Reflecting Upon RTH -- SPOILER THREAD

Do Arcanans (or Sharonans) *have*
Threat Probability Assessments?
That seems like a 21st-century idea to me.

HTM

Mil-tech bard wrote:
{big snip - htm}

The long stand off at the Ft Salby gate
likely has resulted in the development of
very detailed Arcanian threat probability assessments
for Sharonan anti-aircraft positions by weapon type.

There are a lot of implications in that thought..

The difference between magisters and magistrons argue that you are wrong, Howard. At least that's my read. Magistrons manipulate DNA sequences to enable the biological construct to have the desired qualities. There might well be control spells that facilitate managing the creatures, as we saw with griffons.

I also grant that some creature may require additional spells to function as desired. Text suggests this is true for dragons. Unicorns and augmented horses are likely mundane enough to be able to live and function without additional spells.

The creatures might well have biologically built links to whatever magic field exists in a given universe. So, they might not function well or at all in Sharona or universe close to Sharona. That does not automatically mean they require spells to procreate.

So, let's wager a digital beverage of each other's choice on the matter, eh?

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:I'll take those bets, Peter.
I'll say that unicorns and augmented horses are Magic Animals,
so breeding them requires magic that Sharonans lack.

HTM

PeterZ wrote:
Wanna bet that Arpathians will manage to breed unicorns? I would also bet that the portal authority will subsidize colonists wanting to set up ranches near the front raising augmented horses. Those beast will be very helpful at colonizing and improving virgin universes. Both of these ventures will require some of the expertise of the Arcanan POWs. That's one reason to keep them alive after the Sharonans discover the atrocities Neshok and Carthos committed.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Do Arcanans (or Sharonans) *have*
Threat Probability Assessments?
That seems like a 21st-century idea to me.

HTM

Nope. See the following:


"The History of Flak intelligence" By Earl W. Thomson, Colonel. Coast Artillery Corps, COAST Artillery JOURNAL, July- Aug 1946 pages 16 - 22


Pages 17 - 18

The Coast Artillery in estimating the effectiveness of a harbor defense has always drawn circles on its maps at maximum range of the guns and mortars. Overlapping circles in certain areas showed an effective defense. The same technique will give an approximate estimate of antiaircraft defenses, if the circles are drawn with a radius equal to the horizontal range for the altitude of the attack. Colored pencils, cross-hatching, and red danger zones where numerous circles overlap will show the air commander, with even the most rudimentary understanding of antiaircraft, that certain zones or courses are dangerous.
.
Early flak analysis of the Twelfth air force in the Mediterranean, the Fifth Air Force and Thirteenth in the Pacific, and the Navy, all followed the gun circle method.

.
and
.
Page 21
.

Automatic Weapons Computer
The original flak computers were for high altitudes and for heavy guns only. The need for estimating the effectiveness of automatic weapons, 20mm, 2Smm, 40mm for low flying planes was evident, particularly to the Ninth Air Force in the pre D-Day planning, and to the Navy for their glide and dive bombers. The lesson of Ijmuiden had not been forgotten. In one o£: the early flak classes at Davis an automatic weapons computer was attempted, but was never published. Captain Norman H. Ball, CAC, in peacetime a mathematics professor at the Naval Academy and Lieutenant Frederick G. King CAC, in the spring of 1944 analyzed several sets of data from the Antiaircraft Board automatic weapons practices. These data showed that the probability of hits was not only a function of time of Bight, but also of the tracking rate in the slant plane. These two antiaircraft officers from then on worked closely with a group of Navy Department civilian analysts, among whom were Drs. Jastram and Steenrod, and numerous automatic weapons computers, for low level, dive and glide bombing were developed late in 1944 and early in 1945.

page 22

...Late in 1944 and early in 1945 accurate flak data was difficult to obtain in the Pacific area, and many times flak officers reverted to peripheral gun circles as the best solution under the conditions of inaccurate data.
.
later on the same page.
.
(d) Automatic Weapons Flak Analysis. A satisfactory method of flak analysis against automatic weapons has not yet been worked out, although target centered computers were constructed for glide and dive bombing. With accurate firing data from Fort Bliss, this should be accomplished. It is just possible that the use of computers may be abandoned, and effectiveness will include factors of terrain and sun, which are now neglected in flak computation, but are very important in operational planning for low level attacks.

