Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests

The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.
Post by Jonathan_S   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:07 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

kzt wrote:
Rakhmamort wrote:Re: compensator field, do note that the suggestion to change the shape of the hull to have more area on the top/bottom sides are for smaller vessels. Since they can build compensator fields that can cover super dreadnought sized hulls, then it's a trivial exercise to put one around cruiser sized hulls.

I'm just pointing out here that there is no reason why making the hull form wider and less tall is a design impossibility.

Yes you can. One of the old Peep BCs had a deliberately oversize compensator. (I think it was the Mars-B) However it costs more, takes up more space, requires more maintenance, more power, etc and (again IIRC) was provided to allow towing massive (for the time) pod loads.

However David has been pretty coy with the actual design constraints on ships, so don't assume that just because it "makes sense" to you that it really would work in the Honorverse.
That's the Mars-A class, and it actually had overpowered nodes, but AFAIK a normal compensator because that was before Haven cracked the secret of improved compensators.

Interestingly when I was playing around with acceleration numbers it turns out that the Mars-A payed a (minor) acceleration penalty for deviation from standard - 1.19g; equivalent to it carrying an additional 25,500 tons. (The Mars-B was back on the calculated compensator curve; it was actually was 25,500 tons heavier, but with the same accel)


Anyway we know from the Travis Long stories that the compensator field isn't perfectly cylindrical, there are lobes (or at least given the tech level back then there were).


I'm assuming you can't efficiently modify the 'shape' of a compensator field; that they're always pretty cylindrical.

If so then when you make a noticeably fatter ship you'd have excess compensated volume above and below the hull (the parts of the cylinder that aren't filled with ship. I believe you pay the acceleration penalty based on the size of the compensator field, not of the actual hull; so a squashed 'fat' ship would accelerate (all else being equal) at the same rate as a cylindrical ship of the same width (but with more mass and internal volume)


So it seems to me you'd need a good reason to deviate far from the normal fairly cylindrical hull shape.
Top
Re: The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.
Post by MAD-4A   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:53 am

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

munroburton wrote: How do you reconcile that idea with what actually happened at the Battles of Manticore? None of the wallers came closer than SDM range, never mind energy range.

No need to reconcile. You said yourself…
munroburton wrote:…nearly always be true…no admiral wants to lead his podnaughts or CLACs into energy range.
Both sides were relying on their MDMs to "soften" the enemy. Tourville surrendered before Honor ran out of missiles – do you really think if he hadn’t she would have said “well did what I could, time to leave”? No, she would have put her remaining fleet (or any part she could) right between him and Hephaestus and forced the Peeps to come into energy range or leave!
Top
Re: The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.
Post by The E   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:01 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

MAD-4A wrote: Both sides were relying on their MDMs to "soften" the enemy.


No, I'm pretty sure both sides were using their missiles to kill the other. The idea of "softening up" a target through bombardment and then finishing it off with energy batteries died right around the time the missile pod became viable again.

Tourville surrendered before Honor ran out of missiles – do you really think if he hadn’t she would have said “well did what I could, time to leave”? No, she would have put her remaining fleet (or any part she could) right between him and Hephaestus and forced the Peeps to come into energy range or leave!


If he hadn't, if he had called Honor's bluff and continued on, the end result might have been a pyrric victory for Manticore, but a victory nonetheless. 8th Fleet, with its holds full of Apollo missiles, would have finished off Tourville. He would be able to inflict a lot of damage, yes, and he might even have a shot at extracting a good deal of his forces, but the end result was pretty clear.

Let's also not forget that, for all its immobility, Hephaestus and the other stations are pretty damn hard to kill. There's a ton of missile defence, not to mention a whole lot of wedges, that you have to get through in order to kill them traditionally (which is why, you will note, the MAlignment used a thoroughly untraditional method to do this).
Top
Re: The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.
Post by MAD-4A   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:24 am

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

The E wrote:Here's a question for you though, MAD-4A: If turret mounts are possible, and have all the advantages you cite, why is noone using them?...

