What about DN(P)s for the GA?

Dafmeister wrote:

SWM wrote:What evidence do you have for that? We have no textev for the size of the Leonard Detweiler class, except that it is "much larger" than the Sharks.

There seems to be a very widely-held view that the Detweilers will be in the 16-20 Mt range. So far as I can see, that view is based on nothing other than people saying that the Detweilers will be in the 16-20 Mt range.

Ayup. FWIW, I think they're probably in the 10-12 MT range, but I have no evidence for that either, except that 10 MT is already the size of a new-generation junction fort.

Hi Drothgery,

I believe it was in ToF when we first read about the Lenny Detweilers [any relation to Rottweilers?] that they were going to be around 20 MT because they weren't limited by impellers among other things.

They are still years from commissioning, but will be "very interesting" opponents for the GA, especially if Darius is building hundreds.

Hope this helps.

L

drothgery wrote:

Dafmeister wrote:*quote="SWM*
What evidence do you have for that? We have no textev for the size of the Leonard Detweiler class, except that it is "much larger" than the Sharks.8quote*

There seems to be a very widely-held view that the Detweilers will be in the 16-20 Mt range. So far as I can see, that view is based on nothing other than people saying that the Detweilers will be in the 16-20 Mt range.

Ayup. FWIW, I think they're probably in the 10-12 MT range, but I have no evidence for that either, except that 10 MT is already the size of a new-generation junction fort.

Don't know if this has been mentioned, since I sorta skipped through the thread, BUT...

A DN(P) is an inherently inefficient design.
Why?
Because of the (P).

Same reason that the BC(P) are a somewhat inefficient design, however in their case, there were/are greater offsetting factors, since their role was never to be substitute ships-of-the-wall.

dreamrider

dreamrider wrote:Don't know if this has been mentioned, since I sorta skipped through the thread, BUT...

A DN(P) is an inherently inefficient design.
Why?
Because of the (P).

Same reason that the BC(P) are a somewhat inefficient design, however in their case, there were/are greater offsetting factors, since their role was never to be substitute ships-of-the-wall.

dreamrider

I wouldn't call it inefficient, but rather transitory. As long as no bad guy does have a SD(P) or comparable design by himself (and as far as the GA knows, that's true at the moment; after all, they don't know yet about the Detweiler-class - the Sharks used for Oyster-Bay were more in the range of a BC(P), and I think, the careful analysis of the hyper-footprints will show, that it couldn't be anything bigger than that), a DN(P) could be useful at least in war theaters the Admirality considers as 2nd rate. To calm systems the GA has allied to and need to protect, without to much ... distraction of their main forces.

DN(P)s could even be used as testbed for new technologies, like ... Warships under remote control? Simply to limit the manpower requirements you need to operate them. And if a DN(P) can suddenly accelerate with ... 2,000 or 3,000g or even higher (because no living soul is actually on-board), wouldn't that be a nice surprise for the first MAN commander who comes calling?

Jonathan_S wrote:<Random thought>
According to HoS CLACs also accelerate much slower that (same year) SD(P)s.

I'd assumed that was just a editing slip-up, someone used the wrong compensator formula (since CLACs fit the pre-Grayson compensator curve perfectly); but maybe the fatter hull body does cost them accel compared to the 'normal' 6.9 length to beam ratio. (by requiring a non-optimal compensator field shape)

If true (and it's a big if), that might explain why DNs don't get fatter bodies than SDs.

Maybe, but the text from AAC and beyond has the Carriers accelerating at same pace as the SD'Ps.

We also know that the acceleration posted in HoS is from the initial ship built, not the upgraded ship designs. For instance the Medusa-A and Invictus accels are also low compared to the books. As you noted, the CLAC accels are in line with a pre Grayson compensator. Rather odd when every other ship class had already begun receiving the new compensators since 1905/1906.

Since CLAC's were a one off design, a more likely scenario is BuShips scrounged up old parts and put in the ship and due to the pace of the war, kept the old design. Might not have had time to update till the interwar period.

