity of the Junction for any period of time.

But I don't think this makes much sense. The time it would take to get the information from any of the other termini to Trevor's Star is measured in days to weeks.

munroburton wrote:Going in the other direction, I wonder whether Brooks' law was at work. The increased bureaucratic inefficiencies and political interference may have more than offset the additional resources - but even Reynaud admits the search for the seventh terminus had been under-resourced.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Could they even do it while the Peeps held the Trevor's Star Terminus? Having an RMN ship with highly proprietary technology in the vicinity of the Junction could be a tempting target for a Peep hit-and-run. Not an all-out attack, but maybe go in, fire, and then dive back. No other ship loiters in the vicinity of the Junction for any period of time.

But I don't think this makes much sense. The time it would take to get the information from any of the other termini to Trevor's Star is measured in days to weeks.

There is no way this could work. Haven would not know when the ship was present and jumping through would result in destruction by the forts.

If the RMN and IAN did defeat Haven, then there would be a "peace dividend"; even if the graduated tax was eliminated. One result would be additional money for the survey of the wormhole.

How would the GSN have shaped up had this come to pass? No captured ships to give it. And Haven may not have lost good men to defection, no time for it. And Honor wouldn't have been on Grayson to train them.

cthia wrote:How would the GSN have shaped up had this come to pass? No captured ships to give it. And Haven may not have lost good men to defection, no time for it. And Honor wouldn't have been on Grayson to train them.

Depends on when "this came to pass." If it happens after Icarus, then there isn't much of a difference. At that point in time, the GSN is building Honor Harrington-class SD(P)s in greater quantity than the RMN.

Even if it's around or shortly before the liberation of Trevor's Star, the GSN has been participating in the Medusa design, Project Anzio, and has already built at least couple, probably many more, SD of their own. By this time, the GSN is already in the Top 10 of Navies in the Galaxy, with at least three battle squadrons.

If instead the IAN joined as the OP proposed, around 1905 and 1906, the GSN only has the Manticore's Gift for battle squadrons and has only begun building cruisers and battlecruisers. So if the war gets resolved much more quickly, they wouldn't build as big as they actually did because there would be no need for it.

In any of those scenarios, there would be no extreme push to continue building in the interbellum period.

PS: GNS Benjamin the Great has hull number SD-21 and the wiki lists as "first Grayson-built ship of the wall." But Manticore's gift was only 11 ships. What happened to SD-12 through 20? Were those Steadholder Denevksi-class SDs (modified Gryphon class) ships built in Manticoran yards? Or was the Benji actually the first Grayson-designed-and-built ship? That sounds more likely.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
(SNIP by RAW)

PS: GNS Benjamin the Great has hull number SD-21 and the wiki lists as "first Grayson-built ship of the wall." But Manticore's gift was only 11 ships. What happened to SD-12 through 20? Were those Steadholder Denevksi-class SDs (modified Gryphon class) ships built in Manticoran yards? Or was the Benji actually the first Grayson-designed-and-built ship? That sounds more likely.

I think the wiki is wrong. The references to what had to be the Steadholder Devevski class in _Flag in Exile_ implied that they were being built in Grayson. Also, per _House of Steel_, the last 2 were delayed, because components were diverted to the "Honor Harrington".

BTW, the construction numbers and the hull numbers don't match up well in that the "Terrible" (rebuilt PN Dequesne class SD) is SD-11 and the "Honor Harrington" is SD-31 and, supposedly there were 22 Steadholder Denevksi-class SDs built (plus 3 Benjamin the Great-class SDs)

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
(SNIP by RAW)

PS: GNS Benjamin the Great has hull number SD-21 and the wiki lists as "first Grayson-built ship of the wall." But Manticore's gift was only 11 ships. What happened to SD-12 through 20? Were those Steadholder Denevksi-class SDs (modified Gryphon class) ships built in Manticoran yards? Or was the Benji actually the first Grayson-designed-and-built ship? That sounds more likely.

I think the wiki is wrong. The references to what had to be the Steadholder Devevski class in _Flag in Exile_ implied that they were being built in Grayson. Also, per _House of Steel_, the last 2 were delayed, because components were diverted to the "Honor Harrington".

BTW, the construction numbers and the hull numbers don't match up well in that the "Terrible" (rebuilt PN Dequesne class SD) is SD-11 and the "Honor Harrington" is SD-31 and, supposedly there were 22 Steadholder Denevksi-class SDs built (plus 3 Benjamin the Great-class SDs)

And that's why the wiki is called Unreliable. Here's why it says the Benji is first:

20:30, 21 November 2008‎ Drakensis talk contribs‎ 942 bytes +942‎ New page: GNS Benjamin the Great is the first Grayson-built ship of the wall.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:I think the wiki is wrong. The references to what had to be the Steadholder Devevski class in _Flag in Exile_ implied that they were being built in Grayson. Also, per _House of Steel_, the last 2 were delayed, because components were diverted to the "Honor Harrington".

BTW, the construction numbers and the hull numbers don't match up well in that the "Terrible" (rebuilt PN Dequesne class SD) is SD-11 and the "Honor Harrington" is SD-31 and, supposedly there were 22 Steadholder Denevksi-class SDs built (plus 3 Benjamin the Great-class SDs)

What's stopping Grayson from building more Denevskis after GNS Honor Harrington was commissioned? The Benjis were clearly cancelled, as per HoS ("with the secret SD(P) program already starting up, the ships were modified after laydown into dedicated command ships."). Those were Grayson designs, which carried some risk. The Denevskis were basically Gryphons with the serial numbers filed off and a paint job, so a proven design (I'm underselling them to make a point).

Anyway, my comment was concerning the wording in the wiki, but if we assume the wiki is incorrect, there's no contradiction. It's quite possible that building a Denevski / Gryphon was far faster due to Manticore learnings than a Benji.

And the Graysons did accelerate one ship to meet an emotional and political goal once, so why not twice? They could have accelerated the Benji so she commissioned as SD-21, while 10 other Denevskis were still in construction.

And HoS does not say those delayed Denevskis were the last. The wording is: "Construction of two of the Denevskis was delayed by eight months" with no "last." With 11 DuQuesne / Manticore's Gift, 22 Denevskis and 3 Benjis, that's only 36. Take 2 out we only have to account for 4 more ships laid before and commissioned after GNS Honor Harrington.

Or, alternatively, hull numbers are assigned when the ship is ordered or laid down. Building a completely new design takes time, so both SD-21 and SD-31 would have far lower hull numbers than other ships commissioned at the same time.

cthia wrote:Fester, I must say this is a well written memo. If the IAN didn't circulate something similar, that was also a blunder.

I still think an additional eighty Wallers added to the Alliance's OOB in 1905 would have been decisive....

A possibility for a real, short victorious war?

Thank you, and that is what I'm thinking. Somewhere in the Andermani imperial security bureaucracy, this memo had to have been written in 1905 or early 1906. There could have been a dozen good (objectively or at least at the time) reasons why it was not acted upon, but someone had to have written it.