?

ThinksMarkedly wrote:A system with a major nodal force is a Tier 1 system. Those will have sensitive hyper-detection arrays, maybe not as sensitive as the capital systems. They will probably be home to one of the numbered fleets too, with a Battle Squadron or two, CLACs and a fleet train. I'd expect the regional capitals to be classed as Tier 1. In the case of the SEM, Tier 1 would be the MBS, Trevor's Star, Spindle, and the Manticore Silesia capital. The termini of the Junction (outside of Gregor and Beowulf) are defended by Home Fleet itself.

I guess we'd have to decide how many tiers we wanted; since I was thinking only capitals and your very most important systems (say Trevor's Star - thanks only to the terminus) would be Tier 1. To my mind Tier one systems would be catastrophic or even war ending to lose. (It took Manticore years to capture it and losing it would be a massive blow to their planning and force deployments essentially require them to focus much of their attention on recovering it; not to mention the capture of millions of their citizen)

And I guess we'd also have to decide what constitutes a major nodal force. Before the first war Hancock seemed a pretty powerful force - Parks had about 30-34 of the wall ("an edge of about forty percent in ships of the wall" over Seaford 9's three [8-ship] squadrons); plus BCs and escorts. But it was described only as "a full task force"; which logically means it's part of some larger numbered fleet. Though obviously a detached part - so it's membership may be purely organizational with no intent of every being formed with the rest of the tack groups of it.

In any case Parks' units were responsible for covering Hancock itself, plus being the nodal response force several minor treaty partners and systems (Zanzibar, Alizon, Yorik)

That said, the way the RMN has organized their forces has certainly changed since them -- so it's entirely possible that were current practices applied Parks' force would have been a fleet rather than a task force. That said, I wouldn't call Hancock, or even the three allies it helped cover, Tier 1 because the loss of them might be embarrassing; but the ship losses would be more significant to the war effort than losing any of those systems -- diplomatically it might be a problem if they weren't able to rapidly recapture the system; but it wouldn't be catastrophic to the war effort (not unless the bulk of Parks' fleet fleet was lost or captured without inflicting offsetting losses on the Peep) .

Jonathan_S wrote:That said, the way the RMN has organized their forces has certainly changed since them -- so it's entirely possible that were current practices applied Parks' force would have been a fleet rather than a task force. That said, I wouldn't call Hancock, or even the three allies it helped cover, Tier 1 because the loss of them might be embarrassing; but the ship losses would be more significant to the war effort than losing any of those systems -- diplomatically it might be a problem if they weren't able to rapidly recapture the system; but it wouldn't be catastrophic to the war effort (not unless the bulk of Parks' fleet fleet was lost or captured without inflicting offsetting losses on the Peep) .

In particular, to locally defend a system, you don't need large fleets any more. You need some mobile units, but you don't need half a dozen squadrons of the wall. You need missiles and Mycroft. With that, no one with less than 500 SD(P)s and a fleet train to re-arm is going to successfully take the system.

Imagining the RMN at peace time has an active wall strength of 200 ships, I'd expect fully half of them to be Home Fleet, to protect the Junction, both components of the MBS, and to place squadrons remotely in some termini. That leaves 100 ships to distribute between Silesia, Talbott, and one offensive force based out of Trevor's Star. So that would be 36 or 40 ships for each of the two Quadrants, and another 20-30 for the extra fleet.

I'd then expect the two regional fleets to keep two thirds or three quarters of the ships in the regional capitals themselves, that are systems that must be defended. The extra squadron could then be forward-deployed to the region's Tier 1.5 system to serve as the nodal force. Deploying Battle Squadrons requires logistics, so not every system is going to have the resources to keep a Battle Fleet operational for an extended period. At a minimum, it should have a repair yard for the escort ships.

Actually, there's one more fleet needed for a while: I'd expect each GA member to contribute ships to defending Bolthole. Long-term, as a member of the Republic of Haven, it's Haven's responsibility. So Haven will need to keep more active fleets than Manticore, while the Andermani will keep fewer.

And then the Graysons only have one system to defend, so their other fleet could just be going around the GA for exercises. Assuming Hypatia joins the Republic of Beowulf, then the new Beowulf Navy will have two systems to defend and could also contribute a roving fleet.

