Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: penny and 71 guests

Commerce raiding

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Commerce raiding
Post by Sigs   » Sun Oct 27, 2024 4:00 pm

Sigs
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1485
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:09 pm

“Which were his elaborate maneuvers to draw the Manties and Graysons out of position prior to the attack," Tourville said without hesitation. "He got too clever and tried to manipulate them—to suck them out of his way so as to give himself a virtually unopposed shot at his objective. Worse, he seems to have fallen in love with his own plan. When he finally hit Yeltsin, he'd spent so much time convincing himself his preliminary operations had worked perfectly that he came in fat, dumb, and happy. Granted, he was up against an opponent with better electronic warfare capabilities, which contributed materially to his misappreciation of the enemy's forces when he finally saw them, but the mindset to be misled was implicit in his entire approach. So he walked right into the concentrated firepower of six superdreadnoughts at minimum range."
The Citizen Vice Admiral shrugged and moved his hands as if he were tossing something into the air above the briefing room table.
"If he'd come in more cautiously, kept the range open, he still had more than enough missile power to take the system. His battleships were no match for SDs on a one-for-one basis[…]”

—————



“That was a tactical failure on his part once all the pieces were in play, but, frankly, any strategist who depends on convincing his adversaries to do what he wants has made the kind of mistake even amateurs should know enough to avoid. Oh, it's always worth trying to mislead the other side, convince him you're going to hit him at Point A when you actually intend to blow hell out of Point B, but you should never—ever—set up a strategy under which the enemy has to do what you want if your own operations are going to succeed."
"But wasn't that what Thurston did? You just said he'd brought along enough firepower to win if he'd used it properly even when the enemy didn't do what he wanted."
"He did, but he lacked the will and preparedness to use it properly because his entire strategy had been built towards avoiding the need for a real fight. Frankly, he may have figured he had no option but to set it up that way if he was going to convince his superiors to let him try it. I once met Citizen Secretary Kline on a visit to the[…]”


———


“Frankly," he said, "this is something we should have done years ago, Sir. We lost a lot of battleships trying to stop the Manties short of Trevor's Star, but we've still got over two hundred of them, and our superdreadnought strength has been rising again for the last T-year or so. That means we ought to be using the battleships as aggressively as possible. Since they aren't suitable for the wall of battle—and since our growing SD strength means we can finally stop putting them into it anyway—they should be committed to a strategy of deep raids. They've got the accel to run away from SDs and dreadnoughts and the firepower to squash battlecruisers. That makes them pretty damned close to the ideal tool to keep the Manties thinking about the security of their rear areas. And every ship of the wall we can force them to divert to guarding a star twenty or thirty light-years behind the front is just as much out of action as one we've blown apart. That's what Icarus is all about. What we'd prefer to do is to actually gain the initiative for the first time since the war[…]”


Excerpt From
Echoes of Honor
David Weber





——————————-
Instead going and repeating the same thing in multiple replies, here are the quotes and my view on the potential use for the BB’s and the capabilities of those ships.


Based on the description in Flag in Exile the BB’s have 30%of the missiles of an SD and 15% of its energy armament so realistically each battleship has at LEAST 12 missile tubes per broadside but could have as much as 30 missile tubes per broadside based on the missiles launched during Fourth Yeltsin when they fired off 700 missiles in reply from 24 battleships. So the 30% could represent per broadside size or magazine capacity which would mean that the battleships could have similar broadside to the SD’s but they don’t have the same missile defence, armour, sidewalls or magazine capacity.

Regardless of the broadside of the battleships the above passages tell us quite a bit about the battleships that we can take away. For example we can infer that the battleships are maintained to the same standard as the SD’s, they weren’t left without upgrades in 70 years while the SD’s and DN’s were upgraded. Another thing is that battleships cannot stand against SD’s and DN’s not because they don’t have the firepower to fight back but because they don’t have the armour, missile defence, sidewalls and magazine to survive long term in the wall. They can be placed in the wall if needed and if they are in overwhelming numbers they can perform well enough even if we can expect some losses they just cannot and should not be placed 1 v 1 against DNs and SD's.

We can also infer from the series that Haven is large but a large portion of their territories are not really net contributors to the national economy as they were stripped of wealth and resources once conquered by the RHN so dispersing their combat resources to guard dozens if not a hundred or more systems of little value to the war effort seems counter productive and more importantly there is no indication that any of the nations they conquered had capital ships escape from destruction and/or capture.

