Stratifying navies

The MAN appears very good in terms of training and technology, but is also very small. But working on that.

Navies that essentially have no actual warships are the bottom tier.
Navies that have no hyper-capable vessels the next tier. (If you have enough to be a hard target you could argue for a higher rating I guess)
Those that have some light hyper-capable ones are the next.
Navies with actual crusiers are next
Those with the ability to deploy cruiser squadrons are next.
Those with BCs are next.
Those with a squadron of BCs next
A single DN/SD next
Those with a deployable squadron of SD/DN.
Those that actually have fleets consisting on multiple squadrons of wallers, escorts and logistics.

kzt wrote:The MAN appears very good in terms of training and technology, but is also very small. But working on that.

Navies that essentially have no actual warships are the bottom tier.
Navies that have no hyper-capable vessels the next tier. (If you have enough to be a hard target you could argue for a higher rating I guess)
Those that have some light hyper-capable ones are the next.
Navies with actual crusiers are next
Those with the ability to deploy cruiser squadrons are next.
Those with BCs are next.
Those with a squadron of BCs next
A single DN/SD next
Those with a deployable squadron of SD/DN.
Those that actually have fleets consisting on multiple squadrons of wallers, escorts and logistics.

I'd rate a single DN/SD, or a pair of, as below a squadron of BC(assuming they're unscreened).

There are possibly forces which have huge forts and LACs. Zero power projection capability, but more than enough to negate most other forces with up to a waller squadron.

munroburton wrote:

kzt wrote:The MAN appears very good in terms of training and technology, but is also very small. But working on that.

Navies that essentially have no actual warships are the bottom tier.
Navies that have no hyper-capable vessels the next tier. (If you have enough to be a hard target you could argue for a higher rating I guess)
Those that have some light hyper-capable ones are the next.
Navies with actual crusiers are next
Those with the ability to deploy cruiser squadrons are next.
Those with BCs are next.
Those with a squadron of BCs next
A single DN/SD next
Those with a deployable squadron of SD/DN.
Those that actually have fleets consisting on multiple squadrons of wallers, escorts and logistics.

I'd rate a single DN/SD, or a pair of, as below a squadron of BC(assuming they're unscreened).

There are possibly forces which have huge forts and LACs. Zero power projection capability, but more than enough to negate most other forces with up to a waller squadron.

Agreed on BC squadron/single waller - a squadron+ of BCs should kill a single waller, unless that level implies 1 Waller AND Batcrurons.

But, which would be more important, gross firepower or the ability to project it? Sufficient defenses are important, but which is stronger, the good solid defense, or the capability to defend AND run an offense?

Obviously KZT's list is a good breakdown of raw fleet sizes, but what about other factors like logistics? Like having hyper capable units, wouldn't having just a collier immediately move a small navy into a higher ranking due to it's increased flexibility and reach?

Theemile wrote:But, which would be more important, gross firepower or the ability to project it? Sufficient defenses are important, but which is stronger, the good solid defense, or the capability to defend AND run an offense?

By that definition, then nobody except the Sollies were ever first rate navy, because nobody else had the ability to fully protect themselves while also attacking. That's why the First Haven War, Manticore and Haven both maintained several defensive fleets, and really only skirmished back and forth. It's an actual passage that Honor thought, in regards to both schools present in the RMN (Traditional and jeune ecole).

So the Honorverse rating go off straight firepower, and there's a modifier for training. As I pointed out last page, the Silesian Confederate Navy definitely had lots of ships, and they weren't that badly built, if a little offensive heavy and light on defenses. But their training and officer corps mostly sucked, and there was corruption everywhere preventing the few good Silly ships from operating effectively, which dropped them to second, if not third tier.


A single fort has to be worth around two or three SD's, even before Manticore started introducing MDM's and pods. If you had at least three forts in orbit of your single planet, you were just as powerful as someone else who had a single SD squadron + screen. You couldn't attack, and you'd be vulnerable to C-frac strikes, but by placing your forts in orbit you're essentially playing Chicken with any attacker.

