Solarian League Naval Strenght versus SLN Strength

pnakasone wrote:
As an example look at how Europe viewed the Russo-Japanese War.

The Europe analysed every single part of Russo-Japanese war. Basically, the HMS "Dreadnought" was born out of Russo-Japanese war experiense. Every battleship of World War I and World War II was more or less the child of Russo-Japanese war, the first conflict where the modern battleship fleet meet in combat en mass.

And even local conflicts were viewed with a lot of interest, because they allowed to test weapon conception and tactics. Even such localized even like Peru-Chilean war in 1880s attracted quite a lot of attention, because "Jeune Ecole" raiding tactic was tested alongside with such ultra-modern weaponry as Lay wire-guided torpedo.

So, basically the League hyperisolationism make no sense. Not in company with League constant expansion. Yes, there was pretty static empires - like Qing China or pre-Meiji Japan - but they NEVER were actually expansionistic.

Dilandu wrote:The Europe analysed every single part of Russo-Japanese war. Basically, the HMS "Dreadnought" was born out of Russo-Japanese war experiense. Every battleship of World War I and World War II was more or less the child of Russo-Japanese war, the first conflict where the modern battleship fleet meet in combat en mass.

Yes they did. The Germans, the French, and the UK all sent high ranking influential officers. All of whom first hand observed the effects of machine guns, barbed wire, trenches and grenades in the assault on trenches. Then a decade later these same armies recreated the entire Russo-Japanese war at the First Battle of Ypres, and everyone was shocked and appalled at the horrific effects of machine guns, barbed wire, trenches and nobody had hand grenades.

munroburton wrote:

pnakasone wrote:As an example look at how Europe viewed the Russo-Japanese War.

Could you expand on that example? IIRC, the Battle of Tsushima more or less confirmed the dreadnought doctrine and certainly fuelled the British-German naval arms race preceding WW1.

The Battle of Tsushima as you point out confirmed what they already believed.

On the other hand look at land battles of the Siege of Port Arthur. It was a very vividly display of what happens when troops try to attack positions fortified by machine guns and artillery.

So it is example of both the powers in charge believing what matches their views and ignoring what dos not.

munroburton wrote:

pnakasone wrote:As an example look at how Europe viewed the Russo-Japanese War.

Could you expand on that example? IIRC, the Battle of Tsushima more or less confirmed the dreadnought doctrine and certainly fuelled the British-German naval arms race preceding WW1.

Actually, in a sense, you are both right. Certainly, Jackie Fisher took Tsushima to be a vindication for the dreadnought doctrine but, then again, he was a maverick & a noted reformer: (Also, if you examine the tactics used it would actually validate the older, close range, hail of fire doctrine previously used to justify the pre-dreadnought mixed armament doctrine; see the chapter on Tsushima in Big Fleet Action by Eric Grove). Furthermore many other naval officers such as Capt. Custance former DNI & Alfred Mahan, both of whom, as did Sir William White, former DNC, argued for smaller battleships.

However, there is another aspect of the Russo-Japanese War where, arguably, the lessons were NOT learned & that is Land Warfare. Certainly, a lot of major powers did send observers but their reports were coloured by their own experience & the branch they served in such as that the cavalry still had a role to play. Also the effectiveness of machine guns was downplayed as was the experience of Trench Warfare.

One final point. In the UK there is a very well known Scottish soldier who has become a very divisive figure. Starting as a Corps Commander he rose to the position of CinC BEF. I am, of course talking about Douglas Haig. Butcher & Bungler? I have my own opinion on that subject. But, for the purpose of this thread let's examine one aspect:

One of the accusations levelled against him was that he kept his offensives going too long at the cost of too many casualties to his own side under circumstances when they should have been called off sooner. Yet an examination of all the land battles fought in the Russo-Japanese War won by the Japanese Army that in every one of them EVERY reserve had been thrown into the battle; (& whilst the Russians still had extensive reserves uncommitted). In the light of that then Haig's actions were at least understandable if not justified on the basis of Japanese experience in the Russo-Japanese War. That is my analysis anyway on reading about the war

Is my analysis correct? I can certainly argue that it is on the basis of the evidence but somebody else may come to a diametrically opposite conclusion using exactly the same evidence. And that is the problem faced by any analysts trying to reach conclusions would have to face, let alone trying to get past the inertia of vested interests & senior officers only interested in hearing what they want to hear.

N.B The source for my analysis of the Russo Japanese War is Rising Sun & Tumbling Bear by Richard Connaughton, pub Cassell 2007

Henry Brown wrote:

nrellis wrote:There is a throw-away line in one of the more recent books (that I can never find when I need it) to the effect that "possession of even one squadron of ships-of-the-wall elevated a navy to the top dozen or so navies in existence".

Therefore we know about almost all the navies with wallers.
In order of size:

1- SLN (10,000+ *)
2- Republic of Haven Navy (1000 SD(P)s when their build programme is complete)
3- RMN (4-500 SDs and SD(P)s)
4(?)- GSN (1-200 SDs and SD(P)s)
5(?)- IAN (100+)
****SNIP****

You know, if this list is correct it makes the Sollie intelligence failure even worse. I mean, it means they managed to totally ignore a 20 year war involving the #2, #3, and #4 navies in existence. And those rankings are just size. It doesn't include the SLN's failure to recognize the technological advances the RHN and RMN have made. But, lets set that aside for a minute. Even if the Sollie assumption that the ships of the RMN and RHN were technologically equal to their own HAD been correct, shouldn't they have still been interested in what the other really big navies in the galaxy are up to? I mean, even if you have completely failed to recognize how advanced they are, wouldn't you still want to know what really big fleets of warships are up to? Just on the basis of their size if nothing else.

