Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests

Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by Jonathan_S   » Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:29 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 9105
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

ThinksMarkedly wrote:As you wrote in a later reply, some of the tech would show up, just probably in less advanced form. But I think you're underselling Sonja here. Or overestimating Honor's contributions.

The LACs were ready for Honor to take to Silesia in 1910, so they must have been in development for some time. Probably as soon as Grayson fission tech made the power requirements of a modern combatant possible in such a small ship. And if LACs exist, so do CLACs. I suspect the reason why HMS Minotaur was so late is because the RMN simply couldn't devote yard resources for an untested prototype that early in the war.

I agree that the design work on the Shrikes, and on HMS Minotaur was probably underway before Honor took Wayfarer to Silesia. But the LACs she took were still fusion powered, and didn't have the bow walls of the Shrikes, nor the beta-squared nodes. However as one of the final pre-Shrike evolution of "the new LACs the Star Kingdom had been laying down over the last four T-years" [EoH] they did have Grayson derived compensators and far more powerful impellers than classic LACs. So they had stronger sidewalls and about 200g more acceleration (roughly 50% more) than a pre-war LAC. They also has slightly heavier energy batteries; but those were still broadside mounts and their missiles were still carried in single shot box launchers.
A Shrike would eat one for breakfast.

The results they showed in Silesia would have provided additional confidence that pursuing even more capable LACs was a worthwhile capability, as was the ability to deploy them from a mothership. But I suspect that we'd have gotten something quite like a Shrike eventually. And certainly the other fruits of Project Gram had been under R&D for decades - so MDMs, improved FTL, and even eventually FTL fire control were all in the development pipeline; and eventually would be likely to get introduced even if the war ended before they were ready.

But circling back to LACs / CLACs I'd actually say 2nd Hancock might have had a larger impact than Honor or her deployment to Silesia. That provided a real world proof that LACs could be devastating - even if much of that had to be chalked up to initial surprise and poor reactions on the part of the Peep forces. If the IAN had joined with the RMN and GSN before that point I have to think Operation Icarus would have likely have been preempted because McQueen wouldn't have had the RMN/GSN operational lull during which she was able to pull the operation together. Even if Truman had been able to expose how the ref had stacked the deck in the final test the delay in real combat might have slowed production and acceptance of the LAC/CLAC combo. (And if they did get into combat before the end of the war it might well be without the lessons learned that led to Ferrits to provided ECM/Decoy missile cover to the Shrikes)
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:35 am

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4712
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

Jonathan_S wrote:I agree that the design work on the Shrikes, and on HMS Minotaur was probably underway before Honor took Wayfarer to Silesia. But the LACs she took were still fusion powered, and didn't have the bow walls of the Shrikes, nor the beta-squared nodes. However as one of the final pre-Shrike evolution of "the new LACs the Star Kingdom had been laying down over the last four T-years" [EoH] they did have Grayson derived compensators and far more powerful impellers than classic LACs. So they had stronger sidewalls and about 200g more acceleration (roughly 50% more) than a pre-war LAC. They also has slightly heavier energy batteries; but those were still broadside mounts and their missiles were still carried in single shot box launchers.
A Shrike would eat one for breakfast.


No doubt. This is what I had meant: LACs were in development. Those Honor took to Silesia didn't spring up from nothing the day before, nor was the design of a pod launcher new either. Clearly those LACs were just an evolutionary step, proving that LACs had a role as attack craft instead of purely defensive, before the technology that was in development could be put into them.

But circling back to LACs / CLACs I'd actually say 2nd Hancock might have had a larger impact than Honor or her deployment to Silesia. That provided a real world proof that LACs could be devastating - even if much of that had to be chalked up to initial surprise and poor reactions on the part of the Peep forces. If the IAN had joined with the RMN and GSN before that point I have to think Operation Icarus would have likely have been preempted because McQueen wouldn't have had the RMN/GSN operational lull during which she was able to pull the operation together. Even if Truman had been able to expose how the ref had stacked the deck in the final test the delay in real combat might have slowed production and acceptance of the LAC/CLAC combo. (And if they did get into combat before the end of the war it might well be without the lessons learned that led to Ferrits to provided ECM/Decoy missile cover to the Shrikes)


Now that's a very good point I hadn't considered. If the war had turned or even ended before Second Hancock, the concept of CLACs might never have taken off and got as relevant as it did. The MDMs would take care of any enemy that didn't have their own MDMs or at least pods, but against those that do and can produce a sufficient volume of fire, you need the LACs to thicken your defence.