So rear area security would require some capital ships but would and should overwhelmingly be conducted by light units(CA and below) or LAC’s for those systems that contribute nothing to the national economy. So the question that was originally raised is how could the RHN have used the battleships more efficiently at the start of the war or how they could have used them effectively after the committee took over. My belief is that the vast majority of the Republic was of no value and thus could be left lightly defended thus freeing those battleships to contribute to the war effort with other missions.


At the beginning of the war the RHN had the following strength in BB’s, DN’s and SD’s:

-412 SD’s
-48 DN’s
-374 BB’s

Assuming that ~20% of their fleet is in for refit at anyone time to account for less experienced yards, lack of trained personnel etc… this would leave them with approximately(Rounding up or down to nearest full squadron):

-328 SD’s which is 41 squadrons
-40 SN’s which is 5 Squadrons
-304 BB’s which leave us with 38 Squadrons

Now, realistically the republic couldn’t have had more than half a dozen truly critical systems, this would be strategically, politically, economically or industrially critical systems. Then there must have been 1-2 dozen important but not truly critical systems to the war effort and a few dozen system of little importance to the republic’s war effort.

So the first half a dozen systems are tier 1 and tier 2 systems, tier 1 is Haven system and Trevor’s star so they get the biggest naval picket while tier 2 get a smaller but still significant picket. The the 1-2 dozen important but not critical systems are tier 3 systems which get smaller picket of SD’s or BB’s while tier 4 systems get lighter units or LAC’s with nodal forces of BB’s as system defence.


So 128 SD’s are used in the defence of tier 1 systems, 64 SD’s picket the tier 2 systems, all 5 DN squadrons and an twice the number of BB squadrons are used to picket tier three systems and provide nodal forces for tier 4 systems. This leaves the following strength uncommitted:

~136 SD in 17 Squadrons
~224 BB in 28 Squadrons

Concentrating those SD and BB squadrons allows the crews and commanders to prepare their units to fight as one, allows war games and more effective training and less warning for the alliance when the big offensive starts because any picket would be only a few hours ahead of the news that the RHN is moving if that.

Keeping your forces concentrated makes the first offensive a lot more significant than it actually was in the book without relying on overly complicated trickery to force the RMN to maneuver to your design. Also allows for better trained, experienced and organized forces that can respond quickly.

The question becomes where you attack and wether you take out 15% of the RMN’s wall in Hancock or 25% of the RMN’s wall in Grayson in one battle.


———-

On the other hand after the beginning of the war the battleships still had tremendous potential to affect positive change for the RHN. If the RHN had used only 240 of the BB’s they could have attacked allied convoys, newly conquered systems and allied rear are systems forcing the alliance to divert their waller strength all without diverting their own wallers this would have prevented alliance offensive actions and made the disparity between RHN wallers and RMN wallers more critical. If the alliance is forced to defend their rear and their newly conquered systems and convoys to allied systems to RHN BB attacks they cant concentrate 6th fleet to take Trevor’s star or 8th Fleet for Barnett. Trading BB’s for SD’s and DN’s is also beneficial for the RHN in the long run and forcing the alliance to divert forces to rear areas also makes the frontline systems easier to conquer for RHN wallers.

The BB’s were under utilized throughout the war, the alliance was allowed to dictate the tempo of operations and the BB’s were thrown away in insignificant strength to accomplish nothing in the mean time but weakening the RHN.
Top
Re: Commerce raiding
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Sun Oct 27, 2024 4:21 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4512
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

tlb wrote:Whether it is the same (substantially) or a different one depends on whether the Constitution as amended or replaced (I do not know). The US Constitution became active on March 4, 1789 and has been amended 27 times, but is still considered the same basic document.


Probably because it is so short, a heritage of the Common Law aspects of the United Kingdom the US split from.

On the other hand, the French Fifth Republic exists because the Constitution was replaced in 1958. Brazil has also had several Constitutions (1824, 1896, 1934, 1937, 1946, 1967, 1988). The Constitutions in those two countries are extensive, probably heritage from their Roman Law heritage. Swearing "allegiance to the Constitution" is not a concept there.

Instead, you swear allegiance to the homeland, as represented by the flag.