BTW, in honour of Hypatia's Greek heritage and continuing Beowulf's tradition of weird names for its services, I propose they call it the Argosy, not Navy.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:That said, the way the RMN has organized their forces has certainly changed since them -- so it's entirely possible that were current practices applied Parks' force would have been a fleet rather than a task force. That said, I wouldn't call Hancock, or even the three allies it helped cover, Tier 1 because the loss of them might be embarrassing; but the ship losses would be more significant to the war effort than losing any of those systems -- diplomatically it might be a problem if they weren't able to rapidly recapture the system; but it wouldn't be catastrophic to the war effort (not unless the bulk of Parks' fleet fleet was lost or captured without inflicting offsetting losses on the Peep) .

In particular, to locally defend a system, you don't need large fleets any more. You need some mobile units, but you don't need half a dozen squadrons of the wall. You need missiles and Mycroft. With that, no one with less than 500 SD(P)s and a fleet train to re-arm is going to successfully take the system.

Though Silver Bullet reiterated the risks of such a defense (and Mistletoe had highlighted them already).

Squadrons of the wall are more flexible and less likely to get taken out by armed RDs sneaking around.

OTOH missile pods and LACs are relatively cheap -- so minor systems are likely to have far stronger (if somewhat brittle) defenses than they had before.

Thinksmarkedly wrote:Actually, there's one more fleet needed for a while: I'd expect each GA member to contribute ships to defending Bolthole.

Nice thought. Bad idea.

Bolthole has enjoyed flawless security so far. The more people that enter the system, the lower the security. The more members sent there from different systems, the lower the security.

I agree its security should not be taken for granted, but the people sent there, and possibly even the ships as well, should all come from Haven.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sonja Hemphill had to jump through hoops.

Jonathan_S wrote:

tlb wrote:Michelle Henke was not acting as a "ready" squadron for New Tuscany, which had refused to join with Manticore and decided to remain independent. She was responding to the destruction of three destroyers by Admiral Byng's ships.

Again, only a squadron in the system being defended can be a "ready" squadron. If the system is valuable enough to have a sensor net, then it will have several squadrons, who will rotate on being the ready squadron.

Now there is another totally separate concept that Penny might have been conflating with the "ready" squadron -- and that's a nodal response force.

That's where instead of trying to defend a bunch of (relatively) unimportant systems you instead concentrate your major naval force in one and effectively just put pickets in the others -- pickets that can run and summon that nodal response fleet to relieve the attacked system.

For picket forces you put somewhere between a handful of destroyers up to maybe a CruRon -- depending on how much force you can afford to spend to discourage really low end piracy or commerce raiding in the systems. But in any case if some serious force shows up at least one of your ships runs for reinforcement from the nodal response fleet and the other(s) try to picket the place and keep an eye on what that enemy's doing.


But you nicely recapped what the "ready" squadron is, and why it has to be stationed in the system it's monitoring.

That is exactly what I was "conflating." My apology. Thank you Jonathan. The terminology escaped me. I thought I made it clear from the context, but obviously I didn't. But if all of you think the RMN is going to have the ships to adequately protect its rear areas so soon after Oyster Bay, when it didn't have enough ships to adequately protect its rear areas even before Oyster Bay, then all of you are even more guilty of wishful thinking than you accuse me of!

Drawing on nodal response forces (thanks again) is going to be an overused and exhausting strategy "deployed" by the Admiralty out of necessity. And the idea of using LACs to defend systems is not my own. I remember it from a long lost discussion where it was suggested that LACs, because of their firepower, could and would be used as pickets to plug the holes in rear areas after Oyster Bay. I didn't agree with the idea either, and I tried to point out the disadvantages upstream which I admitted to harboring for a long time. Since that discussion. But I am sorry, I can't take the credit for that faux pas. Although I agree that there probably won't be any choice. The RMN didn't have enough ships to cover its responsibilities before Oyster Bay. And now they're adding more and more systems.

I have to attend church daily when I log onto the site because all of you preach to me incessantly about how much time it takes to build ships. What ass are all of you pulling new ships out of for the RMN?; to think that they can afford to send a ready squadron of destroyers and ~ 212 LACs to every Tier 1 system let alone each Tier 2 system. Stop drinking!

I am not sure that that strategy would have been used even before Oyster Bay against the Peeps even if there was a huge excess of LACs, because it would have been tantamount to a gross misuse of firepower. I agree it would have been a good idea in a perfect universe. But it ain't. Perfect.

I even agree with the discussion long ago about the possibility that LACs will be used for picket duty, again, out of necessity and the realities of war. I just disagree with it being an optimal response. But the real bull in the china shop is that deploying LACs to lower tier systems will at least appease the pleas to send SOMETHING. I imagine piracy has increased one thousand percent since the SLNs spanking. Manticore cannot afford to take on new systems if it is not going to protect them!

