Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kzt, MC1560, ThinksMarkedly and 12 guests

Do we actually need SD(P)s?

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:10 am

ThinksMarkedly
Captain of the List

Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

SharkHunter wrote:I'm wondering if Phantom is still mission killed but the Sag-Bs survive?


They would die too, since the Nevadas had internal tubes.

The question here is whether this strategy would have killed 70 BCs like the one that did happen accomplished. Or was would it be less? If it's less, then Arngrim may not be able to convince whoever is left in charge to stop the destruction of the Hypatia habitats with people aboard.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by munroburton   » Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:41 am

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:16 am
Location: Scotland

Manticoran missiles aren't magic(at least, without Apollo). The SLN force at Hypatia could throw countermissile salvos numbering in the one-to-two thousand range. Even with the dazzlers and dragons' teeth to run interference, HMS Phantom's salvo is only fifty-strong.

They needed the Sag-B missiles to thicken that salvo into something which could get through with effect. Note that even if every single Sag-B missile was intercepted, it would be worth it to get more of Phantom's superdreadnought-grade MK16-Gs through.

I'm sure a respectable number of the Sag-B missiles hit, but their hitting power was in the ballpark of Terekhov's squadron at Monica(and they took much longer to kill 3 BCs). Phantom unquestionably landed the killing blows at Hypatia, but could only manage it with some "cover fire".

The Sag-Bs on their own could only hope to take out 1-2 BCs each. On her own, Phantom couldn't have wiped out 85% of the SLN BCs.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by Brigade XO   » Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:41 pm

Brigade XO
Admiral

Posts: 2407
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:31 am
Location: KY

Two points.
I) once you achieve missle saturation against the CM/PPC capasity of your targets, your number of hits should start to go up and spike quickly. That doesn't guarantee destroying or even mission killing the targets but it helps. Before you overwhelm the counter missle defenses you are going to get at least some hits but saturation implies that the defensive systems can't keep up with the number of targets and, along with making mistakes against which are the most dangerous, it isn't going to be able to at least take a shot at everything it needs to. Give that we are talking shooting against parts of a fleet at Hypatia (you can't shoot at them all and expect any good overall results so you pick what you think you can hit hard enough with x number of weapons each and essentialy let luck handle any that end up without a target because it got blown up already. If you don't use "enough" missiles against a target capable of defending itself, you quite likely are not going to gets any hits at all because it interceptions and wedge angles. Any kind of fleet action is now taking so many thousands of missiles to have any results, and that is for RMN vs SLN with the SLN finding itself often in the position of being able to put up a relativly poor defence while not getting into usefull range plus still having to try and penetrate a very successful defensive operation.

2) at Monica we have the RMN essentialy shooting itself almost dry- with very good reason: survival- and calling in the ammo ship from outside the hyperlimit to resupply. The captain of the essentialy defenseless ammo ship was reluctant (with good reason) but followed orders. I would imagine that the path to get to the surviving ships of Terekhov's squadron involved comming in with those ships relativly between the ammunition ship and what was probably left of Monica's ability to take shots at it. Swapping out an ammunition ship that is essentialy an unarmed fast ammo carrying freighter with something like the Charles Wilson is a good idea. the CW has offensive weapos but it also has a solid defensive suite including the tactical electroincs to go with that. On the other hand, most of the time, your ammo ships are doing basic fleet train types of jobs and, whilie they would be escorted places, they are not intended to be in a battle. Which is why Terkhov left his outside the hyperlimit and, having been effectivly lost in overall hyperfootpring, it was making like a hole in space till the the squadron had to call it in. Should ammunition ships- in general- have defensive capasity? Yes. But CMs and point-defense clusters (with the tactical suite to use them) are mostly going to help for providing to "get out of Dodge" if there is a situation somewhere or some pirate that can throw a couple of missles at a freighter, not for going inside a hyperlimit to participate in a battle.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by Theemile   » Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:06 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Toledo, OH

