Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Shannon_Foraker and 95 guests

Solarian League Naval Strenght versus SLN Strength

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Wallers (Spoiler/WAGing)
Post by lyonheart   » Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:26 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi Vince,

Thank you for bringing this thread to my attention!

Somehow I missed it years ago and look forward to enjoying it soon.

Keep up the excellent posts.

L


Vince wrote:
nrellis wrote:*quote="Dilandu"*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?*quote*

The League has always seen itself as the most important star nation in existence, and the SLN was designed to maintain that belief, both in the mind's of the League's own citizens, and more importantly, in the mind's of outsiders.

The maintenance costs of the reserve fleet are essentially zero but the scrapage cost of a superdreadnaught are significant, so its easier to just leave old ships where they are and build a new ones. This trend has gone on for centuries.

During this time nothing had ever challenged the League's core belief about itself, and the idea had totally taken hold that nothing ever would, or could, which has driven the belief that it was not only the most important, but also the most technologically, culturally and 'every-other-attribute' advanced too.

The SLN's conceptualisation of war was similarly stagnant: wars were like this in the past, and will be like this in the future, and we have exactly the fleet needed to decisively win the last war.

Here is the kicker: twenty years ago this belief was entirely justified, they really did have a fleet that could win every war just by existing. They 'knew' it didn't matter if they lost 50 SDs in every engagement, those ships could be immediately replaced by almost identical ships from the reserve.

The RMN's revolution in shipbuilding came about because they challenged every idea underlying the stagnant model the SLN was built to maintain. Its results may have exploded into Solarian consciousness in the last year, and Havenite consciousness in the last fifteen, but its roots go back to King Roger's build up 70 years ago

Regarding the statement above in bold, here's the supporting analysis by fester:
An apologia for Battle Fleet (Potential HoS Spoilers)
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Wallers (Spoiler/WAGing)
Post by lyonheart   » Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:11 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi Loren Pechtel,

Actually the Mandarins and bureaucrats quite like having such a huge BF reserve because its so intimidating; who could beat such an incredible force, since solarian victory was inevitable?

Adding a third of the new construction every year to it meant the reserve's newest third was probably if not inevitably more modern than most if not all those of the SDF's.

If the combined SDF's SD's total ~1000, as opposed to the 2000 active in BF with 300 more in the yards, besides the 1+% of the BF being upgraded, and that outside of the Haven Sector there are no other navies with SD's apparently; then the SLN is the biggest dog in history, the 800 kilo gorilla that no one can [or could] fight.

Which was just the way centuries of 'mandarins' liked it, and expected it to continue forever, since they were funding more SD's every year than the rest of the galaxy built combined, at least that was what they were told.

So why change?

It worked, it had worked for centuries, it was working, and so it would always work; NTM constantly reaffirming the natural order of solarian superiority over all the league surveyed, while billions of solarian citizens reaped the benefits and were thus encouraged to maintain if not protect such a simple institution.

Even suggesting scrapping ships 2-3 hundred years old would raise all sorts of opposition, since admitting their obsolescence might jeopardize the comfortable assumptions that underpin the metastasizing cancer that is the SL.

The mandarins much prefer everyone to move along, there's nothing to see, no worries, so don't even think about it on the part of the public, who in the core worlds, are evidently quite happy with things just the way they are.

Depending on the numbers ordered every year [46-57], the cost of BF new SD construction might be only 2-3 Manticoran dimes per person annualy, or a day's pocket change few are going to miss.

L


Loren Pechtel wrote:
Dilandu wrote:*quote="MuonNeutrino"*(Ignore the fact that 80% of them are in mothballs,*quote*

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.
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Wallers (Spoiler/WAGing)
Post by wyrm   » Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:18 am

wyrm
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:18 pm

Dilandu wrote:
pnakasone wrote:For an arms race to occur you have to have an enemy you firmly believe can hurt you enough to defeat you. Warefare had been static for several centuries by the time the Havenite wars occurred. The problem is that SLN leadership did not believe it was even possible that the "neobarbs" could even develop any tech to match them let alone surpass them.