Eagleeye wrote:
I wouldn't call it inefficient, but rather transitory. As long as no bad guy does have a SD(P) or comparable design by himself (and as far as the GA knows, that's true at the moment; after all, they don't know yet about the Detweiler-class - the Sharks used for Oyster-Bay were more in the range of a BC(P), and I think, the careful analysis of the hyper-footprints will show, that it couldn't be anything bigger than that), a DN(P) could be useful at least in war theaters the Admirality considers as 2nd rate. To calm systems the GA has allied to and need to protect, without to much ... distraction of their main forces.

DN(P)s could even be used as testbed for new technologies, like ... Warships under remote control? Simply to limit the manpower requirements you need to operate them. And if a DN(P) can suddenly accelerate with ... 2,000 or 3,000g or even higher (because no living soul is actually on-board), wouldn't that be a nice surprise for the first MAN commander who comes calling?

There is no way the GA is going to build second-rate wallers for minor theatres. None of them have ever subscribed to that philosophy before and they're not about to start now. Either a job needs a waller, in which case they'll send an SD(P), or it doesn't, in which case they'll send battlecruisers or lower.

lyonheart wrote:Hi Drothgery,

I believe it was in ToF when we first read about the Lenny Detweilers [any relation to Rottweilers?] that they were going to be around 20 MT because they weren't limited by impellers among other things.

They are still years from commissioning, but will be "very interesting" opponents for the GA, especially if Darius is building hundreds.

Hope this helps.

L

You are misremembering. First, the Detweilers were not mentioned at all in Torch of Freedom, as far as I can tell. They are mentioned for the first time in Storm from the Shadows, in the thoughts of the captain of one of the Sharks approaching Manticore. Second, the text never specifies the size of the Detweilers. All it says is that the Sharks were intended to be training vessels for the men who would crew the Detweilers. The Shark class is "about midway between an old-fashioned battleship and a dreadnought for size." We can infer that the Detweilers are larger, but we don't have any textev for how big. There certainly is no evidence that they are 20 MT.

Dafmeister wrote:
There is no way the GA is going to build second-rate wallers for minor theatres. None of them have ever subscribed to that philosophy before and they're not about to start now. Either a job needs a waller, in which case they'll send an SD(P), or it doesn't, in which case they'll send battlecruisers or lower.

Why doesn't everyone live in 6000 square ft. homes with marble floors, traventine lined showers, and Ebony cabinets?

Why build F16's when the F15 is vastly superior?
Why build F35's when the F22 is superior?

A sniff of reality, that is why.

SD'P or DN'P to BC is like going from an F-15 to an Tucano trainer that can hold light bombs/missiles.

wastedfly wrote:
Why doesn't everyone live in 6000 square ft. homes with marble floors, traventine lined showers, and Ebony cabinets?

Why build F16's when the F15 is vastly superior?
Why build F35's when the F22 is superior?

A sniff of reality, that is why.

SD'P or DN'P to BC is like going from an F-15 to an Tucano trainer that can hold light bombs/missiles.

No, it's like going from a ship of the wall to a commerce raider/defender or a division of patrol ships. I repeat, if you need a waller, you send an SD(P). If you don't, sending a DN(P) is overkill - send a BCL or a division of CAs or a destroyer squadron.

wastedfly wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:<Random thought>
According to HoS CLACs also accelerate much slower that (same year) SD(P)s.

I'd assumed that was just a editing slip-up, someone used the wrong compensator formula (since CLACs fit the pre-Grayson compensator curve perfectly); but maybe the fatter hull body does cost them accel compared to the 'normal' 6.9 length to beam ratio. (by requiring a non-optimal compensator field shape)

If true (and it's a big if), that might explain why DNs don't get fatter bodies than SDs.

Maybe, but the text from AAC and beyond has the Carriers accelerating at same pace as the SD'Ps.

We also know that the acceleration posted in HoS is from the initial ship built, not the upgraded ship designs. For instance the Medusa-A and Invictus accels are also low compared to the books. As you noted, the CLAC accels are in line with a pre Grayson compensator. Rather odd when every other ship class had already begun receiving the new compensators since 1905/1906.

Since CLAC's were a one off design, a more likely scenario is BuShips scrounged up old parts and put in the ship and due to the pace of the war, kept the old design. Might not have had time to update till the interwar period.

Good points. (And more or less my initial thoughts).

So much of playing devil's advocate