Stratifying navies

Weird Harold wrote:

Sigs wrote:And what was the heaviest warship that committed those acts in Marsh? I believe it was a heavy cruiser, you don't need a squadron or two of SD's and DN's to protect a system from a bunch of pirates with nothing heavier than a CA.

What Warnecke and his minions had is irrelevant. What some other Independence Group or deposed dictator might have in the future is relevant. A Dozen SDs both show the Sidemoreans that Manticore is truly committed to defending them and are proof against ANY possible force that might come out of Silesia.

Not so much proof against any Andermani aggression but still a serious trip-wire that would force the Andermani to bring their "A-Game" so they can't dismiss it as a rogue officer's fault.

Two Squadrons of SDs is undoubtedly over-kill for most threats in the area, but there's a good bit of politics and PR involved, too.

Do you remember who was in charge of the RMN at the time? And who was in charge of the Manticore government? Their entire policy was based around LACs and light combatants ESPECIALLY for commerce protection and deploying SD's as anti piracy would have undermined their message.

Also I will repeat this, you don't do anti-piracy by placing all of your ships in a system picket. That kind of firepower does not inspire fear in pirates if they know it is concentrated in one system and likely not to disperse. This negates the argument that those ships were for anti piracy. This was purely a buildup in response to the IAN building up pressure in the region. The IAN becomes more aggressive in the region and the RMN is forced to send some capital ships. Then tensions increase to such a level that they have to send a stronger force there then they had protecting Grendelsbane.


Keeping a couple of BC's backed by a mixed squadron of Heavy and Light cruisers and some destroyers would more than discourage any pirate from messing with Marsh. Back it all up with LACs and pods and it becomes less of a target. Even if a pirate had scrounged up the strength to beat the picket, there would be nothing in Marsh to justify the casualties you take.

Sigs wrote:Do you remember who was in charge of the RMN at the time? And who was in charge of the Manticore government? Their entire policy was based around LACs and light combatants ESPECIALLY for commerce protection and deploying SD's as anti piracy would have undermined their message.

Also I will repeat this, you don't do anti-piracy by placing all of your ships in a system picket. That kind of firepower does not inspire fear in pirates if they know it is concentrated in one system and likely not to disperse. This negates the argument that those ships were for anti piracy. This was purely a buildup in response to the IAN building up pressure in the region. The IAN becomes more aggressive in the region and the RMN is forced to send some capital ships. Then tensions increase to such a level that they have to send a stronger force there then they had protecting Grendelsbane.


Keeping a couple of BC's backed by a mixed squadron of Heavy and Light cruisers and some destroyers would more than discourage any pirate from messing with Marsh. Back it all up with LACs and pods and it becomes less of a target. Even if a pirate had scrounged up the strength to beat the picket, there would be nothing in Marsh to justify the casualties you take.

The buildup at Marsh might have predated the IAN really ramping up the pressure - but I've no doubt it was intended as a bit of a show of force to make it clear that despite the neglect of Silesia Manticore had been forced to have, due to exigencies of war, that they still had a strong national interest in the area.

But actual anti piracy work would still fall primarily to light units (though sometimes ships as big as BCs had historically been blooded there); but prior to the annexation even Janesek couldn't assign that to LACs.

Jonathan_S wrote:The buildup at Marsh might have predated the IAN really ramping up the pressure - but I've no doubt it was intended as a bit of a show of force to make it clear that despite the neglect of Silesia Manticore had been forced to have, due to exigencies of war, that they still had a strong national interest in the area.

And then Janacek locked himself into thinking that Silesia was critical.


"I don't think you and I are going to agree on this," Chakrabarti said after a moment. "So let me ask you one more time. Will you agree to ask the Prime Minister to modify our Silesian policy so that we can bring sizable portions of Task Force Thirty-Four home, or else to explore the possibility of seeking Grayson reinforcements for our system pickets?"
"No," Janacek said flatly.
"Very well." Chakrabarti stood. "In that case, I submit my resignation, effective immediately."

kzt wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:The buildup at Marsh might have predated the IAN really ramping up the pressure - but I've no doubt it was intended as a bit of a show of force to make it clear that despite the neglect of Silesia Manticore had been forced to have, due to exigencies of war, that they still had a strong national interest in the area.

And then Janacek locked himself into thinking that Silesia was critical.


"I don't think you and I are going to agree on this," Chakrabarti said after a moment. "So let me ask you one more time. Will you agree to ask the Prime Minister to modify our Silesian policy so that we can bring sizable portions of Task Force Thirty-Four home, or else to explore the possibility of seeking Grayson reinforcements for our system pickets?"
"No," Janacek said flatly.
"Very well." Chakrabarti stood. "In that case, I submit my resignation, effective immediately."

I'm not so sure he personally thought it was critical; but politically he seemed to feel he couldn't afford to be seen giving it away. So he refused to believe that the Andies would force the issue if there was a non-trivial RMN force nearby.
I'm not sure if he'd continued his conscious calculations to the point of believing that he could better survive being the victim of military aggression even if he'd deployed insufficient forces than he could "giving away" Silesia...