Basically again, it's not only improbable, but impractical solution. For example: the US military before World War II clearly underestimated Japanese tech level and generally considered Japan as relatively weak military power. But does this means, that US military just stopped working on new weapons? No: they invested quite a lot in newest possible solutions, like Mark I fire control computers and magnetic torpedoes (admittedly, the magnetic fuze aren't their great achievement, but they were clearly considered as pinnacle of pre-war technology).

However consider the counterexample of the tank. The three nations that used the tank in the first world war - Britain, France and the US - *all* considered that the use of the tank in the next war would be the similar to that employed in WW1 - as a mobile pillbox, and (whenever the massive resistance of the cavalry could be overcome) as a replacement for cavalry. These nations developed the tank to refight WW1. Liddell Hart in the UK and de Gaulle in France argued against this fossilised doctrine, but they were unheard voices crying in the wilderness.

In contrast, the two nations that did not use tanks in WW1, Germany and the Soviets, started from a blank slate. They then co-operated (in the 20s and early 30s), on developing tanks, military aviation and chemical weapons, with the Russians offering areas beyond Versailles oversight for the German military to utilise. German Blitzkreig doctrine and Soviet Deep Battle doctrine, that utilised the tank effectively, and pointed the development of the tank in the 'correct' way resulted.

The GA has developed new weapons and doctrine, and although the SLN may have a Liddell Hart or de Gaulle deep within the bowels of its bureaucracy, their bosses have refused to listen. I would love to see RFC introduce Daud al-Fanudahi to a Solarian de Gaulle in the next book.
Top
Re: Solarian League Naval Strenght versus SLN Strength
Post by isaac_newton   » Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:29 am

isaac_newton
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1182
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:37 am
Location: Brighton, UK

lyonheart wrote:Hi Duckk,

Then there's the IJN in WW2 who's staff war-games always restored all IJN losses to battle order ready for the next stage of the war while making all allied losses cumulative, so that even with some IJN ships sunk several times they were able to eventually outnumber the allies and their vastly superior building rates to win the 'war'.

Bureaucrats have their own view of reality.

I remember my brother telling me that it was the mandarins who invented the phrase "This too shall pass", to comfort the emperor despite all the foreign invasions and bad news, that their society would go on as before.

Not that it did, of course; but the bureaucrats were taking a rather long view...

Consider how far off the beam most socialist governments and their pet economists often veer before reality breaks in.

Then there's Whitehall's inept pre-war planning, kowtowing to the ignorant if not incompetent politicians, that almost cost England world war Two.

SNIP



Not sure that's entirely correct. Some parts of the planning were pretty good - I name a few items like Radar, Spitfire, Mosquito, Hurricane. These are all planned, built and supported well before the war started [admitedly the Mossy did not come into service till 1941 I believe]. None of those, and the associated support infrastructure come cheap!
Top
Re: Solarian League Naval Strenght versus SLN Strength
Post by lyonheart   » Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:35 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi George J. Smith,

I don't believe there's any textev to confirm that, rather the BSDF is above average size because its missions have probably included rooting out any manpower or pirate nests it finds, mainly in [or out of] the league, as well as intimidating any system it finds who might consider permitting Manpower to rent an unpopulated nearby dwarf star etc, which it can do since genetic slavery is officially banned in the SL.

we don't know how old the BSDF's 36 SD's are, but against the 412 the peeps began the war with, plus their 48 dreadnoughts; being outnumbered 11-13+ times was too great a margin to stop the peeps.

Rather they were fairly confident from their own intel that the RMN would at least stop them, so increasing their fleet wasn't necessary, which also reinforced the solarian preferred perception that there was nothing to see, 'just a couple of neo-barbs bashing each other'.

L


George J. Smith wrote:IIRC Beowulf had a larger SDF with ships of the wall because of the possibility that they would have to defend their wormhole terminus against the Havenites if Manticore was conquered.

Beowulf also had access to Manticore tech blueprints so they could set up fabrication of Manticore tech if needed.

