Honor: Pimp My Ride

Strategically, ships of the wall aren't meant to traipse about the Galaxy without the wall. So you'll never see a single SD sent to do what Warlock and Fearless was tasked to do at OBS. But it isn't because a Manty SD CAN'T accomplish what is usually reserved for ships below the wall. But I always took that to be the result of a limited supply of ships of the wall.

I would find it rather interesting to read about the exploits of a lone ship of the wall, and how it's normal tactics might change without the wall.

cthia wrote:Strategically, ships of the wall aren't meant to traipse about the Galaxy without the wall. So you'll never see a single SD sent to do what Warlock and Fearless was tasked to do at OBS. But it isn't because a Manty SD CAN'T accomplish what is usually reserved for ships below the wall. But I always took that to be the result of a limited supply of ships of the wall.

I would find it rather interesting to read about the exploits of a lone ship of the wall, and how it's normal tactics might change without the wall.

And that was a good deal of my argument in the thread about the SLN selling old SDs to seceding systems and to the Verge. A single SDs doesn't make a wall, you'd need at least 4 to make an effective one. A lone SD isn't sufficient to stop someone who does come with a wall either.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:Strategically, ships of the wall aren't meant to traipse about the Galaxy without the wall. So you'll never see a single SD sent to do what Warlock and Fearless was tasked to do at OBS. But it isn't because a Manty SD CAN'T accomplish what is usually reserved for ships below the wall. But I always took that to be the result of a limited supply of ships of the wall.

I would find it rather interesting to read about the exploits of a lone ship of the wall, and how it's normal tactics might change without the wall.

And that was a good deal of my argument in the thread about the SLN selling old SDs to seceding systems and to the Verge. A single SDs doesn't make a wall, you'd need at least 4 to make an effective one. A lone SD isn't sufficient to stop someone who does come with a wall either.

This is an issue that I hadn't considered. DNs and SDs are designed to be deployed in groups for mutual defensive support with screen to augment their defenses. Their armor as well as sidewall design probably reflects this reality. BCs and lessor ships are designed to fight solo. I would wager that ton for ton a CA fighting alone is more survivable than an SD. However; the SD has far more tonnage.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:This is an issue that I hadn't considered. DNs and SDs are designed to be deployed in groups for mutual defensive support with screen to augment their defenses. Their armor as well as sidewall design probably reflects this reality. BCs and lessor ships are designed to fight solo. I would wager that ton for ton a CA fighting alone is more survivable than an SD. However; the SD has far more tonnage.

Exactly. So break down that SD into 10 CAs and you have more than 10x the survivability.

But 10 CAs may not be able to take on a single SD. The SD does obey, after all, square-cube law when it comes to internal volume vs armour. It needs to dedicate far less fraction of its total mass to armour than the CA does, which means each CA either has thinner armour or smaller internal volume. It's usually a compromise of both, but still leaves the CA with shallower missile ammo and fewer and/or less powerful energy mounts.

It definitely does make more than 10x as flexible.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:This is an issue that I hadn't considered. DNs and SDs are designed to be deployed in groups for mutual defensive support with screen to augment their defenses. Their armor as well as sidewall design probably reflects this reality. BCs and lessor ships are designed to fight solo. I would wager that ton for ton a CA fighting alone is more survivable than an SD. However; the SD has far more tonnage.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Exactly. So break down that SD into 10 CAs and you have more than 10x the survivability.

But 10 CAs may not be able to take on a single SD. The SD does obey, after all, square-cube law when it comes to internal volume vs armour. It needs to dedicate far less fraction of its total mass to armour than the CA does, which means each CA either has thinner armour or smaller internal volume. It's usually a compromise of both, but still leaves the CA with shallower missile ammo and fewer and/or less powerful energy mounts.

It definitely does make more than 10x as flexible.

I thought the design requirement for the Navy (on water or in space) was to make each member of a class capable of a stand-up battle against another of its class, No ship of a class class was expected to be able to stand up to a ship of the next class up. The size creep of the classes in the navies of Manticore and Haven was due to the increasing requirements for survivability and throw weight in a missile heavy environment.

tlb wrote:I thought the design requirement for the Navy (on water or in space) was to make each member of a class capable of a stand-up battle against another of its class, No ship of a class class was expected to be able to stand up to a ship of the next class up. The size creep of the classes in the navies of Manticore and Haven was due to the increasing requirements for survivability and throw weight in a missile heavy environment.

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that if you mob enough little guys, they can take on a large guy. A bee might nearly a million times less, but enough of them can take on medium-size game, like humans.

