Insanity: Screening elements in the HV

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:All we're really going off is is that Jaynes says Haven "extensively optimized" their energy mounts for anti-missile work; and Manticore didn't.

What is the time period for these books? The Fan Wiki suggests that the intelligence reports are dated 1905 or 1906 PD. which is only up to Field of Dishonor and well before either Grayson or Manticore went to removing lasers from the broadside.

Both Jayne's are dated 1905 - pretty much "the day" before the war started, giving a snapshot of both navies before the war changed them. (It isn't dated as such, but both books have data leading right up to the start of hostilities, but not after.) The SITS books are ~1900-1905 (so reflect the first 2 1/2 books); again, stopping with the snapshot just prior to hostilities. SITS also shows Silesia prewar, though this time period there is only discussed in short stories.

I mentioned upthread that the comment was dated in 1905 and reflected pre-war doctrine - doctrine which, as you found, had drifted with the darwinian process of war.

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:All we're really going off is is that Jaynes says Haven "extensively optimized" their energy mounts for anti-missile work; and Manticore didn't.

What is the time period for these books? The Fan Wiki suggests that the intelligence reports are dated 1905 or 1906 PD. which is only up to Field of Dishonor and well before either Grayson or Manticore went to removing lasers from the broadside.

That's true - they are up to about 1905.
But if Manticore didn't feel the need to extensively optimize their laser and/or graser mounts for anti-missile work back then why would they feel the need to do so after trading out those more numerous mounts (able to target more individual objects) for fewer heavier mounts?

After all, one of the reasons for doing so was by carrying energy fewer mounts they had more room for CMs and PDLCs -- either being far more capable in the anti-missile role than even the most extensively modified broadside energy mount.

I can't rule those optimization out, but I view them as unlikely.

Jonathan_S wrote:All we're really going off is is that Jaynes says Haven "extensively optimized" their energy mounts for anti-missile work; and Manticore didn't.

tlb wrote:What is the time period for these books? The Fan Wiki suggests that the intelligence reports are dated 1905 or 1906 PD. which is only up to Field of Dishonor and well before either Grayson or Manticore went to removing lasers from the broadside.

Jonathan_S wrote:That's true - they are up to about 1905.
But if Manticore didn't feel the need to extensively optimize their laser and/or graser mounts for anti-missile work back then why would they feel the need to do so after trading out those more numerous mounts (able to target more individual objects) for fewer heavier mounts?

After all, one of the reasons for doing so was by carrying energy fewer mounts they had more room for CMs and PDLCs -- either being far more capable in the anti-missile role than even the most extensively modified broadside energy mount.

In chapter 25 of At All Costs there is a comparison between the latest Nike and the previous Nike (sixteen years older):

Nike was the result: a 2.5 million-ton "battlecruiser," almost three times the size of Honor's old ship, but with an acceleration rate thirty percent greater. The old Nike had mounted eighteen lasers, sixteen grasers, fifty-two missile tubes, and thirty-two counter-missile tubes and point defense clusters. The new Nike mounted no lasers, thirty-two grasers—eight of them as chase weapons, fifty missile tubes (none of them chasers), and thirty counter-missile tubes and laser clusters. The old Nike had carried a ship's company of over two thousand; the new Nike's complement was only seven hundred and fifty. And the new Nike was armed with the Mark 16 dual-drive missile. With the "off-bore" launch capability the RMN had developed, she could bring both broadsides' missile tubes to bear on the same target, giving her fifty birds per salvo, as opposed to the older ship's twenty-two. And whereas the old Nike's maximum powered missile range from rest had been just over six million kilometers, the new Nike's missiles had a maximum powered endurance of over twenty-nine million.

I am not sure how to read "X number of counter-missile tubes and laser clusters"; is that the total of both is X or there are X CM tubes and an unknown number of PDLC's? Aside from that, there are two fewer energy weapons (but all are graser), two fewer missile tubes (but for bigger longer ranged missiles) and two fewer of whichever X represents.

That does not suggest that space has been freed up by having fewer energy weapons, since a graser is more massive than an X-ray laser used in the broadside. I am guessing that much of the increased size is due to the dual drive missile requirements.