There are several valid reasons. You don’t have to go hashing up some (relatively) low Startrek tech structural reason for it. Infact I left some open in my own posts if you’d found them. Like my example of attrition damage…
MAD-4A wrote:True – but this is mitigated by the fact that the multi-turrets would constitute less space on the overall hull than the single mounts, spread all over the place, and the turrets being in relatively “out of the way” locations. (Not much worth aiming at even if you could, as the missile tubes are still in the broadside). So while an actual hit on a turret (& penetrating the turrets armor) may cause 2-3 times as much loss in capacity. The probability of that is less than 1/2-1/3 as much as a hit on a broadside mount so the net loss over an exchange will likely (but not always) be less. In other words, lets say you have 16 single mounts & I have 8 twin turrets & with all else being equal I hit 1 of your spread out mounts for every 10 shots I take & you hit 1 of my concentrated turrets for every 30 shots you take. After 90 shots I’ve hit 9 of your mounts while you’ve hit 3 of my turrets (assuming no collateral damage – which has been mentioned in some of the engagements). I now have 5 turrets with 10 guns while you have only 7 single gun mounts working. Of course actual probabilities would depend on the specific ship designs…
Lest say this was happening as stated what then? Well you fire 30 more shots & now you’re down to just 4 guns & I’m down to 4 turrets with 8 guns. You’re at ½ mine right? Well now you roll ship presenting a fresh 16gun broadside to my now reduced 8 guns, the tables just turned…ouch. This is space remember. I can roll to present fresh armor but I still only have 4 turrets left. So you see there are advantages and dis-advantages to both systems and people arguing both ways. That’s why bringing in something new is so hard and slow a process. “if it works don’t fix it” is a much over used motto. A good cannon would be that energy requirements & tech use-to (perhaps back in old Nikes days) require plasma tubes etc… and that’s why turrets were impractical & all main guns were in broadside mounts. Now in Honors day (centuries later) it’s the standard. Yes the current tech (super/ultra conductors) would present the ability to include turret mounted main guns. But that’s “not how things are done” so nobody’s even considered it. We've already established a war between the "old traditionalists" and the "new thinkers" from book 1. This would actually make a good background conflict. Why ruin that and the feel of the series by adding an unnecessary "were too low tech and can't figure out how" reason for it? Doesn’t mean it will or won’t be in the future but “right now” it’s not. The advantages of the side mount (“roll ship for fresh weapons”, “sensors in the way” etc…) arguments along with the “ain’t broke/don’t fix” and “it’s what everyone is use to using – do we want to have to retrain?” argument. Are currently sidelining any proposals in favor of turrets (even though overall the advantages eventually outweigh the disadvantages {in example: with = weight & volume I would likely carry more turrets & guns to start with} and will likely someday win out - just not "NOW") so no turrets in HH - not because they're too low tech, but because no-one wants them right now. that’s what should be cannon, feel free to forward and use with my permission (no liable etc… glad to help clear this up for everyone :) ).
Last edited by MAD-4A on Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Re: The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.
Post by The E   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:41 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

MAD-4A wrote:Lest say this was happening as stated what then? Well you fire 30 more shots & now you’re down to just 4 guns & I’m down to 4 turrets with 8 guns. You’re at ½ mine right? Well now you roll ship presenting a fresh 16gun broadside to my now reduced 8 gun the tables just turned…ouch. This is space remember. I can roll to present fresh armor but I still only have 4 turrets left. So you see there are advantages and dis-advantages to both systems and people arguing both ways.


Actually, I see mostly disadvantages, to be perfectly honest with you.

That’s why bringing in something new is so hard and slow a process. “if it works don’t fix it” is a much over used motto.


Not in engineering, it isn't.

A good cannon would be that energy requirements & tech use-to (perhaps back in old Nikes day) require plasma tubes etc… and that’s why turrets were impractical & all main guns were in broadside mounts.


Everything we know about the canon of the Honorverse indicates that this is still the case, your insistence on not accepting that canon notwithstanding. Luckily, Canon is like science: It doesn't care whether you believe in it or not, it's just true.

