MASSIVE SPOILER about next book hardware

jeremyr wrote:It would be easier to just fill in the canal several miles ahead, then when the ships go by, fill it in behind. Then they could probably even drain it to strand the boat. I think ships operating with the army in canals would be very vulnerable if they got too far away from ground forces.

I'd like to point something out, not necessarily in response to this post, but rather in response to quite a few I've seen on this thread and others. And I'm not saying whether or not this has any bearing on actual events in Midst Oil and Tribulation.

Mobility comes in several different flavors. For example, over the short-haul a cavalry force is faster than an infantry force; an armored column is faster than leg infantry. Troop concentrations also come in several different flavors, from densely deployed battalions advancing across a battlefield to small detachments scattered over a relatively large geographical area.

The critical equation is speed X firepower / enemy concentration. In order to do anything about a cavalry force raiding your rear areas, for example, you have to have troops available to intercept it. If you're pursuing the raiding force, you have to be faster than it is so that you can overtake it; if you're going to intercept it, you have to be somewhere in front of it, know it's coming, and either already be in its path or have the speed to place yourself in its path before it gets past you. What that means in a campaign tied to fixed communication routes — railroads, canals, what-have-you — is that you have to have line of communications security detachments in the right places at the right times. That, of course, subtracts available warm bodies from your field force, so a commander has to couple his known vulnerabilities with his communications capability and decide — on that basis — how many troops he's going to take away from his primary combat formations.

Note that critical point: known vulnerabilities. Now, obviously, the Church has the semaphore, which gives it major advantages over other preindustrial armies in terms of its ability to communicate over long distances and move troops in response to newly discovered threats. But that hasn't repealed or revoked Nathan Bedford Forest's pithy summation of successful tactics. While Forest wasn't necessarily a very nice man (in, oh, so many ways!), he was a very good cavalry commander, and I don't think anyone has ever improved upon "what matters is the one who gets there firstest with the mostest."

I think people need to go back and look at the sheer scale of the area across which armies in the Republic of Siddarmark are likely to be maneuvering and think in terms of troop densities. In terms of field armies fighting other field armies, concentrations of troops are likely to draw other concentrations into collision with them, since the objectives of one side are to destroy or neutralize the other side. In terms of maintaining rear area security, however, density becomes critical and far harder to maintain. You might want to consider how effective the German Army wasn't at protecting railroads and bridges against sabotage in places like Russia and Yugoslavia during WW II.

Just saying.

AClone wrote:Has RFC mentioned the dimensions of Safeholdian canals? Not to underestimate the ingenuity of their engineers, but just out of curiosity, I looked up the Erie Canal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal

The original canal was 363 miles (584 km) long, from Albany on the Hudson to Buffalo on Lake Erie. The channel was a cut 40 feet (12 m) wide and 4 feet (1.2 m) deep, with removed soil piled on the downhill side to form a walkway called the towpath. Canal boats, up to 3.5 feet (1.1 m) in draft, were pulled by horses and mules on the towpath.

runsforcelery wrote:
“River-class” Ironclads)

Displacement: 1,200 tons (normal); 1,992 tons (max load)

Dimensions: 140'x40'x6' (normal draft); 140'x40'x10' (draft w/max designed fuel); Freeboard = 11.5 feet at design displacement.

The substantial disparity in draft suggests to me that these really are river gunboats, not intended for canals. Not least considering how many rivers there are--and how few gunboats have been made. Shoot, for a canal, just stick a couple of cannon on a barge, Same effect.

RFC has stated that the canals are wide enough for two-way traffic, so two "average width" barges can pass each other going in opposite directions. Of course he didn't tell us how wide an average barge is. My impression was that the gunboats can fit in a canal, but whether they can turn around in one is a matter of conjecture - and rather crucial to their usefulness in canals. Toss in how easy it would be to trap one by sabotaging a canal's locks, and I wouldn't bet we'll see them in canals very often.

Give them a nice wide river and they'll be Shiva's babies to CoGA shipping, onshore batteries, field artillery, you name it. Absent the inevitable golden BB of course...

