Commerce raiding

218 posts • Page 21 of 22 • 1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Re: Commerce raiding
by Brigade XO » Mon Oct 28, 2024 9:31 pm
Brigade XO Fleet Admiral Posts: 3190 Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:31 pm Location: KY	tlb wrote: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. First came Articles of Confederation which was superseded the by The US Constitution. The Articles were ratified by the 13 original colones in early 1781 -before the the US victory at Yorktown and prior to the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which actually ended the war. [side note- there was a joint US/British commission that operated for several years adjudicating or settling claims of individuals on both sides about property seized etc] By 1887 it was becoming clear to a number people that the rather weak Articles of Confederation needed to be revised and a meeting was sent for that year in Philadelphia. That fairly quickly- and in secret- became not a conference on trade relations between the States and other issues but a complete reworking into what became the Constitution. A great many of the people who ended up working on the Constitution were the same people who were involved in the original Congressional Congress during the war or had similar experience with the evolving problems of sorting out problems between the states. One of those was each state was conducting its own diplomacy both with other states and on an international basis with other countries. You can see how that would be problem as it also got into the trade tariffs BETWEEN the states as well as each state with foreign governments. Sigh. That's the short version of what was happening When it was finalized and PRESENTED FOR RATIFICATION to the States- (which required that nine states ratify the proposed Constitution- and then the next round of "discussions" began. That was resolved after much politics and published back and forth in newspapers etc about various limits on the new Federal Government that would be created under the Constitution . That's how the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments, were attached to the Constitution - to delineate and clarify exactly what were the initial duties and purview of the new government and including things that the Federal Government could not do. And that was basically because those people who had rebelled in the 1st place against the British Government and King wanted to be clear about they wanted as rights of individual citizens and prohibitions against an overweening and repressive government. A lot of very smart and experienced people are on both sides of crafting all of this and The Constitutions with those 10 Amendments was ratified. The ability of the government to make laws is laid out along with its basic structure. What has not changed is that all sorts of people continue to want to interpret (or reinterpret) the Constitution and the Amendments (including the later ones) and so to have it meet their exceptions or wishes. [ok, politics, but within their lifetimes, the people who wrote -or made and were acknowledged as having done so- wrote in great detail about what they meant (exactly what they wrote ) when they crafted all the parts of the document and Amendments.] However- members of government (and military) take their oaths of allegiance /office/service to the Constitution, not to an individual. The people will change, but it's the Rule of Law under the Constitution that is to be followed. The oath is to the Constitution and to support and defend it (and its laws), not to an individual like a King.....or President for Life or Junta of Colonels.
Top

by Brigade XO » Mon Oct 28, 2024 9:31 pm

Posts: 3190
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: KY

tlb wrote: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.

First came Articles of Confederation which was superseded the by The US Constitution. The Articles were ratified by the 13 original colones in early 1781 -before the the US victory at Yorktown and prior to the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which actually ended the war. [side note- there was a joint US/British commission that operated for several years adjudicating or settling claims of individuals on both sides about property seized etc]
By 1887 it was becoming clear to a number people that the rather weak Articles of Confederation needed to be revised and a meeting was sent for that year in Philadelphia. That fairly quickly- and in secret- became not a conference on trade relations between the States and other issues but a complete reworking into what became the Constitution. A great many of the people who ended up working on the Constitution were the same people who were involved in the original Congressional Congress during the war or had similar experience with the evolving problems of sorting out problems between the states. One of those was each state was conducting its own diplomacy both with other states and on an international basis with other countries. You can see how that would be problem as it also got into the trade tariffs BETWEEN the states as well as each state with foreign governments. Sigh. That's the short version of what was happening