Jonathan_S wrote:

Sigs wrote:Do you remember who was in charge of the RMN at the time? And who was in charge of the Manticore government? Their entire policy was based around LACs and light combatants ESPECIALLY for commerce protection and deploying SD's as anti piracy would have undermined their message.

Also I will repeat this, you don't do anti-piracy by placing all of your ships in a system picket. That kind of firepower does not inspire fear in pirates if they know it is concentrated in one system and likely not to disperse. This negates the argument that those ships were for anti piracy. This was purely a buildup in response to the IAN building up pressure in the region. The IAN becomes more aggressive in the region and the RMN is forced to send some capital ships. Then tensions increase to such a level that they have to send a stronger force there then they had protecting Grendelsbane.


Keeping a couple of BC's backed by a mixed squadron of Heavy and Light cruisers and some destroyers would more than discourage any pirate from messing with Marsh. Back it all up with LACs and pods and it becomes less of a target. Even if a pirate had scrounged up the strength to beat the picket, there would be nothing in Marsh to justify the casualties you take.

The buildup at Marsh might have predated the IAN really ramping up the pressure - but I've no doubt it was intended as a bit of a show of force to make it clear that despite the neglect of Silesia Manticore had been forced to have, due to exigencies of war, that they still had a strong national interest in the area.

But actual anti piracy work would still fall primarily to light units (though sometimes ships as big as BCs had historically been blooded there); but prior to the annexation even Janesek couldn't assign that to LACs.

From HoS, the introduction to dreadnoughts:

The emergence of the modern missile pod, with its light-weight grav drivers, more numerous launch cells, and laser head-armed single-drive missiles, produced salvo densities which increased the relative vulerability of the already vulnerable dreadnought significantly. The type was increasingly relegated to rear area roles, and the introduction of the Medusa-class pod-layers of Operation Buttercup, armed with multi-drive laser head missiles, led to its outright demise.

There's no real way to tell, but it's possible that the Mourncreek Admiralty cut loose a squadron of Royal Wintons or something when they established Sidemore Station.

Remember that Sidemore was liberated in 1910 and Honor immediately recommended to the RMN admiralty that they establish a fleet base there. Janacek didn't come in until after Buttercup, five years later.

I would dispute the idea that DNs are too heavy for anti-piracy work. It's true that against conventional pirates they are excessive overkill, but Silesia is the sort of place where pirates do operate battlecruisers occasionally, as well as the Havenite commerce raiders to be discouraged.

munroburton wrote:There's no real way to tell, but it's possible that the Mourncreek Admiralty cut loose a squadron of Royal Wintons or something when they established Sidemore Station.

Remember that Sidemore was liberated in 1910 and Honor immediately recommended to the RMN admiralty that they establish a fleet base there. Janacek didn't come in until after Buttercup, five years later.

I would dispute the idea that DNs are too heavy for anti-piracy work. It's true that against conventional pirates they are excessive overkill, but Silesia is the sort of place where pirates do operate battlecruisers occasionally, as well as the Havenite commerce raiders to be discouraged.

I wonder if a DN could do a convincing impression of a merchie for long enough to get a pirate into range. It'd be ridiculous overkill but if you've got spare DNs and nowhere else to put them... It'd also really cut down on damage if the pirates get into energy range and get a few shots off. Just so long as it's not replacing multiple platforms. Three light cruisers would be much more effective at anti-piracy than one dreadnought.

noblehunter wrote:

munroburton wrote:There's no real way to tell, but it's possible that the Mourncreek Admiralty cut loose a squadron of Royal Wintons or something when they established Sidemore Station.

Remember that Sidemore was liberated in 1910 and Honor immediately recommended to the RMN admiralty that they establish a fleet base there. Janacek didn't come in until after Buttercup, five years later.

I would dispute the idea that DNs are too heavy for anti-piracy work. It's true that against conventional pirates they are excessive overkill, but Silesia is the sort of place where pirates do operate battlecruisers occasionally, as well as the Havenite commerce raiders to be discouraged.

I wonder if a DN could do a convincing impression of a merchie for long enough to get a pirate into range. It'd be ridiculous overkill but if you've got spare DNs and nowhere else to put them... It'd also really cut down on damage if the pirates get into energy range and get a few shots off. Just so long as it's not replacing multiple platforms. Three light cruisers would be much more effective at anti-piracy than one dreadnought.

Manpower for manpower, you can field 7 or so classic CLs for each DN used, and 17 or so Avalon's for each DN. But, then again, putting a third rate green crews on the DNs would alievate crewing issues.

Without the GSN, the RMN would have been completely screwed in a war with the IAN in 1920. They still would have had to guard Trevor's Star and the Home System in case Haven decides to get frisky. I for one don't see the logic in sending a squadron of SD(P)s to Marsh in the first place. If the Marsh picket was a squadron of DN's or a squadron of SD's and 2nd Fleet had destroyed the Marsh picket it would have made the IAN stop and take notice. The Protectors own could have gone to help Grendelsbane along with the RMN SD(P) squadron and CLAC's.

