Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 52 guests

BC(P)s at Sidemore

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: BC(P)s at Sidemore
Post by Jonathan_S   » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:29 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8800
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

namelessfly wrote:I still have not reread WoH, but given the commentary in HoS, the BC(P)s launched many pods in the opening salvos then retreated behind the SDs and screen. The RHN might not have recognized what the BC(P)s were then given the volume of fire presumed that the GSN SD(P)s had expended much of their ammo making them a less attractive target.
I just rechecked the relevant bit of WoH yesterday - There was a discussion on the Havenite flag bridge (just before the missiles started flying) where they identified the Protector's Own BCs as "probably Courvoisier-class" and mentioned that NavInt had identified the Courvoisier II's a pod-launchers.

So they definitely knew the Grayson BCs might be rolling pods. But it's not clear if they actually observed them do so. Still, if you choose to engage that force it's probably worth throwing your first few salvos at the BCs, they're less well defended than the SD(S)s and if you knock them out you remove a decent chunk of that forces short term offensive, and long term defensive firepower; not to mention their firecontrol.

But I still don't know that switching targets to the closer Grayons is worth it. (And I think they come a bit inside the hyper limit, but I wasn't able to confirm that from the book; it's possible they were just outside it for much of the engagement). Tourville's not going to be able to kill them quickly, so he's pretty much stuck with their fire. But he can keep Honor at arms length (where her accuracy is less), and by keeping her under fire he can deny her fewer SD(P)s time to deeply stack pods. Remember that with all her 'legacy' wallers Honor can probably control larger salvos than the Protector's Own. But only if she has time to roll the pods and hand them off to the non pod-laying escorts.
Top
Re: BC(P)s at Sidemore
Post by kzt   » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:33 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

namelessfly wrote:Electronic signature and effectiveness of countermeasures. Modern LACs are survivable because their small size and agility makes it almost impossible to hit them.

Not really. Note that they did take 95% casualties at BoM when they went after 2nd fleet.
Top
Re: BC(P)s at Sidemore
Post by Jonathan_S   » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:37 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8800
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

kzt wrote:
namelessfly wrote:Electronic signature and effectiveness of countermeasures. Modern LACs are survivable because their small size and agility makes it almost impossible to hit them.

Not really. Note that they did take 95% casualties at BoM when they went after 2nd fleet.
Given the context I'm sure namelessfly was referring to their survivability when deployed as anti-missile screen for a fleet.

Not their survivability in an energy range knife-fight with wallers :shock:
Top
Re: BC(P)s at Sidemore
Post by namelessfly   » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:40 pm

namelessfly

kzt wrote:
namelessfly wrote:Electronic signature and effectiveness of countermeasures. Modern LACs are survivable because their small size and agility makes it almost impossible to hit them.

Not really. Note that they did take 95% casualties at BoM when they went after 2nd fleet.



I am referring to long range missile fire, not knife fighting at energy range, LOL.

The relative immunity is relative and situational.
Top
Re: BC(P)s at Sidemore
Post by SharkHunter   » Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:56 pm

SharkHunter
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1608
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:53 pm
Location: Independence, Missouri

Why not target the Protector's Own first? Because he's caught in the Valley of Death so to say, that is the Protector's Own ambushed his ambush. Given his velocity and the timing of the trap the Havenites have already lost "space superiority" between the hammer Tourville's ships were closing on (the ships from Sidemore) directly ahead and the anvil chasing him from behind.

He immediately turns his formation to get out of the trap, but he still has to avoid the squash, that is, being caught in a missile storm from both sides while splitting his fire. So he tries to blow enough of :the hammer" he's headed towards out of the way to slip past, and to a decent extent, he succeeds in extricating some ships.

Consider Solon's four way squeeze plus the Moriarty controlled pods. Had the RMN not vastly upgraded their missile defenses, Eighth Fleet would not have been able to fight their way out of the box, they would have been utterly destroyed.

Then at Lovat they used part of Eighth Fleet to "rat-trap the mouse trap" with the ultimate hammer: FTL controlled long-range missile fire with Honor's ships acting as the bait AND the anvil.
---------------------
All my posts are YMMV, IMHO, and welcoming polite discussion, extension, and rebuttal. This is the HonorVerse, after all
Top
Re: BC(P)s at Sidemore
Post by Potato   » Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:59 pm

Potato
Captain of the List

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

Why are you resurrecting a year old thread?
Top
Re: BC(P)s at Sidemore
Post by SharkHunter   » Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:01 pm

SharkHunter
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1608
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:53 pm
Location: Independence, Missouri

Potato wrote:Why are you resurrecting a year old thread?


Well, I wasn't on webernet a year ago? Is that verbotten?
---------------------
All my posts are YMMV, IMHO, and welcoming polite discussion, extension, and rebuttal. This is the HonorVerse, after all
Top
Re: BC(P)s at Sidemore
Post by SWM   » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:19 pm

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

SharkHunter wrote:
Potato wrote:Why are you resurrecting a year old thread?


Well, I wasn't on webernet a year ago? Is that verbotten?

It's usually not a great idea. No one remembers the thread, so everyone has to re-read the entire thing before they can comment. Usually threads die after everyone has said what they wanted to say.

There are certainly exceptions where resurrecting a thread is quite reasonable. But it usually isn't done.
--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top
Re: BC(P)s at Sidemore
Post by MaxxQ   » Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:17 pm

MaxxQ
BuNine

Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:08 pm
Location: Greer, South Carolina USA

SWM wrote:
SharkHunter wrote:
Well, I wasn't on webernet a year ago? Is that verbotten?

It's usually not a great idea. No one remembers the thread, so everyone has to re-read the entire thing before they can comment. Usually threads die after everyone has said what they wanted to say.

There are certainly exceptions where resurrecting a thread is quite reasonable. But it usually isn't done.


What SWM said. It's usually called necroposting, and generally is frowned upon at most messageboards (those that I've posted on, anyway). The only exception I've seen is on one of the 3D modeling forums I post at, where it's acceptable for the person who actually started the thread to necro his own thread because he has an update to the project he may have been working on, then stopped for awhile. If someone else necros a thread, people get pissed because they think there's been a new update to a model, and find out there isn't, especially when it's just someone saying, "Cool model, bro!"

I do that here with my Honorverse Renders thread, although the thread is usually only a few months old when I do.
Top
Re: BC(P)s at Sidemore
Post by n7axw   » Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:45 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

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

I can see it both ways. On the one hand, if the thread has died a natural death, it can seem like a rehash to the folks who are old timers on the board.

But on the other hand, newbys who come up and start new threads often find their ideas stomped on by those who have already been there and done that.

So what's better? Resurrecting an old thread and making it available for the newbys to educate themselves or allow the newbys to explore their ideas in a new thread?

Dunno. But I do know for someone to come by and squash a discussion because they find it old stuff can be irritating and is certainly not hospitible to someone new to the forum.

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top

Return to Honorverse