If you throw enough DDs at it, they can take an SD down. But it won't be good for the crews of each individual DD, as the survivability rate of each is pretty small. I think RFC has put his foot down saying that this is suicide tactics and therefore no navy uses it.

tlb wrote:I thought the design requirement for the Navy (on water or in space) was to make each member of a class capable of a stand-up battle against another of its class, No ship of a class class was expected to be able to stand up to a ship of the next class up. The size creep of the classes in the navies of Manticore and Haven was due to the increasing requirements for survivability and throw weight in a missile heavy environment.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that if you mob enough little guys, they can take on a large guy. A bee might nearly a million times less, but enough of them can take on medium-size game, like humans.

If you throw enough DDs at it, they can take an SD down. But it won't be good for the crews of each individual DD, as the survivability rate of each is pretty small. I think RFC has put his foot down saying that this is suicide tactics and therefore no navy uses it.

About the only time it is described in the books is the battle in Flag in Exile. Honor's SD's managed to engage a force of smaller ships that did not realize the threat was there, because they hid among the smaller stuff.

The good news—such as it was—was that the Peeps had nothing bigger than a battleship. At four and a half million tons, a Triumphant-class BB—the standard Peep design for the type—was fifty-six percent as massive as her own SDs, but it had no more than forty-five percent of the firepower, and its defenses were little more than a third as effective as her own ships' had been even before refit.
The bad news was that they had thirty-six of them, supported by twenty-four battlecruisers, twenty-four heavy cruisers, thirty-eight light cruisers, and forty-two destroyers. She had six superdreadnoughts, nineteen battlecruisers (including all those racing in from various other locations to rendezvous with her main force), ten heavy cruisers, forty light cruisers, and nineteen destroyers.

PS. There is also Rob S. Pierre's son, whose battlecruisers came out of hyper space in energy range of HMS Bellerophon.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:Strategically, ships of the wall aren't meant to traipse about the Galaxy without the wall. So you'll never see a single SD sent to do what Warlock and Fearless was tasked to do at OBS. But it isn't because a Manty SD CAN'T accomplish what is usually reserved for ships below the wall. But I always took that to be the result of a limited supply of ships of the wall.

I would find it rather interesting to read about the exploits of a lone ship of the wall, and how it's normal tactics might change without the wall.

And that was a good deal of my argument in the thread about the SLN selling old SDs to seceding systems and to the Verge. A single SDs doesn't make a wall, you'd need at least 4 to make an effective one. A lone SD isn't sufficient to stop someone who does come with a wall either.

No, it won't stop anyone who comes with a wall. But neither would anything below the wall, like a Warlock or a Fearless.

An SD is designed for extreme mutual support, but that doesn't mean it can't operate as a singleton. E.g., in OBS, an SD could have accomplished what both Fearless and Warlock could have together. And, if the enemy brought a wall, it would be no worse for wear than either or both, Warlock or Fearless.

It's crazy to think your higher class of ship can't accomplish what a tin can does. I think what it ultimately comes down to, is exposing one of your ships of the wall to defeat in detail. I suppose any navy would see an unsupported SD (as it would an aircraft carrier) as a big prize and go after it. Sort of like part of the defeat in detail.

But let's say Michelle needed to detach a single SD for some specific job, I think it could handle itself. It's tactics would simply have to change.

Against the SL, a GA SD has the accel and missile range advantage over everything else anyway. Hold the range open and fire away. Even if operating as a singleton wouldn't have been "recommended" against the Peeps, since each ship of the wall was like manna then.

Honor operating as a singleton in an SD? Please!

cthia wrote:An SD is designed for extreme mutual support, but that doesn't mean it can't operate as a singleton. E.g., in OBS, an SD could have accomplished what both Fearless and Warlock could have together. And, if the enemy brought a wall, it would be no worse for wear than either or both, Warlock or Fearless.

Well except for the slight fact that the SD isn't quick enough to run down Sirius. And would have been little more survivable if it had picked a fight with the Havenite battle squadron waiting on standby. Yes, the Astra-class q-ship was a big bastard - between an Anduril (1889 PD) and Victory (1892 PD) SD in size. But it's got full military drives, so its max acceleration of 412.3
gees also falls right between their 413.3 and 409.6 gees. Fearless barely had time to run her down and Fearless has a max accel of 519.6 gees!
There's are reasons, beyond cost (and risk of defeat in detail if ambushed), why SDs make poor patrol or anti-piracy vessels; they're just too slow

(But yes, if Sirius was foolish enough to come into an SDs missile range a proper SD would tear the q-ship apart)

Though I'll admit with its more numerous shuttles and pinnaces, and far larger marine presence, it would have been able to handle the combat drop to save the Delta from being overrun far better than one overage light cruiser. And it should carry a lot more proper recon deployables; so probably wouldn't need to resort as much to the Rube Goldberg ones Fearless whipped up out of missiles.