They can't c-frac strike your forts without risking Eridani attacks, and so long as you have ships to backup the forts. Which can also record data and run for it, the attacker can't claim they "owned the orbitals and the planetary strikes were legal".

Somtaaw wrote:

Theemile wrote:But, which would be more important, gross firepower or the ability to project it? Sufficient defenses are important, but which is stronger, the good solid defense, or the capability to defend AND run an offense?

By that definition, then nobody except the Sollies were ever first rate navy, because nobody else had the ability to fully protect themselves while also attacking. That's why the First Haven War, Manticore and Haven both maintained several defensive fleets, and really only skirmished back and forth. It's an actual passage that Honor thought, in regards to both schools present in the RMN (Traditional and jeune ecole).

Not even the Sollies - not if you define fully protect themselves as effectively defend every major world. They knew due to the vast scale of even the core, and the shear number of potential target worlds, that that was a near hopeless cause.

Instead they're official war plans were to largely ignore any skirmishing or fights and simply pull together and deploy a single massive knockout blow against the capital system of whatever polity was crazy enough to go to war against them. (Basically what Raging Justice was supposed to do).


That said, I doubt they were as totally offensive minded as that sounds. They'd presumably have deployed fleets to defend Earth and Mars (as the center of government and the fleet), and presumably also the yards and bases that directly support the SLN.

But they appear to specifically refuse to assume responsibility for defending non-strategic inhabited systems; prefering to end the war with a single blow and then get and captured systems back as part of the surrender. If systems were seriously worried about it, that's what a system defense force (SDF) that they paid for themselves was for. (And based on the evidence of the paucity of serious SDFs not many systems worried about it)

hmmm...

Stratification usually occurs when you level the rubble to construct a new building on top of it. [this can get quite impressive: I've stood on mounds 80-100' tall, and I've never visited any of the really _big_ sites]

I can picture this happening, under really exceptional circumstances, for wet navies at places like Salamis or Scapa Flow - you'd need a place where major fleets were sunk with all the ships going down in roughly the same place, and have it happen more than once - but I've failed to come up with a scenario applicable to space navies. The wreckage just doesn't stick around, and even if it did you'd end up with mixing rather than clear layers.

Theemile wrote:Here's a item for discussion - how would you stratify navies?

< snip >

Besides inherent "mobility" outside the norm exercised by the network of junctions in the RMN's case, there are other intangibles that would also skew the data points. Such as a loyal and cohesive navy forged in the morals, scruples and values of a deserving monarch along with the legendary memory of King Roger Winton, the original founder of the RMN? The "footage" of Edward Saganami at graduation is very powerful and enough in itself to galvanize the kind of mettle needed for a successful navy. A powerful speech and purpose goes a long way in stirring the natives.

It is the same for the Andermani with an Emperor who saved the people from extinction. The Andermani navy would just as soon follow the Emperor into hell as quickly as Honor's crew would follow her.

Take Grayson. Grayson is built upon the righteous ideals of a higher power. They believe they have the blessing and power of a God on their side which drives them. It is a planet and people baptized in morals, scruples and values. These three navies have intangibles that cannot be stratified but whose impact cannot be grounded or measured.

The SLN is the complete opposite. Although a huge navy in terms of numbers and infrastructure, it is at war with itself. No cohesion, a cancer that consumes from within. They are their own worst enemy. And a navy divided against itself cannot stand. For too long in the war against the RMN that was the Havenite's dilemma as well. A navy divided against itself could not stand. Something had to give. And it did.

Oftentimes in war, it is the intangibles that are left out of the history books but is not left out of the outcome.

Another factor is in the inherent weakness or strength of a mission statement. The SLN and Havenite mission statements had to do with expansionism and seedy purposes.

"Take from the poor and give to the rich."

It is not something that officers with the kind of mettle needed to win wars and lead wars can be proud of. Oftentimes a lack of agreement or belief in the mission statement will cause soldiers to defect. It happened to the RHN.

The RMN's and Grayson's mission statement is wrapped in the altruistic ideals of protection. Protection of their people and others. It is a purpose for officers with the right kind of mettle to be proud of. To get behind. To sink their heart and soul in. To go all in.

