What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

Galactic Sapper wrote:

Vince wrote:Carrier task force.

In the USN:
CV = Carrier of heaVier than air (planes), as opposed to lighter than air (dirigibles or blimps)
TF = Task Force

I thought CV was for Carrier Vessel.

kzt wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:At the risk of sounding like a feminist I would point out that matriarchal governed societies would have far less organized warfare than patriarchal societies because the risks verses reward ratio is so much higher.

Since those have never actually existed....

cthia wrote:Day vs Night Operations

The difference between daytime and nighttime operations seem to be nonexistent as well in space. Although it seems strategy could be formulated to include it if normal ship operations are synchronized with planet time. Though I don't recall an instance where a particular attack was scheduled when the enemy force are operating with a skeletal crew - e.g., when many or most of the crew onboard ship and/or Forts are asleep.

Although ground operations may still be at the mercy of the sun.

cthia wrote:

kzt wrote:Since those have never actually existed....

I beg your pardon! Where do you think my beloved Wonder Woman hails from? Hmm? It's not a myth. Big bold beautiful buxom babes certainly isn't a myth. Ask Homer. LOL

Theemile wrote:

cthia wrote:Day vs Night Operations

The difference between daytime and nighttime operations seem to be nonexistent as well in space. Although it seems strategy could be formulated to include it if normal ship operations are synchronized with planet time. Though I don't recall an instance where a particular attack was scheduled when the enemy force are operating with a skeletal crew - e.g., when many or most of the crew onboard ship and/or Forts are asleep.

Although ground operations may still be at the mercy of the sun.

Which planet time? There are many planets and each spin, giving multiple time zones on each planet. It's always everytime, somewhere, you just need to pick one.

And if you travel at high speeds, the tau will throw off your clocks, so even if you align your clocks with - say Landing Time, If you patrol the system at .7g for several weeks, your clocks will need to be reset.

Like subs, ships never operate with skeleton crews, they have junior officers sitting in for more senior roles while the "primary" crews sleep - and then wake the primary officers when something happens, or like in SVW, raise the sidewalls and blow the BCs away before anyone can react.

The Junction forts had rotation alert schedules, with an equal portion of them being on alert, on standby, and "off duty" at any time. (With off duty meaning having a smaller, junior backup staff and the rest of the crews being at +15 or so.), so you are never going to catch them all off guard.

Galactic Sapper wrote:

Vince wrote:In the USN:
CV = Carrier of heaVier than air (planes), as opposed to lighter than air (dirigibles or blimps)

I thought CV was for Carrier Vessel.

A common question is "what does the 'V' stand for in CV or CVA or CVS or CVE?"

The following is taken from "United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Appendix 16: US Navy and Marine Corps Squadron Designations and Abbreviations":

On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of NAVAL VESSELs, including aircraft, in which lighter-than air craft were identified by the type "Z" and heavier-than air craft by the letter "V". The reference also speculates that: "The use of the "V" designation has been a question since the 1920s. However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter "V" was chosen. It is generally believed the "V" was in reference to the French word volplane. As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting devices (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by "Z") used. The same case may be regarding the use of "Z". It is generally believed the "Z" was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin. However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption."

Theemile wrote:

cthia wrote:I don't understand the timidity of the Japanese command. On many occasions they failed to follow through. Even at Pearl, a follow up strike would have been devastating.

.

You are kind of glossing over many items.

For example, Pearl...

Pilots can only fly so many hours before they get tired - tired Pilots make mistakes. mistakes equals lost planes and pilots.

WWII era planes were insanely maintenance intensive by modern standards. Engines lasted a few 100 hours of use between complete overhauls. Heavy sortie tempo equals missed maintenance, equals lost planes and pilots.

The first strikes hit an unaware US force, as the strikes commenced, more planes got airborne, and more AA batteries were manned. several cruisers and BBs were beached intentionally, making them great AA platforms, with readied crews. Surviving US aircrews were now air borne flying CAP; while outnumbered, they could deal heavy damage to already damaged airplanes and tired crews, who also had to attack armed AA batteries.

It was confirmed that Halsey's carriers where not at Pearl. Their 4 fresh strike groups could strike at any moment, best to vacate the area and avoid direct confrontation with a fresh, near parity enemy force.

Ever hear of Buck fever? Where a hunter is so fixated on bagging his buck, he ignores all other factors, putting himself in danger? Over-reach is something taught to avoid in most militaries. Pushing too far, too fast has repeatedly led the best of leaders into traps.

Finally, look what finally did in the Japanese carrier force - they could not replace their trained pilots and the carriers became useless. They (The Japanese Leadership) knew this in 1941, but thought of it as the best way to build an effective fighting force- to keep your best warriors fighting out front, and have them keep honing their edge becoming better warriors.

They had not learned the US practice of Cadre yet, which the US has used to vastly expand it's military overnight several times. The rotation of those great, experienced soldiers and sailors from the front to the rear for training, allows for thousands of excellent replacements. Yes the US practice does slightly preclude the creation of amazingly awesome warriors, but it does create thousands of well trained replacements that can step into their shoes.