That is a thought the RFN should consider, hence, that is why I think these systems will be attacked by the MAN. It will supply the political pressure on Manticore to spread its forces thin and perhaps cause some of those systems to leave the alliance into the waiting arms of the RFN.

The MAN does not want anyone home when they come calling if possible.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:A system with a major nodal force is a Tier 1 system. Those will have sensitive hyper-detection arrays, maybe not as sensitive as the capital systems. They will probably be home to one of the numbered fleets too, with a Battle Squadron or two, CLACs and a fleet train. I'd expect the regional capitals to be classed as Tier 1. In the case of the SEM, Tier 1 would be the MBS, Trevor's Star, Spindle, and the Manticore Silesia capital. The termini of the Junction (outside of Gregor and Beowulf) are defended by Home Fleet itself.

Simply another penny's worth mind you.

Personally I wouldn't categorize the MBS, Yeltsin or the Haven system as a Tier system. These systems are not tiers. They are necessities. A Tier 1 system is a system that you want to hold onto as much as possible, even more than any other. But not at all costs. Conceivably one could lose a tier 1 system and still survive. Trevor's Star for instance. But the RMN cannot lose the MBS and survive. That is truly an "at all costs" system.

One reason for categorizing systems is for the logistical convenience for the Admiralty in the war room and as a method to explain the realities of war to the civilian contingency to release funding. One doesn't normally have to argue with the civilian powers that be for the need to protect the Home System, thus, their own asses. And you'd very much hope the Admiralty and its navy already know the importance of its own ass. Pavel Young certainly did. Darn, he wasn't completely stupid.

Jonathan_S wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:A system with a major nodal force is a Tier 1 system. Those will have sensitive hyper-detection arrays, maybe not as sensitive as the capital systems. They will probably be home to one of the numbered fleets too, with a Battle Squadron or two, CLACs and a fleet train. I'd expect the regional capitals to be classed as Tier 1. In the case of the SEM, Tier 1 would be the MBS, Trevor's Star, Spindle, and the Manticore Silesia capital. The termini of the Junction (outside of Gregor and Beowulf) are defended by Home Fleet itself.

I guess we'd have to decide how many tiers we wanted; since I was thinking only capitals and your very most important systems (say Trevor's Star - thanks only to the terminus) would be Tier 1. To my mind Tier one systems would be catastrophic or even war ending to lose. (It took Manticore years to capture it and losing it would be a massive blow to their planning and force deployments essentially require them to focus much of their attention on recovering it; not to mention the capture of millions of their citizen)

And I guess we'd also have to decide what constitutes a major nodal force. Before the first war Hancock seemed a pretty powerful force - Parks had about 30-34 of the wall ("an edge of about forty percent in ships of the wall" over Seaford 9's three [8-ship] squadrons); plus BCs and escorts. But it was described only as "a full task force"; which logically means it's part of some larger numbered fleet. Though obviously a detached part - so it's membership may be purely organizational with no intent of every being formed with the rest of the tack groups of it.

In any case Parks' units were responsible for covering Hancock itself, plus being the nodal response force several minor treaty partners and systems (Zanzibar, Alizon, Yorik)

That said, the way the RMN has organized their forces has certainly changed since them -- so it's entirely possible that were current practices applied Parks' force would have been a fleet rather than a task force. That said, I wouldn't call Hancock, or even the three allies it helped cover, Tier 1 because the loss of them might be embarrassing; but the ship losses would be more significant to the war effort than losing any of those systems -- diplomatically it might be a problem if they weren't able to rapidly recapture the system; but it wouldn't be catastrophic to the war effort (not unless the bulk of Parks' fleet fleet was lost or captured without inflicting offsetting losses on the Peep) .

All of which underlines why capitals like Manticore and Haven and Yeltsin are not tier systems. They are AT ALL COSTS systems.

I'd also like to add to Jonathan's excellent description of nodal forces. Nodal forces are fleeting. No pun intended. They are taken advantage of for the short term. For a nodal force to be effective, it has to enjoy a rather large order of battle. Remember, the First Space Lord is ever hovering over the holotank drowning in coffee. With a limited number of ships, he has to move his forces about his area of responsibility as efficiently as possible. If a gift horse of an opportunity has to be deployed somewhere to bust up some heads, like Henke, then other forces in the area might be released or drawn down and sent elsewhere. A nodal force can cover several areas of responsibility simultaneously. But they are fleeting. They represent too much firepower to be expected to sit indefinitely. Pickets and ready squadrons are permanent.

penny wrote:But if all of you think the RMN is going to have the ships to adequately protect its rear areas so soon after Oyster Bay, when it didn't have enough ships to adequately protect its rear areas even before Oyster Bay, then all of you are even more guilty of wishful thinking than you accuse me of!