Given the value of dragons and the availability of arcane PC crystal, the Arcanian Air Force darned well has done a lot better than the above with 200 years or so of Dragon based air power.

Howard,

See also the following --


Flak, 1944 (1944)

https://archive.org/details/TF1-3389Flak

1944 United States Army Air Forces film #TF 1-3389, Flak. Animation by Walt Disney. There is a slightly different print in the Internet Archive Feature Films.

https://archive.org/details/Flak_

AAF description "FLAK (TF 1-3389) — Treats of three types of enemy antiaircraft fire, the technique employed in their projection and the evasive action recommended for each type."

National Archives description "This film provides an in-depth look at the weapons and methods of German and Japanese anti-aircraft warfare, and highlight the evasive actions utilized by U.S. bomber crews."

National Archives Identifier: 605029 listed as "Flak, ca. 1943"

Mil-tech bard wrote:

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Do Arcanans (or Sharonans) *have*
Threat Probability Assessments?
That seems like a 21st-century idea to me.

HTM

Nope. See the following:


"The History of Flak intelligence" By Earl W. Thomson, Colonel. Coast Artillery Corps, COAST Artillery JOURNAL, July- Aug 1946 pages 16 - 22


Pages 17 - 18

The Coast Artillery in estimating the effectiveness of a harbor defense has always drawn circles on its maps at maximum range of the guns and mortars. Overlapping circles in certain areas showed an effective defense. The same technique will give an approximate estimate of antiaircraft defenses, if the circles are drawn with a radius equal to the horizontal range for the altitude of the attack. Colored pencils, cross-hatching, and red danger zones where numerous circles overlap will show the air commander, with even the most rudimentary understanding of antiaircraft, that certain zones or courses are dangerous.
.
Early flak analysis of the Twelfth air force in the Mediterranean, the Fifth Air Force and Thirteenth in the Pacific, and the Navy, all followed the gun circle method.

.
and
.
Page 21
.

Automatic Weapons Computer
The original flak computers were for high altitudes and for heavy guns only. The need for estimating the effectiveness of automatic weapons, 20mm, 2Smm, 40mm for low flying planes was evident, particularly to the Ninth Air Force in the pre D-Day planning, and to the Navy for their glide and dive bombers. The lesson of Ijmuiden had not been forgotten. In one o£: the early flak classes at Davis an automatic weapons computer was attempted, but was never published. Captain Norman H. Ball, CAC, in peacetime a mathematics professor at the Naval Academy and Lieutenant Frederick G. King CAC, in the spring of 1944 analyzed several sets of data from the Antiaircraft Board automatic weapons practices. These data showed that the probability of hits was not only a function of time of Bight, but also of the tracking rate in the slant plane. These two antiaircraft officers from then on worked closely with a group of Navy Department civilian analysts, among whom were Drs. Jastram and Steenrod, and numerous automatic weapons computers, for low level, dive and glide bombing were developed late in 1944 and early in 1945.

page 22

...Late in 1944 and early in 1945 accurate flak data was difficult to obtain in the Pacific area, and many times flak officers reverted to peripheral gun circles as the best solution under the conditions of inaccurate data.
.
later on the same page.
.
(d) Automatic Weapons Flak Analysis. A satisfactory method of flak analysis against automatic weapons has not yet been worked out, although target centered computers were constructed for glide and dive bombing. With accurate firing data from Fort Bliss, this should be accomplished. It is just possible that the use of computers may be abandoned, and effectiveness will include factors of terrain and sun, which are now neglected in flak computation, but are very important in operational planning for low level attacks.

