Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kzt and 24 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 fester   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:11 pm

fester
Captain of the List

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

Duckk wrote:What’s the source on this text? The IAN should at the very most be fourth in strength behind the SLN, PRHN, and the RMN.


The source is my imagination thinking about the Andermani strategic situation and the white paper generation process that I'm in the middle of right now for an independent research group on a matter of national interest. We have an opinion about something important, and it is an opinion that is a little bit orthogonal to current conventional wisdom, so I decided to think about an Andermani analyst at a think tank thinking and writing outside of the box in 1905 PD.

I would imagine that there are dozens of white papers released weekly on a wide variety of subjects in New Berlin and in Landing and in Nouveau Paris and everywhere else. Most are never read, even fewer are remembered for more than a week by anyone other than the author(s).
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by fester   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:21 pm

fester
Captain of the List

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

Duckk wrote:What’s the source on this text? The IAN should at the very most be fourth in strength behind the SLN, PRHN, and the RMN.


The memo's author is being a bit clever in measuring naval power not by the total number of wallers in a navy, but by the number and power of the wallers that can are available after key defensive committments are met and the yards are happy to see their pride and joy potentially damaged.

The Solarians had 1,000+ wallers available for offensive operations if they ever decided to do something. They're easily 1st in any calculation of deployable, offensive naval strength.

By the Battle of Nightingale, the Manticoran Alliance had between 3 and 5 squadrons of the wall available for strategic offensives. The Peeps had ~7 squadrons of the wall plus some number of battleships available for decisive defensive actions and then limited counter-attacks.

The IAN could, in my memo, cut loose 10 squadrons of appropriately supported wallers. That is the second biggest strategic striking force in the known galaxy behind the Solarians.

Yes, if the RMN or the PRHN could concentrate all of their respective forces in a single system, both navies' walls would notably out-mass the IAN but the RMN and the PRHN in 1905 could not and would not be able to concentrate all of their forces nor could either nation afford to cut loose a large enough fleet (100+ wallers) to conduct a strategically decisive offensive against core Andermani systems.

It is a bit fast and loose with counts, but well within professional norms.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by fester   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:25 pm

fester
Captain of the List

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

kzt wrote:Well, it doesn’t prove anything as I think it was written by the original poster. Who isn’t David Weber.

It’s not insane, but I’m certainly not going to take anything it says as gospel and you shouldn’t either.


You shouldn't take anything as gospel. I think this is an interesting argument to make within the realm of hard realpolitik that the Andermani may have blundered in only be a friendly neutral to Manticore when they faced a pair of potential existential 100 year threats.

I can see the Andermani doing nothing in 1903-1904 PD besides continue their building programs but the new information after 3rd Yeltsin, 1st Hancock and 1st Seaford-9 where ~80+ Peep wallers were either destroyed or captured should have prompted a significant re-evaluation of the risks of interventions and the probabilities of success from a large-scale intervention.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:30 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Vice Admiral

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

tlb wrote: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).


I think there's a good chance he would have had to act differently when it came to the Andermani, compared to what he did to the Graysons and other minor allies. It's doubtful the GSN could have finished the war alone, without Manticoran financial, intelligence, and naval help. By the end of the first war, the RMN had something like 5x as many wallers than the GSN and were still supplying a sizeable percentage of their officers.

But if you throw the IAN into the equation, especially with fester's argument that they could add 80 wallers free from defensive posture, it changes completely. Now the GSN and IAN can finish the war, whether the RMN is there to help or not. For High Ridge to be able to continue the war-time taxation, he'd have to actually hinder the allies, not just stop helping. This is what I'm asserting would be enough to get him booted out of government.

His alliance in the Lords was composed of parties with little common interest. It was only his war-time supply of money that kept a lot of his on Conservative Association in line. But there's a big difference between turning a blind eye to a situation that "is resolved" and turning against an ally. One that shares a terminus with the Junction and can attack another easily (Basilisk). That would be creating a new enemy before the current one is resolved. H&H would have a field day, nay, week at the Lords dissecting just how bad this idea would be. And my argument is that it would be sufficient to topple his government.

More so because, at this juncture, he hasn't yet disbursed the war-time taxation income to his allies. All that grafting is still theoretical, in the future.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by Jonathan_S   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:40 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

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

tlb wrote:
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.