Drawing on nodal response forces (thanks again) is going to be an overused and exhausting strategy "deployed" by the Admiralty out of necessity. And the idea of using LACs to defend systems is not my own. I remember it from a long lost discussion where it was suggested that LACs, because of their firepower, could and would be used as pickets to plug the holes in rear areas after Oyster Bay. I didn't agree with the idea either, and I tried to point out the disadvantages upstream which I admitted to harboring for a long time. Since that discussion. But I am sorry, I can't take the credit for that faux pas. Although I agree that there probably won't be any choice. The RMN didn't have enough ships to cover its responsibilities before Oyster Bay. And now they're adding more and more systems.

I have to attend church daily when I log onto the site because all of you preach to me incessantly about how much time it takes to build ships. What ass are all of you pulling new ships out of for the RMN?; to think that they can afford to send a ready squadron of destroyers and ~ 212 LACs to every Tier 1 system let alone each Tier 2 system. Stop drinking!

I am not sure that that strategy would have been used even before Oyster Bay against the Peeps even if there was a huge excess of LACs, because it would have been tantamount to a gross misuse of firepower. I agree it would have been a good idea in a perfect universe. But it ain't. Perfect.

I even agree with the discussion long ago about the possibility that LACs will be used for picket duty, again, out of necessity and the realities of war. I just disagree with it being an optimal response. But the real bull in the china shop is that deploying LACs to lower tier systems will at least appease the pleas to send SOMETHING. I imagine piracy has increased one thousand percent since the SLNs spanking. Manticore cannot afford to take on new systems if it is not going to protect them!

That is a thought the RFN should consider, hence, that is why I think these systems will be attacked by the MAN. It will supply the political pressure on Manticore to spread its forces thin and perhaps cause some of those systems to leave the alliance into the waiting arms of the RFN.

The MAN does not want anyone home when they come calling if possible.

Oh I see the confusion.
No, the RMN won't have the forces to secure all its systems from a major attack. No navy does.

Some systems will only have LACs and some missile pods. Those systems will be vulnerable to a medium to large force of smart attackers. (But can tear up a large force of dumb or ignorant attackers in a way that type of minor systems never could before. It's not that LACs plus pods are a perfect defense -- it's just just they're a potentially far stronger defense than this type of system has ever had before) These systems also won't have the large deep space arrays needed to see ships trying to sneak in from much beyond their hyper limit.

Some systems will have light hyper capable forces assigned to back up the LACs and pods; and they'll be slightly tougher nuts to crack. And they might also have better deep space sensors -- and so able to see hyper emergency flares somewhat further out from their hyper limit. And, depending on how many DDs they have assigned might send some to investigate an unexplained emergence flair. OTOH if they don't have the hyper capable forces to do much about what they find out there they might not divert any to investigate something that far out.
In either case a large attacking force would be able to defeat the system defenses -- though some hyper-capable warships might survive to carry word of the attack.

But systems with enough defenders to have the sensor range to see hyperspace emergence from at least several light-weeks away, and a rotating set of destroyer groups so one is always ready to go investigate any unexplained potential emergences are going to be relatively rare. Those systems, I believe, will be important enough to have significant fleets assigned to them.

(And then because the "real world" doesn't fit the ideal plan you'll have systems that don't neatly fit into these categories. Systems whose importance has dropped but prior to that had large deep space sensor arrays installed; so they've the sight but no longer the defending fleets -- or systems that have become temporary fleet bases but don't get (or haven't yet gotten) deep space sensor arrays, etc.)



But it's simply impossible to be strong enough in every system to resist a major attack. Trying only ensures that you're not strong enough to resist one anywhere; and invites defeat in detail. So there absolutely are going to be systems that are vulnerable -- as there were in the wars with Haven.
(And once those systems start getting hit then, again, as during the war with Haven you get internal pressure to do something as political importance conflicts with military importance)

penny wrote:Drawing on nodal response forces (thanks again) is going to be an overused and exhausting strategy "deployed" by the Admiralty out of necessity. And the idea of using LACs to defend systems is not my own. I remember it from a long lost discussion where it was suggested that LACs, because of their firepower, could and would be used as pickets to plug the holes in rear areas after Oyster Bay. I didn't agree with the idea either, and I tried to point out the disadvantages upstream which I admitted to harboring for a long time. Since that discussion. But I am sorry, I can't take the credit for that faux pas. Although I agree that there probably won't be any choice. The RMN didn't have enough ships to cover its responsibilities before Oyster Bay. And now they're adding more and more systems.