I don't think they ignored it. Rather, the NIH problem meant any reports of the true firepower involved got suppressed as bad data. They know neobarbs have been bashing each other, they just think it's with clubs rather than rifles.

MuonNeutrino wrote:Certainly nothing to bother our heads about, after all we've got 10 SDs for every one of theirs! (Ignore the fact that 80% of them are in mothballs, Everyone Knows that no neobarb would have the guts to cause trouble for the Mighty Solarian League without us having plenty of warning first.) And don't forget how backwards those Poor Benighted Neobarbs are; their SDs are probably steam powered, the poor bastards. No need to waste our time keeping an eye on them, if any of them were insane enough to attack us we could take them with both hands tied behind our backs."

Even not counting the reserve it's still about 5:1 in the SLN's favor. Up until the introduction of the MDM there was nothing wrong with ignoring the battle in the Haven sector. The reports from Buttercup should have been a fill-your-underwear, crash priority, nine-women-in-a-month type event, but instead it got suppressed.

Dilandu wrote:The main idea was to provide more "defeatable bad guys" (since Havenites stopped to be bad guys at all, and Mesans are more inclined to covert operations), but I really think the RFC gone too far about League's incompetence and incapability. Basically the only answer "why are the League so weak" is "they are so arrogant, that they didn't pay any attention to the local conflicts on the periphery" - which seems to be stretched beyond capacity.

Actually, I find it believable. The problem is you are considering the SLN as a single entity--if it were the incompetence we see would be unbelievable.

However, it's not a single entity. It's a whole bunch of people, basically all of whom are highly corrupt and working more on their agenda than for the good of the empire. Change will upset the applecart and bring many of the existing power structures crashing down. Thus the powers that be have a considerable incentive to dismiss the reports as bad data. The bad data never reaches the top where people would react correctly.

Look at the Mandarins--they were led down the primrose path about Byng and Crandall but after Filareta they realize their failings--that's part of why the MA got rid of Rajampet. If surrender were a viable option they would do so but they know their empire is going to come crashing down if they take that path. Thus they are grasping at straws for an option that will preserve their position and likely their skin.

Dilandu wrote:

MuonNeutrino wrote:(Ignore the fact that 80% of them are in mothballs,

Basically the League reserve fleet make no sence at all. For what reason they need about 8000 SD's in reserve, if their standing fleet was bigger than all other fleets in Galaxy combined?

Who could possibly have any benefits from the League reserve fleet? The shipbuilding corporations like Technodyne should be using all their political power to scrap the reserve as whole! Simply because "plenty ships in reserve" always meant "less shipbuilding contracts for shipbuilders". And reserve ships are mothballed. They basically required zero money to sustain, because they are IN VACUUM.

I disagree. Scrapping them would look too wasteful and very well might reduce the costs of new ships anyway because so much could be reused from the old ships. The current system is ideal for the real mission of Battle Fleet--being pork.

Dilandu wrote:The problem is, that League was stated as deeply corrupt and baiscally controlled by the bureaucracy, tied with great interstellar corporations. So the situation "they couldn't change the situation into more profitable" seems... just plainly impossible. Especially if such perfect excuse as global interstellar war basically near the League's heart - let's not forget, the Star Kingdom is CLOSE neighbor for League through Beowulf termini! Basically, it should be piece of cake for Technodyne&Co to obtain major fleet modernisation in such conditions - instead they tended to downplay all this for basically no reason at all.

Again, this is one of the great League's implausibilities - capitalists, who aren't after the 300% profit.

Oh, I'm sure some of the capitalists are looking for ways to cash in. However, until they can present answers (something that can at least approximately go toe-to-toe with a GA ship) they're better off simply doing research on their own.

I haven't read every single post in this thread, so forgive me if I repeat a previously-made point.

We know that Beowulf has maintained a pretty close relationship with the Haven Sector star nations ever since the discovery of the MWJ, and has therefor remained far less inclined than the rest of the League to disregard especially Manticore as just another 'neobarb' polity. One effect of that close relationship and awareness of events in the Haven Sector has been that Beowulf knew not to summarily reject the reports about advances in military tech and doctrine as fables - in fact, there is some indication in the novels that Manticore actually provided some of her tech blueprints to the Beowulfan SDF on condition that it be kept secret.

Now, my assumption would be that Beowulf might have implemented some of the not-too-obvious tech into her own ships, and furthermore might have set up her ship production facilities to rapidly convert to manufacture the more obvious tech in the event it became necessary to do so (and with Manticoran approval, of course).

If that was indeed the case, then Beowulf would already be years ahead of the curve where other Solarian SDF's are concerned. And since the only circumstance in which Beowulf would do so would be the current scenario of Beowulf seceding from the League to stand with Manticore (and allies) against the League, well, then it doesn't really matter, does it?