The RMN did not send enough to stop the IAN because they were scraping the bottom of the barrel. At the same time they took a squadron that could have reinforced a critical system and send it to a secondary system.

The RMN did not send enough firepower to show the IAN they were serious because they had none to spare, they send enough to uncover a critical system and in the process lose 73 SD(P)s under construction and 7 SD(P)s in battle.

The Fleet in Marsh was not for anti-piracy because it was overkill to send SD's let alone SD(P)'s and even worse they were taking a squadron of SD(P)s from a critical system. While the protectors own went and reinforced Marsh instead of reinforcing Grendelsbane and protecting the ships that once finished would damned nearly double the RMNs SD(P)'s.

Sigs wrote:Without the GSN, the RMN would have been completely screwed in a war with the IAN in 1920. They still would have had to guard Trevor's Star and the Home System in case Haven decides to get frisky. I for one don't see the logic in sending a squadron of SD(P)s to Marsh in the first place. If the Marsh picket was a squadron of DN's or a squadron of SD's and 2nd Fleet had destroyed the Marsh picket it would have made the IAN stop and take notice. The Protectors own could have gone to help Grendelsbane along with the RMN SD(P) squadron and CLAC's.

The RMN did not send enough to stop the IAN because they were scraping the bottom of the barrel. At the same time they took a squadron that could have reinforced a critical system and send it to a secondary system.

The RMN did not send enough firepower to show the IAN they were serious because they had none to spare, they send enough to uncover a critical system and in the process lose 73 SD(P)s under construction and 7 SD(P)s in battle.

The Fleet in Marsh was not for anti-piracy because it was overkill to send SD's let alone SD(P)'s and even worse they were taking a squadron of SD(P)s from a critical system. While the protectors own went and reinforced Marsh instead of reinforcing Grendelsbane and protecting the ships that once finished would damned nearly double the RMNs SD(P)'s.

If the RMN hadn't sent any SD(P)s to Sidemore, I highly doubt Haven would have bothered sending Tourville out there. Second Fleet's ships would have been assigned to the Grendelsbane or Trevor's Star portions of Operation Thunderbolt.

Let's say most of the RMN forces at Marsh were instead at Grendelsbane, along with Tourville's forces. This makes the battle there 25 vs 28 in terms of podlayers. In old-style SDs, it's 41 to 50. From the Havenite perspective, that's better odds than Giscard found at Trevor's Star.

I don't think it'd be enough to save the Grendelsbane yards. The RMN might hold onto the system, but the yards would have been bombarded by the RHN - there are no inhabited planets in the system to worry about.

munroburton wrote:If the RMN hadn't sent any SD(P)s to Sidemore, I highly doubt Haven would have bothered sending Tourville out there. Second Fleet's ships would have been assigned to the Grendelsbane or Trevor's Star portions of Operation Thunderbolt.

And the RMN Squadron could have been send to reinforce the Trevor's star picket and/or Grendelsbane picket while the Protector's Own could have been conducting exercises near Grendelsbane and sailed in for a friendly visit... Unless all 32 SDs that the RHN brought along were SD(P)s 19 Allied SD(P)s would have destroyed them. They might have taken heavy losses but they would have beaten them. The only way Heaven wins is if they send more than 20 SD(P)s into Grendelsbane and send second fleet as reinforcements. And even then it's iffy. Forget the SD's, just 25 SD(P)'s were about as powerful as ~31 RHN SD(P)s. Throw in some BC's and about 1000 LACs to backup the 400 in system and Grendelsbane becomes interesting.
What basicly happened is that the RMN deployed 8% of their SD(P)s into a system that is for all intents and purposes worthless when compared to a number of other more important systems. Then the GSN doubles down and sends 10.5% of their SD(P)s defending the same worthless system. Even if the 25 SD(P)s were to be destroyed or heavily damaged defending Grendelsbane but managed to destroy the Havenite fleet the alliance wins. They get to keep 73 SD(P)s that they finish soon after more than making up for their losses.

Let's say most of the RMN forces at Marsh were instead at Grendelsbane, along with Tourville's forces. This makes the battle there 25 vs 28 in terms of podlayers. In old-style SDs, it's 41 to 50. From the Havenite perspective, that's better odds than Giscard found at Trevor's Star.

But not quite good enough. Keep in mind that the RHN SD(P)s were not on par with the allied SD(P)s. I think the value was 1.25 to 1 for Allied SD(P)s when comparing to Havenite SD(P)'s.

I don't think it'd be enough to save the Grendelsbane yards. The RMN might hold onto the system, but the yards would have been bombarded by the RHN - there are no inhabited planets in the system to worry about.

Yeah but now there are 1400-1600 LACs defending, 1-2 dozen more BCs and 20-30 Cruisers and destroyers.



Basically, losing Marsh costs them a base which they can recapture at a later date, losing Grendelsbane or Trevors Star cost them the chance to essentially double the RMNs SD(P) strength within 6 months to a year.