AClone wrote:Has RFC mentioned the dimensions of Safeholdian canals? Not to underestimate the ingenuity of their engineers, but just out of curiosity, I looked up the Erie Canal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal

The original canal was 363 miles (584 km) long, from Albany on the Hudson to Buffalo on Lake Erie. The channel was a cut 40 feet (12 m) wide and 4 feet (1.2 m) deep, with removed soil piled on the downhill side to form a walkway called the towpath. Canal boats, up to 3.5 feet (1.1 m) in draft, were pulled by horses and mules on the towpath.

runsforcelery wrote:
“River-class” Ironclads)

Displacement: 1,200 tons (normal); 1,992 tons (max load)

Dimensions: 140'x40'x6' (normal draft); 140'x40'x10' (draft w/max designed fuel); Freeboard = 11.5 feet at design displacement.

The substantial disparity in draft suggests to me that these really are river gunboats, not intended for canals. Not least considering how many rivers there are--and how few gunboats have been made. Shoot, for a canal, just stick a couple of cannon on a barge, Same effect.

Remember what I've said over and over again — it's extremely dangerous to pick a given point in preindustrial Earth technology and extrapolate from that point to determine what Safeholdian capabilities are. These are political and economic units with substantial population resources and with "technological" capabilities which were set at very different levels from, say, 1840 North America. Moreover, the Erie Canal (and most of the canal systems contemporary to it) were the products of private enterprise produced as profit-making projects, often with state-provided subsidies or financing channels, but without the resources of a nation with a population of, oh, 129,000,000 or so people and what amounts to a planetwide imperial government and taxation system to help direct and pay for infrastructure improvements.

That's going to have at least a few small implications for the scale on which its operating, don't you think? [G]

jeremyr wrote:It would be easier to just fill in the canal several miles ahead, then when the ships go by, fill it in behind. Then they could probably even drain it to strand the boat. I think ships operating with the army in canals would be very vulnerable if they got too far away from ground forces.

I think I remember that RFC said canals were 20 feet deep and appear to be wide enough to allow two way traffic. I don't think that applies to every canal but just to the main thoroughfares.

I don't think that filling in canals is the way to go because, more than likely, the side doing the filling is going to want to use it when they gain control over the territory and I expect that some of the real estate will change hands more than once. It will be a time consuming and manpower intensive project to dig them back out, time and manpower that you may not have or want to give up even if one just fills in enough so that the available draft will be too shallow for even a minimally loaded barge.

I agree that using canals with even a modest amount of assurance that whatever one ships is going to get from
A to B and be usable by the side doing the shipping will require control of the territory on both sides that is at least an artillery shot wide. Control of the staging areas on both ends is also required otherwise you may well be in the position of doing the shipping for the other side.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the writ prohibits damaging the locks and canal structures. We already know that the Temple forces are violating this proscription. We will have to wait and see if that comes back to bite them in the hindquarters. Charisian forces will, most likley, take at least some care to avoid damage to the canalsbut some damage will be unavoidable. I believe that to be in their best longer term interests.

runsforcelery wrote:I'd like to point something out, not necessarily in response to this post, but rather in response to quite a few I've seen on this thread and others. And I'm not saying whether or not this has any bearing on actual events in Midst Toil and Tribulation.

I think people need to go back and look at the sheer scale of the area across which armies in the Republic of Siddarmark are likely to be maneuvering and think in terms of troop densities. In terms of field armies fighting other field armies, concentrations of troops are likely to draw other concentrations into collision with them, since the objectives of one side are to destroy or neutralize the other side. In terms of maintaining rear area security, however, density becomes critical and far harder to maintain. You might want to consider how effective the German Army wasn't at protecting railroads and bridges against sabotage in places like Russia and Yugoslavia during WW II.

Just saying.

Hooray! So we can actually trust the cover and rest assured that we'll get at least one nice land battle, probably more. Cutting the looooong supply chain of the AoG will be critical to success, and "relatively" easy to do, where "relatively" means not having to fight your way through an entire army to do it.