When it was finalized and PRESENTED FOR RATIFICATION to the States- (which required that nine states ratify the proposed Constitution- and then the next round of "discussions" began. That was resolved after much politics and published back and forth in newspapers etc about various limits on the new Federal Government that would be created under the Constitution . That's how the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments, were attached to the Constitution - to delineate and clarify exactly what were the initial duties and purview of the new government and including things that the Federal Government could not do. And that was basically because those people who had rebelled in the 1st place against the British Government and King wanted to be clear about they wanted as rights of individual citizens and prohibitions against an overweening and repressive government. A lot of very smart and experienced people are on both sides of crafting all of this and The Constitutions with those 10 Amendments was ratified. The ability of the government to make laws is laid out along with its basic structure.
What has not changed is that all sorts of people continue to want to interpret (or reinterpret) the Constitution and the Amendments (including the later ones) and so to have it meet their exceptions or wishes. [ok, politics, but within their lifetimes, the people who wrote -or made and were acknowledged as having done so- wrote in great detail about what they meant (exactly what they wrote ) when they crafted all the parts of the document and Amendments.]
However- members of government (and military) take their oaths of allegiance /office/service to the Constitution, not to an individual. The people will change, but it's the Rule of Law under the Constitution that is to be followed.
The oath is to the Constitution and to support and defend it (and its laws), not to an individual like a King.....or President for Life or Junta of Colonels.

Top

Re: Commerce raiding
by munroburton » Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:06 am
munroburton Admiral Posts: 2375 Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am Location: Scotland	Jonathan_S wrote: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 It definitely did, that's a point I hadn't considered yet - the post-coup Haven was as worried about their own rear area BBs going rogue as they were about enemy battlecruisers. Yikes. No wonder StateSec wound up with superdreadnought battle squadrons(an even more serious diversion of firepower from the front lines).
Top

Re: Commerce raiding

by munroburton » Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:06 am

munroburton
Admiral

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

Jonathan_S wrote: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

It definitely did, that's a point I hadn't considered yet - the post-coup Haven was as worried about their own rear area BBs going rogue as they were about enemy battlecruisers. Yikes. No wonder StateSec wound up with superdreadnought battle squadrons(an even more serious diversion of firepower from the front lines).

Top

Re: Commerce raiding
by Sigs » Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:22 pm
Sigs Rear Admiral Posts: 1485 Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:09 pm	ThinksMarkedly wrote: You can calculate this as much as you want, but textev says the ships were not available. Stop arguing with the text. But why were they not available? That's the whole point... Why? if it makes no sense we as the readers can ask the questions. Why didn't the RHN use the BBs during the first war, why didn't Haven follow through on Thunderbolt and finish off the alliance when the MA was essentially on its knees? Why were the RMN senior officers so experienced, intelligent and capable yet they used their technological advantage in the absolute worst way by using their limited forces to destroy the RHN fleet in Lovat without expecting that Haven will see the writing on the wall and do the one logical thing and attack Manticore and prepare for it? Just because it's written down doesn't mean we can't ask questions. If you don't want to participate then maybe you should abstain from participating rather than dictate what bother can or cannot do. I suggest instead you concentrate on finding an explanation why only ~48 BBs were available instead. Because the most likely answer is that the majority of the BB's were used to defend systems of little value in the rear or dispersed to protect frontline systems. There was no logical reason for the battleships not being used, the books mention it several times and there is no valid explanation as to why they weren't used, not one that makes sense. 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. The passage I posted above indicates a fair number of them were deployed around Trevor's star to defend those systems which was arguably even worse way to waste the BB's than keeping them in the rear.
Top

Re: Commerce raiding

by Sigs » Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:22 pm

Sigs
Rear Admiral

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

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
You can calculate this as much as you want, but textev says the ships were not available. Stop arguing with the text.

But why were they not available? That's the whole point... Why? if it makes no sense we as the readers can ask the questions. Why didn't the RHN use the BBs during the first war, why didn't Haven follow through on Thunderbolt and finish off the alliance when the MA was essentially on its knees? Why were the RMN senior officers so experienced, intelligent and capable yet they used their technological advantage in the absolute worst way by using their limited forces to destroy the RHN fleet in Lovat without expecting that Haven will see the writing on the wall and do the one logical thing and attack Manticore and prepare for it? Just because it's written down doesn't mean we can't ask questions.

If you don't want to participate then maybe you should abstain from participating rather than dictate what bother can or cannot do.