They didn't include any of the Manticore tech in their SDF ships so that Solly observers would not be able to report the tech to their superiors, (or steal the tech and sell it to the likes of the MA or Technodyne).
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Solarian League Naval Strenght versus SLN Strength
Post by Duckk   » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:20 am

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm

Attacking Beowulf would be the quickest form of suicide for the Peeps, and they know it. Beowulf is still a member of the League, even if it also acts like a sovereign nation. Violating the territorial integrity of the Core would be a fully justified use of the emergency war powers that the Mandarins are currently abusing. The Peeps had no intention of jumping on that land mine circa 1900-1915, any more than North Korea would want to invade California today.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top
Re: Wallers (Spoiler/WAGing)
Post by lyonheart   » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:48 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi Wyrm,

Thank you for bringing this up, I was going to mention this later, but now is fine.

Actually the Germans used their own tank in WWI, the A7V, as well as captured allied ones, even fighting the first tank versus tank battle in the 1918 offensive, although their tactics, organization and doctrine sucked wind, while the Russians built some experimental ones including a 3 wheeled "land battleship", so the concept wasn't that new to the soviets, although they insist they started fresh.

Secondly, various Brit tankers demonstrated in the 1920's wargames how the experimental tank brigade of mainly WWI leftovers [which included combined arms of infantry, artillery and engineers] could out maneuver and overwhelm standard infantry divisions; but while the senior brass hats demurred at changing anything, there were politicians who chose to think because they had this miscellaneous collection dubbed an tank brigade, they didn't need to buy or make any improvements, which were obvious to anyone.

Indeed, rather than build real tanks the politicians, especially in western Europe, preferred what they called tanks- which had tracks were made of steel but not really armored, carried a machine gun and were far cheaper than the real thing; however some reporters who may have had some real experience in the last war, dubbed them tankettes, which they were styled forever after, except by the politicians, who preferred cheap imitations to the expensive real things.

Because he feared those British senior officers would get another generation slaughtered [despite the officer corps in general being the survivors of that slaughter and even more opposed to repeating it, Liddell Hart downplayed the tank in his columns in the late '30's, while the British army committed itself to complete motorization, unlike any other major army in the world, and for all the coverage and mythologizing of the German Panzer corps, 75-83% of the German Wehrmacht still depended upon horses throughout WW2, actually using more than in WWI, even to the point of literally exhausting or expending nearly all the heavy agricultural breeds so postwar mechanization of European farms was almost mandatory.

Indeed the Wehrmacht's vehicle accident rate was so high, the Germans had to' demotorize' ten divisions in the summer of 1939.

Unfortunately, while Britain and France had more tanks with thicker armor, bigger guns than the Germans in France in May 1940, wider turrets for 3 man crews, deployed radios and the network and doctrine to exploit them were not [coordinated air power is another]; furthermore, because the politicians had delayed funding a modern army for the war they refused to recognize was coming until almost too late, the Brits were still forming their first tank divisions in May 1940, and were thus way behind in practice and doctrine etc, which dogged them for the rest of the war; while detailing French problems would take too long, but both of them built thousands of cruiser or 'cavalry' for the same kind of decisive combat the Germans are credited with proving, and you probably already know 'blitzkrieg' was a term invented by a British reporter to explain 'lightning war', which was largely dismissed by the Wehrmacht hierarchy until their fall campaign plans fell into allied hands, because their regular 'straight leg' infantry was already so good, since some have described "blitzkrieg" as simply the mechanized version of the German WWI infantry storm tactics, the basis for all modern infantry.

While RFC has suggested a couple of times that a competent SLN commander would probably be found in FF as opposed to BF, it's too late to save the SL as we currently know it.