Now in Honors day (centuries later) it’s the standard. Yes the current tech (super/ultra conductors) would present the ability to include turret mounted main guns.


So you assert. But you are not one of the authors able to define what the canon for the honorverse is, so your assertion is going to be wrong, unless RFC comes out and agrees with you.
Which I'm pretty sure he won't.

But that’s “not how things are done” so nobody’s even considered it. Doesn’t mean it will or won’t be in the future but “right now” it’s not. The advantages of the side mount (“roll ship for fresh weapons”, “sensors in the way” etc…) arguments along with the “ain’t broke/don’t fix” and “it’s what everyone is use to using – do we want to have to retrain?” argument. Are currently sidelining any proposals in favor of turrets (even though overall the advantages eventually outweigh the disadvantages {in example: with = weight & volume I would likely carry more turrets & guns to start with} and will likely someday win out - just not "NOW") so no turrets in HH - not because they can't but because no-one wants them right now.


Or, because they're an unworkable idea that introduces more problems than it solves.

that’s what should be cannon, feel free to forward and use with my permission (no liable etc… glad to help clear this up for everyone :) ).


Okay, look. I don't know if you've seen this yet, but RFC has pretty strict rules about fan-generated canon. Said rule, also known as the fanfic rule, is "not allowed here". There are so many thorny legal issues with fan fiction, and how fan writers react when pieces of their fanfic get incorporated into official writings, that RFC has decided to not allow it on his board. So in essence, simply by posting this here, you've already increased the probability that this will never find its way into the official Honorverse by quite a lot.
Top
Re: The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.
Post by MAD-4A   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:09 am

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

The E wrote:Actually, I see mostly disadvantages, to be perfectly honest with you.

Yes, as I said, the turrets have great advantages over broadside mounts which is where this whole topic comes from. So why are you arguing against?
The E wrote:Not in engineering, it isn't.

We're not talking engineering. We’re talking implementation – that’s politics.
The E wrote:Everything we know about the canon of the Honorverse indicates that this is still the case, your insistence on not accepting that canon notwithstanding. Luckily, Canon is like science: It doesn't care whether you believe in it or not, it's just true.

No it doesn’t – I haven’t found anything in any of the books indicating “plasma tubes” running all through the ship. But super conductors are. And the published books are the cannon – not something on a web site.
The E wrote:… unless RFC comes out and agrees with you.
then forward it to him (the whole post not just what you want to) & see if he likes it.
The E wrote:Or, because they're an unworkable idea that introduces more problems than it solves.

Yea that’s wy the real navy’s never adopted them “to complex and more trouble than their worth” – though that could be one of the arguments in the story against them!
The E wrote:Okay, look. I don't know if you've seen this yet, but RFC has pretty strict rules about fan-generated canon. Said rule, also known as the fanfic rule, is "not allowed here". There are so many thorny legal issues with fan fiction, and how fan writers react when pieces of their fanfic get incorporated into official writings, that RFC has decided to not allow it on his board. So in essence, simply by posting this here, you've already increased the probability that this will never find its way into the official Honorverse by quite a lot.
What “thorny leagal issues”? I just said I don’t mind helping – does it help if I post “for free in this case” use any of my info from my last post “MAD-4A » Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:24 am” or this one as you like, for free. Or does he need a signed paper – would be happy to help as needed to keep “plasma conduits” out of honorverse ships. & what’s the use of this forum then if everything the fans say they want he’s going to say “that’s what they want so I’m not going to do it!”? that make me not want to waste my time here anymore!
Top
Re: The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.
Post by Duckk   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:10 am

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4138
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:29 pm

If David wants help, he'll ask for it from the BuNine.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top
Re: The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.
Post by The E   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:33 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

But super conductors are. And the published books are the cannon – not something on a web site.


You're wrong, though. Official stuff posted on this site, or Baen's Bar, by RFC or BuNine staffers, can be taken as canon info until and unless it is directly contradicted by elements in the novels.

then forward it to him (the whole post not just what you want to) & see if he likes it.


I think RFC is quite capable of reading these here forums himself (as his occasional involvement in these threads proves).