I suggest instead you concentrate on finding an explanation why only ~48 BBs were available instead.

Because the most likely answer is that the majority of the BB's were used to defend systems of little value in the rear or dispersed to protect frontline systems. There was no logical reason for the battleships not being used, the books mention it several times and there is no valid explanation as to why they weren't used, not one that makes sense.

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.

The passage I posted above indicates a fair number of them were deployed around Trevor's star to defend those systems which was arguably even worse way to waste the BB's than keeping them in the rear.

Top

Re: Commerce raiding
by Sigs » Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:29 pm
Sigs Rear Admiral Posts: 1485 Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:09 pm	munroburton wrote: 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. There is no indication that those systems were economically important to Haven. Every indication in the series is that Haven takes over and strips the economy of the newly conquered systems to prop up the core of the republic for a short time and then they rinse and repeat. There can't be that much value in those 200 systems if the RHN and the RMN are so evenly matched numbers wise in the first and second war. Keeping capital ships to picket rear systems the have little value to the war effort makes no sense when you can replace those BB's with destroyers and light cruisers as well as old style LAC's for the least valuable systems. If they were of any value, the RMN could have split a squadron of DN's with escorts, support ships and wreak havoc in the RHN's rear.
Top

Re: Commerce raiding

by Sigs » Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:29 pm

Sigs
Rear Admiral

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

munroburton wrote:
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.

There is no indication that those systems were economically important to Haven. Every indication in the series is that Haven takes over and strips the economy of the newly conquered systems to prop up the core of the republic for a short time and then they rinse and repeat. There can't be that much value in those 200 systems if the RHN and the RMN are so evenly matched numbers wise in the first and second war. Keeping capital ships to picket rear systems the have little value to the war effort makes no sense when you can replace those BB's with destroyers and light cruisers as well as old style LAC's for the least valuable systems.

If they were of any value, the RMN could have split a squadron of DN's with escorts, support ships and wreak havoc in the RHN's rear.

Top

Re: Commerce raiding
by tlb » Wed Nov 06, 2024 3:18 am
tlb Fleet Admiral Posts: 4437 Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am	munroburton wrote: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. Sigs wrote:There is no indication that those systems were economically important to Haven. Every indication in the series is that Haven takes over and strips the economy of the newly conquered systems to prop up the core of the republic for a short time and then they rinse and repeat. There can't be that much value in those 200 systems if the RHN and the RMN are so evenly matched numbers wise in the first and second war. Keeping capital ships to picket rear systems the have little value to the war effort makes no sense when you can replace those BB's with destroyers and light cruisers as well as old style LAC's for the least valuable systems. If they were of any value, the RMN could have split a squadron of DN's with escorts, support ships and wreak havoc in the RHN's rear. True, we do not have enough information and that is the problem with the thread. A couple of years ago we had the discussion that Haven should have assembled as much strength as possible and attacked Manticore directly at the very beginning. But they did not, because of inertia or poor thinking or something else that the author chose not to discuss. The question of the battleships is the same, we simply do no know if it was inertia or poor planning or something else. However, although Haven did eventually reproduce their economic system in the conquered worlds, that did not happen instantaneously. In the interim period, the conquered worlds were of enormous economic benefit. Think the USSR and East Germany immediately after the war; it took a decade before the East Germany economy was reduced to a level where it was barely a positive.
Top

Re: Commerce raiding

by tlb » Wed Nov 06, 2024 3:18 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

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

munroburton wrote: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.

Sigs wrote:There is no indication that those systems were economically important to Haven. Every indication in the series is that Haven takes over and strips the economy of the newly conquered systems to prop up the core of the republic for a short time and then they rinse and repeat. There can't be that much value in those 200 systems if the RHN and the RMN are so evenly matched numbers wise in the first and second war. Keeping capital ships to picket rear systems the have little value to the war effort makes no sense when you can replace those BB's with destroyers and light cruisers as well as old style LAC's for the least valuable systems.

If they were of any value, the RMN could have split a squadron of DN's with escorts, support ships and wreak havoc in the RHN's rear.

