Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], roseandheather, TangoLima and 14 guests

The politics of short-stopping firepower

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by saber964   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:01 pm

saber964
Admiral

Posts: 2076
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:41 pm
Location: Spokane WA USA

Theemile wrote:
kzt wrote:If you are not in their chain of command they can tell you to pound sand. General military authority doesn't allow you to commandeer units belonging to another command that have an assigned mission.


Perhaps we should look at what happened in "Shadow of Saganami" - Terekhov, a senior Full Captain absconded with 12 ships (plus his own) from Adm. Khumalo's command and used them to send his own messages and invade a foreign power without orders to do so. Senior officers in the RMN (probably due to the long lead time of communications) are able to react on the spot to issues and contradict orders given to junior officers.

Of course, we can also assume that such behavior is subject to strigent review after the fact and court martial (depending on the outcome of the review) and is not considered the norm, but is expected from senior officers when necessary.



It was actually ten ships not twelve. Three Heavy Cruisers one Sag-C, two Star Knight, three Light Cruisers one Avalon, one Apollo, one Courageous(?)class and four destroyers two Javelin class two unk class.
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by Theemile   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:56 pm

Theemile
Admiral

Posts: 2711
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio USA

saber964 wrote:
Theemile wrote:
Perhaps we should look at what happened in "Shadow of Saganami" - Terekhov, a senior Full Captain absconded with 12 ships (plus his own) from Adm. Khumalo's command and used them to send his own messages and invade a foreign power without orders to do so. Senior officers in the RMN (probably due to the long lead time of communications) are able to react on the spot to issues and contradict orders given to junior officers.

Of course, we can also assume that such behavior is subject to strigent review after the fact and court martial (depending on the outcome of the review) and is not considered the norm, but is expected from senior officers when necessary.



It was actually ten ships not twelve. Three Heavy Cruisers one Sag-C, two Star Knight, three Light Cruisers one Avalon, one Apollo, one Courageous(?)class and four destroyers two Javelin class two unk class.


You forgot 3. The Volcano ammo ship, and 2 DB boats (actually, one was the repair shop Ericson) used to send the warning to Spindle and Lynx. So a total of 12 ships other than the Hexapuma. I guess we could call it 14 including the private ship Copenhagen.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just about 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
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by kenl511   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:55 pm

kenl511
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 6:01 am

cthia wrote:The politics of commandeering.

In my day, to "short-stop" was to "head-off" something or someone...

"Son, go and short-stop your father before he leaves for the beach and send him my way."

"Yes, mom."

I suppose in the manner it is meant in this discussion is simply "commandeering." I can put my memory on an incident but not my finger, so if anyone'll be so kind as to help. Some officer commandeered something of someone else's fleet train for their own duty. It is rather interesting to ponder the rules for this. When can an officer tell another that he's requisitioning some or all of his forces and or ammo? This seems as if it could become a bag of snakes. Does the commandeerer have to be of higher rank than the commandeered?

Odds would certainly have it that Honor would almost certainly be outranked, yet odds would also have it that she would also most likely be the one who is bare-ass and deeply naked in a hornet's nest and in need of the firepower. And at what point would it have become insane to commandeer Honor's ship?

Take the Basilisk System, if some wholeass of a Captain or Admiral had come hypering into the system wanting to commandeer Fearless but not have been willing to believe Honor's sixth sense, could she have rejected his "friendly take-over?"

Think of someone like Pavel Young or Elvis Santino whom—if they had outranked her at the time—commandeering Eighth Fleet? Admirals can simply commandeer and transfer flags. Can you imagine an Elvis Santino of an Admiral commandeering Eighth Fleet for something Honor feels is quintessential "Santino-stupid" and is likely going to cost her her fleet?

What are the rules, the politics?

I suppose this doesn't come up in today's navy, since communication circumnavigates the globe. (Unless communication has been neutralized planet-wide?) But in the Honorverse...


Can the Police Commandeer Your Car?

http://www.slate.com/id/2118263/ Yo, hand over that Miata

A pilot from central Kansas almost died last Friday after being asked by the local sheriff to help out with a manhunt. He had just located the suspect from his Cessna 150 airplane when a gunshot fired from below hit him in the forehead. The pilot (who somehow managed to avoid serious injury) has told police, "You need me again, you call me." Could he have refused to help the cops or to let them use his vehicle?