What “thorny leagal issues”? I just said I don’t mind helping – does it help if I post “for free in this case” use any of my info from my last post “MAD-4A » Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:24 am” or this one as you like, for free. Or does he need a signed paper


As far as I know, that's exactly what he would need. To quote the FAQ:

As Mike pointed out in his post, it leads to a situation in which an author can be accused of "ripping off" someone else's idea, which can both impugn his/her honesty and even lead to ugly courtroom scenes as some non-pro attempts to sue because his or her original idea was "stolen" by a pro. (This has actually happened.) It would also be possible for a pro actually TO rip off an idea, perhaps without even realizing that he or she has done so. (I have never seen any actual documentation of such an event, but I HAVE seen a couple of stories, by authors who shall remain nameless, in which I personally suspect that that is precisely what happened.)

Even more importantly, the publication (even in electronic form) of fiction based on a writer's work, without the specific, documented permission of said writer (on a case-by-case basis) can void the writer's copyright. This has actually happened, and does not represent mere paranoid fantasy on my part. Nor am I the only writer concerned about it. Misty Lackey, for example, has a legal contract form drawn up which anyone publishing fanfic in her universe(s) is required to sign and return to her before they may use any of her material. (I have a copy of it thumbtacked to my wall for use as a model if I ever decide to go that way.) Anyone who publishes WITHOUT said signed contract is in violation of her copyright and she will, if it comes to her attention, take legal action against them. (Mind, I suspect many authors in such a position might take some pains to avoid having the unapproved fanfic come to his/her attention if he/she believes the fans' intentions were pure, but there is a limit to how many times someone can look the other way and still convince a judge, at need, that his/her ignorance was genuine.)

I deeply regret that this should be the case, as fanfic is often at least as imaginative and enjoyable as anything the writer who created the character/universe/whatever is likely to turn out. It is also rather flattering to an author to know that other people want to come over and play at his house, as it were. Unfortunately, the situation has become such that a writer cannot allow the free use of his universe without risking the loss of his own rights to it, and so I must regretfully ask that no fanfic appear on this group. Should that happen, I would have only two choices: (a) to take legal action (which I would hate to do and would endeavor to make as painless as possible for all concerned), or (b) leave the group and not return, as the only way I could avoid taking legal action NOW and still be in a position to defend my copyright down the road at need would be to avoid learning that the fiction was being published, electronically or otherwise. Since I would like to lurk and keep an eye on what's happening whenever projects (and things like weddings and house buying expeditions) allow me the time, I would very much appreciate it if it didn't happen here.

Again, my sincere regrets at having to take this position. I checked with my attorney when the matter first came up for me a couple of years ago, however, and he confirms what Baen, Misty, Roger Zelazny, Fred Saberhagen, and several other pros had all told me on previous occasions. With that much experienced opinion on one side of the question, I see no choice but to believe they know what they're talking about.

Take Care,
David


& what’s the use of this forum then if everything the fans say they want he’s going to say “that’s what they want so I’m not going to do it!”? that make me not want to waste my time here anymore!


Well, these forums are here to give us all a nice little place where we can speculate about the directions of the novels, shoot the shit about what it all means, within the guidelines set out in the FAQ and moderation guidelines.
Top
Re: The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.
Post by Vince   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:47 am

Vince
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1565
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:43 pm

MaxxQ wrote:***Snip***

As I said before, the ships are not all that different in that they are all cylindrical in shape. What you are forgetting is something that Grashtel mentioned that you didn't touch on at all, and that is *the compensator. A ship's inertial compensator encloses the ship in a cylindrical field not much bigger than the widest part of the ship itself. Note that no warship hammerhead is either wider or taller than the dimensions of the main hull.

That said, my guess would be that the compensator field extends a few meters above and below the ship, but again, no more than the ships largest non-length dimension, which is why you can have something like the "conning tower" on the top of the ship (or the boat bay observation/backup control room on the bottom) still enclosed within the field.

***Snip***

The compensator field extends quite a bit further than just a few meters.