True, we do not have enough information and that is the problem with the thread.

A couple of years ago we had the discussion that Haven should have assembled as much strength as possible and attacked Manticore directly at the very beginning. But they did not, because of inertia or poor thinking or something else that the author chose not to discuss. The question of the battleships is the same, we simply do no know if it was inertia or poor planning or something else.

However, although Haven did eventually reproduce their economic system in the conquered worlds, that did not happen instantaneously. In the interim period, the conquered worlds were of enormous economic benefit. Think the USSR and East Germany immediately after the war; it took a decade before the East Germany economy was reduced to a level where it was barely a positive.

Top

Re: Commerce raiding
by munroburton » Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:14 am
munroburton Admiral Posts: 2375 Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am Location: Scotland	Sigs wrote:There is no indication that those systems were economically important to Haven. Every indication in the series is that Haven takes over and strips the economy of the newly conquered systems to prop up the core of the republic for a short time and then they rinse and repeat. There can't be that much value in those 200 systems if the RHN and the RMN are so evenly matched numbers wise in the first and second war. Keeping capital ships to picket rear systems the have little value to the war effort makes no sense when you can replace those BB's with destroyers and light cruisers as well as old style LAC's for the least valuable systems. There are two approaches to economic looting. The first and obvious one is to simply steal anything of value and take them home. This immediately destroys the looted economy, though, dropping a net-exporter all the way to external dependence. The second one is where the invader simply replaces the management in taking over a functioning economy. They want to minimise the damage, so they can steal everything the system is in a position to export - indefinitely. There's a saying about killing the goose which lays golden eggs. I think it's obvious that Haven was doing the latter, or they wouldn't bother maintaining occupations. Every system with a battleship garrison had to be producing more value for the People's Republic than it was costing to maintain that garrison. If they were of any value, the RMN could have split a squadron of DN's with escorts, support ships and wreak havoc in the RHN's rear. Yes, arguably that is what the Manticoran Alliance should have done; gone around burning those goose farms to the ground along with their BB guard dogs. Especially after they took Trevor's Star. I can understand why they didn't. It doesn't look good in League eyes and it would not create many friends out of Haven's victims. We know about 150 systems decided to leave the Republic between AoV and WoH; I'd say those were the systems which would have been burned in a first-war version of Operation Cutworm.
Top

Re: Commerce raiding

by munroburton » Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:14 am

munroburton
Admiral

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

Sigs wrote:There is no indication that those systems were economically important to Haven. Every indication in the series is that Haven takes over and strips the economy of the newly conquered systems to prop up the core of the republic for a short time and then they rinse and repeat. There can't be that much value in those 200 systems if the RHN and the RMN are so evenly matched numbers wise in the first and second war. Keeping capital ships to picket rear systems the have little value to the war effort makes no sense when you can replace those BB's with destroyers and light cruisers as well as old style LAC's for the least valuable systems.

There are two approaches to economic looting. The first and obvious one is to simply steal anything of value and take them home. This immediately destroys the looted economy, though, dropping a net-exporter all the way to external dependence.

The second one is where the invader simply replaces the management in taking over a functioning economy. They want to minimise the damage, so they can steal everything the system is in a position to export - indefinitely.

There's a saying about killing the goose which lays golden eggs. I think it's obvious that Haven was doing the latter, or they wouldn't bother maintaining occupations. Every system with a battleship garrison had to be producing more value for the People's Republic than it was costing to maintain that garrison.

If they were of any value, the RMN could have split a squadron of DN's with escorts, support ships and wreak havoc in the RHN's rear.

Yes, arguably that is what the Manticoran Alliance should have done; gone around burning those goose farms to the ground along with their BB guard dogs. Especially after they took Trevor's Star.

I can understand why they didn't. It doesn't look good in League eyes and it would not create many friends out of Haven's victims. We know about 150 systems decided to leave the Republic between AoV and WoH; I'd say those were the systems which would have been burned in a first-war version of Operation Cutworm.