It depends on the local laws, but in many places the answer would be no. Many states and cities have laws on the books that make it a misdemeanor offense to refuse aid to a police officer. And legal precedents suggest that the obligation to help out with an arrest extends to giving cops the use of your plane, your car, or anything else that might come in handy.
Policemen used to commandeer cars more often. As recently as 40 years ago, New York City cops on foot would routinely flag down taxis when they needed to bring arrested criminals back to the station house.


In the 1920s, a New York cop hopped on the running board of a yellow taxi and demanded that its driver chase another car. The cabbie took off, but another car cut in front of him, and he was killed in the crash. A legal battle ensued over the extent of the obligation to aid a police officer and over the question of whether the cabbie's widow deserved payment under workers'-compensation law.

The New York state court referred to English common law in its discussion of the case. At least as far back as the 13th century, the "hue and cry" system compelled private citizens to join in the pursuit of a criminal, and the Statute of Winchester from 1285 even requires that every man keep appropriate instruments on hand, in case he's called to action. Among the tools listed are "a Breastplate of Iron, a Sword, a Knife, and a Horse."

The court ruled that the taxi was analogous to the horse mentioned in the Statute of Winchester: "The horse has yielded to the motorcar as an instrument of pursuit and flight. … We may be sure that the man who failed to use his horse … would have had to answer to the King." Courts in other states with similar laws have often cited this decision.

Another important case involved a store-owner in Alabama who, in the 1890s, refused to help a police officer make an arrest because he feared for his life. The court ruled that a citizen cannot refuse to aid a police officer simply because the request involves some form of danger: "The fact that there is danger involved is the very thing which calls for and makes obedience a duty." Provided that the police officer has not made a reckless or unreasonable request for aid, a citizen must comply.

What happens if you refuse to help the cops, and you live in a state with one of these laws on the books? You'll probably have to pay a fine.
Anti-commandeering :lol:
Although the anti-commandeering doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court to protect state sovereignty from federal overreach, nothing prohibits flipping the doctrine in the opposite direction to protect federal sovereignty from state overreach. Federalism preserves a balance of power between two sovereigns.


During WWII One of the Lend Lease routes ran through Alaska. Combat and Transport aircraft flying from Nome to Provediniya. When the Japanese invaded Attu and Kiska, General Buckner (the General commanding the Alaska Defense Command, Pity the man, a fighting General in the worst political command of any, fighting on American soil with the local civilian government looking over his shoulder and second guessing him.) Short stopped everything in Alaska. Including supplies for units he disapproved of their existence.
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by cthia   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:04 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8159
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

saber964 wrote:
Theemile wrote:
Perhaps we should look at what happened in "Shadow of Saganami" - Terekhov, a senior Full Captain absconded with 12 ships (plus his own) from Adm. Khumalo's command and used them to send his own messages and invade a foreign power without orders to do so. Senior officers in the RMN (probably due to the long lead time of communications) are able to react on the spot to issues and contradict orders given to junior officers.

Of course, we can also assume that such behavior is subject to strigent review after the fact and court martial (depending on the outcome of the review) and is not considered the norm, but is expected from senior officers when necessary.



It was actually ten ships not twelve. Three Heavy Cruisers one Sag-C, two Star Knight, three Light Cruisers one Avalon, one Apollo, one Courageous(?)class and four destroyers two Javelin class two unk class.
Theemile wrote:You forgot 3. The Volcano ammo ship, and 2 DB boats (actually, one was the repair shop Ericson) used to send the warning to Spindle and Lynx. So a total of 12 ships other than the Hexapuma. I guess we could call it 14 including the private ship Copenhagen.

Whatever the actual count, that was some firepower Terekov made off with. Surely that was a mutual agreement? Terevov didn't have the rank to simply flat out take them. Although I can conceive of certain missions where lower ranked officers would take precedence over a higher rank. Like Harrington's mission with Eighth Fleet. I imagine there were some incompetent Admirals on station somewhere out there when Eighth Fleet sailed who may not have gotten the memo. A slaxadaisical Santino who never reads any of his mail or does any of his paperwork suddenly wanting to short-stop Eighth Fleet because he wants to go do something "Santino stupid."