Brigade XO wrote:Two points.
I) once you achieve missle saturation against the CM/PPC capasity of your targets, your number of hits should start to go up and spike quickly. That doesn't guarantee destroying or even mission killing the targets but it helps. Before you overwhelm the counter missle defenses you are going to get at least some hits but saturation implies that the defensive systems can't keep up with the number of targets and, along with making mistakes against which are the most dangerous, it isn't going to be able to at least take a shot at everything it needs to. Give that we are talking shooting against parts of a fleet at Hypatia (you can't shoot at them all and expect any good overall results so you pick what you think you can hit hard enough with x number of weapons each and essentialy let luck handle any that end up without a target because it got blown up already. If you don't use "enough" missiles against a target capable of defending itself, you quite likely are not going to gets any hits at all because it interceptions and wedge angles. Any kind of fleet action is now taking so many thousands of missiles to have any results, and that is for RMN vs SLN with the SLN finding itself often in the position of being able to put up a relativly poor defence while not getting into usefull range plus still having to try and penetrate a very successful defensive operation.

2) at Monica we have the RMN essentialy shooting itself almost dry- with very good reason: survival- and calling in the ammo ship from outside the hyperlimit to resupply. The captain of the essentialy defenseless ammo ship was reluctant (with good reason) but followed orders. I would imagine that the path to get to the surviving ships of Terekhov's squadron involved comming in with those ships relativly between the ammunition ship and what was probably left of Monica's ability to take shots at it. Swapping out an ammunition ship that is essentialy an unarmed fast ammo carrying freighter with something like the Charles Wilson is a good idea. the CW has offensive weapos but it also has a solid defensive suite including the tactical electroincs to go with that. On the other hand, most of the time, your ammo ships are doing basic fleet train types of jobs and, whilie they would be escorted places, they are not intended to be in a battle. Which is why Terkhov left his outside the hyperlimit and, having been effectivly lost in overall hyperfootpring, it was making like a hole in space till the the squadron had to call it in. Should ammunition ships- in general- have defensive capasity? Yes. But CMs and point-defense clusters (with the tactical suite to use them) are mostly going to help for providing to "get out of Dodge" if there is a situation somewhere or some pirate that can throw a couple of missles at a freighter, not for going inside a hyperlimit to participate in a battle.



If we are discussing a mil-spec missile collier of a first rate navy, I would expect it to carry a defensive suite of a CL or CA, depending on the thinking of the navy fielding it. Somehow, with it's active tempo and forward posture, I would expect more defenses on an RMN ship than other fleets.
******
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: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by Jonathan_S   » Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:52 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6221
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Theemile wrote:If we are discussing a mil-spec missile collier of a first rate navy, I would expect it to carry a defensive suite of a CL or CA, depending on the thinking of the navy fielding it. Somehow, with it's active tempo and forward posture, I would expect more defenses on an RMN ship than other fleets.
The defensive systems of even a CL aren’t cheap, and take space and crew to operate. So building your missile colliers with significant self defense capability means you have to give something up to pay for that - not just in the year they’re build, or when they use their defenses but every year in maintenance cost and sailor direct and indirect expenses.

That’s fewer missile colliers, or fewer warships, or some other corner getting cut to stick defenses on every missile collier you have. And that’s not a patch on the cost of something like the CW. Can’t you more than buy and crew a Nike-class BC(L) for what a CW fast support vesicle will run you in acquisition and operating costs?