Top

Re: Commerce raiding
by ThinksMarkedly » Wed Nov 06, 2024 8:52 am
ThinksMarkedly Fleet Admiral Posts: 4512 Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am	Sigs wrote:[But why were they not available? That's the whole point... Why? if it makes no sense we as the readers can ask the questions. Why didn't the RHN use the BBs during the first war, why didn't Haven follow through on Thunderbolt and finish off the alliance when the MA was essentially on its knees? Why were the RMN senior officers so experienced, intelligent and capable yet they used their technological advantage in the absolute worst way by using their limited forces to destroy the RHN fleet in Lovat without expecting that Haven will see the writing on the wall and do the one logical thing and attack Manticore and prepare for it? Just because it's written down doesn't mean we can't ask questions. If you don't want to participate then maybe you should abstain from participating rather than dictate what bother can or cannot do. It makes sense to ask those questions. Though the answer as to why Haven didn't use the BBs in the first war is obvious: the ships weren't available. The question you should be asking and trying to answer is the one you asked before: why weren't they available? My guess is that the reasons they were tied down were more political in nature than military. I was complaining that you seemed to be bypassing the question and assume that the ships were available and therefore the PN should have used them. Maybe I misunderstood a scenario of "if they had been available (and the Peeps had been smart) this is what could have happened." As for why Haven didn't follow-through on Thunderbolt, we have the answer to that too: Pritchart didn't want it. Thunderbolt recovered the systems that had been part of the Republic before and for which High Ridge had been refusing to allow a referendum in. It had a few more military objectives, but the civilian leadership in Nouveau Paris wanted to convince the Alliance they were not expansionists any more. They wanted to force the Alliance leadership to negotiate. Because the most likely answer is that the majority of the BB's were used to defend systems of little value in the rear or dispersed to protect frontline systems. There was no logical reason for the battleships not being used, the books mention it several times and there is no valid explanation as to why they weren't used, not one that makes sense. It doesn't have to make sense to us if it is political in nature. The self-interest and the long-held convictions (such as having to appear strong everywhere) are difficult to overcome and that would lead to a distorted result. The passage I posted above indicates a fair number of them were deployed around Trevor's star to defend those systems which was arguably even worse way to waste the BB's than keeping them in the rear. Why? One would assume that defending the systems near Trevor's Star would be valuable militarily. The doctrine at the time required bases to launch attacks from and to return to. Denying such systems to the Alliance would therefore increase the chances of withstanding an attack to retake Trevor's Star.
Top

Re: Commerce raiding

by ThinksMarkedly » Wed Nov 06, 2024 8:52 am

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

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

Sigs wrote:[But why were they not available? That's the whole point... Why? if it makes no sense we as the readers can ask the questions. Why didn't the RHN use the BBs during the first war, why didn't Haven follow through on Thunderbolt and finish off the alliance when the MA was essentially on its knees? Why were the RMN senior officers so experienced, intelligent and capable yet they used their technological advantage in the absolute worst way by using their limited forces to destroy the RHN fleet in Lovat without expecting that Haven will see the writing on the wall and do the one logical thing and attack Manticore and prepare for it? Just because it's written down doesn't mean we can't ask questions.

If you don't want to participate then maybe you should abstain from participating rather than dictate what bother can or cannot do.

It makes sense to ask those questions. Though the answer as to why Haven didn't use the BBs in the first war is obvious: the ships weren't available. The question you should be asking and trying to answer is the one you asked before: why weren't they available? My guess is that the reasons they were tied down were more political in nature than military.

I was complaining that you seemed to be bypassing the question and assume that the ships were available and therefore the PN should have used them. Maybe I misunderstood a scenario of "if they had been available (and the Peeps had been smart) this is what could have happened."

As for why Haven didn't follow-through on Thunderbolt, we have the answer to that too: Pritchart didn't want it. Thunderbolt recovered the systems that had been part of the Republic before and for which High Ridge had been refusing to allow a referendum in. It had a few more military objectives, but the civilian leadership in Nouveau Paris wanted to convince the Alliance they were not expansionists any more. They wanted to force the Alliance leadership to negotiate.