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:All we're really going off is is that Jaynes says Haven "extensively optimized" their energy mounts for anti-missile work; and Manticore didn't.

tlb wrote:What is the time period for these books? The Fan Wiki suggests that the intelligence reports are dated 1905 or 1906 PD. which is only up to Field of Dishonor and well before either Grayson or Manticore went to removing lasers from the broadside.

Jonathan_S wrote:That's true - they are up to about 1905.
But if Manticore didn't feel the need to extensively optimize their laser and/or graser mounts for anti-missile work back then why would they feel the need to do so after trading out those more numerous mounts (able to target more individual objects) for fewer heavier mounts?

After all, one of the reasons for doing so was by carrying energy fewer mounts they had more room for CMs and PDLCs -- either being far more capable in the anti-missile role than even the most extensively modified broadside energy mount.

In chapter 25 of At All Costs there is a comparison between the latest Nike and the previous Nike (sixteen years older):

Nike was the result: a 2.5 million-ton "battlecruiser," almost three times the size of Honor's old ship, but with an acceleration rate thirty percent greater. The old Nike had mounted eighteen lasers, sixteen grasers, fifty-two missile tubes, and thirty-two counter-missile tubes and point defense clusters. The new Nike mounted no lasers, thirty-two grasers—eight of them as chase weapons, fifty missile tubes (none of them chasers), and thirty counter-missile tubes and laser clusters. The old Nike had carried a ship's company of over two thousand; the new Nike's complement was only seven hundred and fifty. And the new Nike was armed with the Mark 16 dual-drive missile. With the "off-bore" launch capability the RMN had developed, she could bring both broadsides' missile tubes to bear on the same target, giving her fifty birds per salvo, as opposed to the older ship's twenty-two. And whereas the old Nike's maximum powered missile range from rest had been just over six million kilometers, the new Nike's missiles had a maximum powered endurance of over twenty-nine million.

I am not sure how to read "X number of counter-missile tubes and laser clusters"; is that the total of both is X or there are X CM tubes and an unknown number of PDLC's? Aside from that, there are two fewer energy weapons (but all are graser), two fewer missile tubes (but for bigger longer ranged missiles) and two fewer of whichever X represents.

That does not suggest that space has been freed up by having fewer energy weapons, since a graser is more massive than an X-ray laser used in the broadside. I am guessing that much of the increased size is due to the dual drive missiles requirements.

If we go to House of Steel we can get the exact numbers for both classes -- and it appears that RFC was sloppy in At All Costs and accidently gave (approximately) the missile defenses for a single broadside of the new HMS Nike; not her total count.

Reliant-class (Old Nike)
Broadside: 22M, 8L, 6G, 2ET, 10CM, 10PD
Chase: 4M, 1L, 2G, 6CM, 6PD
[total: 52M, 18L, 16G, 4ET, 32CM, 32PD]

Nike-class (New Nike)
Broadside: 25M, 12G, 32CM, 30PD
Chase: 4G, 12PD
[total: 50M, 32G, 64CM, 84PD]

So compared to the original Reliant class, like the old HMS Nike, we see despite the larger and more numerous missile tubes going from a broadside of 14 (or 16; depending on how you categorize the energy torps) energy mounts down to 12 allowed them to triple the point defense. (Though that's a bit of an unfair comparison as the new Nike is nearly triple the mass; so has a lot more room even if the energy mounts hadn't changed)

-------------
Note that the numbers on the larger, mid-war, flight III-IV Reliants are a bit different and they have beefed up missile defense. But those post-date the old HMS Nike and don't like up with the AAC numbers.
Broadside: 24M, 4L, 6G, 18CM, 18PD
Chase: 4M, 2G, 6CM, 6PD

Jonathan_S wrote:If we go to House of Steel we can get the exact numbers for both classes -- and it appears that RFC was sloppy in At All Costs and accidently gave (approximately) the missile defenses for a single broadside of the new HMS Nike; not her total count.