Given the value of dragons and the availability of arcane PC crystal, the Arcanian Air Force darned well has done a lot better than the above with 200 years or so of Dragon based air power.

You might be right. But you need to factor in the reality that the last serious war Arcana fought was the portal wars 2 centuries prior to the present story line and that numbers of battle dragons have been allowed to dwindle. That could well mean that thinking on this subject might not have progressed as much as you might think.

Don

-

You might be right. But you need to factor in the reality that the last serious war Arcana fought was the portal wars 2 centuries prior to the present story line and that numbers of battle dragons have been allowed to dwindle. That could well mean that thinking on this subject might not have progressed as much as you might think.

Don

The Arcanian Dragon Pilot-officers have PC Crystals, time and Arcane PC Crystal spellware wargames of past Dragon combat engagements to play with.

Of course they have flight planning spellware for routing living dragons past/around/through Field Dragon-Flak positions with minimum exposure.

The Dragon attack on Ft Salby was built around Attack Dragon pilots's trained gut level instinct that living Dragons out ranged and were less vulnerable to non-living field dragon weapons.

And that by launching a uber fast vertical dive staffing run they minimized their exposure to enemy counter fire.

This instinct was wrong, but it was informed by previous Arcane combat experience captured on spellware.

Mil-tech bard wrote:

You might be right. But you need to factor in the reality that the last serious war Arcana fought was the portal wars 2 centuries prior to the present story line and that numbers of battle dragons have been allowed to dwindle. That could well mean that thinking on this subject might not have progressed as much as you might think.

Don

The Arcanian Dragon Pilot-officers have PC Crystals, time and Arcane PC Crystal spellware wargames of past Dragon combat engagements to play with.

Of course they have flight planning spellware for routing living dragons past/around/through Field Dragon-Flak positions with minimum exposure.

The Dragon attack on Ft Salby was built around Attack Dragon pilots's trained gut level instinct that living Dragons out ranged and were less vulnerable to non-living field dragon weapons.

And that by launching a uber fast vertical dive staffing run they minimized their exposure to enemy counter fire.

This instinct was wrong, but it was informed by previous Arcane combat experience captured on spellware.

To be sure. I am merely saying that progress in spellware for using dragons has not been pressurized by wartime r&d.

I'm also saying that low numbers of dragons will be an issue for any prolonged war.

Don

-

"... darned well *has* done ..."??
Darned well *ought to have* done, I say!

But with no formal wars,
and no opposition more serious than bandits and
the occasional secessionist group,
would the Arcanan Air Force\Peacekeeping Force have felt
the danger of ground opposition to be serious enough to
require the hard work of arranging a Formal Policy of
making Threat Probability Assessments?

Or would they just have "winged it?"

I note that all of your quotes in both posts are from WW-2.
So, not 21st Century, I concede, but Mid-20th Century.
Still not from turn-of-century, before WW-1.

I suggest that a need for Threat Probability Assessments of
danger from the ground, requires
1) very (but not perfectly) accurate ground-based big guns
with
2) sufficient numbers and range to work together.

Short range weapons, such as machine guns,
can be avoided without a formal Assessment.

A perfectly accurate gun, such as a raygun,
would not need to work together with other guns.

That is my thinking so far.

HTM

Mil-tech bard wrote:

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:
Do Arcanans (or Sharonans) *have*
Threat Probability Assessments?
That seems like a 21st-century idea to me.

HTM

Nope. See the following:


"The History of Flak intelligence" By Earl W. Thomson, Colonel. Coast Artillery Corps, COAST Artillery JOURNAL, July- Aug 1946 pages 16 - 22 {snip quotes from this - htm}

Given the value of dragons and the availability of
arcane PC crystal, the Arcanian Air Force darned well has
done a lot better than the above with 200 years or so
of Dragon based air power.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:"... darned well *has* done ..."??
Darned well *ought to have* done, I say!

