Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 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 cthia   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:50 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 12968
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Yet another memo I didn't get. :roll:

Interesting.

I think fester is positing the IAN should have thrown those 80 Wallers they could spare in with the RMN in 1905. If so, he may be correct. The war with Haven may have been resolved before Bolthole became as much of a factor—if I'm correct about the timeline of the ultimate advantage in hulls Bolthole provided to the ProH's wall of battle. The RMN certainly could have used those wallers because they had had a hard time holding on to the initiative, throughout the war. Remember when Eighth Fleet's talents were wasted on peripheral systems and overall being a nuisance? Would the IAN have remained in the war for the long haul had it come to that?

At any rate, I'm not sure whatever government at the helm in the MBS would have taken appropriate advantage of the additional wallers and went for the jugular.

The memo is especially interesting to me because it supplies some broth to The |absolue| value of captured enemy systems. Although I'm hard pressed to recall the RMN grabbing real estate deep in Peep territory??? It stands to reason that Haven should not have been able to hold on to Seaford-9.

We already discussed somewhere that the RMN once had to catch up to the IAN. Therefore, it is accurate where this memo places the respective Navies on the scale. It isn't unfathomable that the IAN still felt it applied.

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   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:21 am

ThinksMarkedly
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

munroburton wrote:I suspect that they did have those kind of discussions during the first war - but Manticore simply wasn't willing to agree that the IAN's first stop would be Silesia. Until Thunderbolt, anyway.


I also suspect they were covertly helping Manticore anyway, as evidenced during Honor's journey through Silesia in Honor Among Enemies. So they didn't provide wallers, but did provide just enough to make sure Manticore didn't lose.

If you're right and the Andermani were just waiting for the right incentive to join up, I think they could have joined after Icarus. Like Thunderbolt later on, the gains of the MA were completely erased, and a very competent admiral was in charge of the PN (McQueen). But it wouldn't have made a difference: the pod-layers were already in construction and LACs were exiting prototype stage. The 80 wallers from the IAN would shore up defences to make sure the MA didn't lose, but the actual winning would be left for SD(P)s and CLACs. It might have even delayed Buttercup, if the IAN had insisted on participating with their own SD(P)s.

What would have changed is that High Ridge wouldn't have been able to unilaterally stop the war. If the Empire had joined to neutralise the PRH, neutralise they would. They might allow Pritchart to form an interim government, but there would be no Bolthole, no diplomatic correspondences, and no second war. And at this point, the RMN + IAN can already outfight the SLN, ensuring their long-term survival.


But what if they'd joined earlier. What if this memo had been circulated around 1905-06 and the Emperor decided to take the last paragraph, joining without concessions? Then the Alliance would not ever have lost momentum and would have been able to push through to Nouveau Paris while Pierre was still shooting admirals. The war might have ended around 1910. This might be too soon for Pritchart to assume power, and especially if McQueen survives. But I assume that the Alliance would have kept any expansionist Havenite government in check (note there would be no High Ridge in this case).

What matters is what happens later. However the Alliance wins, the MAlign will still pitch it against the League. So could the Alliance hold the SLN back? The technology from Project Gram was already in development, but wouldn't have seen use during the war. Would the IAN and RMN switch to all-pod-layer walls without proving the concept? The RMN didn't until Tourville helped them along during his visit to the Manticore system... Though I think what matters against the SLN are the MDMs and that would have clearly been delivered, regardless.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by Jonathan_S   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:36 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6776
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

kzt wrote:And if you want a fabulous deal, offering to save someone from being conquered is a pretty good inducement for them to seriously consider things they might have once felt were unreasonable.

I'm not sure that Manticore, during the first war, ever really seriously thought they were likely to be conquered. And without that Cromarty's government, much as they'd appreciate the assistance of the IAN, seem unlikely to accede to the Andermani's desire for territorial expansion into Silesia.

But if the IAN join the fight, without an agreement on Silesia, it actually gets harder for the Andies to push their claims there after the war.


And so the Andies sat out the first war, being neutral in Manticore's favor[1], while waiting to see if the situation ever got to the point where they could offer to save Manticore from being conquered in exchange for chunks of Silesia.

The League was not a pressing concern for the Andies, and Haven would become one only if they could defeat or neutralize Manticore - so as long as the IAN would act before that happened they could afford to take the wait and see approach that they historically did.