Which one is Haven? Despite the gallic names and surnames, David drew more from the US to picture Haven than he did France (q.v. "Our Sacred Honor", where Eloise Pritchart found an illegal copy of the US Constitution in the Haven dark net). In-universe, who knows where Michelle Péricard was actually from and what form of government existed there when she set out? Maybe she was from Québec?
Top
Re: Commerce raiding
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Sun Oct 27, 2024 4:26 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4512
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

Sigs wrote:So 128 SD’s are used in the defence of tier 1 systems, 64 SD’s picket the tier 2 systems, all 5 DN squadrons and an twice the number of BB squadrons are used to picket tier three systems and provide nodal forces for tier 4 systems. This leaves the following strength uncommitted:

~136 SD in 17 Squadrons
~224 BB in 28 Squadrons


You can calculate this as much as you want, but textev says the ships were not available. Stop arguing with the text. I suggest instead you concentrate on finding an explanation why only ~48 BBs were available instead.

The BB’s were under utilized throughout the war, the alliance was allowed to dictate the tempo of operations and the BB’s were thrown away in insignificant strength to accomplish nothing in the mean time but weakening the RHN.


That I can agree with. Whether you're right or not about how many should have been available, those ships had existed and all they did was sit in rear systems doing nearly nothing for the war effort.
Top
Re: Commerce raiding
Post by Robert_A_Woodward   » Mon Oct 28, 2024 1:31 am

Robert_A_Woodward
Captain of the List

Posts: 578
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:29 pm

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
tlb wrote:Whether it is the same (substantially) or a different one depends on whether the Constitution as amended or replaced (I do not know). The US Constitution became active on March 4, 1789 and has been amended 27 times, but is still considered the same basic document.


Probably because it is so short, a heritage of the Common Law aspects of the United Kingdom the US split from.

On the other hand, the French Fifth Republic exists because the Constitution was replaced in 1958. Brazil has also had several Constitutions (1824, 1896, 1934, 1937, 1946, 1967, 1988). The Constitutions in those two countries are extensive, probably heritage from their Roman Law heritage. Swearing "allegiance to the Constitution" is not a concept there.

Instead, you swear allegiance to the homeland, as represented by the flag.

Which one is Haven? Despite the gallic names and surnames, David drew more from the US to picture Haven than he did France (q.v. "Our Sacred Honor", where Eloise Pritchart found an illegal copy of the US Constitution in the Haven dark net). In-universe, who knows where Michelle Péricard was actually from and what form of government existed there when she set out? Maybe she was from Québec?


What she found in the appendix of a biography of Michelle Péricard (a book that had NOT been banned) was the Declaration of Independence.
----------------------------
Beowulf was bad.
(first sentence of Chapter VI of _Space Viking_ by H. Beam Piper)
Top
Re: Commerce raiding
Post by tlb   » Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:16 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4437
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

tlb wrote:Whether it is the same (substantially) or a different one depends on whether the Constitution as amended or replaced (I do not know). The US Constitution became active on March 4, 1789 and has been amended 27 times, but is still considered the same basic document.
ThinksMarkedly wrote:Probably because it is so short, a heritage of the Common Law aspects of the United Kingdom the US split from.

On the other hand, the French Fifth Republic exists because the Constitution was replaced in 1958. Brazil has also had several Constitutions (1824, 1896, 1934, 1937, 1946, 1967, 1988). The Constitutions in those two countries are extensive, probably heritage from their Roman Law heritage. Swearing "allegiance to the Constitution" is not a concept there.

Instead, you swear allegiance to the homeland, as represented by the flag.

Which one is Haven? Despite the gallic names and surnames, David drew more from the US to picture Haven than he did France (q.v. "Our Sacred Honor", where Eloise Pritchart found an illegal copy of the US Constitution in the Haven dark net). In-universe, who knows where Michelle Péricard was actually from and what form of government existed there when she set out? Maybe she was from Québec?

I disagree that the only reason that the US Constitution is "basically" the same document is because it is so short. The procedure for amendment is built into the government that it creates; so any amendment added in that way does not change the idea of the Constitution, it still represents what the Congress created. People who have sworn loyalty to the Constitution, do not have to swear anew each time it is amended; even if it were amended 5000 times.

How does it work, when "you swear allegiance to the homeland, as represented by the flag"? Does that mean if a military junta replaces an elected government, you are obligated to follow them; as long as they do not change the flag? Clearly you would oppose them, if you had sworn loyalty to the Constitution.
Top
Re: Commerce raiding
Post by munroburton   » Mon Oct 28, 2024 11:48 am

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2375
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am
Location: Scotland

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Sigs wrote:The BB’s were under utilized throughout the war, the alliance was allowed to dictate the tempo of operations and the BB’s were thrown away in insignificant strength to accomplish nothing in the mean time but weakening the RHN.