Is it the case that the numbers are only wrong for the new Nike, or was the same mistake made with the old Nike? If so, then the numbers can still be compared. I have never claimed that the numbers of anti-missile laser clusters would go down; only that if the old broadside lasers contributed to missile defense, then we should expect that the new grasers replacing them should do the same - since the new pod environment has increased the missile threat by orders of magnitude.

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:If we go to House of Steel we can get the exact numbers for both classes -- and it appears that RFC was sloppy in At All Costs and accidently gave (approximately) the missile defenses for a single broadside of the new HMS Nike; not her total count.

Is it the case that the numbers are only wrong for the new Nike, or was the same mistake made with the old Nike? If so, then the numbers can still be compared. I have never claimed that the numbers of anti-missile laser clusters would go down; only that if the old broadside lasers contributed to missile defense, then we should expect that the new grasers replacing them should do the same - since the new pod environment has increased the missile threat by orders of magnitude.

RMN clusters have also changed over the years, They are mounting larger clusters on smaller ships, and the fire rates of individual emitters increased 50% from 1920 to 1922 alone.

The CA Fearless mounted 4 emitter clusters in 1902pd, where a BC or BB usually carried 8 emitter clusters at the same time. The original flight Sag-C had 8 emitter clusters, but the next flights of Sag-C carried 12 emitter clusters. (12 emitter clusters in 1900 were carried in DNs and old SDs). And, of course, Katanas are carrying 3x 16 emitter clusters (1900 SD PDLCs). Not certain what SDs are carrying now...

So mount for mount, in 1924 the RMN is carrying larger clusters, each of which much more effective than previous designs.

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:If we go to House of Steel we can get the exact numbers for both classes -- and it appears that RFC was sloppy in At All Costs and accidently gave (approximately) the missile defenses for a single broadside of the new HMS Nike; not her total count.

Is it the case that the numbers are only wrong for the new Nike, or was the same mistake made with the old Nike? If so, then the numbers can still be compared. I have never claimed that the numbers of anti-missile laser clusters would go down; only that if the old broadside lasers contributed to missile defense, then we should expect that the new grasers replacing them should do the same - since the new pod environment has increased the missile threat by orders of magnitude.

Um, I posted the House of Steel numbers for both - you can see from those that the numbers were only wrong for the new Nike.

To reiterate
"The old Nike had mounted eighteen lasers, sixteen grasers, fifty-two missile tubes, and thirty-two counter-missile tubes and point defense clusters."
Reliant-class (Old Nike)
Broadside: 22M, 8L, 6G, 2ET, 10CM, 10PD
Chase: 4M, 1L, 2G, 6CM, 6PD
[total: 52M, 18L, 16G, 4ET, 32CM, 32PD]
It didn't mention her ETs but otherwise the numbers are a complete match


"The new Nike mounted no lasers, thirty-two grasers—eight of them as chase weapons, fifty missile tubes (none of them chasers), and thirty counter-missile tubes and laser clusters."
Nike-class (New Nike)
Broadside: 25M, 12G, 32CM, 30PD
Chase: 4G, 12PD
[total: 50M, 32G, 64CM, 84PD]
Oops, while the missiles and grasers were a perfect match the point defense is wildly different in HoS.


And I'd assume that both the old and new grasers were used to shoot at incoming missiles -- I just don't think they have the kind of extensive optimizations for it that even in 1905 Haven gave to their laser and graser mounts.

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:If we go to House of Steel we can get the exact numbers for both classes -- and it appears that RFC was sloppy in At All Costs and accidently gave (approximately) the missile defenses for a single broadside of the new HMS Nike; not her total count.

Is it the case that the numbers are only wrong for the new Nike, or was the same mistake made with the old Nike? If so, then the numbers can still be compared. I have never claimed that the numbers of anti-missile laser clusters would go down; only that if the old broadside lasers contributed to missile defense, then we should expect that the new grasers replacing them should do the same - since the new pod environment has increased the missile threat by orders of magnitude.

The "Old Nike" was built pre-war, so would have been built with prewar doctrines - so would have energy weapons optimized against anti-missile duty.

