?

Jonathan_S wrote:
Still, I've always agreed with David Weber's characterization that the spider drive ships are pretty analogous to submarines; and therefor to submarine warfare and tactics. I merely try to point out that not every analogy to a WWI or WWII submarine or submarine tactic necessarily applies.
So when a tactic is suggested that the Honorverse technologies and situation doesn't seem to support I'm going to try to explain why that tactic or analogy isn't applicable. But that is not in any way a rejection of the idea that Lenny Dets are sub-like; and like subs will tend to focus on ambush hunting.

The biggest concern is getting OVER zealous in our analysis. There is SOOOO much about the Leonard Detweiler class that we do not know. Assuming anything at this point without placing an asterix after it is irresponsible and, well, pointless.

We're assuming their mass on a throw away comment in the books and a single offhanded reference by the author followed by a "tum-te-tum". So they are larger than a SD - ships that were still not 50% complete were already larger than a dreadnought - which dreadnought? An Ad Astra class or a Bellerphon class? Some other class? Realistically, that should mean anything from 5.5-7 Mtons. But how complete? 49% 35%. We're assuming the comment indicated something just south of 50%, but that still indicates a final mass of more than 11-14 Mtons - but could be much bigger - or not...

We know they have a bod bay, and g-torp tubes. We know thier pods have Cataphract-Cs, and we can assume that they will be at least as capable as the 4th generation we saw in UH. but will they have Cataphract-B missile tubes? or Grasers? We know the Ghosts were the size of a Frigate, yet they didn't carry a single weapon. wouldn't you want them to be a stealthed killer? Give them a spinal Graser so they could do what the Hexapuma did to that Mars class in Nuncio? So is there a reason the Ghosts DON'T have even a single DD scale laser? And would the LDs thus not have energy weapons? We don't know.

We know they have the spider drive. we know they have a hyper drive. We know they are not shaped like a Wedge warship, so they cannot make sails with known technology, but David said they can use wormholes, indicating that they have a sail workaround- that might also work in Grav waves, but that is conjecture. We know the spider is limited by the squishies in the ship, and it does not have a compensator, so it is limited to ~150-200Gs, with the last being a strapped in, battle speed.

Bubble Sidewalls will not work with the Spider but the LDs carry one per David. Sidewalls are seen on gravatonics, and we are assuming that any use will break the spider's stealth. Ordinary sidewalls require a wedge to stitch to - only Manticore has developed tech which does not require the wedge, but requires Beta^2 nodes to produce. We assume the MAlign does not have this tech.. but they might have another.

We assume they have a streak drive, cause - why not, every other Spider has one. We know they have the best or second best stealth in the universe, coupled with the "undetectable" spider drive - which is based off an older known drive science, that was abandoned centuries ago for the node/Wedge design normally used.

We know they are the sub analogues in the Honorverse. We know from David that the Malign navy "considers them to be capital ships in every sense of the word." - whatever that means. We consider Ballistic Missile subs to be 21st century capital ships - yet they don't mount the weapons a classic or "modern" theoretical Battleship would carry. Is this what David means? We don't know.

In short, there are more questions than answers about the Leonard Detweiler class. Assuming anything at this point is rash. David, as always, will surprise us.

Theemile wrote:The biggest concern is getting OVER zealous in our analysis. There is SOOOO much about the Leonard Detweiler class that we do not know. Assuming anything at this point without placing an asterix after it is irresponsible and, well, pointless.

Very good point.

Theemile wrote:Ordinary sidewalls require a wedge to stitch to - only Manticore has developed tech which does not require the wedge, but requires Beta^2 nodes to produce.

Though while we're being careful not to overdo our analysis, we do know that the buckler bow/stern wall doesn't stitch into the wedge like a normal sidewall or even a full bow/stern wall does. (And "Because cutting off the stress bands' n-space pocket with a closed wedge prevents you from accelerating, decelerating, or using the wedge to change heading" yet a ship with a buckler up can still accelerate the buckler must not cut off those stress bands like a full bow/stern wall does)

But we've never seen a buckler used when a ship didn't have its wedge up, nor have we been told that doing so is possible. So assuming that it can definitely work without a wedge is an overreach - it might still require some lesser connection or interaction with the wedge (or it might not; no data available from which to judge)

@Theemile,

Nice post. But...