Flag In Exile, Chapter 33 wrote:Honor's battlecruisers had only two missile pods apiece. That was all they could tow without massive degradation of their acceleration rates. But superdreadnoughts were big enough they could actually tractor the pods inside their wedges, where they had no effect at all on acceleration, and now each of her ships of the wall deployed a lumpy, ungainly tail of no less than ten pods. They were ugly, clumsy, and fragile, those pods—but each of them also mounted ten box launchers loaded with missiles even larger and more powerful than a superdreadnought's missile tubes could fire.
And:
Echoes of Honor, Chapter 33 wrote:For one thing, she'd argued for a high-speed run-in from the very start, despite some other officers' fear that such an approach could leave them with a dangerously high velocity if there were in fact, Manty ships of the wall in-system. Their concern had been that a high initial velocity would leave them with too much mometum to kill quickly if an evasive vector change were required, but Foraker had shown even less patience than usual with that argument. Even if there were ships of the wall present, she'd pointed out arctically, they would still have to generate an intercept vector, and the less time TF 12.2 took reaching its objective, the less time the Manties would have in which to intercept. In fact, the only way they could guarantee to intercept an attack on the planet Zanzibar would be for them to be in orbit around it and stay there ... in which case, TF 12.2 should see them long before they entered engagement range and would have a much higher base velocity from which to evade the defenders and go after its secondary objective: the system's asteroid extraction industry. Besides, a higher approach velocity would not only face the Manties with more difficult interception acceleration curves but force them to commit sooner and at higher power settings, which would degrade the efficiency of their stealth systems and make them far easier to detect early enough for it to do some good.
In keeping with that recommendation, she'd also argued that the retention of their own ships' full acceleration capability was more important than putting the maximum possible number of pods in space. That liveliness in maneuver, after all, was the one advantage battleships held over ships of the wall, and she refused to throw it away. So rather than tow the pods astern, she'd suggested, they should take a page from the Manties' book in the Fourth Battle of Yeltsin and tractor the pods inside the wedges of their battleships, where they would have no effect on their acceleration curves. Their battlecruisers could tractor only two pods inside their wedges, and the heavy cruisers and destroyers lacked the tractors and wedge depth to tractor any inside at all, but that was fine with her.
Some of the squadron ops officers had hit the deckhead at the very suggestion, but she had simply waited them out with a cold, almost mechanical patience. And when the hubbub had settled, she'd pointed out that battleships had been designed as general purpose workhorses, which meant, among other things, that they had more tractors on a ton-for-ton basis than any other ship type in the Republican order of battle. Each of them could tractor eleven pods — more than most superdreadnoughts, actually — tight in against their hulls. That meant that when they actually deployed them, they could still put over forty-two hundred missiles into space at once, with another three hundred eighty from the battlecruisers. In the meantime, their entire task force's ability to maneuver at full acceleration would not only make them fleeter of foot but might actually convince the defenders that they hadn't brought along any pods until it was too late.
Italics are the author's, boldface is my emphasis.

On the size of missile pods:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/170/0
Pearls of Weber, Missile pods as strap-on weapons? wrote:From a post to ALT.BOOKS.DAVID-WEBER dated October 18, 1998:

Missile pods as strap-on weapons?

I'd have to say that would not be a good idea. For one thing, they're bigger than some of you seem to be assuming. In point of fact, the Manties' present capital-ship missile pods are considerably larger than a pinnace or an assault shuttle. In fact, they're a little more than half the beam of a standard DD in their widest dimension, which is why Wayfarer could deploy no more of them simultaneously and why a pod-SD (by the way, I like the term; I hadn't thought of it for myself. Perhaps we should call them SD(P) from now on? <g>) can deploy even less in a salvo than Wayfarer could. The depth of the after aspect of the wedge is not much of a factor; the physical dimensions of a pod which must pass through a physical hatch are. Moreover, when used as broadside weapons, one would be required to shut down one's sidewalls while one launched (assuming one could launch from a broadside--see below), which could be a major disadvantage if one were under threat of attack at the moment of launch. Why drop the sidewall? Because unlike the fixed, conventional launcher, your pod has no "gunport" in the sidewall through which to eject the missile(s) it is blasting off.
Italics are the author's, boldface is my emphasis.