That I can agree with. Whether you're right or not about how many should have been available, those ships had existed and all they did was sit in rear systems doing nearly nothing for the war effort.


Under-utilised militarily, but perhaps not economically. With some ~200 systems under occupation for looting, they needed most of those battleships to keep that income stream open with the best guarantee of no interruptions.

Pull too many out and nothing can stop battlecruisers(Manticoran and others) from running riot with two hundred reverse Operation Daggers.
Top
Re: Commerce raiding
Post by Theemile   » Mon Oct 28, 2024 1:27 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

Sigs wrote:
“Which were his elaborate maneuvers to draw the Manties and Graysons out of position prior to the attack," Tourville said without hesitation. "He got too clever and tried to manipulate them—to suck them out of his way so as to give himself a virtually unopposed shot at his objective. Worse, he seems to have fallen in love with his own plan. When he finally hit Yeltsin, he'd spent so much time convincing himself his preliminary operations had worked perfectly that he came in fat, dumb, and happy. Granted, he was up against an opponent with better electronic warfare capabilities, which contributed materially to his misappreciation of the enemy's forces when he finally saw them, but the mindset to be misled was implicit in his entire approach. So he walked right into the concentrated firepower of six superdreadnoughts at minimum range."
The Citizen Vice Admiral shrugged and moved his hands as if he were tossing something into the air above the briefing room table.
"If he'd come in more cautiously, kept the range open, he still had more than enough missile power to take the system. His battleships were no match for SDs on a one-for-one basis[…]”

—————



“That was a tactical failure on his part once all the pieces were in play, but, frankly, any strategist who depends on convincing his adversaries to do what he wants has made the kind of mistake even amateurs should know enough to avoid. Oh, it's always worth trying to mislead the other side, convince him you're going to hit him at Point A when you actually intend to blow hell out of Point B, but you should never—ever—set up a strategy under which the enemy has to do what you want if your own operations are going to succeed."
"But wasn't that what Thurston did? You just said he'd brought along enough firepower to win if he'd used it properly even when the enemy didn't do what he wanted."
"He did, but he lacked the will and preparedness to use it properly because his entire strategy had been built towards avoiding the need for a real fight. Frankly, he may have figured he had no option but to set it up that way if he was going to convince his superiors to let him try it. I once met Citizen Secretary Kline on a visit to the[…]”


———


“Frankly," he said, "this is something we should have done years ago, Sir. We lost a lot of battleships trying to stop the Manties short of Trevor's Star, but we've still got over two hundred of them, and our superdreadnought strength has been rising again for the last T-year or so. That means we ought to be using the battleships as aggressively as possible. Since they aren't suitable for the wall of battle—and since our growing SD strength means we can finally stop putting them into it anyway—they should be committed to a strategy of deep raids. They've got the accel to run away from SDs and dreadnoughts and the firepower to squash battlecruisers. That makes them pretty damned close to the ideal tool to keep the Manties thinking about the security of their rear areas. And every ship of the wall we can force them to divert to guarding a star twenty or thirty light-years behind the front is just as much out of action as one we've blown apart. That's what Icarus is all about. What we'd prefer to do is to actually gain the initiative for the first time since the war[…]”


Excerpt From
Echoes of Honor
David Weber





——————————-
Instead going and repeating the same thing in multiple replies, here are the quotes and my view on the potential use for the BB’s and the capabilities of those ships.


Based on the description in Flag in Exile the BB’s have 30%of the missiles of an SD and 15% of its energy armament so realistically each battleship has at LEAST 12 missile tubes per broadside but could have as much as 30 missile tubes per broadside based on the missiles launched during Fourth Yeltsin when they fired off 700 missiles in reply from 24 battleships. So the 30% could represent per broadside size or magazine capacity which would mean that the battleships could have similar broadside to the SD’s but they don’t have the same missile defence, armour, sidewalls or magazine capacity.

Regardless of the broadside of the battleships the above passages tell us quite a bit about the battleships that we can take away. For example we can infer that the battleships are maintained to the same standard as the SD’s, they weren’t left without upgrades in 70 years while the SD’s and DN’s were upgraded. Another thing is that battleships cannot stand against SD’s and DN’s not because they don’t have the firepower to fight back but because they don’t have the armour, missile defence, sidewalls and magazine to survive long term in the wall. They can be placed in the wall if needed and if they are in overwhelming numbers they can perform well enough even if we can expect some losses they just cannot and should not be placed 1 v 1 against DNs and SD's.

