Flag officers for two ship divisions?

--snipping--

Vince wrote:In theory, command is supposed to pass to the senior officer if the flag commander is a casualty. In practice, there can be mitigating circumstances where a junior officer can retain command instead of passing it to the senior officer:
...

Underlined text are the extenuating and mitigating circumstances (in practice) that allowed Honor to retain command, when according to the Book, she should have passed command to Captain Rubenstein when Rear Admiral Sarnow became a casualty.

Understood. Given that in all of their operations and training exercises, the orders for both ships would originate with Honor as Sarnow's tactical right hand, it wouldn't make much sense to suddenly invert that relationship for HMS Nike's division mate ONLY, not the remaining ships. So the question is, "does flag- trump senior- inside the BC division.

For example, let's say Captain Rubenstein could have assumed tactical command of all ships, I'm thinking he still would have communicated to that division through Honor, yes/no?

SharkHunter wrote:--snipping--

Vince wrote:In theory, command is supposed to pass to the senior officer if the flag commander is a casualty. In practice, there can be mitigating circumstances where a junior officer can retain command instead of passing it to the senior officer:
...

Underlined text are the extenuating and mitigating circumstances (in practice) that allowed Honor to retain command, when according to the Book, she should have passed command to Captain Rubenstein when Rear Admiral Sarnow became a casualty.

Understood. Given that in all of their operations and training exercises, the orders for both ships would originate with Honor as Sarnow's tactical right hand, it wouldn't make much sense to suddenly invert that relationship for HMS Nike's division mate ONLY, not the remaining ships. So the question is, "does flag- trump senior- inside the BC division.

For example, let's say Captain Rubenstein could have assumed tactical command of all ships, I'm thinking he still would have communicated to that division through Honor, yes/no?

Probably not. Captain Rubenstein would have exercized tactical control from his own ship. In that event, Honor would have been participating as Nike's captain, rather than acting as the flag captain which was a status she had because Sarnow had set up shop on her ship. Once Sarnow is removed from the equation, Honor's role as flag captain ceases once tactical control has passed to the senior officer after Sarnow.

Don

--snipping--

For example, let's say Captain Rubenstein could have assumed tactical command of all ships, I'm thinking he still would have communicated to that division through Honor, yes/no?

n7axw wrote:Probably not. Captain Rubenstein would have exercized tactical control from his own ship. In that event, Honor would have been participating as Nike's captain, rather than acting as the flag captain which was a status she had because Sarnow had set up shop on her ship. Once Sarnow is removed from the equation, Honor's role as flag captain ceases once tactical control has passed to the senior officer after Sarnow.

Don

That makes sense. It's not like he would have had to communicate with one ship OR the other, so both ships would essentially have been equal footing, and whichever ship was in better position to defend on a particular threat axis would probably assume "lead". Likely that still would have been Honor in our "alternate" version of the battle ending as Nike was the least damaged of the two.

Kizarvexis wrote:
On a side note, I believe the RMN is still using 6 SD BatRons, so what about adding two of the new battle CLACs, (the ones armored up to provide refueling/rearming to LACs) to bring the BatRons back to 8 and provide organic LAC support to each BatRon?

Bad bad idea. If you do that, you are basically telling squadrons to maneuver WITH the CLACs as an integral part of the wall, while you add an extra dimension of maintenance requirements that is better off being kept in separate units.

If you don´t maneuver with the CLACs as part of the wall, then you´re dispersing them from the squadrons anyway, so their theoretically being part of a squadron becomes moot.

If you bring them to the wall, they risk being easy losses(they don´t have the armour of SDs), if you don´t, what ships are going to keep them escorted? If they´re their own squadron, then they have their own escorts assigned, if they´re part of an SD squadron, they will have to draw on their escorts when detaching.

Basically, it´s a really really bad idea. Might look great on paper, but in reality... Just no.

Tenshinai wrote:="Kizarvexis"]

On a side note, I believe the RMN is still using 6 SD BatRons, so what about adding two of the new battle CLACs, (the ones armored up to provide refueling/rearming to LACs) to bring the BatRons back to 8 and provide organic LAC support to each BatRon?

Bad bad idea. If you do that, you are basically telling squadrons to maneuver WITH the CLACs as an integral part of the wall, while you add an extra dimension of maintenance requirements that is better off being kept in separate units.

If you don´t maneuver with the CLACs as part of the wall, then you´re dispersing them from the squadrons anyway, so their theoretically being part of a squadron becomes moot.