[1] While avoiding anything that might appear provocative (like greatly increasing their anti-piracy patrols in Silesia as Manticore removes their light units.

But they specifically didn't move on Silesia because it was high risk. Manticore might have tried to fight a two front war which would greatly increase the chances that the IAN was weakened just in time for Haven to roll over both Manticore and the Andermani! Gustov prefers slow, steady, and safe expansion to risky rolls of the dice; hence not trying to forcibly annex Silesia while the RMN was distracted.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by tlb   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:08 am

tlb
Admiral

Posts: 2067
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

ThinksMarkedly wrote:What would have changed is that High Ridge wouldn't have been able to unilaterally stop the war. If the Empire had joined to neutralise the PRH, neutralise they would. They might allow Pritchart to form an interim government, but there would be no Bolthole, no diplomatic correspondences, and no second war. And at this point, the RMN + IAN can already outfight the SLN, ensuring their long-term survival.

What is your reasoning? If the assassination attempt decapitates the Manticoran government, then High Ridge would be in charge and could unilaterally accept a ceasefile. The Andermani would not have an easy way to fight Haven without the use of the Manticore Wormhole Junction and might not continue the alliance in the face of this betrayal.

Note that Bolthole predates the High Ridge government and was not visible to anyone fighting Haven. Also note that when White Haven took the Grayson Fleet through the junction, they were not intent on breaking the ceasefire.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by drothgery   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:51 am

drothgery
Admiral

Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:07 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

cthia wrote:Yet another memo I didn't get. :roll:

Interesting.

I think fester is positing the IAN should have thrown those 80 Wallers they could spare in with the RMN in 1905. If so, he may be correct. The war with Haven may have been resolved before Bolthole became as much of a factor—if I'm correct about the timeline of the ultimate advantage in hulls Bolthole provided to the ProH's wall of battle. The RMN certainly could have used those wallers because they had had a hard time holding on to the initiative, throughout the war. Remember when Eighth Fleet's talents were wasted on peripheral systems and overall being a nuisance? Would the IAN have remained in the war for the long haul had it come to that?

At any rate, I'm not sure whatever government at the helm in the MBS would have taken appropriate advantage of the additional wallers and went for the jugular.


You're crossing the streams between the first and second wars. Bolthole wasn't a significant production node in the first war era (the Bolthole yards weren't even set up until 1908), and Eighth Fleet didn't exist yet at the time this hypothetical memo would have been referring too. It wasn't established until sometime between Honor Among Enemies and In Enemy Hands (so 1910-1911 PD). White Haven's fleet for the first part of the first war was 3rd Fleet.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by cthia   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 1:54 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 12968
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

drothgery wrote:
cthia wrote:Yet another memo I didn't get. :roll:

Interesting.

I think fester is positing the IAN should have thrown those 80 Wallers they could spare in with the RMN in 1905. If so, he may be correct. The war with Haven may have been resolved before Bolthole became as much of a factor—if I'm correct about the timeline of the ultimate advantage in hulls Bolthole provided to the ProH's wall of battle. The RMN certainly could have used those wallers because they had had a hard time holding on to the initiative, throughout the war. Remember when Eighth Fleet's talents were wasted on peripheral systems and overall being a nuisance? Would the IAN have remained in the war for the long haul had it come to that?

At any rate, I'm not sure whatever government at the helm in the MBS would have taken appropriate advantage of the additional wallers and went for the jugular.


You're crossing the streams between the first and second wars. Bolthole wasn't a significant production node in the first war era (the Bolthole yards weren't even set up until 1908), and Eighth Fleet didn't exist yet at the time this hypothetical memo would have been referring too. It wasn't established until sometime between Honor Among Enemies and In Enemy Hands (so 1910-1911 PD). White Haven's fleet for the first part of the first war was 3rd Fleet.

Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate that Bolthole was a factor. I knew the system was discovered in 1888 from my unreliable Wiki informant. My informant told me LACs came four years after that blunder of a ceasefire. Yet I'm assuming that trickles of research made its way to Shannon which helped her keep the Peeps in shouting distance. Which is simply an assumption of my own.