I have to attend church daily when I log onto the site because all of you preach to me incessantly about how much time it takes to build ships. What ass are all of you pulling new ships out of for the RMN?; to think that they can afford to send a ready squadron of destroyers and ~ 212 LACs to every Tier 1 system let alone each Tier 2 system. Stop drinking!

This all depends on when these attacks will come to pass. If the effects of Oyster Bay are still noticeable, then I agree the RMN hasn't got the yards to build that many light ships and LACs. We know they prosecuted the war with the SLN with older Saganami A and B because there weren't enough Cs. But mind you the Python Lump had come out of the yards before OB struck, and the CLACs had been full. High Ridge had finished building those and building LACs was cheap.

But if that's true, then so it is for the MAN. The MAN had no LDs to send to execute Oyster Bay, so if the effects of that are still in the recent past, then the MAN has no ships to execute your plan. Moreover, any conventional forces they might have drawn to execute this part of the plan would have come out of Galton, which no longer can do that.

So we can safely assume that this plan you're describing will not happen before at least 1928 PD. At that time, the RMN will have six bases in the MBS to build stuff from. And LACs are cheap and easy to build.

In fact, the RMN & GSN could simply do a tech exchange with the Andermani, Beouwlf, and Haven: they give the full design of the modern LAC, with fission plants and BC-grade grasers, to those three in exchange for their building 1000 LACs each for the first two. And Manticore's economy is not completely hurt by the loss of the stations (the Junction is still generating revenue!), they can pay for another thousand LACs in the next five years too and loan 1000 from the 1500 that the GSN would be given out of the tech exchange deal. That would add 3500 LACs to the RMN's existing roster of LACs, many of which would be freed from active operation roles with the fleet's downsizing. That would give an average of 100 LACs per system in the SEM that weren't there in 1922.

And I'm low-balling here. Haven has far more than 35 systems to protect. They'll be making LACs faster than Henry Ford made Model Ts, so the economies of scale will speak up at some point.

The same Maths applies to Mycroft stations and to missiles themselves. Honor brought 2 million missiles to Galton at a time when the RMN's own stations were no yet up and running.

Finally, I don't think the MAN can execute your strategy in 1928. They have the advantage of their infrastructure not having been blown to bits compared to Manticore, but all that does is put them on the same starting point as the Andermani and Haven. But behind in terms of quality and quantity: I expect that the Andermani have 2 major yards and Haven has at least 3 in addition to Bolthole, and a few more minor ones. In a build out race, the MAlign loses.

They can't fight on quantity. They need a strategy that negates the advantages that the GA has and therefore makes each MAN unit have an outsized contribution. I like your ideas, except for the fact that they require tying up ships for months on missions with low likelihood of big upside.

I even agree with the discussion long ago about the possibility that LACs will be used for picket duty, again, out of necessity and the realities of war. I just disagree with it being an optimal response. But the real bull in the china shop is that deploying LACs to lower tier systems will at least appease the pleas to send SOMETHING. I imagine piracy has increased one thousand percent since the SLNs spanking. Manticore cannot afford to take on new systems if it is not going to protect them!

Indeed. The LACs serve as a very good deterrent against local pirates or even simple smugglers. But they are actually really good against everyone's Navy out there outside of the GA: just look at what Mike Henke did to 70 superdreadnoughts when those came to Spindle, with just cruisers and Apollo missiles.

That won't work for the future and the GA powers will be simulating what happens if someone with their level of tech comes to visit. But it does buy time for them to do exactly that and produce the next set of defences.

That is a thought the RFN should consider, hence, that is why I think these systems will be attacked by the MAN. It will supply the political pressure on Manticore to spread its forces thin and perhaps cause some of those systems to leave the alliance into the waiting arms of the RFN.

The MAN does not want anyone home when they come calling if possible.

The RMN and RHN and IAN spreading their forces thin are still units below the wall, unlike Operation Sanskrit. There would be no need to deploy Battle Fleets because the plan you're describing is taking out isolated ships with isolated ships. There is no Battle Fleet that can only be fought with another.

So even if those three have to redistribute their lighter ships to a level that planners wouldn't want, how does that get the MAlign its victory? What's the next step? The forces you've described can't take on those CruRons and Desrons by themselves, and the Battle Fleets are still intact.

How far out does an insertion by an LD have to be before it won't be seen even by the MBS's sensors? A Tier 1 system?