And finally a short answer from David:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/169/0
Pearls of Weber, Missile pods: where are they tractored? wrote:From a post to ALT.BOOKS.DAVID-WEBER dated October 18, 1998:

Missile pods: where are they tractored?

Missile pods, when tractored inside the wedge to avoid accel penalties, are normally inside the sidewalls of the towing ships. The distance between the hulls of ships of BC and above is large enough to squeeze a pod into it, although their broadside armament would normally be blocked and nonfunctional (especially the energy weapons) while the pods were present. The same is true of the Peeps' Warlord-class CA [I think DW means the Mars-class -Ed.], but that's only because it's a Real Big CA.
Italics are the author's and editor's.

All of this taken together suggests that the volume the inertial compensator field encompasses extends sideways out to the sidewalls from the ship (for an SD, less than 10,000 meters, but apparently not much less than 10km) and presumably also extending vertically up and down by the same amount.
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/100/0
Excerpt from Pearls of Weber, Wedge geometry wrote:The sidewall is normally generated at a range of less than 10,000 meters from the actual ship, which means that, in the case of our SD from the example above, the sidewall will be 143 kilometers inside the outer "edges" of the wedge.
Italics are the author's.
-------------------------------------------------------------
History does not repeat itself so much as it echoes.
Top
Re: The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.
Post by crewdude48   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:57 am

crewdude48
Commodore

Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:08 am

Vince wrote:
MaxxQ wrote:***Snip***

As I said before, the ships are not all that different in that they are all cylindrical in shape. What you are forgetting is something that Grashtel mentioned that you didn't touch on at all, and that is *the compensator. A ship's inertial compensator encloses the ship in a cylindrical field not much bigger than the widest part of the ship itself. Note that no warship hammerhead is either wider or taller than the dimensions of the main hull.

That said, my guess would be that the compensator field extends a few meters above and below the ship, but again, no more than the ships largest non-length dimension, which is why you can have something like the "conning tower" on the top of the ship (or the boat bay observation/backup control room on the bottom) still enclosed within the field.

***Snip***


The compensator field extends quite a bit further than just a few meters.

Flag In Exile, Chapter 33 wrote:Honor's battlecruisers had only two missile pods apiece. That was all they could tow without massive degradation of their acceleration rates. But superdreadnoughts were big enough they could actually tractor the pods inside their wedges, where they had no effect at all on acceleration, and now each of her ships of the wall deployed a lumpy, ungainly tail of no less than ten pods. They were ugly, clumsy, and fragile, those pods—but each of them also mounted ten box launchers loaded with missiles even larger and more powerful than a superdreadnought's missile tubes could fire.
And:
Echoes of Honor, Chapter 33 wrote:For one thing, she'd argued for a high-speed run-in from the very start, despite some other officers' fear that such an approach could leave them with a dangerously high velocity if there were in fact, Manty ships of the wall in-system. Their concern had been that a high initial velocity would leave them with too much mometum to kill quickly if an evasive vector change were required, but Foraker had shown even less patience than usual with that argument. Even if there were ships of the wall present, she'd pointed out arctically, they would still have to generate an intercept vector, and the less time TF 12.2 took reaching its objective, the less time the Manties would have in which to intercept. In fact, the only way they could guarantee to intercept an attack on the planet Zanzibar would be for them to be in orbit around it and stay there ... in which case, TF 12.2 should see them long before they entered engagement range and would have a much higher base velocity from which to evade the defenders and go after its secondary objective: the system's asteroid extraction industry. Besides, a higher approach velocity would not only face the Manties with more difficult interception acceleration curves but force them to commit sooner and at higher power settings, which would degrade the efficiency of their stealth systems and make them far easier to detect early enough for it to do some good.
In keeping with that recommendation, she'd also argued that the retention of their own ships' full acceleration capability was more important than putting the maximum possible number of pods in space. That liveliness in maneuver, after all, was the one advantage battleships held over ships of the wall, and she refused to throw it away. So rather than tow the pods astern, she'd suggested, they should take a page from the Manties' book in the Fourth Battle of Yeltsin and tractor the pods inside the wedges of their battleships, where they would have no effect on their acceleration curves. Their battlecruisers could tractor only two pods inside their wedges, and the heavy cruisers and destroyers lacked the tractors and wedge depth to tractor any inside at all, but that was fine with her.
Some of the squadron ops officers had hit the deckhead at the very suggestion, but she had simply waited them out with a cold, almost mechanical patience. And when the hubbub had settled, she'd pointed out that battleships had been designed as general purpose workhorses, which meant, among other things, that they had more tractors on a ton-for-ton basis than any other ship type in the Republican order of battle. Each of them could tractor eleven pods — more than most superdreadnoughts, actually — tight in against their hulls. That meant that when they actually deployed them, they could still put over forty-two hundred missiles into space at once, with another three hundred eighty from the battlecruisers. In the meantime, their entire task force's ability to maneuver at full acceleration would not only make them fleeter of foot but might actually convince the defenders that they hadn't brought along any pods until it was too late.
Italics are the author's, boldface is my emphasis.