If you bring them to the wall, they risk being easy losses(they don´t have the armour of SDs), if you don´t, what ships are going to keep them escorted? If they´re their own squadron, then they have their own escorts assigned, if they´re part of an SD squadron, they will have to draw on their escorts when detaching.

Basically, it´s a really really bad idea. Might look great on paper, but in reality... Just no.[/quote]


----------------

Looks great on Janacek's papers -- fortunately, Janacek's no longer around.
Tenshinai -- Agree -- there are a LOT of reasons that ship types in a squadron need to be the same type and preferably the same or functionally similar class.
That's also the reason the offensive missiles were dropped from the Flight II CLAC's (Hydra Class) as it was determined that CLAC's really have NO business in a Wall of Battle.
Like the CV / CVN their power projection element is the craft they carry.

-- Stewart

stewart wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:="Kizarvexis"]

On a side note, I believe the RMN is still using 6 SD BatRons, so what about adding two of the new battle CLACs, (the ones armored up to provide refueling/rearming to LACs) to bring the BatRons back to 8 and provide organic LAC support to each BatRon?

Bad bad idea. If you do that, you are basically telling squadrons to maneuver WITH the CLACs as an integral part of the wall, while you add an extra dimension of maintenance requirements that is better off being kept in separate units.

If you don´t maneuver with the CLACs as part of the wall, then you´re dispersing them from the squadrons anyway, so their theoretically being part of a squadron becomes moot.

If you bring them to the wall, they risk being easy losses(they don´t have the armour of SDs), if you don´t, what ships are going to keep them escorted? If they´re their own squadron, then they have their own escorts assigned, if they´re part of an SD squadron, they will have to draw on their escorts when detaching.

Basically, it´s a really really bad idea. Might look great on paper, but in reality... Just no.

----------------

Looks great on Janacek's papers -- fortunately, Janacek's no longer around.
Tenshinai -- Agree -- there are a LOT of reasons that ship types in a squadron need to be the same type and preferably the same or functionally similar class.
That's also the reason the offensive missiles were dropped from the Flight II CLAC's (Hydra Class) as it was determined that CLAC's really have NO business in a Wall of Battle.
Like the CV / CVN their power projection element is the craft they carry.

-- Stewart[/quote]
I think you may be thinking of either the RMN Hydras no longer carrying any chase grasers at all, compared to the Minotaurs with 4 chase grasers:

House of Steel wrote:Starting in 1920 PD, the Flight II Hydras have had their launch tubes and magazines configured to fire the Mk23 fusion-powered MDM rather than the much larger Mk41, and the elimination of all chase beam weaponry allowed them to increase the launch tubes to twelve, in addition to an increase in the defensive armament. This change reflects the operational realities of how little business carriers have in engaging in beam combat with ships of the wall, as well as providing them with a credible threat at extended range against anything below the wall.

Italics are the author's, boldface is my emphasis.

Or the GSN Covingtons with no offensive armament at all:

House of Steel wrote:While only slightly more massive than a Minotaur, foregoing all offensive missile and energy armament allows the Covington class to carry almost twenty-five percent more LACs. The Office of Shipbuilding decided that the increased operational flexibility was desirable, even if doctrine required two squadrons of LACs to be held back to protect the carrier. The professional disagreement between GSN and Manticoran designers applies only to offensive armament, as the Covingtons retain defensive capabilities fully comparable to the Manticoran counterparts and, if necessary, can protect themselves quite well.

Italics are the author's, boldface is my emphasis.

Vince wrote:

stewart wrote:
Looks great on Janacek's papers -- fortunately, Janacek's no longer around.
Tenshinai -- Agree -- there are a LOT of reasons that ship types in a squadron need to be the same type and preferably the same or functionally similar class.
That's also the reason the offensive missiles were dropped from the Flight II CLAC's (Hydra Class) as it was determined that CLAC's really have NO business in a Wall of Battle.
Like the CV / CVN their power projection element is the craft they carry.

-- Stewart

I think you may be thinking of either the RMN Hydras no longer carrying any chase grasers at all, compared to the Minotaurs with 4 chase grasers:

House of Steel wrote:Starting in 1920 PD, the Flight II Hydras have had their launch tubes and magazines configured to fire the Mk23 fusion-powered MDM rather than the much larger Mk41, and the elimination of all chase beam weaponry allowed them to increase the launch tubes to twelve, in addition to an increase in the defensive armament. This change reflects the operational realities of how little business carriers have in engaging in beam combat with ships of the wall, as well as providing them with a credible threat at extended range against anything below the wall.

Italics are the author's, boldface is my emphasis.