Second best stealth? Drinking too much horse exlixir?

I look at the analogy taking the form of WW II submarine tactics and WW II performance of the LD, armed with a nuclear sub's WMD. Against twentieth century acceleration and, of course, weaponry.

Today's nuclear subs are doing much better than the SL as far as cutting into the accel advantage of enemy BBs and Carriers.

The Soviets had a sub that set an unbroken record of 61 mph. Cost killed the cause.

Anyways, I envision the LDs as having very powerful energy weapons, in case it finds itself in close company. And for the times it actually feels like getting all up close and personal.

The assumption that they will use a certain missile is not safe. The Catapracts were an emergency hack, I tend to doubt they will be used given the at least several years to design better.

The graser torps might well be seriously modified too, 5 years is a long time.

Basically, we know they have to spider drive, we know they are very hard to spot, we know have a hyper drive, and we know that David said they can use wormkholes, grav waves, and will be effective. Not sure what else we know.

Jonathan_S wrote:The position keeper did the target "tracking". Quoting from its manual

In operating the Position Keeper, estimates of Target Speed, Angle on the Bow, and Initial Range, and a measure of Initial Relative Target Bearing are made by observation and introduced into the instrument manually [via hand cranks]. Own Course and Own Speed are received continuously in the Position Keeper by syncro transmission. A Time Motor will then continuously generate value of Present Range, Relative Target Bearing and Target Angle based on the inputs. These values are continuously changing with the motion of Own Ship and Target, and are continuously indicated on dials on the instrument.

Don't you just love analogue computers?

It's especially interesting when reading Sci-Fi from the 50s, when authors consistently predicted computer usage, but they were all huge and analogue. That includes Asimov and in "Caves of Steel", you may realise that the androids, despite having a positronic brain, are described by way of equations, not computer programming as we know today.

At least the Honorverse isn't dated too much for us, except for "newsfax".

So yes, what I'd pulled from my memory was over simplified. But it still relied on manually provided data from multiple observations - which could be compared to its continuous target position estimates (and corrections entered based on the differences). But still very sensitive to GIGO. However against targets moving at constant speed or bearing, where you can afford the risks of large numbers of observations, you'll eventually converge on correct data as long as your errors are fairly consistent.

Strictly speaking, it will converge on a solution but it may not be a correct one. If your consistent errors are systematic, they will not cancel themselves out.

Still, I've always agreed with David Weber's characterization that the spider drive ships are pretty analogous to submarines; and therefor to submarine warfare and tactics. I merely try to point out that not every analogy to a WWI or WWII submarine or submarine tactic necessarily applies.
So when a tactic is suggested that the Honorverse technologies and situation doesn't seem to support I'm going to try to explain why that tactic or analogy isn't applicable. But that is not in any way a rejection of the idea that Lenny Dets are sub-like; and like subs will tend to focus on ambush hunting.

I agree that the tactics may make sense, except for one glaring change, which is that both the ships and the weapons are slower than their opponents, rather than faster. Because of this, there may be many an engagement where the MAlign ship can't force action because it can't get to a position it needs to be. It also means it will have difficulty running if discovered.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Don't you just love analogue computers?

It's especially interesting when reading Sci-Fi from the 50s, when authors consistently predicted computer usage, but they were all huge and analogue. That includes Asimov and in "Caves of Steel", you may realise that the androids, despite having a positronic brain, are described by way of equations, not computer programming as we know today.

At least the Honorverse isn't dated too much for us, except for "newsfax".

Yep, they can be pretty cool. The cam based used used for WWII warship fire control were pretty cool too. They weren't solving calculations the way we thing of computers today doing so. Instead basically the entire solution space was turned into complex cam shapes (kind of like a super refined and automatic set of reference book tables) so adjusting the inputs caused the results to be read off the cams to tell the guns where to point.

Still, I've always agreed with David Weber's characterization that the spider drive ships are pretty analogous to submarines; and therefor to submarine warfare and tactics. I merely try to point out that not every analogy to a WWI or WWII submarine or submarine tactic necessarily applies.
So when a tactic is suggested that the Honorverse technologies and situation doesn't seem to support I'm going to try to explain why that tactic or analogy isn't applicable. But that is not in any way a rejection of the idea that Lenny Dets are sub-like; and like subs will tend to focus on ambush hunting.

