Spoilers - 1900 Havenite Battleship armaments

As mentioned in my Toll of Honor overview, a group of the PRN battleships seen to have 46 sub-capitol (presumedly CA/BC class) missiles in it's broadside. The "Current" Triumphant class had 30 capital missiles tubes in it broadside (and carried the same missiles as the Nouveau Paris class Dreadnaughts) according to Jaynes. This might be a Canonical redefinition, or the first time we saw an older BB class (Fouchart class?)

If all other factors and design elements of the 2 classes were equal, which approach is better in the 1900 environment? Which is better for how the PRN intended that BBs be used in the 19th century PD (ie. rear guard policing units)? Which is better for how they actually got used in 1905-1910?

Theemile wrote:As mentioned in my Toll of Honor overview, a group of the PRN battleships seen to have 46 sub-capitol (presumedly CA/BC class) missiles in it's broadside. The "Current" Triumphant class had 30 capital missiles tubes in it broadside (and carried the same missiles as the Nouveau Paris class Dreadnaughts) according to Jaynes. This might be a Canonical redefinition, or the first time we saw an older BB class (Fouchart class?)

If all other factors and design elements of the 2 classes were equal, which approach is better in the 1900 environment? Which is better for how the PRN intended that BBs be used in the 19th century PD (ie. rear guard policing units)? Which is better for how they actually got used in 1905-1910?

Can you tell which type of battleship was used in the attack on Yeltsin in Flag in Exile? I found this quote in chapter 31, but I have never tried to figure out what it means (although this is 7 years later, so there might be an even newer class; but I do not know why they would be changing ships that were not intended to fight Manticore):

. The armament of Peep battleships was heavily biased in favor of missile tubes—they had little more than fifteen percent of an SD's energy armament but thirty percent of its missile power—precisely because they were supposed to stay out of energy range of true ships of the wall. Sluggish as they might be compared to battlecruisers or lighter units, BBs could pull much higher accelerations than dreadnoughts or superdreadnoughts. These people would be able to avoid Honor's SDs with relative ease, and although battleships were more fragile, the sheer numbers of tubes on the other side would give the Peeps something like an advantage of two to one in missile throw weight in a sustained engagement. She could offset some of that with missile pods, but only in the initial—and longest-ranged—salvos, given the pods' susceptibility to proximity soft kills.

tlb wrote:

Theemile wrote:As mentioned in my Toll of Honor overview, a group of the PRN battleships seen to have 46 sub-capitol (presumedly CA/BC class) missiles in it's broadside. The "Current" Triumphant class had 30 capital missiles tubes in it broadside (and carried the same missiles as the Nouveau Paris class Dreadnaughts) according to Jaynes. This might be a Canonical redefinition, or the first time we saw an older BB class (Fouchart class?)

If all other factors and design elements of the 2 classes were equal, which approach is better in the 1900 environment? Which is better for how the PRN intended that BBs be used in the 19th century PD (ie. rear guard policing units)? Which is better for how they actually got used in 1905-1910?

Can you tell which type of battleship was used in the attack on Yeltsin in Flag in Exile? I found this quote in chapter 31, but I have never tried to figure out what it means (although this is 7 years later, so there might be an even newer class; but I do not know why they would be changing ships that were not intended to fight Manticore):

. The armament of Peep battleships was heavily biased in favor of missile tubes—they had little more than fifteen percent of an SD's energy armament but thirty percent of its missile power—precisely because they were supposed to stay out of energy range of true ships of the wall. Sluggish as they might be compared to battlecruisers or lighter units, BBs could pull much higher accelerations than dreadnoughts or superdreadnoughts. These people would be able to avoid Honor's SDs with relative ease, and although battleships were more fragile, the sheer numbers of tubes on the other side would give the Peeps something like an advantage of two to one in missile throw weight in a sustained engagement. She could offset some of that with missile pods, but only in the initial—and longest-ranged—salvos, given the pods' susceptibility to proximity soft kills.

Actually, I' don't think so. The only BB Class we have #s on is the Triumphant class, which according to Jaynes and SITS was the one currently under construction in 1905 (but construction was quickly shut down after the war started for DN/SD production), and had been under construction since 1823. An older class, the Fouchart class, was mentioned, but we have no stats on it other than that least 7 copies were made and possibly it had the (discussed) 46 CA missile broadside.

According to Jaynes/SITS/HoS, The Dequesne SDs had 36 missiles in their Broadside, while the Triumphants had 30 - and if SITS is to be believed, they both carried the same missile type. We're still talking a pre-resizing text, so the numbers might not match up (we're even given 2 specs for the Duquesnes, SITS has them at a shade under 8Mtons, HoS has them at just under 7.2 Mtons. with the same armament).

But given those #s, the missile ratio mentioned in the text do not make sense - a DeQuesne would need a much larger armament than has been stated, or a BB would need to be gelded under the throw weight of a BC (20-25 missiles).

That 30% missile weight could be speaking of the CA missile throwing type, but firing 46 missiles can help overwhelm defenses, even if the hits are substantially smaller.

Theemile wrote:As mentioned in my Toll of Honor overview, a group of the PRN battleships seen to have 46 sub-capitol (presumedly CA/BC class) missiles in it's broadside. The "Current" Triumphant class had 30 capital missiles tubes in it broadside (and carried the same missiles as the Nouveau Paris class Dreadnaughts) according to Jaynes. This might be a Canonical redefinition, or the first time we saw an older BB class (Fouchart class?)

If all other factors and design elements of the 2 classes were equal, which approach is better in the 1900 environment? Which is better for how the PRN intended that BBs be used in the 19th century PD (ie. rear guard policing units)? Which is better for how they actually got used in 1905-1910?

Hmm. While capital ship missiles do mount better ECM and thus are somewhat more likely to hit, I'd think that against target that aren't armored to capital ship levels that having 53% more (individually somewhat less capable) missiles gives you a better chance of hitting and of killing ships than having almost 35% fewer but somewhat more survivable missiles.

Thus I would say that while fending off, or deterring against, cruiser or battlecruiser raids on rear area Peep systems that having more CA/BC missiles would be more effective than having fewer DN/SD missiles.

But when forced to thrown into combat against DN/SDs you need the more powerful laserhead of the capital missile to have a reasonable chance of hurting them; while the power is overkill against cruisers or BCs. And so against those opponents (which a BB shouldn't be fighting; but the Peeps for one reason or another did find themselves doing) you'd want the fewer more powerful missiles; as the additional hits you might get from the additional lighter warheads is largely obviated by the stronger sidewalls and thicker armor of a waller.

On the gripping hand, did BBs need to be more effective against cruisers or BCs? After all you're not likely to deploy fewer than 2 (and more commonly 4) ships to a system. And a pair of Triumphant, even if their armorment is less efficient against cruisers, is probably sufficiently powerful to achieve their mission to drive off cruiser raids.

Unless the BBs really needed to be more effective cruiser killers I'd still lean towards the Triumphant's design. It might tempt their captains into courting fights they shouldn't against bigger, meaner, ships -- but OTOH if forced to fight such ships they'd do better than a cruiser killer design.


In some ways this become reminicent of arguments over whether the Royal Navy would have been better off if the original BCs, the Invincible class, had forgone the 12" BB-grade guns and more closely been the Dreagnaught Armored Cruiser they were originally called; giving them an all 9.2" layout; the same guns as on the latest armored cruisers -- just lots more of them in a better armored and higher speed (and much more expensive) package.