You want to know was the USN’s Supply-class fast combat support ships are armed with? Several .50 (caliber hard aimed) machine guns; and assorted small arms. Barely enough to drive off a speedboat of AK wielding yahoos. Nothing that’d protect from an air, missile, or submarine threat. (Well you might be able to operate an anti-sub chopper off their helipad; but no built in defenses). Because the USN knows those ships are already so expensive they can’t have many of them, and giving them worthwhile defenses means you can afford less than the 2 they have active. (Because you’d never convince Congress to fund one instead of a DDG; but worthwhile defenses would cost a fair fraction of a DDG)
Better to give them a DDG escort when needed, abut be able to deploy those defensive assets elsewhere when the supply ship is in a safe area.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by kzt   » Mon Feb 17, 2020 3:16 am

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 10315
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Hey, they have about 80% of the firepower of a Navy Warship. Well, a little crappy ship anyhow, which pretends to be a warship on TV. You know that in order to use the one almost serious weapon they have to send out sailors to go take down the safety lines around the bow? Hope you can carefully schedule your combats to only occur in daylight in nice low seas.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by Captain Golding   » Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:30 am

Captain Golding
Ensign

Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:55 am

For comparison look at the RFA's Fort class. A pair of Goalkeeper CIWS and up to 3 Lynx helo's. RFA ships in the Falklands ('82) also appear to have had RBOC chaff systems even if the STUFT Atlantic Conveyer did not.

The Charlie Ward is a most interesting ship being neither fish nor fowl. Her integrated LAC detachment and self defense suit makes her an ideal raider. Use of Ballistic Missile Pods in combination with LAC targetting would give mostminor systems a nasty punch for little risk. Putting a Marine contingent in there own module and pairing with a couple of Rolands and you have a very useful escort group.

Still they nearly as much as a Sag C to build and crew by the time you include the LAC's their service crews and fighting crews. (Combat crew of a Shrike is 10, 8*10=80 but how big an engineering team are needed to support them? Does the detachment have a ship bound XO/Purser/Ltn (E) ? Mess Stewards, Enviromental Tacs, Missile Techs etc. While some of the duties will be shared with the Ship side that probably just creates flexibility and redundancy. I would say that that capability probably ranges from another 20 to 80 people.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by tlb   » Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:05 pm

tlb
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1293
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

kzt wrote:Hey, they have about 80% of the firepower of a Navy Warship. Well, a little crappy ship anyhow, which pretends to be a warship on TV. You know that in order to use the one almost serious weapon they have to send out sailors to go take down the safety lines around the bow? Hope you can carefully schedule your combats to only occur in daylight in nice low seas.

If you are talking about the PT boat, then this is what Wikipedia has to saw about their seaworthiness and armament:
a 185 nmi (343 km; 213 mi) trial (with PTs fully fitted out) was conducted on August 12, 1941. Four boats returned: PT-8, PT-69, PT-70, and MRB, and Elco sent two new boats, PT-21 and PT-29. During this trial, boats faced heavier seas, as high as 16 ft (4.9 m). All except the Huckins (PT-69) completed the run. The Huckins withdrew due to bilge stringer failure. The Higgins 76-footer (PT-70) completed the entire run but also suffered structural failures, attachments between planking and web frames pulling loose, and deck fastenings in the neighborhood of engine hatches showing extensive failures. PT-21 suffered minor cracks in the deck in the same location (but not to the same extent) as previously observed in PT-26, PT-30, and PT-33. PT-29 was assigned as a pace boat with PT-8 in order to generate a pounding comparison.

The average speed results from the 185 nmi (343 km; 213 mi) course were: Elco 77-footer (PT-21), 27.5 kn (50.9 km/h; 31.6 mph); Higgins 76-footer (PT-70), 27.2 kn (50.4 km/h; 31.3 mph); Higgins MRB and Philadelphia Navy Yard boat (PT-8), 24.8 kn (45.9 km/h; 28.5 mph).