We can also infer from the series that Haven is large but a large portion of their territories are not really net contributors to the national economy as they were stripped of wealth and resources once conquered by the RHN so dispersing their combat resources to guard dozens if not a hundred or more systems of little value to the war effort seems counter productive and more importantly there is no indication that any of the nations they conquered had capital ships escape from destruction and/or capture.

So rear area security would require some capital ships but would and should overwhelmingly be conducted by light units(CA and below) or LAC’s for those systems that contribute nothing to the national economy. So the question that was originally raised is how could the RHN have used the battleships more efficiently at the start of the war or how they could have used them effectively after the committee took over. My belief is that the vast majority of the Republic was of no value and thus could be left lightly defended thus freeing those battleships to contribute to the war effort with other missions.


At the beginning of the war the RHN had the following strength in BB’s, DN’s and SD’s:

-412 SD’s
-48 DN’s
-374 BB’s

Assuming that ~20% of their fleet is in for refit at anyone time to account for less experienced yards, lack of trained personnel etc… this would leave them with approximately(Rounding up or down to nearest full squadron):

-328 SD’s which is 41 squadrons
-40 SN’s which is 5 Squadrons
-304 BB’s which leave us with 38 Squadrons

Now, realistically the republic couldn’t have had more than half a dozen truly critical systems, this would be strategically, politically, economically or industrially critical systems. Then there must have been 1-2 dozen important but not truly critical systems to the war effort and a few dozen system of little importance to the republic’s war effort.

So the first half a dozen systems are tier 1 and tier 2 systems, tier 1 is Haven system and Trevor’s star so they get the biggest naval picket while tier 2 get a smaller but still significant picket. The the 1-2 dozen important but not critical systems are tier 3 systems which get smaller picket of SD’s or BB’s while tier 4 systems get lighter units or LAC’s with nodal forces of BB’s as system defence.


So 128 SD’s are used in the defence of tier 1 systems, 64 SD’s picket the tier 2 systems, all 5 DN squadrons and an twice the number of BB squadrons are used to picket tier three systems and provide nodal forces for tier 4 systems. This leaves the following strength uncommitted:

~136 SD in 17 Squadrons
~224 BB in 28 Squadrons

Concentrating those SD and BB squadrons allows the crews and commanders to prepare their units to fight as one, allows war games and more effective training and less warning for the alliance when the big offensive starts because any picket would be only a few hours ahead of the news that the RHN is moving if that.

Keeping your forces concentrated makes the first offensive a lot more significant than it actually was in the book without relying on overly complicated trickery to force the RMN to maneuver to your design. Also allows for better trained, experienced and organized forces that can respond quickly.

The question becomes where you attack and wether you take out 15% of the RMN’s wall in Hancock or 25% of the RMN’s wall in Grayson in one battle.


———-

On the other hand after the beginning of the war the battleships still had tremendous potential to affect positive change for the RHN. If the RHN had used only 240 of the BB’s they could have attacked allied convoys, newly conquered systems and allied rear are systems forcing the alliance to divert their waller strength all without diverting their own wallers this would have prevented alliance offensive actions and made the disparity between RHN wallers and RMN wallers more critical. If the alliance is forced to defend their rear and their newly conquered systems and convoys to allied systems to RHN BB attacks they cant concentrate 6th fleet to take Trevor’s star or 8th Fleet for Barnett. Trading BB’s for SD’s and DN’s is also beneficial for the RHN in the long run and forcing the alliance to divert forces to rear areas also makes the frontline systems easier to conquer for RHN wallers.

The BB’s were under utilized throughout the war, the alliance was allowed to dictate the tempo of operations and the BB’s were thrown away in insignificant strength to accomplish nothing in the mean time but weakening the RHN.


In the first ~year of the war, in the battles leading up to Nightengale, the PRN lost:

Captured:
32 SDs
5 DNs

KIA:
17 SDs
12 DNs
67 BBs

For a total of:
49 SDs lost - 362 remaining, 12% losses
17 DNs lost - 23 remaining, 43% losses
67 BBs lost - 307 remaining, 18% losses
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Commerce raiding
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Mon Oct 28, 2024 2:45 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4512
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

tlb wrote:How does it work, when "you swear allegiance to the homeland, as represented by the flag"? Does that mean if a military junta replaces an elected government, you are obligated to follow them; as long as they do not change the flag? Clearly you would oppose them, if you had sworn loyalty to the Constitution.