L


wyrm wrote:
Dilandu wrote:*quote="pnakasone"*
For an arms race to occur you have to have an enemy you firmly believe can hurt you enough to defeat you. Warefare had been static for several centuries by the time the Havenite wars occurred. The problem is that SLN leadership did not believe it was even possible that the "neobarbs" could even develop any tech to match them let alone surpass them.*quote*
Basically again, it's not only improbable, but impractical solution. For example: the US military before World War II clearly underestimated Japanese tech level and generally considered Japan as relatively weak military power. But does this means, that US military just stopped working on new weapons? No: they invested quite a lot in newest possible solutions, like Mark I fire control computers and magnetic torpedoes (admittedly, the magnetic fuze aren't their great achievement, but they were clearly considered as pinnacle of pre-war technology).

However consider the counterexample of the tank. The three nations that used the tank in the first world war - Britain, France and the US - *all* considered that the use of the tank in the next war would be the similar to that employed in WW1 - as a mobile pillbox, and (whenever the massive resistance of the cavalry could be overcome) as a replacement for cavalry. These nations developed the tank to refight WW1. Liddell Hart in the UK and de Gaulle in France argued against this fossilised doctrine, but they were unheard voices crying in the wilderness.

In contrast, the two nations that did not use tanks in WW1, Germany and the Soviets, started from a blank slate. They then co-operated (in the 20s and early 30s), on developing tanks, military aviation and chemical weapons, with the Russians offering areas beyond Versailles oversight for the German military to utilise. German Blitzkreig doctrine and Soviet Deep Battle doctrine, that utilised the tank effectively, and pointed the development of the tank in the 'correct' way resulted.

The GA has developed new weapons and doctrine, and although the SLN may have a Liddell Hart or de Gaulle deep within the bowels of its bureaucracy, their bosses have refused to listen. I would love to see RFC introduce Daud al-Fanudahi to a Solarian de Gaulle in the next book.
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Solarian League Naval Strenght versus SLN Strength
Post by munroburton   » Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:42 am

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2375
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am
Location: Scotland

lyonheart wrote:Hi George J. Smith,

I don't believe there's any textev to confirm that, rather the BSDF is above average size because its missions have probably included rooting out any manpower or pirate nests it finds, mainly in [or out of] the league, as well as intimidating any system it finds who might consider permitting Manpower to rent an unpopulated nearby dwarf star etc, which it can do since genetic slavery is officially banned in the SL.

we don't know how old the BSDF's 36 SD's are, but against the 412 the peeps began the war with, plus their 48 dreadnoughts; being outnumbered 11-13+ times was too great a margin to stop the peeps.

Rather they were fairly confident from their own intel that the RMN would at least stop them, so increasing their fleet wasn't necessary, which also reinforced the solarian preferred perception that there was nothing to see, 'just a couple of neo-barbs bashing each other'.

L


I think it's no accident that the BSDF happens to mass approximately as much as a maximum transit through the terminus. Maybe a little more or less, depending how big their SDs are.

Given what we know of wormhole transit mechanics, such a force on the defensive can fend off many times its superior in numbers before succumbing and additional fortifications starting with minefields leading up to fortresses only increase this imbalance.

Duckk is right that the Peeps would never have violated Solarian territory with a more conventional invasion of Beowulf. That leaves a quick smash and grab, so the Peeps can get into orbit of Beowulf and secure the system before SLN reinforcements show up. The BSDF's relatively large battle wall neutralises that threat, however unlikely, particularly in case the Peeps rolled over Manticore's capital with relatively light losses and decided to go for all the other termini.

This would have been a stronger possibility in the mid-to-late 1800s, before Manticore's build-up really hit its stride. According to HoS, they had ~100 wallers in ~1883 when San Martin was invaded, ~150 wallers in ~1890; by 1900 they had ~250.

Jaynes' suggests the last Peep BB class was commissioned in 1823 - so they probably had those 300-400 BBs available throughout this period.

And the possibility they also used their SDF to keep OFS away from their terminus. "Sure you don't want a detachment of 100 BF SDs seconded to FF stationed in your system as long as those neobarbs are pounding on each other? Of course, we will need to collect a small fee for the administrative costs associated with such a large ongoing operation."
Top
Re: Solarian League Naval Strenght versus SLN Strength
Post by Jonathan_S   » Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:24 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8792
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

munroburton wrote:
I think it's no accident that the BSDF happens to mass approximately as much as a maximum transit through the terminus. Maybe a little more or less, depending how big their SDs are.