I agree that the tactics may make sense, except for one glaring change, which is that both the ships and the weapons are slower than their opponents, rather than faster. Because of this, there may be many an engagement where the MAlign ship can't force action because it can't get to a position it needs to be. It also means it will have difficulty running if discovered.

Though they do have the advantage that the graser torps seem to have extremely long range. And even if fired from outside the hyper limit their faster targets aren't (usually) there just for a high speed pass through the system. They'd going to someplace within the hyper limits - which means you can pretty much count on them slowing down and either docking or going into orbit; which lets your slow but quite long ranged weapon catch up.

In that way they're more like the submarine releasing an Italian underwater chariot, like the used used in the attack on HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Valiant at Alexandria. Released from a sub, too slow to catch a ship in motion, but with sufficient range to reach them in port and make a devastating attack.

Jonathan_S wrote:Still, I've always agreed with David Weber's characterization that the spider drive ships are pretty analogous to submarines; and therefor to submarine warfare and tactics. I merely try to point out that not every analogy to a WWI or WWII submarine or submarine tactic necessarily applies.
So when a tactic is suggested that the Honorverse technologies and situation doesn't seem to support I'm going to try to explain why that tactic or analogy isn't applicable. But that is not in any way a rejection of the idea that Lenny Dets are sub-like; and like subs will tend to focus on ambush hunting.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I agree that the tactics may make sense, except for one glaring change, which is that both the ships and the weapons are slower than their opponents, rather than faster. Because of this, there may be many an engagement where the MAlign ship can't force action because it can't get to a position it needs to be. It also means it will have difficulty running if discovered.

It is only very recently, with subs optimized for underwater running, that a submerged sub had comparable speed to a surface ship. In the war, either a sub had to run on the surface to catch a convoy or manage to place itself in front and have the convoy come to it.

The strategy of placing itself into the projected path within the hyper limit will still work. But the slower speeds mean if the LD is out of position then it cannot force action.

Jonathan_S wrote:Though they do have the advantage that the graser torps seem to have extremely long range. And even if fired from outside the hyper limit their faster targets aren't (usually) there just for a high speed pass through the system. They'd going to someplace within the hyper limits - which means you can pretty much count on them slowing down and either docking or going into orbit; which lets your slow but quite long ranged weapon catch up.

Though it would be highly annoying for the MAN crew that fired torpedoes at exactly the fleet that decided to do a high-speed pass through the system and "buzz the tower" instead of docking.

I'm pretty sure that fleet was led by GNS Francis Mueller.

tlb wrote:It is only very recently, with subs optimized for underwater running, that a submerged sub had comparable speed to a surface ship. In the war, either a sub had to run on the surface to catch a convoy or manage to place itself in front and have the convoy come to it.

The strategy of placing itself into the projected path within the hyper limit will still work. But the slower speeds mean if the LD is out of position then it cannot force action.

Indeed, but coupled with the lack of radar and poor to non-existing aerial surveillance (and no spy satellites) of the time, a sub running on the surface around and beyond the horizon of the convoy it was chasing had good chances of remaining undetected. So a sub could use its superior speeds in many conditions to force action.

The LD is hardly never faster than its targets. Even if the target is the escort warship in a merchant convoy, the convoy would be moving at the same acceleration as the LD.

The other important difference to the Honorverse is that almost all action happens in a system, which in the wet navy would mean within sight of land. We haven't discussed and I don't see the likelihood of a hyperspace ambush with an LD and graser torpedoes So as stated above, the LD knows where the convoys and fleets are going: they have a destination. It can preposition itself and wait for the target to come.

I don't think you can do the same with a fleet patrolling a system: it doesn't have a destination in mind, its job is to just keep moving around.

tlb wrote:The strategy of placing itself into the projected path within the hyper limit will still work. But the slower speeds mean if the LD is out of position then it cannot force action.

True. And then, like older subs in well patrolled waters, it'd just have to watch in frustration as a juicy target sails away never to be seen again. Then sit back and hope that next time it's luckier and the target strays to within ambush range.