Honor Harrington said something akin to needing to know that her Monarch was "deserving." A powerful statement from Honor. These kinds of intangibles are what allows a small contingent of men to hold an objective against impossible odds.

What is the inherent weight of the intangibles when stratifying navies?

cthia wrote:Besides inherent "mobility" outside the norm exercised by the network of junctions in the RMN's case, there are other intangibles that would also skew the data points. Such as a loyal and cohesive navy forged in the morals, scruples and values of a deserving monarch along with the legendary memory of King Roger Winton, the original founder of the RMN? The "footage" of Edward Saganami at graduation is very powerful and enough in itself to galvanize the kind of mettle needed for a successful navy. A powerful speech and purpose goes a long way in stirring the natives.

It is the same for the Andermani with an Emperor who saved the people from extinction. The Andermani navy would just as soon follow the Emperor into hell as quickly as Honor's crew would follow her.

Take Grayson. Grayson is built upon the righteous ideals of a higher power. They believe they have the blessing and power of a God on their side which drives them. It is a planet and people baptized in morals, scruples and values. These three navies have intangibles that cannot be stratified but whose impact cannot be grounded or measured.

The SLN is the complete opposite. Although a huge navy in terms of numbers and infrastructure, it is at war with itself. No cohesion, a cancer that consumes from within. They are their own worst enemy. And a navy divided against itself cannot stand. For too long in the war against the RMN that was the Havenite's dilemma as well. A navy divided against itself could not stand. Something had to give. And it did.

Oftentimes in war, it is the intangibles that are left out of the history books but is not left out of the outcome.

Another factor is in the inherent weakness or strength of a mission statement. The SLN and Havenite mission statements had to do with expansionism and seedy purposes.

"Take from the poor and give to the rich."

It is not something that officers with the kind of mettle needed to win wars and lead wars can be proud of. Oftentimes a lack of agreement or belief in the mission statement will cause soldiers to defect. It happened to the RHN.

The RMN's and Grayson's mission statement is wrapped in the altruistic ideals of protection. Protection of their people and others. It is a purpose for officers with the right kind of mettle to be proud of. To get behind. To sink their heart and soul in. To go all in.

Honor Harrington said something akin to needing to know that her Monarch was "deserving." A powerful statement from Honor. These kinds of intangibles are what allows a small contingent of men to hold an objective against impossible odds.

What is the inherent weight of the intangibles when stratifying navies?

Zealotry? The IJN in WWII definitely had that in spades. Unfortunately, history shows that it can bite you in the tail almost as often as it pushes your cause forward. And without Leadership, Zealotry is just a good way to pour troups down the drain and cause atrocities.

On top of Zealotry and Leadership, you also have Professionalism, Experience, Training, Basic Education levels, Empowerment (where ideas of even fresh cadets are evaluated for merit), and other personnel factors. Notice I mentioned Training and Education separately, I consider Training the ongoing practice of learning and solidifying skills and knowledge, while Education is the foundation of knowledge and skills expected of every individual.

One of the largest differences between the US and USSR in the Cold war was the basic education of the vast majority of the troops and the empowerment given to them. BUT, this also is given to the mindset and doctrine of the respective militaries. The US relied on a small number of highly trained, and elaborately equipped soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen, while the USSR fielded large masses of lesser trained, lesser equipped (but still deadly) troops.

Both worked, both were effective, but only in their framework. So the overall doctrine needs to be analyzed, not just a portion of it, or the complete story is ignored.

Theemile wrote:
On top of Zealotry and Leadership, you also have Professionalism, Experience, Training, Basic Education levels, Empowerment (where ideas of even fresh cadets are evaluated for merit), and other personnel factors. Notice I mentioned Training and Education separately, I consider Training the ongoing practice of learning and solidifying skills and knowledge, while Education is the foundation of knowledge and skills expected of every individual.