The Board arrived at the following recommendations:

That the Packard power plant having been found highly satisfactory be adopted as standard for future construction.
That the ordnance installation of future motor torpedo boats consist of two torpedo tubes, machine guns and depth charges.
That the Huckins 78-foot (PT-69) design be considered acceptable for immediate construction.
That the Higgins 80-foot (PT-6) design suitably reduced in size to carry such ordnance loads as are required by our Navy be considered acceptable for immediate construction.
That the Elco 77-foot design be considered acceptable for future construction provided changes in the lines are made to reduce the tendency to pound in a seaway, and the structure be strengthened in a manner acceptable to the Bureau of Ships.
That the Philadelphia 81-foot boat (PT-8') be stripped of excess weight and be re-engined with three Packard engines.

The Board also had the following opinion on structural sufficiency: "During the first series of tests (July 21–24) the Huckins design (PT-69), the Philadelphia design (PT-8) and the Higgins design (PT-6) completed the open sea endurance run without structural damage. The Higgins 70' (British) boat did not complete this run because of engine trouble. The Higgins 76' (PT-70) and boats of the Elco 77' (PT-20 Class) developed structural failures even under moderate weather conditions prevailing. In the interval between the first and second test periods the PT-70 was repaired and an effort made to eliminate the causes of the structural failures. However, during the second endurance run, which was made in a very rough sea for this size boat, structural failures again occurred in PT-70. PT-69 and PT-21 experienced structural failures during the second run though these were much localized as compared with those found on PT70. The Board is of the opinion that certain changes in design are required to enable PT-69 and boats of the PT-20 Class to carry safely their military loads in rough weather."



Occasionally, some front line PT boats received ad hoc up-fits at forward bases, where they mounted such weapons as 37mm aircraft cannons, rocket launchers, or mortars. When these weapons were found to be successful, they were incorporated onto the PT boats as original armament.
*** snip ***
The larger punch of the 37mm round was desirable, but the crews looked for something that could fire faster than the single-shot army anti-tank weapon. Their answer was found in the 37mm Oldsmobile M4 aircraft automatic cannon cannibalized from crashed P-39 Airacobra fighter planes on Henderson Field, Guadalcanal. After having demonstrated its value on board PT boats, the M4 (and later M9) cannon was installed at the factory. The M4/M9 37mm auto cannon had a relatively high rate of fire (125 rounds per minute) and large magazine (30 rounds). These features made it highly desirable due to the PT boat's ever-increasing requirement for increased firepower to deal effectively with the Japanese Daihatsu-class barges, which were largely immune to torpedoes due to their shallow draft. By the war's end, most PTs had these weapons.

The installation of larger-bore cannons culminated in the fitting of the 40mm Bofors gun on the aft deck. Starting in mid-1943, the installation of this gun had an immediate positive effect on the firepower available from a PT boat. The Bofors cannon had a firing rate of 120 rounds/min (using 4-round clips) and had a range of 5,420 yards (4,960 m). This gun was served by a crew of 4 men, and was used against aircraft targets, as well as shore bombardment or enemy surface craft.

They might also mount a 20mm Oberlikon and I believe that they did operate at night.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:51 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Admiral

Posts: 2041
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Read Uncompromising Honor. A Rolland DD launched large numbers of counter missiles with delayed command activation and targeting.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by Brigade XO   » Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:03 pm

Brigade XO
Admiral

Posts: 2407
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:31 am
Location: KY

Somewhere in the area of New Guinea in the late war, my father-in-law got permission from this PT Boat commander to mount a pair of .30cal machineguns that he salvaged from a wrecked aircraft. Someting about there was a least one person on the boat not either driving it or shooting when they ran into problems. That came to naught when somebody knocked into the juryrigged mount for the guns before it was fully secured to the deck and they went overboard. Trying to retreiving them didn't go well as the equipment used was a regular bucket with an hose pumping air into it which swamped when he -at whatever the depth he was in the shallow harbor- leaned over a bit too far to get ahold of the ring mount. The guns are possibly still there. Per the various stories, that would have been in addition (besides the torpedoes) of a twin .50 turret mount and a 20mm cannon on the stern of the boat. I guess life occasionaly got real interesting, real fast.
Top

Return to Honorverse