Given what we know of wormhole transit mechanics, such a force on the defensive can fend off many times its superior in numbers before succumbing and additional fortifications starting with minefields leading up to fortresses only increase this imbalance.

Duckk is right that the Peeps would never have violated Solarian territory with a more conventional invasion of Beowulf. That leaves a quick smash and grab, so the Peeps can get into orbit of Beowulf and secure the system before SLN reinforcements show up. The BSDF's relatively large battle wall neutralises that threat, however unlikely, particularly in case the Peeps rolled over Manticore's capital with relatively light losses and decided to go for all the other termini.
I still can't imagine anyone would believe that you could roll over a core SLN system in a smash and grab without the SLN being dispatched to punish you for it. I can't seen the Legislaturalists being crazy enough to risk that; it's too big a public slap in the face against way too high profile a system to get swept under the rug.

But what I think is a more possible threat is a seizure of just the wormhole terminus. For one thing those are almost always outside the internationally recognized limits of a solar system's exclusive space - so in effect you own them because you have people there to control it. But being unable to patrol the area effectivly de facto (and arguably de jure) you give up your ownership claims. Also in this case Beowulf doesn't own it, they signed a treaty or arrangement formalizing Manticore's ownership of it due to Manticore discovering it. So Haven could argue an attack to seize the terminus was NOT an attack on a League world. That, plus promising the Manderins a noticeably higher than normal cut of the transit fees, might conceivably buy them off and divert any interest in a League intervention to restore the status quo ante.

(Of course you risk that even before Manticore falls, the attack might come through hyper as a prelude to taking on Manticore directly). In that case the 36 SDs would be enough to give Haven second thoughts - because they would likely object to seizure of the wormhole. And thats a problem for Haven for at least a couple reasons - first that it requires diverting much larger forces to this attack and second if they get into a bloody fight of that size with military units of a core League member it's likely to raise public opinion against them in a way that a fairly bloodless seizure wouldn't. That raises the risk that despite the legalities, and possibility of financial restitution (coming out of the transit fees) that the League would order to SLN to chastise Haven anyway.
Top
Re: Solarian League Naval Strenght versus SLN Strength
Post by lyonheart   » Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:28 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi Isaac Newton,

Relatively speaking those you cite were relatively cheap for what they accomplished, but there was so much waste in so many other areas.

I'm referring to the pitiful strategic planning, industrial mobilization, etc [what there was of it], which is why the Brits did so badly the first half of the war; such as the alphabet aircraft production schemes that spent so much time and money building obsolete biplanes and other near suicidal aircraft, you may recall the Avro Anson was considered an ultra modern aircraft, even a secret one in the movies, when it was pathetic by European or American standards.

Since the bureaucrats and politicians didn't want to fight another war in Europe, or really anywhere else, they didn't prepare and were then forced to improvise on an pitiful ad hoc basis the last couple years of the peace that were beyond Churchill's ability to change or improve as Britain barely managed to survive; wasting time and vast fortunes ordering junk 'off the drawing board' on such lousy bombers like the Battle, Blenheim, and Botha, to name just three, because they were cheap and easy to build so the politicians could tout them in Parliament and the newspapers, when the Germans knew they were no serious military threat with their pitiful bomb loads, poor defenses and general design flaws; they were in reality flying coffins for some of England's best young men, wasted even more easily and uselessly than the 'Pals' battalions at the Somme.

RDF or Radio Direction Finding, as the British then styled RADAR [acronym courtesy of the USN], was a very close run thing; the German radars of the same period were technically rather superior, NTM begun earlier with a far better understanding of the engineering and physics involved, but it was the pre-existing British air raid organization especially its command and control from WWI, when the RAF was created, that added RDF essentially as another observation post or sensor input that saved England.