One of the largest differences between the US and USSR in the Cold war was the basic education of the vast majority of the troops and the empowerment given to them. BUT, this also is given to the mindset and doctrine of the respective militaries. The US relied on a small number of highly trained, and elaborately equipped soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen, while the USSR fielded large masses of lesser trained, lesser equipped (but still deadly) troops.

Both worked, both were effective, but only in their framework. So the overall doctrine needs to be analyzed, not just a portion of it, or the complete story is ignored.

Agreed. The critical questions in this exercise are "What is the mission(s) and when?"

Everything else feeds into that analysis. Good doctrine and leadership for power projection means nothing if the biggest ship in the navy is a frigate built in 1684 PD. The Solarian League Navy had competent enough leadership and doctrine that would have been good enough to steamroll Manticore and Haven up to about 1910 PD but its equipment is worse than useless in 1922 PD negating that doctrine and adequate leadership.

I think the tiers have to be established by capability. Anyone in a higher level tier should be able to at least force the next lower tier to adapt human wave tactics to run them out of ammo before the opponent runs out of ships. A single ship is often insufficient to promote a navy a tier. It is a comprehensive measure of national effort. A navy that can supply and repair itself with local resources will, all else equal, be higher within the tier than an imported navy in a box.

1) Defend core strategic systems and threaten a peer opponent's core strategic systems when that peer has a comprehensive wall of battle and current generation fixed defenses (1922 Manticore, Haven, Grayson, Andermani Empire, maybe Mesan Alignment)

2) Project multiple waller squadrons across interstellar distances (Solarian League, RF navies, Beowulf, Erewhon, Maya)

2b) Project locally dominant power across interstellar distances (Monica's plan with 14 BC's before they got Copenhagen'ed)

3) Commerce protection/commerce raiding in near by interstellar space (Rembrandt Trade Union)

4) in-system/N-space control (a Fortress/LAC base navy would be a good example, Manticore in the Manticore Ascendant Series)

5) In-system police force (Nuncio)

6) No capability

fester wrote:
Agreed. The critical questions in this exercise are "What is the mission(s) and when?"

Everything else feeds into that analysis. Good doctrine and leadership for power projection means nothing if the biggest ship in the navy is a frigate built in 1684 PD. The Solarian League Navy had competent enough leadership and doctrine that would have been good enough to steamroll Manticore and Haven up to about 1910 PD but its equipment is worse than useless in 1922 PD negating that doctrine and adequate leadership.

I think the tiers have to be established by capability. Anyone in a higher level tier should be able to at least force the next lower tier to adapt human wave tactics to run them out of ammo before the opponent runs out of ships. A single ship is often insufficient to promote a navy a tier. It is a comprehensive measure of national effort. A navy that can supply and repair itself with local resources will, all else equal, be higher within the tier than an imported navy in a box.

1) Defend core strategic systems and threaten a peer opponent's core strategic systems when that peer has a comprehensive wall of battle and current generation fixed defenses (1922 Manticore, Haven, Grayson, Andermani Empire, maybe Mesan Alignment)

2) Project multiple waller squadrons across interstellar distances (Solarian League, RF navies, Beowulf, Erewhon, Maya)

2b) Project locally dominant power across interstellar distances (Monica's plan with 14 BC's before they got Copenhagen'ed)

3) Commerce protection/commerce raiding in near by interstellar space (Rembrandt Trade Union)

4) in-system/N-space control (a Fortress/LAC base navy would be a good example, Manticore in the Manticore Ascendant Series)

5) In-system police force (Nuncio)

6) No capability

Have we seen enough of the Andy fleet to definitely place it in the first tier, rather than at the top of the second tier? Sure, they can run rampant in Silesia, and even contribute SD(P)s to a joint action. But are there enough SDs, both old and new style, to protect the Imperial core, and to be able to take on Grayson, never mind Manticore or Haven? Consider how many SD(P)s Haven threw at Manticore in the ultimately ill-fated Operation Beatrice. Honor was ultimately able to take 8th Fleet to Haven only because so much of the RHN orbited Manticore A in ruins or captivity. White Haven could have taken Haven as the culmination of Buttercup because the PRN didn't have SD(P)s or advanced LACs.