After all you can't have a strong defense everywhere, but that cuts both ways.

Time to break out the ICA commandos!

I was going to suggest developing some "Hogan's Heroes," but then I remembered that all EoC and loyal Siddarmarkan troops are considered heretics, so POWs will either be executed or put to the Question. The good guys simply don't have the option to surrender.

What are the good guys going to do with POWs they capture? Empty ships headed back to Tarot or Charis can carry loads of them, provided there's a way to get them to a port. Otherwise?

Hi guys

Just a random comment here.

IIRC, RFC did imply (by underlining a piece of one of our posts) that canals could handle two way traffic.

Just say'n

R

McGuiness wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:I'd like to point something out, not necessarily in response to this post, but rather in response to quite a few I've seen on this thread and others. And I'm not saying whether or not this has any bearing on actual events in Midst Toil and Tribulation.

I think people need to go back and look at the sheer scale of the area across which armies in the Republic of Siddarmark are likely to be maneuvering and think in terms of troop densities. In terms of field armies fighting other field armies, concentrations of troops are likely to draw other concentrations into collision with them, since the objectives of one side are to destroy or neutralize the other side. In terms of maintaining rear area security, however, density becomes critical and far harder to maintain. You might want to consider how effective the German Army wasn't at protecting railroads and bridges against sabotage in places like Russia and Yugoslavia during WW II.

Just saying.

Hooray! So we can actually trust the cover and rest assured that we'll get at least one nice land battle, probably more. Cutting the looooong supply chain of the AoG will be critical to success, and "relatively" easy to do, where "relatively" means not having to fight your way through an entire army to do it.

After all you can't have a strong defense everywhere, but that cuts both ways.

Time to break out the ICA commandos!

I was going to suggest developing some "Hogan's Heroes," but then I remembered that all EoC and loyal Siddarmarkan troops are considered heretics, so POWs will either be executed or put to the Question. The good guys simply don't have the option to surrender.

What are the good guys going to do with POWs they capture? Empty ships headed back to Tarot or Charis can carry loads of them, provided there's a way to get them to a port. Otherwise?

I think that there will be several large land battles. I would point out that just because the enemy has concentrated a large force in an area doesn't necessarily meant that you should go running over there to jump into the fray. A lot of things need to be considered before committing to a battle, especially a large scale battle which requires a lot of resources for an extended period of time. Ideally, one tries never to offer battle unless one is sure that there is a good chance of winning it. That means having a good position, superior troop strength (that does not necessarily mean more troops) and adequate supplies, equipment and reserves in order to preserve staying power in the battle and, preferably, a good, secure line of retreat should that become necessary. But the first thing to look at is, do I want this piece of real estate badly enough so that I am willing to send troops to die for it? What benefit am I going to get from owning this? What am I going to do with it once I have it? Can I hold it when I get it? Some of the answers to those questions may well be nuanced but on balance, the answer should be clear, there is something worthwhile to be gained from doing this.

Dutch46 wrote:

McGuiness wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:I'd like to point something out, not necessarily in response to this post, but rather in response to quite a few I've seen on this thread and others. And I'm not saying whether or not this has any bearing on actual events in Midst Toil and Tribulation.

I think people need to go back and look at the sheer scale of the area across which armies in the Republic of Siddarmark are likely to be maneuvering and think in terms of troop densities. In terms of field armies fighting other field armies, concentrations of troops are likely to draw other concentrations into collision with them, since the objectives of one side are to destroy or neutralize the other side. In terms of maintaining rear area security, however, density becomes critical and far harder to maintain. You might want to consider how effective the German Army wasn't at protecting railroads and bridges against sabotage in places like Russia and Yugoslavia during WW II.

Just saying.

Hooray! So we can actually trust the cover and rest assured that we'll get at least one nice land battle, probably more. Cutting the looooong supply chain of the AoG will be critical to success, and "relatively" easy to do, where "relatively" means not having to fight your way through an entire army to do it.

After all you can't have a strong defense everywhere, but that cuts both ways.

Time to break out the ICA commandos!