Because the most likely answer is that the majority of the BB's were used to defend systems of little value in the rear or dispersed to protect frontline systems. There was no logical reason for the battleships not being used, the books mention it several times and there is no valid explanation as to why they weren't used, not one that makes sense.

It doesn't have to make sense to us if it is political in nature. The self-interest and the long-held convictions (such as having to appear strong everywhere) are difficult to overcome and that would lead to a distorted result.

The passage I posted above indicates a fair number of them were deployed around Trevor's star to defend those systems which was arguably even worse way to waste the BB's than keeping them in the rear.

Why? One would assume that defending the systems near Trevor's Star would be valuable militarily. The doctrine at the time required bases to launch attacks from and to return to. Denying such systems to the Alliance would therefore increase the chances of withstanding an attack to retake Trevor's Star.

Top

Re: Commerce raiding
by Theemile » Wed Nov 06, 2024 11:58 am
Theemile Fleet Admiral Posts: 5241 Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH	ThinksMarkedly wrote: Sigs wrote: The passage I posted above indicates a fair number of them were deployed around Trevor's star to defend those systems which was arguably even worse way to waste the BB's than keeping them in the rear. Why? One would assume that defending the systems near Trevor's Star would be valuable militarily. The doctrine at the time required bases to launch attacks from and to return to. Denying such systems to the Alliance would therefore increase the chances of withstanding an attack to retake Trevor's Star. Let's also consider travel times and positioning. Trevor's star was ~ a month travel from Haven, and haven controlled a month's travel on the other side of it as well. Calling up a ship from one side of the People's republic for action on the other side could take 4 months (1 month for the need to arrive on Haven, 1 month to send communications to said ship/formation, and 2 months for said ship/formation to travel to it's destination. And if it's needed back there - 4 months to move it back. And while traveling, the formation is incommunicado, unless it stops along it's way (which prolongs it's travel time) and a message happens to intercept it. And, of course, every offensive action takes those units out of play for any other uses for the duration of the raid - adding 2-8 weeks of inability every time they sortie. My point being, unless pre-planned, nothing is where you need it on grounds this large, nor can you reliably move said pieces around. Further, you need to do so hesitantly, because moving said ship takes it out use for anything else for huge swaths of time. If regional governors don't feel secure, they will not relinquish units they won't see back for 4+ months Like Filaretta's 11th fleet moving to attack Manticore, their actions removed that formation from doing anything else for the SLN for ~12 months. It's a strategic decision that says you don't have another need for that formation of hundreds of ships, or this need trumps any other need. Could the ~700 SDs of Raging Justice II (the forward deployed, but never engaged followup to Filaretta's doomed force) have been used better? It would take 10 months + to recall them back to Sol, and they never engaged the enemy as intended - and because they were forward deployed 5 months away from Sol, they were not near Sol to defend it or reinforce it (not that it would have mattered). ****** 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

by Theemile » Wed Nov 06, 2024 11:58 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

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

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Sigs wrote:

The passage I posted above indicates a fair number of them were deployed around Trevor's star to defend those systems which was arguably even worse way to waste the BB's than keeping them in the rear.

Why? One would assume that defending the systems near Trevor's Star would be valuable militarily. The doctrine at the time required bases to launch attacks from and to return to. Denying such systems to the Alliance would therefore increase the chances of withstanding an attack to retake Trevor's Star.

Let's also consider travel times and positioning. Trevor's star was ~ a month travel from Haven, and haven controlled a month's travel on the other side of it as well. Calling up a ship from one side of the People's republic for action on the other side could take 4 months (1 month for the need to arrive on Haven, 1 month to send communications to said ship/formation, and 2 months for said ship/formation to travel to it's destination. And if it's needed back there - 4 months to move it back. And while traveling, the formation is incommunicado, unless it stops along it's way (which prolongs it's travel time) and a message happens to intercept it.

And, of course, every offensive action takes those units out of play for any other uses for the duration of the raid - adding 2-8 weeks of inability every time they sortie.