Going back to historic navies, even in the age of sail 1st rates couldn't do everything a frigate or sloop could. It could take, and deal, vastly more damage. But it was slower in all but the heaviest weather, so it couldn't run down or escape (though that less important for such a heavy unit) the same enemies the smaller ships could. But it wasn't capable of anywhere near as long of deployments. A sloop, and to some extent even a small frigate, could last at sea nearly indefinitely by living off supplies captured from enemy merchanmen (not just food and water, but spars, canvas, lines, gunpowder, etc.), caught or scrounged ashore, or purchased in neutral ports. A ship of the line just had too many men to keep fed to survive off the sea like that; and it's spars and ropes far heaver than merchants carried so it can't keep in repair by capturing them. Consequently it needed far more frequent supply in friendly ports.

Come up into WWI or WWII and battleships still can't do all the jobs a destroyer can. Even ignoring the places they're too large, and too deep draft to enter, they're slower to accelerate and maneuver, and have lower top speeds. They have no anti-submarine capabilities. By that point few have torpedoes, and none have the speed and maneuverability to really pull of a torpedo strike. Ships are built for specialized purposes and the next class up isn't just a more expensive and capable ship able to do everything the next lighter ship is.
(Though I admit lately the USN has blurred that line since while the Ticonderoga class cruisers focus on anti-air, they're equipped to be able to do pretty much anything the Arleigh Burke class Destroyers can. The current Royal Navy OTOH goes for much more specialization with frigates focused on anti submarine work and destroyer focused on anti-air. So their new, larger, Type 45 Destroyer has a fairly basic sonar set-up and in no way can do the sub hunting job of the smaller Type 23 frigate with its specialized sonar set-up)

There have been a few periods when each larger ship type could still, in a pinch, do pretty much any of the jobs of their smaller brethren; but that's far more the anomaly than the rule.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:An SD is designed for extreme mutual support, but that doesn't mean it can't operate as a singleton. E.g., in OBS, an SD could have accomplished what both Fearless and Warlock could have together. And, if the enemy brought a wall, it would be no worse for wear than either or both, Warlock or Fearless.

Well except for the slight fact that the SD isn't quick enough to run down Sirius. And would have been little more survivable if it had picked a fight with the Havenite battle squadron waiting on standby. Yes, the Astra-class q-ship was a big bastard - between an Anduril (1889 PD) and Victory (1892 PD) SD in size. But it's got full military drives, so its max acceleration of 412.3
gees also falls right between their 413.3 and 409.6 gees. Fearless barely had time to run her down and Fearless has a max accel of 519.6 gees!
There's are reasons, beyond cost (and risk of defeat in detail if ambushed), why SDs make poor patrol or anti-piracy vessels; they're just too slow

(But yes, if Sirius was foolish enough to come into an SDs missile range a proper SD would tear the q-ship apart)

Though I'll admit with its more numerous shuttles and pinnaces, and far larger marine presence, it would have been able to handle the combat drop to save the Delta from being overrun far better than one overage light cruiser. And it should carry a lot more proper recon deployables; so probably wouldn't need to resort as much to the Rube Goldberg ones Fearless whipped up out of missiles.



Going back to historic navies, even in the age of sail 1st rates couldn't do everything a frigate or sloop could. It could take, and deal, vastly more damage. But it was slower in all but the heaviest weather, so it couldn't run down or escape (though that less important for such a heavy unit) the same enemies the smaller ships could. But it wasn't capable of anywhere near as long of deployments. A sloop, and to some extent even a small frigate, could last at sea nearly indefinitely by living off supplies captured from enemy merchanmen (not just food and water, but spars, canvas, lines, gunpowder, etc.), caught or scrounged ashore, or purchased in neutral ports. A ship of the line just had too many men to keep fed to survive off the sea like that; and it's spars and ropes far heaver than merchants carried so it can't keep in repair by capturing them. Consequently it needed far more frequent supply in friendly ports.

Come up into WWI or WWII and battleships still can't do all the jobs a destroyer can. Even ignoring the places they're too large, and too deep draft to enter, they're slower to accelerate and maneuver, and have lower top speeds. They have no anti-submarine capabilities. By that point few have torpedoes, and none have the speed and maneuverability to really pull of a torpedo strike. Ships are built for specialized purposes and the next class up isn't just a more expensive and capable ship able to do everything the next lighter ship is.
(Though I admit lately the USN has blurred that line since while the Ticonderoga class cruisers focus on anti-air, they're equipped to be able to do pretty much anything the Arleigh Burke class Destroyers can. The current Royal Navy OTOH goes for much more specialization with frigates focused on anti submarine work and destroyer focused on anti-air. So their new, larger, Type 45 Destroyer has a fairly basic sonar set-up and in no way can do the sub hunting job of the smaller Type 23 frigate with its specialized sonar set-up)

There have been a few periods when each larger ship type could still, in a pinch, do pretty much any of the jobs of their smaller brethren; but that's far more the anomaly than the rule.

Nice post! And I agree. It's why I said the practice probably wouldn't have been recommended against the Peeps. But now, while only having to worry about the slower SLN warships, might be doable.