The Mosquito didn't fly until November 25, 1940, less than a year after it was finally ordered and the concept was considered so unlikely that only 50 were ordered, despite de Havilland spending years trying to explain it to Whitehall, then despite strong support from Freeman, getting it into mass production took years of further argument, and according to production records less than a thousand bomber versions were actually completed in England.

Regarding the Spitfire, it was the Whitehall idiots who delayed its delivery almost too long by insisting companies who'd never made airplanes or metal wings be the major subcontractors, when Vickers-Supermarine hadn't yet got it ready for mass production, so all the production "unk-unks" were still unknown but made infinitely worse by Whitehall, who then made Vickers the scapegoat for their stupidity, when Vickers built its own wings shop to try to meet the delivery schedule the Whitehall idiots and politicians had made impossible, of course the Spitfire took twice as many construction man-hours as the Me-109.

Indeed, because the British Aircraft industry was so backward, the first 300 Spitfires all had their cockpit instruments made in America, while all the machine tools including for the Merlin engine were also made in America, because Whitehall preferred ordering 'little penny packets' from all the small surviving aircraft firms in amounts too little to invest in any modern technology rather than consolidating them as they finally did after the war.

The Hurricane was a transitional fighter that kept it fabric covered rear fuselage throughout its production life and forever inferior to the Me 109 which flew more than five month's before [the wings etc weren't metal until 1940] into late 1944 when Spitfire production finally caught up with demand.

The handful of people who created and pushed the fighters that were soon to be critical were vastly outnumbered by the hundreds if not thousands who didn't know what they were doing,
Like those who sabotaged the Fleet Air Arm [especially those in the RAF], damning it with the Swordfish, Roc, Skua and even the Fulmar.

Its amazing the FAA accomplished so much despite the lousy material it was stuck with thanks to the RAF and Whitehall.

Another example would be the Valentine tank, the first reliable British tank, that was offered in February 1938, which the Whitehall bureaucrats kept in limbo until ordering it 'off the drawing board' in July 1939, wasting 17 month's worrying about its narrow turret, but never contacting Vickers, who could have changed it much faster much sooner if only they'd been told.

If the Valentine had been put into production in the Spring of 1938, the war might have been very different, since the British army would have had a reliable tank in the hundreds to practice with before the war started, and the counter attack at Arras, for example might have been successful; stabilizing the front and preventing Dunkirk, and possibly even ending Rommel's career a bit early.

Then there's all the destroyers that were built without the range to escort convoys across the Atlantic, trying to mimic the claimed performance of Italian or French DD's, when the experience of England almost starving in WWI was relatively fresh in a lot of people's minds, of course the RN frigates in the Falklands suffered from the same limitation needing much of their nominal fuel load kept unused for stability etc.

Britain managed to 'blunder through' WW2, but much of the post war economic pain also derived from those poorly thought out ad hoc improvised decisions, when things could have gone much better with more rational leadership.

L


isaac_newton wrote:
lyonheart wrote:Hi Duckk,

Then there's the IJN in WW2 who's staff war-games always restored all IJN losses to battle order ready for the next stage of the war while making all allied losses cumulative, so that even with some IJN ships sunk several times they were able to eventually outnumber the allies and their vastly superior building rates to win the 'war'.

Bureaucrats have their own view of reality.

I remember my brother telling me that it was the mandarins who invented the phrase "This too shall pass", to comfort the emperor despite all the foreign invasions and bad news, that their society would go on as before.

Not that it did, of course; but the bureaucrats were taking a rather long view...

Consider how far off the beam most socialist governments and their pet economists often veer before reality breaks in.

Then there's Whitehall's inept pre-war planning, kowtowing to the ignorant if not incompetent politicians, that almost cost England world war Two.

SNIP



Not sure that's entirely correct. Some parts of the planning were pretty good - I name a few items like Radar, Spitfire, Mosquito, Hurricane. These are all planned, built and supported well before the war started [admitedly the Mossy did not come into service till 1941 I believe]. None of those, and the associated support infrastructure come cheap!
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top

Return to Honorverse