Or the GSN Covingtons with no offensive armament at all:

House of Steel wrote:While only slightly more massive than a Minotaur, foregoing all offensive missile and energy armament allows the Covington class to carry almost twenty-five percent more LACs. The Office of Shipbuilding decided that the increased operational flexibility was desirable, even if doctrine required two squadrons of LACs to be held back to protect the carrier. The professional disagreement between GSN and Manticoran designers applies only to offensive armament, as the Covingtons retain defensive capabilities fully comparable to the Manticoran counterparts and, if necessary, can protect themselves quite well.

Italics are the author's, boldface is my emphasis.

With no offensive systems in the Bow/Stern, you have to wonder what the hull form is of the Covington (Whose Picture was accidentally replaced by a Raoul Couvosier II BC(p) in HoS. A Minotaur had 9 Launchers, 4 Grasers, 10 CM and 10 PDLCs, while the Covington had just 12 CMs and 12 PDLC. It wouldn't surprise me if the Covington, given it's "support" nature, was just a merchant style hull with no Hammerheads.

Theemile wrote:
With no offensive systems in the Bow/Stern, you have to wonder what the hull form is of the Covington (Whose Picture was accidentally replaced by a Raoul Couvosier II BC(p) in HoS. A Minotaur had 9 Launchers, 4 Grasers, 10 CM and 10 PDLCs, while the Covington had just 12 CMs and 12 PDLC. It wouldn't surprise me if the Covington, given it's "support" nature, was just a merchant style hull with no Hammerheads.

It would surprise me greatly - the whole point of removing the offensive weapons is to free up space for defensive weapons - CM tubes and PDLCs. Not to mention the fact that the hammerhead is also the most heavily armoured part of the hull, to mitigate the lack of a sidewall over the bow and stern. Even now, the GA can only generate a full bow- or stern-wall if they kill the ship's acceleration, and the bucklers don't have anything like the coverage to give a full defence.

Dafmeister wrote:

Theemile wrote:
With no offensive systems in the Bow/Stern, you have to wonder what the hull form is of the Covington (Whose Picture was accidentally replaced by a Raoul Couvosier II BC(p) in HoS. A Minotaur had 9 Launchers, 4 Grasers, 10 CM and 10 PDLCs, while the Covington had just 12 CMs and 12 PDLC. It wouldn't surprise me if the Covington, given it's "support" nature, was just a merchant style hull with no Hammerheads.

It would surprise me greatly - the whole point of removing the offensive weapons is to free up space for defensive weapons - CM tubes and PDLCs. Not to mention the fact that the hammerhead is also the most heavily armoured part of the hull, to mitigate the lack of a sidewall over the bow and stern. Even now, the GA can only generate a full bow- or stern-wall if they kill the ship's acceleration, and the bucklers don't have anything like the coverage to give a full defence.

Minotaur:
Broadside: 30CM, 28PD
Chase: 9M, 4G, 10CM, 10PD
LACs: 100

Hydra:
Broadside: 36CM, 36PD
Chase: 12M, 12CM, 12PD
LACs: 112

Covington:
Broadside: 30CM, 28PD
Chase: 12CM, 10PD
LACs: 124

HoS' description for the Covington says the deleted offensive armanent was entirely given over to LAC bays. It's derived from the Minotaur, rather than the Hydra.

I am a bit surprised they didn't add more PD and CM in place of the deleted chase weapons. Unless that is where they squeezed in a few more LAC bays?

munroburton wrote:Minotaur:
Broadside: 30CM, 28PD
Chase: 9M, 4G, 10CM, 10PD
LACs: 100

Hydra:
Broadside: 36CM, 36PD
Chase: 12M, 12CM, 12PD
LACs: 112

Covington:
Broadside: 30CM, 28PD
Chase: 12CM, 10PD
LACs: 124

HoS' description for the Covington says the deleted offensive armanent was entirely given over to LAC bays. It's derived from the Minotaur, rather than the Hydra.

I am a bit surprised they didn't add more PD and CM in place of the deleted chase weapons. Unless that is where they squeezed in a few more LAC bays?

This is what happens when I don't have my books to hand

Looking at the artwork in HoS, I think the space in the hammerhead may be taken up by things that are normally in the main hull on other ships. The Minotaur- class has three rows of LAC bays down each side, whereas the Covington-class has four, which would explain how they got the increased LAC group aboard, but the did it on a ship with the same beam and height (is that the right word for the vertical dimension of the hull?). Given how deep the LAC bays must go (two LACs end-to-end accound for more a good three-quarters of the available beam), there can't be much room in the main hull for anything but the core (reactors, compensator, hyper generator, bridge, CIC etc), so pretty much everything else must be in the tapers and the hammerheads.