However there was a long chain of events that led to the assassination that was the proximal cause of the change in Manticore's government.

Add extra forces and we can't assume the war will play out as it did only on a compressed time-scale. If Rob Pierre doesn't die (possibly because McQueen for one reason or another never gets put in position for her abortive coup) then he might well continue to deny Saint Just permission to launch Hassan - so no assassination. Or any number of other variations that don't lead to Cromarty's death.

And even if the government does change a High Ridge government might not be so eager to accept a ceasefire without their self-assurance that the radical change to warfighting that 8th fleet had just demonstrated meant that Haven would have to dance to their tune. If conventional forces managed to bring Haven to it's knees before anything from Project Gram got into widespread service then they might well listen to their allies that were pushing to ensure a complete defeat of Haven. (the perceived domestic benefits of a ceasefire offer might pale next to the risk of a rapidly resurgent Haven)
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by tlb   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:57 pm

tlb
Admiral

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

ThinksMarkedly wrote:But if you throw the IAN into the equation, especially with fester's argument that they could add 80 wallers free from defensive posture, it changes completely. Now the GSN and IAN can finish the war, whether the RMN is there to help or not. For High Ridge to be able to continue the war-time taxation, he'd have to actually hinder the allies, not just stop helping. This is what I'm asserting would be enough to get him booted out of government.

His alliance in the Lords was composed of parties with little common interest. It was only his war-time supply of money that kept a lot of his on Conservative Association in line. But there's a big difference between turning a blind eye to a situation that "is resolved" and turning against an ally. One that shares a terminus with the Junction and can attack another easily (Basilisk). That would be creating a new enemy before the current one is resolved. H&H would have a field day, nay, week at the Lords dissecting just how bad this idea would be. And my argument is that it would be sufficient to topple his government.

More so because, at this juncture, he hasn't yet disbursed the war-time taxation income to his allies. All that grafting is still theoretical, in the future.

The money was to buy support among the populous by "building the peace", not specifically to hold the coalition together. Two things kept the coalition firmly together: the fear of a bunch of new peers that would vote to eliminate the budgetary prerogatives of the Lords and the fear of the North Hollow files that could destroy careers. Those ties bound the coalition together despite policy differences that would ordinarily have prevented cooperation.

They have already accepted a ceasefire with an enemy that destroyed the previous government and tried to assassinate the Queen. Acting to close the junction to warships that would try to beak that ceasefire is just a small step to further those plans. The expectation is that this step would wreck the alliance, but the coalition did not care about the hurt feelings of foreigners.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by tlb   » Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:14 pm

tlb
Admiral

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

Jonathan_S wrote:However there was a long chain of events that led to the assassination that was the proximal cause of the change in Manticore's government.

Add extra forces and we can't assume the war will play out as it did only on a compressed time-scale. If Rob Pierre doesn't die (possibly because McQueen for one reason or another never gets put in position for her abortive coup) then he might well continue to deny Saint Just permission to launch Hassan - so no assassination. Or any number of other variations that don't lead to Cromarty's death.

And even if the government does change a High Ridge government might not be so eager to accept a ceasefire without their self-assurance that the radical change to warfighting that 8th fleet had just demonstrated meant that Haven would have to dance to their tune. If conventional forces managed to bring Haven to it's knees before anything from Project Gram got into widespread service then they might well listen to their allies that were pushing to ensure a complete defeat of Haven. (the perceived domestic benefits of a ceasefire offer might pale next to the risk of a rapidly resurgent Haven)

You are correct that there might not have been the assassination attack and the resulting High Ridge government if the Andermani had joined the Alliance with the Cromarty government. All I am saying is that had the High Ridge coalition come to power, the addition of the Andermani to the alliance would not have changed the political calculation that led to accepting the ceasefire. After accepting the ceasefire, there is no reason that they would not use to junction to enforce it. Remember that these are basically the same people that had withheld the declaration of war over a point of personal privilege.

It was only the restoration of the constitution of old Haven that gave Erewhon the confidence to change sides. If the Peoples' Republic is still active then there is no place for the disgruntled allies to go.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by Erls   » Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:50 am

Erls
Commander

Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:09 pm

tlb wrote:
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).


This is actually pretty easy to reconcile.