Or it might have been the opposite: if Second Hancock hadn't proven that LACs could actually go on the offensive up against warships, they may have remained a defensive asset.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by munroburton   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:13 am

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2379
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am
Location: Scotland

tlb wrote:
Theemile wrote:The increased, continual pressure on Haven and polite relations with the Andermani means a "peaceful" Silesia, requiring no Wayfarer testbeds to fight piracy without using escorts. Winning, overwhelming conventional forces means no research in breakthrough technologies with long payoffs, which in turn means no podlayers in 1913 - because the war would probably be over and they are not needed. Post-war? Tech funding would be dropped and any upgrades would be coming in fits and spurts - not a flow of slowly modernizing tech. No peace dividend to research the wormhole. No Talbot annexation. No Losses to Byng. No war with the SLN.

Thinking more about this and I do not believe the highlighted lines are correct. It is my understanding that the research on the possibility of another terminus had been ongoing. What the High Ridge government did was to pull the search into a specially created agency so they could claim credit for work started more than a decade before. From the prologue to War of Honor:
because in his opinion the entire program he'd been tapped to command had been authorized only because High Ridge and his stooges saw it as one more PR-rich boondoggle.
Be fair, he scolded himself. They may be padding the budget, and they're certainly playing their brainchild for all it's worth politically, but it really is about time someone got behind Kare and pushed. I just hate all the hoopla.
--- snip---
The admiral stood behind his desk, smiling and holding out his hand, as Trixie shepherded in the man whose work was at the core of the grandiosely titled Royal Manticoran Astrophysics Investigation Agency's current endeavors.
--- snip---
And much as Reynaud hated to admit it, in choosing him to head the scientific side of the RMAIA when they split the agency off from Astro Control, the High Ridge Government had found exactly the right man for the job.
--- snip---
Reynaud started to say something else, then changed his mind. He could hardly tell Kare he was wrong when he was convinced the physicist was exactly right. That was the main reason Reynaud objected so strenuously to the government's involvement in RMAIA. The work itself was important, even vital, and the funding level required for the dozen or so research ships, not to mention the lab and computer time, certainly left it with a price tag very few private concerns could have afforded. But the entire thing was one huge PR opportunity as far as the current Government was concerned. That was the entire reason they'd created the agency in the first place instead of simply increasing the funding for the Astro Control's Survey Command, which had been quietly pursuing the same research for decades. The RMAIA had been launched with huge fanfare as one of the "long overdue peaceful initiatives" which had been delayed by the war against Haven, but the reality was just a little different from the shiny facade the Government worked so hard to project.


Going in the other direction, I wonder whether Brooks' law was at work. The increased bureaucratic inefficiencies and political interference may have more than offset the additional resources - but even Reynaud admits the search for the seventh terminus had been under-resourced.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by Theemile   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:40 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5381
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Or it might have been the opposite: if Second Hancock hadn't proven that LACs could actually go on the offensive up against warships, they may have remained a defensive asset.


I was about to point that out - Adcock had a difficult time getting the Minotaur approved and built - and Jonathan and I ha discussed before, we believe only because there were old idle DN slips available for the construction. If 2nd Hancock hadn't proved the concept, would the "gun club" been enough to stop wide spread use of the CLAC and LAC concept? would the LACs have been built in large enough #s to be usable?

If the conventional war started with an early Andermani reinforcement, would the disdain for DNs still occur? would they still be built in lower #s to fill defensive roles? and if so, would those old slips be available for a Dreadnaught sized LAC carrier, or would building one steal vital resources away from a successful military program?

And the best question, would the war still be going on by the time of 2nd Hancock for it to matter?
******
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: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by cthia   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:17 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Fester, I must say this is a well written memo. If the IAN didn't circulate something similar, that was also a blunder.

I still think an additional eighty Wallers added to the Alliance's OOB in 1905 would have been decisive. Eighty additional wallers represents a Bolthole of its own, and remember, the RMN would be assimilating whatever the edge is in IAN tech. Also, the Alliance would not have had to waste its time frittering away at peripheral systems. And any attack at the jugular would have come at a complete surprise, with nary a clue of the additional wallers.

A possibility for a real, short victorious war?