I was going to suggest developing some "Hogan's Heroes," but then I remembered that all EoC and loyal Siddarmarkan troops are considered heretics, so POWs will either be executed or put to the Question. The good guys simply don't have the option to surrender.

What are the good guys going to do with POWs they capture? Empty ships headed back to Tarot or Charis can carry loads of them, provided there's a way to get them to a port. Otherwise?

I think that there will be several large land battles. I would point out that just because the enemy has concentrated a large force in an area doesn't necessarily meant that you should go running over there to jump into the fray. A lot of things need to be considered before committing to a battle, especially a large scale battle which requires a lot of resources for an extended period of time. Ideally, one tries never to offer battle unless one is sure that there is a good chance of winning it. That means having a good position, superior troop strength (that does not necessarily mean more troops) and adequate supplies, equipment and reserves in order to preserve staying power in the battle and, preferably, a good, secure line of retreat should that become necessary. But the first thing to look at is, do I want this piece of real estate badly enough so that I am willing to send troops to die for it? What benefit am I going to get from owning this? What am I going to do with it once I have it? Can I hold it when I get it? Some of the answers to those questions may well be nuanced but on balance, the answer should be clear, there is something worthwhile to be gained from doing this.

Never fight a battle you can't afford to loose. Unless there are no other options, of course.
That said, those aren't the only reasons to choose to engage in battle. Those pretty much sum it up for a war of positions, like the ones that have been dominant for most of human history. The problem with wars of position is that you're mainly fighting over strategic locations - and army to army combat, in a field battle were uncommon, you mainly have sieges in such wars.
For a war of maneuver, where your objective is not so much the enemy's strongpoints or strategic locations, but rather their field forces (deployed army), you're not looking at is taking this location worth the lives it will cost, but rather you're more looking at 'how badly can I hurt them, and will however bad that is be worth the cost it will inflict on my forces'.

I think we'll see a mixture of the two approaches. Charis/Siddarmark needs to bleed the CoGA-directed armies badly before they can really take things back to their enemies, but they also need to hold onto their strategic locations, and take strategic locations away from the CoGA armies in order to cut supply lines.

It'll be interesting.

AClone wrote:...snip...
The original canal was 363 miles (584 km) long, from Albany on the Hudson to Buffalo on Lake Erie. The channel was a cut 40 feet (12 m) wide and 4 feet (1.2 m) deep, with removed soil piled on the downhill side to form a walkway called the towpath. Canal boats, up to 3.5 feet (1.1 m) in draft, were pulled by horses and mules on the towpath.

...snip...

Think you are missing a key point. The original Erie Canal was built in something like 8 years. Embarrassing as I grew up in the neighborhood and can't remember and not going to do the research (yeah clicking on the link you provided but I am on dial up.) Lazy me.

Safehold has had 800+ years to build and improve their canals. Think about that a bit. Where I live now didn't have a complete limited access highway to it from the rest of the US. That was ~30 years ago now the Interstate is 10+ lanes wide. Modern equipment and such but how big would the Erie Canal have been after 800+ years as the most efficient and economical method of getting things from here to there. That is a long time. Erie canal got overrun by many things. Not the least of which was the Saint Lawrence Seaway(steamships) and railroads. 2 MPH via the canal tens of miles an hour by railroad and huge volumes that the steam ship and seaway made viable. Neither of which would have applied on Safehold.

Edit: Oh another thing I forgot. TO make efficient use of those draft dragons you are going to need a bigger boat. If two mules are pulling that 40 foot canal boat how much bigger is what one draft dragon can pull. Leading to bigger boats which need bigger canals capable ot two way traffic.

Enjoy,
T2M

By the way there is still an example of a canal system somewhat like the Erie on the Johnston Farm near Piqua, OH that I have visited complete with a packet boat and tow critters. Neat stuff only looks big in relation to a wagon. :-)

Hi thinkstoomuch

I do not think Safehold ad/used 800 years to build canals.

I believe the terra forming crew did all the canal building and Safeholdians USED them for 800 years.

There is very little canal building expertise IMO, just usage experience.

?? Comments ??

R