Let's go back to WWII, after the Atomic Bombs but before the Japanese surrendered. If, at that time, the Phillipines or Chinese had demanded that we keep going until Japan is invaded and conquered (or every city destroyed), it would have been pretty easy Truman and the Senate to shrug and accept the surrender. IF, however, a combination of Britain, France, Canada, and the Soviet Union had all demanded that Japan be invaded and conquered (or every city destroyed), it would have been a lot tougher call to make.

And then take it a step further, instead of an unconditional surrender Japan instead had sought a ceasefire to negotiate final terms. Had this happened, with Washington's largest allies demanding the war continue until complete victory, I don't see how Truman doesn't keep dropping bombs until complete victory.

The point is that it is really easy to tell Grayson at the end of the first war to pound sand. It would have been a lot tougher to tell that to the Andermani, especially if the Andermani had gotten Manty tech.

I think the likely outcome of that is that High Ridge would be able to stall for a year - tops - while Janacek (slowly) resupplies 8th Fleet and makes sure everyone gets a couple months of shore leave. At that point, if the Andermani are still demanding that the job gets finished High Ridge would have had to allowed the Andermani (and Grayson) free use of the junction at the very least. More likely he would have ended up negotiating to put one of his cronies in overall command of a fleet that was 1/3rd or less Manty. At least here he could stretch out the war-time taxes and other programs for every possible day.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by munroburton   » Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:40 am

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2141
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:16 am
Location: Scotland

Erls wrote:This is actually pretty easy to reconcile.

Let's go back to WWII, after the Atomic Bombs but before the Japanese surrendered. If, at that time, the Phillipines or Chinese had demanded that we keep going until Japan is invaded and conquered (or every city destroyed), it would have been pretty easy Truman and the Senate to shrug and accept the surrender. IF, however, a combination of Britain, France, Canada, and the Soviet Union had all demanded that Japan be invaded and conquered (or every city destroyed), it would have been a lot tougher call to make.

And then take it a step further, instead of an unconditional surrender Japan instead had sought a ceasefire to negotiate final terms. Had this happened, with Washington's largest allies demanding the war continue until complete victory, I don't see how Truman doesn't keep dropping bombs until complete victory.

The point is that it is really easy to tell Grayson at the end of the first war to pound sand. It would have been a lot tougher to tell that to the Andermani, especially if the Andermani had gotten Manty tech.


Agreed. The original Manticoran Alliance started out as an agreement between a bunch of tiny system-defense navies to let the RMN park in their systems. Pre-Third Yeltsin Grayson, Alizon, Zanzibar and so forth. Erewhon was the largest and IIRC only had about 12 wallers assigned to Allied efforts with the rest holding Erewhon.

All of them added together - even including the end-war GSN - simply don't add up to what the IAN already had in 1905.
Top
Re: Andermani strategic blunder in 1905 PD?
Post by Theemile   » Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:41 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4173
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

munroburton wrote:
Erls wrote:This is actually pretty easy to reconcile.

Let's go back to WWII, after the Atomic Bombs but before the Japanese surrendered. If, at that time, the Phillipines or Chinese had demanded that we keep going until Japan is invaded and conquered (or every city destroyed), it would have been pretty easy Truman and the Senate to shrug and accept the surrender. IF, however, a combination of Britain, France, Canada, and the Soviet Union had all demanded that Japan be invaded and conquered (or every city destroyed), it would have been a lot tougher call to make.

And then take it a step further, instead of an unconditional surrender Japan instead had sought a ceasefire to negotiate final terms. Had this happened, with Washington's largest allies demanding the war continue until complete victory, I don't see how Truman doesn't keep dropping bombs until complete victory.

The point is that it is really easy to tell Grayson at the end of the first war to pound sand. It would have been a lot tougher to tell that to the Andermani, especially if the Andermani had gotten Manty tech.


Agreed. The original Manticoran Alliance started out as an agreement between a bunch of tiny system-defense navies to let the RMN park in their systems. Pre-Third Yeltsin Grayson, Alizon, Zanzibar and so forth. Erewhon was the largest and IIRC only had about 12 wallers assigned to Allied efforts with the rest holding Erewhon.

All of them added together - even including the end-war GSN - simply don't add up to what the IAN already had in 1905.


The only other net positive member was Talbot - and even that was questionable until later in the war, if ever.
******
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

Return to Honorverse