But with no formal wars,
and no opposition more serious than bandits and
the occasional secessionist group,
would the Arcanan Air Force\Peacekeeping Force have felt
the danger of ground opposition to be serious enough to
require the hard work of arranging a Formal Policy of
making Threat Probability Assessments?

Or would they just have "winged it?"

I note that all of your quotes in both posts are from WW-2.
So, not 21st Century, I concede, but Mid-20th Century.
Still not from turn-of-century, before WW-1.

I suggest that a need for Threat Probability Assessments of
danger from the ground, requires
1) very (but not perfectly) accurate ground-based big guns
with
2) sufficient numbers and range to work together.

Short range weapons, such as machine guns,
can be avoided without a formal Assessment.

A perfectly accurate gun, such as a raygun,
would not need to work together with other guns.

That is my thinking so far.

HTM

Howard,

You didn't think the implications of this passage through --

The Coast Artillery in estimating the effectiveness of a harbor defense has always drawn circles on its maps at maximum range of the guns and mortars. Overlapping circles in certain areas showed an effective defense.

As it..."How long has America had coast defense?"


See links --

Seacoast defense in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seacoast_ ... ted_States

United States Army Coast Artillery Corps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... lery_Corps

Coast Defense Study Group Forums
http://www.cdsg.org/forums/


The CDSG is where I got the following history --

Harbor Defenses of the United States of America


It has been a basic military policy of most nations to secure their borders against possible attack through the construction of defensive fortifications. Except for an attack from Canada or Mexico, all American adversaries would have to come from overseas. The United States sought security against an attack through fortification of her maritime frontiers. Fortifications were viewed both by the U.S. Congress and the American public as a way to avoid foreign entanglements and war, and to avoid the dangers of a standing army. This thinking had a strong influence on American national defense policy and during certain periods fortification construction was nearly a substitute for any other form of military policy.

Seacoast fortification was attractive to the United States government. Few military principles were as enduring as the superiority of guns ashore over those afloat. The United States had a long shoreline, a weak navy (at least until the early 20th century), and a concern about foreign attack. The use of seacoast fortifications also complied with another long standing American military tradition – reliance on militia forces. Seacoast fortifications, once constructed of masonry or concrete, could be maintained by a caretaker force.

The American government invested large sums of money in several major peacetime coastal defense construction programs: the “First System” (1794-1800), the “Second System” (1804-1812), the “Third System” (1816-1867), construction after the Civil War (1870-1875), the “early modern programs” (Also known as the “Endicott Board”, “Taft Board”, and “post-WWI” programs) (1890-1920s), and the Harbor Defense Modernization Programs of WW2 (1940-1945). Manning the coastal defenses was a major mission of the U.S. Army for over 150 years. After 1907, the army had a branch of service that was specifically dedicated to operate these complicated weapons: the Coast Artillery Corps (C.A.C.).

American naval dominance made coast artillery nearly pointless by the end of WW2. The C.A.C. increasingly concentrated on the antiaircraft role, and by 1950 the U.S. Army had dismantled all its fixed harbor defenses.

The idea of threat analysis and over lapping circles of harbor defense guns/forts for engaging enemy fleets is older than America, and was a formative part of the American military tradition.

A perfectly accurate gun, such as a raygun,
would not need to work together with other guns.

That is my thinking so far.

Arcanian Lightning dragons -- field and living -- are anti-aircraft weapons.

Their siting and placement for defensive arrays in fortified positions would be as much of a formative military experience for the Arcanian Armed Forces as harbor defenses were for the fledgling American Republic.

How fire ball weapons would be deployed -- as they are more destructive -- would be keyed to ground troop and surface ship threats.

so, the Arcanians would have threat analysis and engagement diagrams. Theirs would be 3D in nature due to the aerial threat. An aerial threat that included lethal gas weapons of mass destruction.