My point being, unless pre-planned, nothing is where you need it on grounds this large, nor can you reliably move said pieces around. Further, you need to do so hesitantly, because moving said ship takes it out use for anything else for huge swaths of time. If regional governors don't feel secure, they will not relinquish units they won't see back for 4+ months

Like Filaretta's 11th fleet moving to attack Manticore, their actions removed that formation from doing anything else for the SLN for ~12 months. It's a strategic decision that says you don't have another need for that formation of hundreds of ships, or this need trumps any other need. Could the ~700 SDs of Raging Justice II (the forward deployed, but never engaged followup to Filaretta's doomed force) have been used better? It would take 10 months + to recall them back to Sol, and they never engaged the enemy as intended - and because they were forward deployed 5 months away from Sol, they were not near Sol to defend it or reinforce it (not that it would have mattered).

******
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
by Sigs » Mon Nov 11, 2024 6:29 pm
Sigs Rear Admiral Posts: 1485 Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:09 pm	Jonathan_S wrote: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. The problem with the whole argument that battleships were needed for rear area security makes no sense since there was nothing that those systems has that could have threatened a destroyer let alone a battleship. A battleship doesn't add all that much to internal system security when compared to a destroyer or a light cruiser.Yes a battleship has a battalion of marines on board but in a system with a population in the tens of millions, hundreds of millions or billions of people the battalion would be next to worthless. Keeping a few army or marine divisions in a sector HQ along some CA's and CL's will allow quick responses to anything short of a major system revolt which can be contained at the very least with some destroyers.
Top

Re: Commerce raiding

by Sigs » Mon Nov 11, 2024 6:29 pm

Sigs
Rear Admiral

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

Jonathan_S wrote: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.

The problem with the whole argument that battleships were needed for rear area security makes no sense since there was nothing that those systems has that could have threatened a destroyer let alone a battleship. A battleship doesn't add all that much to internal system security when compared to a destroyer or a light cruiser.Yes a battleship has a battalion of marines on board but in a system with a population in the tens of millions, hundreds of millions or billions of people the battalion would be next to worthless. Keeping a few army or marine divisions in a sector HQ along some CA's and CL's will allow quick responses to anything short of a major system revolt which can be contained at the very least with some destroyers.

Top

Re: Commerce raiding
by Sigs » Mon Nov 11, 2024 6:46 pm
Sigs Rear Admiral Posts: 1485 Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:09 pm	tlb wrote: However, although Haven did eventually reproduce their economic system in the conquered worlds, that did not happen instantaneously. In the interim period, the conquered worlds were of enormous economic benefit. Think the USSR and East Germany immediately after the war; it took a decade before the East Germany economy was reduced to a level where it was barely a positive. Everything in the series indicates that Haven engaged in slash and burn, either take everything they can or tax the newly acquired system into poverty. Haven is between 50 systems and 300 systems going to war with a one system nation. More importantly the systems done have any means to combat old style LAC's let alone BB's Keeping battleships in rear area security against the RMN also doesn't make sense because no matter how tight the situation was they could have always put together a squadron of DN's, escorts and the support ships and be able to overwhelm vast majority if not all of the systems protected by BB's one at a time.
Top

Re: Commerce raiding

by Sigs » Mon Nov 11, 2024 6:46 pm

Sigs
Rear Admiral

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

tlb wrote:
However, although Haven did eventually reproduce their economic system in the conquered worlds, that did not happen instantaneously. In the interim period, the conquered worlds were of enormous economic benefit. Think the USSR and East Germany immediately after the war; it took a decade before the East Germany economy was reduced to a level where it was barely a positive.

Everything in the series indicates that Haven engaged in slash and burn, either take everything they can or tax the newly acquired system into poverty. Haven is between 50 systems and 300 systems going to war with a one system nation. More importantly the systems done have any means to combat old style LAC's let alone BB's

Keeping battleships in rear area security against the RMN also doesn't make sense because no matter how tight the situation was they could have always put together a squadron of DN's, escorts and the support ships and be able to overwhelm vast majority if not all of the systems protected by BB's one at a time.

Top

218 posts • Page 21 of 22 • 1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Return to Honorverse

Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Commerce raiding