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:36 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4712
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

munroburton wrote:Going in the other direction, I wonder whether Brooks' law was at work. The increased bureaucratic inefficiencies and political interference may have more than offset the additional resources - but even Reynaud admits the search for the seventh terminus had been under-resourced.


Could they even do it while the Peeps held the Trevor's Star Terminus? Having an RMN ship with highly proprietary technology in the vicinity of the Junction could be a tempting target for a Peep hit-and-run. Not an all-out attack, but maybe go in, fire, and then dive back. No other ship loiters in the vicinity of the Junction for any period of time.

But I don't think this makes much sense. The time it would take to get the information from any of the other termini to Trevor's Star is measured in days to weeks.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by tlb   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:04 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4880
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

munroburton wrote:Going in the other direction, I wonder whether Brooks' law was at work. The increased bureaucratic inefficiencies and political interference may have more than offset the additional resources - but even Reynaud admits the search for the seventh terminus had been under-resourced.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Could they even do it while the Peeps held the Trevor's Star Terminus? Having an RMN ship with highly proprietary technology in the vicinity of the Junction could be a tempting target for a Peep hit-and-run. Not an all-out attack, but maybe go in, fire, and then dive back. No other ship loiters in the vicinity of the Junction for any period of time.

But I don't think this makes much sense. The time it would take to get the information from any of the other termini to Trevor's Star is measured in days to weeks.

There is no way this could work. Haven would not know when the ship was present and jumping through would result in destruction by the forts.

If the RMN and IAN did defeat Haven, then there would be a "peace dividend"; even if the graduated tax was eliminated. One result would be additional money for the survey of the wormhole.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by cthia   » Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:50 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

How would the GSN have shaped up had this come to pass? No captured ships to give it. And Haven may not have lost good men to defection, no time for it. And Honor wouldn't have been on Grayson to train them.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:29 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4712
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

cthia wrote:How would the GSN have shaped up had this come to pass? No captured ships to give it. And Haven may not have lost good men to defection, no time for it. And Honor wouldn't have been on Grayson to train them.


Depends on when "this came to pass." If it happens after Icarus, then there isn't much of a difference. At that point in time, the GSN is building Honor Harrington-class SD(P)s in greater quantity than the RMN.

Even if it's around or shortly before the liberation of Trevor's Star, the GSN has been participating in the Medusa design, Project Anzio, and has already built at least couple, probably many more, SD of their own. By this time, the GSN is already in the Top 10 of Navies in the Galaxy, with at least three battle squadrons.

If instead the IAN joined as the OP proposed, around 1905 and 1906, the GSN only has the Manticore's Gift for battle squadrons and has only begun building cruisers and battlecruisers. So if the war gets resolved much more quickly, they wouldn't build as big as they actually did because there would be no need for it.

In any of those scenarios, there would be no extreme push to continue building in the interbellum period.

PS: GNS Benjamin the Great has hull number SD-21 and the wiki lists as "first Grayson-built ship of the wall." But Manticore's gift was only 11 ships. What happened to SD-12 through 20? Were those Steadholder Denevksi-class SDs (modified Gryphon class) ships built in Manticoran yards? Or was the Benji actually the first Grayson-designed-and-built ship? That sounds more likely.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by Robert_A_Woodward   » Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:30 am

Robert_A_Woodward
Captain of the List

Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:29 pm

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
(SNIP by RAW)

PS: GNS Benjamin the Great has hull number SD-21 and the wiki lists as "first Grayson-built ship of the wall." But Manticore's gift was only 11 ships. What happened to SD-12 through 20? Were those Steadholder Denevksi-class SDs (modified Gryphon class) ships built in Manticoran yards? Or was the Benji actually the first Grayson-designed-and-built ship? That sounds more likely.


I think the wiki is wrong. The references to what had to be the Steadholder Devevski class in _Flag in Exile_ implied that they were being built in Grayson. Also, per _House of Steel_, the last 2 were delayed, because components were diverted to the "Honor Harrington".

BTW, the construction numbers and the hull numbers don't match up well in that the "Terrible" (rebuilt PN Dequesne class SD) is SD-11 and the "Honor Harrington" is SD-31 and, supposedly there were 22 Steadholder Denevksi-class SDs built (plus 3 Benjamin the Great-class SDs)
----------------------------
Beowulf was bad.
(first sentence of Chapter VI of _Space Viking_ by H. Beam Piper)
Top

Return to Honorverse