Initial Navy buildup in Travis' time

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Now that the http://forums.davidweber.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10246 thread has come to a conclusion why the RMN prior to Roger's build up had so few cruisers compared to all other classes, what do we think the next Manticore Ascendant series books will show?

We know that in 1543, the RMN had 8 BCs (over 100 years old each), a couple of cruisers, destroyers, frigates and corvettes. We know the first transition of the wormhole happened in 1585 and that a new wave of battlecruisers and battleships came online in 1590. Those BCs are much bigger than the Triumph-class ones they replaced.

And we also know you can't build a battleship from scratch in a day or even a year. It isn't clear to me whether Manticore built most of the ships it had or only bought them from Haven or the League. The HMS Casey was refitted in 1535, not built. And we are told Manticore did not have the resources and technology to build impellers at the time.

Somewhere along the way, a new shipbuilding industry comes about in Manticore and they probably built some increasingly bigger warships.

When do we expect the first home-built CL, CC and CAs? And will Capt. Long be commanding one of them? Or only Commodore Long commanding the squadron?

Theemile wrote:The issue was specifically Light Cruisers. BCs and CAs were never an issue. With a peace time, home defense wall, the RMN didn't have a strategic scouting need, and anything the Frigates ran into which they couldn't deal with usually required a CA or BC, so historically, CLs just were not needed in bulk.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
When do we expect the first home-built CL, CC and CAs? And will Capt. Long be commanding one of them? Or only Commodore Long commanding the squadron?

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And building up to a BC probably means a homegrown CA class. King Edward was leading up to that with an effort to refurbish a CL, which leads to building one from scratch, then a CC, then a CA, and so on.

House of Steel, under Dreadnoughts wrote:The RMN built two squadrons of battleships shortly after the first transit through the Manticore Wormhole Junction, and they served as the primary defensive component of Home Fleet, with regular overhauls, for nearly 250 years.

Fox2! wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And building up to a BC probably means a homegrown CA class. King Edward was leading up to that with an effort to refurbish a CL, which leads to building one from scratch, then a CC, then a CA, and so on.

What type are you using "CC" as the hull symbol for?

In the USN, CC was used for the Lexington class battle cruisers, while the Alaska class Large Cruisers used CB. In the Honorverse, battle cruisers are denoted as BC. CL and CA have their traditional meanings for light (not more than 6 inch guns) and heavy cruisers (more than 6 inch, but not more than 8 inch guns) (Yes, I know that the"light cruiser" HMS Courageous and her sisters had 15 inch guns. I blame Jackie Fisher. )

doug941 wrote:

Fox2! wrote:What type are you using "CC" as the hull symbol for?

In the USN, CC was used for the Lexington class battle cruisers, while the Alaska class Large Cruisers used CB. In the Honorverse, battle cruisers are denoted as BC. CL and CA have their traditional meanings for light (not more than 6 inch guns) and heavy cruisers (more than 6 inch, but not more than 8 inch guns) (Yes, I know that the"light cruiser" HMS Courageous and her sisters had 15 inch guns. I blame Jackie Fisher. )

Gun size is not as cut and dried as you think. The closest pre-WW1 equivalent to heavy cruisers was the armoured cruiser (US Navy code ACR). Three of the Tennessee class survived long enough (until the London Naval Treaty) to be reclassified from ACR to CA and their main armament was 4 10"/40 guns. One of the Italian Pisa class (4x10") lasted until 1937 while the Greek modified Pisa (4x9.2") is still afloat today. Argentina still had an Italian built Giuseppe Garibaldi class (2x10") in service until just after the Korean War. Last, many naval historians classify the German Deutschland class (6x11") as heavy cruisers, or as a German version of a CB cruiser.

Fox2! wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And building up to a BC probably means a homegrown CA class. King Edward was leading up to that with an effort to refurbish a CL, which leads to building one from scratch, then a CC, then a CA, and so on.

What type are you using "CC" as the hull symbol for?

In the USN, CC was used for the Lexington class battle cruisers, while the Alaska class Large Cruisers used CB. In the Honorverse, battle cruisers are denoted as BC. CL and CA have their traditional meanings for light (not more than 6 inch guns) and heavy cruisers (more than 6 inch, but not more than 8 inch guns) (Yes, I know that the"light cruiser" HMS Courageous and her sisters had 15 inch guns. I blame Jackie Fisher. )

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Fox2! wrote:What type are you using "CC" as the hull symbol for?

In the USN, CC was used for the Lexington class battle cruisers, while the Alaska class Large Cruisers used CB. In the Honorverse, battle cruisers are denoted as BC. CL and CA have their traditional meanings for light (not more than 6 inch guns) and heavy cruisers (more than 6 inch, but not more than 8 inch guns) (Yes, I know that the"light cruiser" HMS Courageous and her sisters had 15 inch guns. I blame Jackie Fisher. )

"Cruiser", neither heavy nor light. Several ships in Travis time are referred to as simply cruisers and I took "CC" from the wiki page on the 1543 Volsung invasion battle. I don't know if there's a sense in having something in-between CL and CA, what is essentially the size of a heavy cruiser but without the armouring that would go in one (I guess to keep mass down due to limitations in impeller technology of the time).