I only mentioned Eighth Fleet as an example to support my notion that the RMN always had a problem with keeping the initiative, even after the powerful Eighth Fleet was assembled. At any rate, had the IAN thrown in with the Manties in 1905, the Alliance could have pressed the war to its conclusion before a ceasefire and Bolthole nailed the RMN's balls to the wall. Then Sonja wouldn't have had to busy her hands massaging them off.

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 tlb   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:56 pm

tlb
Admiral

Posts: 2067
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

cthia wrote:I only mentioned Eighth Fleet as an example to support my notion that the RMN always had a problem with keeping the initiative, even after the powerful Eighth Fleet was assembled. At any rate, had the IAN thrown in with the Manties in 1905, the Alliance could have pressed the war to its conclusion before a ceasefire

Whether or not the fleet could keep the initiative, does not affect the ceasefire; because that resulted from the change of government due to the death of the Prime Minister. The addition of the Andermani to the Alliance need not affect the changing political situation in Manticore.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:57 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

tlb wrote:
ThinksMarkedly wrote:What would have changed is that High Ridge wouldn't have been able to unilaterally stop the war. If the Empire had joined to neutralise the PRH, neutralise they would. They might allow Pritchart to form an interim government, but there would be no Bolthole, no diplomatic correspondences, and no second war. And at this point, the RMN + IAN can already outfight the SLN, ensuring their long-term survival.

What is your reasoning? If the assassination attempt decapitates the Manticoran government, then High Ridge would be in charge and could unilaterally accept a ceasefile. The Andermani would not have an easy way to fight Haven without the use of the Manticore Wormhole Junction and might not continue the alliance in the face of this betrayal.


Because unlike the Graysons and other minor allies, the Andermani had been a power to be reckoned with for centuries. The RMN did not advance past the IAN in terms of fighting power until 1890 or so. Even High Ridge would be hard pressed to ignore the Andermani as allies. As much as he may want to, ignoring the Andermani ambassador in Landing would be very foolish. And even if he tried, it would be difficult to convince all the Parliament, unlike the dismissing of a single-system nation that hadn't had a modern navy 10 years before.

The Andermani with the Graysons' help could finish the fight by themselves. High Ridge could barely affect that. At best, he could close the Junction to their warships, but this would be not just leaving allies out cold, it would be actively hostile against them. High Ridge would not get that through Parliament and Janacek would have trouble inside the RMN, since everyone with two neurons would speak up against it. The attempt might be sufficient for a vote of no-confidence on him to pass and a new government be formed.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by tlb   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:54 pm

tlb
Admiral

Posts: 2067
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Because unlike the Graysons and other minor allies, the Andermani had been a power to be reckoned with for centuries. The RMN did not advance past the IAN in terms of fighting power until 1890 or so. Even High Ridge would be hard pressed to ignore the Andermani as allies. As much as he may want to, ignoring the Andermani ambassador in Landing would be very foolish. And even if he tried, it would be difficult to convince all the Parliament, unlike the dismissing of a single-system nation that hadn't had a modern navy 10 years before.

The Andermani with the Graysons' help could finish the fight by themselves. High Ridge could barely affect that. At best, he could close the Junction to their warships, but this would be not just leaving allies out cold, it would be actively hostile against them. High Ridge would not get that through Parliament and Janacek would have trouble inside the RMN, since everyone with two neurons would speak up against it. The attempt might be sufficient for a vote of no-confidence on him to pass and a new government be formed.

It is hard to reconcile what you say Parliament should do, with what it actually did. If the Lords were that reasonable, then the High Ridge coalition would have failed; but that is not what happened. High Ridge and his political allies stood firm then and there is no reason to assume that they would not stand firm under this situation as well.

I hope that you do not think that there would be a mutiny? I say that he could and would close the Junction to any attempt to break the ceasefire, simply because the internal politics of Manticore are more important to him and his coalition members than the feelings of the allies, which also include Erewhon (not just Grayson).
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by fester   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:08 pm

fester
Captain of the List

Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:33 pm

Theemile wrote:
tlb wrote:How is this a strategic blunder? It appears to be the actual plan used, which did give the Empire what it wanted in the end.

In the second war. Fester seems to be stating that they should have done so in the First war.


Precisely. In 1905, analysts for the Andermani could plausibly identify two 100 year existential threats. One threat, the Solarians, was not amenable to any change in Andermani policy. The other threat, Haven, could be decisively defeated, fairly cheaply with Manticore doing most of the bleeding.
Top

Return to Honorverse