On the size of missile pods:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/170/0
Pearls of Weber, Missile pods as strap-on weapons? wrote:From a post to ALT.BOOKS.DAVID-WEBER dated October 18, 1998:

Missile pods as strap-on weapons?

I'd have to say that would not be a good idea. For one thing, they're bigger than some of you seem to be assuming. In point of fact, the Manties' present capital-ship missile pods are considerably larger than a pinnace or an assault shuttle. In fact, they're a little more than half the beam of a standard DD in their widest dimension, which is why Wayfarer could deploy no more of them simultaneously and why a pod-SD (by the way, I like the term; I hadn't thought of it for myself. Perhaps we should call them SD(P) from now on? <g>) can deploy even less in a salvo than Wayfarer could. The depth of the after aspect of the wedge is not much of a factor; the physical dimensions of a pod which must pass through a physical hatch are. Moreover, when used as broadside weapons, one would be required to shut down one's sidewalls while one launched (assuming one could launch from a broadside--see below), which could be a major disadvantage if one were under threat of attack at the moment of launch. Why drop the sidewall? Because unlike the fixed, conventional launcher, your pod has no "gunport" in the sidewall through which to eject the missile(s) it is blasting off.
Italics are the author's, boldface is my emphasis.

And finally a short answer from David:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/169/0
Pearls of Weber, Missile pods: where are they tractored? wrote:From a post to ALT.BOOKS.DAVID-WEBER dated October 18, 1998:

Missile pods: where are they tractored?

Missile pods, when tractored inside the wedge to avoid accel penalties, are normally inside the sidewalls of the towing ships. The distance between the hulls of ships of BC and above is large enough to squeeze a pod into it, although their broadside armament would normally be blocked and nonfunctional (especially the energy weapons) while the pods were present. The same is true of the Peeps' Warlord-class CA [I think DW means the Mars-class -Ed.], but that's only because it's a Real Big CA.
Italics are the author's and editor's.

All of this taken together suggests that the volume the inertial compensator field encompasses extends sideways out to the sidewalls from the ship (for an SD, less than 10,000 meters, but apparently not much less than 10km) and presumably also extending vertically up and down by the same amount.
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/100/0
Excerpt from Pearls of Weber, Wedge geometry wrote:The sidewall is normally generated at a range of less than 10,000 meters from the actual ship, which means that, in the case of our SD from the example above, the sidewall will be 143 kilometers inside the outer "edges" of the wedge.
Italics are the author's.


I didn't see anything on compensators. All I saw was that towing something outside of your wedge reduced acceleration, and towing it within the wedge did not. This could be because of the need to project tractor beams through the kilt forces you to alter the wedge shape away from optimal configuration.

If you can put extra stuff on an SD and still have it within the compensated volume, then why don't they build SDs bigger, out to the edges of the field?
________________
I'm the Dude...you know, that or His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
Top

Return to Honorverse