If you look at the First war, the RMN used mainly the old Hardware (or old designs) for most of the war. The Sag-As didn't start coming off the line until 1908, the Minotaurs (and LACS) in 1912, and Medusas in 1914. So the majority of the first war, the RMN was saddled by their pre-war designs and hardware and any limitations dictated by that doctrine.

Jonathan_S wrote:Um, I posted the House of Steel numbers for both - you can see from those that the numbers were only wrong for the new Nike.

To reiterate
"The old Nike had mounted eighteen lasers, sixteen grasers, fifty-two missile tubes, and thirty-two counter-missile tubes and point defense clusters."
Reliant-class (Old Nike)
Broadside: 22M, 8L, 6G, 2ET, 10CM, 10PD
Chase: 4M, 1L, 2G, 6CM, 6PD
[total: 52M, 18L, 16G, 4ET, 32CM, 32PD]
It didn't mention her ETs but otherwise the numbers are a complete match


"The new Nike mounted no lasers, thirty-two grasers—eight of them as chase weapons, fifty missile tubes (none of them chasers), and thirty counter-missile tubes and laser clusters."
Nike-class (New Nike)
Broadside: 25M, 12G, 32CM, 30PD
Chase: 4G, 12PD
[total: 50M, 32G, 64CM, 84PD]
Oops, while the missiles and grasers were a perfect match the point defense is wildly different in HoS.


And I'd assume that both the old and new grasers were used to shoot at incoming missiles -- I just don't think they have the kind of extensive optimizations for it that even in 1905 Haven gave to their laser and graser mounts.

also note, the lead ship of a class sometimes varies from the class's stats in general. We've seen the RMN have a spiral development approach on the early ships in each class, with each successive ship varying a bit until the class design settles - even then the next "flight" of ships sometimes has a major design change. Usually, minor to middling changes are retrofitted later to the earlier ships to make the class more uniform, but major changes could be more difficult, and the class leads could be the odd man out with an earlier mark of launchers, or a shorter hull with 2-3 fewer mounts of either side for it's entire career.

So while our official stats for the class says one thing, having the lead ship with fewer (or more anemic) weapons, doesn't surprise me.

However, If memory serves, David said the stats from the Nike were in Error. When confroned in the past, David said it was a editing mistake. it should have read "and thirty counter-missile tubes and laser clusters in each broadside".

Jonathan_S wrote:Um, I posted the House of Steel numbers for both - you can see from those that the numbers were only wrong for the new Nike.

To reiterate
"The old Nike had mounted eighteen lasers, sixteen grasers, fifty-two missile tubes, and thirty-two counter-missile tubes and point defense clusters."
Reliant-class (Old Nike)
Broadside: 22M, 8L, 6G, 2ET, 10CM, 10PD
Chase: 4M, 1L, 2G, 6CM, 6PD
[total: 52M, 18L, 16G, 4ET, 32CM, 32PD]
It didn't mention her ETs but otherwise the numbers are a complete match


"The new Nike mounted no lasers, thirty-two grasers—eight of them as chase weapons, fifty missile tubes (none of them chasers), and thirty counter-missile tubes and laser clusters."
Nike-class (New Nike)
Broadside: 25M, 12G, 32CM, 30PD
Chase: 4G, 12PD
[total: 50M, 32G, 64CM, 84PD]
Oops, while the missiles and grasers were a perfect match the point defense is wildly different in HoS.


And I'd assume that both the old and new grasers were used to shoot at incoming missiles -- I just don't think they have the kind of extensive optimizations for it that even in 1905 Haven gave to their laser and graser mounts.

Sorry about that; I did not read your post well enough, because I assumed that Nike would always be the lead of the class. So I thought you just used the Reliant as a stand-in for the old Nike.

So our only disagreement would be whether Manticore, in dropping X-ray lasers from the broadside, may have made changes to the gravity lensing to better shoot at incoming missiles. We might never know the answer to that, even though the future RMN ships are being built in Haven's major shipyard at Bolthole. Note that over the years, Manticore would have captured examples of PRHN ships to examine what they did.