Beats me. What if the military is restoring order from a government that had abrogated the Constitution, as was the case of Haven? Do two wrongs make a right?

That's an unanswered legal question: when de Gaulle called for the referendum that resulted in the Fifth Republic, it was argued he didn't have the right to call for it. But the referendum polled the population and the population in overwhelming majority voted for the new Constitution. Therefore, he argued that the people had spoken in a free and fair way, so whether the previous constitution allowed this or not is irrelevant.
Top
Re: Commerce raiding
Post by tlb   » Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:57 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4437
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

tlb wrote:How does it work, when "you swear allegiance to the homeland, as represented by the flag"? Does that mean if a military junta replaces an elected government, you are obligated to follow them; as long as they do not change the flag? Clearly you would oppose them, if you had sworn loyalty to the Constitution.
ThinksMarkedly wrote:Beats me. What if the military is restoring order from a government that had abrogated the Constitution, as was the case of Haven? Do two wrongs make a right?

That's an unanswered legal question: when de Gaulle called for the referendum that resulted in the Fifth Republic, it was argued he didn't have the right to call for it. But the referendum polled the population and the population in overwhelming majority voted for the new Constitution. Therefore, he argued that the people had spoken in a free and fair way, so whether the previous constitution allowed this or not is irrelevant.

But was restoring the Constitution of Haven really a "wrong"? Remember that Naval officers had sworn loyalty to the Constitution and with the revelations of Admiral Parnell (in so far as people were aware) the treasonous activities of the Committee of Public Safety are laid bare.

Even if De Gaulle's call was not authorized, the result did represent "a mandate from the masses". It was not the case where "some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar" to a General leading a coup.
Top
Re: Commerce raiding
Post by Jonathan_S   » Mon Oct 28, 2024 6:03 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

It has occurred to me that use of the BBs might be a tail of two parts.

Legislaturalists
Pre-war the Legislaturalists were too convinced that this would be a short victorious war; and that they therefore seemingly felt they didn't need to run risks by pulling rear area security to bulk up the front line units.

In retrospect that seems wrong. Even if some pulled off successful insurrections (which would be embarrassing, and somewhat disruptive to the economy and war effort) we can see with the benefit of hindsight that it would have been much better to sacrifice control of existing systems to finish defeating Manticore and seizing the Junction. Once Manticore has surrendered your surviving fleet should have plenty of available units and firepower to go recapture those lost systems. (And your economy will be getting a massive infusion of ongoing cash thanks to Junction fees)

But because of the Pierre coup we never got to see how they'd have responded to the losses of their opening attacks. They might well have realized they'd have to run more risks to accomplish their goal and done whatever they needed to to free up additional heavy(ish) units for the front line.

People's Committee
Post coup they immediately purge most of their experienced naval strategists, which disrupted things significantly and probably slowed down their realization of how much expending a bunch of BBs reinforcing the more survivable wallers might help turn the tide.

But also the coup, and the shattering of any pretense of legitimacy of the government, combined with their rein of terror, actually made their rear area security risk vastly higher than likely had been under the previous regime. It'd be a lot easier for to rally local naval units to throw in with an insurrection if you can claim you're fighting against the usurpers. And naval commanders, or system governors, might be fearing that they could be next on the list of purges -- inspiring them to strike first and revolt before the secret police can come for them. So the coup might have actually created additional need to keep BBs for rear area security

Especially as securing those using your initially limited pool of reliable and competent political commissars lets you discourage any other, lighter, naval units in the area from getting any bright ideas until you can scrape up enough people to ensure their political reliability as well. So securing and then continuing to use BBs for rear area security in the unsettled few years after the coup might have been a resource economizing measure (where the limited resource is politically trustworthy crews)

Also, because Pierre lacks legitimacy it's more important to keep systems from breaking away than it was under the Harris administration. For Harris it'd be a bit embarrassing if a conquered system broke free for a little bit; but that wouldn't be likely to change how the core planets of Haven viewed his government. However in the post-coup environment if a few systems manage to break away its far more likely to create a snowball effect of breakaways. After all, with legitimacy shattered there's only force to keep the planets in line -- and if they perceive that Haven now lacks the power to enforce their compliance... Losing a dozen planets, even the more prosperous recent conquests, wouldn't be a body blow to Haven's economy. But if that dozen inspired many dozens more, along with their local (formerly PSN) fleets, pretty soon Pierre doesn't have a country left to run.
Top

Return to Honorverse