I suppose part of the strategy for posting officers way out in the boonies, like the Basilisk System, is because it is so far away from any possible ignition point that they won't be optimally positioned to short-stop or get in the way of any likely ships or ordnance. The potential for a disaster certainly seems possible. And to think an officer like Harrington could be court-martialed for refusing to comply.

Thanks for the revelation Theemile. Still haven't read SoS. Pity poor crying shame, I know. Working hard (or hardly working LOL) towards it though.

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: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by kzt   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:29 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8807
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

cthia wrote:Whatever the actual count, that was some firepower Terekov made off with. Surely that was a mutual agreement? Terevov didn't have the rank to simply flat out take them. Although I can conceive of certain missions where lower ranked officers would take precedence over a higher rank. Like Harrington's mission with Eighth Fleet. I imagine there were some incompetent Admirals on station somewhere out there when Eighth Fleet sailed who may not have gotten the memo. A slaxadaisical Santino who never reads any of his mail or does any of his paperwork suddenly wanting to short-stop Eighth Fleet because he wants to go do something "Santino stupid."

The concept is pretty much that the senior battalion commander in Iraq in say 2007 to order all the battalion and company commanders to meet him 10 miles from the Iran border with their entire unit. Somehow I suspect that many of them might find better things to do with their time. And there are likely to be few Brigade and Division COs who might want a word with him.

But whatever.
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by Theemile   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:46 pm

Theemile
Admiral

Posts: 2711
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio USA

cthia wrote:Whatever the actual count, that was some firepower Terekov made off with. Surely that was a mutual agreement? Terevov didn't have the rank to simply flat out take them. Although I can conceive of certain missions where lower ranked officers would take precedence over a higher rank. Like Harrington's mission with Eighth Fleet. I imagine there were some incompetent Admirals on station somewhere out there when Eighth Fleet sailed who may not have gotten the memo. A slaxadaisical Santino who never reads any of his mail or does any of his paperwork suddenly wanting to short-stop Eighth Fleet because he wants to go do something "Santino stupid."

I suppose part of the strategy for posting officers way out in the boonies, like the Basilisk System, is because it is so far away from any possible ignition point that they won't be optimally positioned to short-stop or get in the way of any likely ships or ordnance. The potential for a disaster certainly seems possible. And to think an officer like Harrington could be court-martialed for refusing to comply.

Thanks for the revelation Theemile. Still haven't read SoS. Pity poor crying shame, I know. Working hard (or hardly working LOL) towards it though.


All the other ship commanders were junior to Terekhov, so technically they had to obey his orders, though one CA Captain did not agree with Terekov's plans, and Terekhov had her removed for the duration of the operation. She relinquished command under protest, and promised to contest his actions and attempt to bring him up on charges, which Terekhov agreed was her right to do so - after the dust settled. In the mean time she was released and sent back to Spindle (?) On the Ericson repair ship, and her Exec assumed command.

Seeing how EVERY superior signed off on his decisions and he was awarded and promoted without a whisper of a review, a courtmartial, or rebuke of overstepping his command authority, I would assume such actions are expected out of senior officers in extreme situations.

Giving more thought to it, we saw a similiar situation in HAE, where High ADM. Mathews and the Manty Admiral in Grayson decide to grab the system pickets of 1/2 a dozen systems to grab enough firepower to kick the Peeps out of a recently lost system. In this case, they were pulling all the SDs out of these systems to create a force capable of being capable of overwhelming the peep force with light losses. If they didn't do this, they would have to wait 2+ additional weeks for a force to be released from Manticore to do the job. During that time, the Peeps could move on and attack another system, so they believed they had to react quickly.

Once again, the perogative of senior officers, placed in unexpected situations, forced to make critical decisions on the fly due to the length of the decision loop.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just about 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
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by Silverwall   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:11 pm

Silverwall
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:53 am

kzt wrote:
cthia wrote:Whatever the actual count, that was some firepower Terekov made off with. Surely that was a mutual agreement? Terevov didn't have the rank to simply flat out take them. Although I can conceive of certain missions where lower ranked officers would take precedence over a higher rank. Like Harrington's mission with Eighth Fleet. I imagine there were some incompetent Admirals on station somewhere out there when Eighth Fleet sailed who may not have gotten the memo. A slaxadaisical Santino who never reads any of his mail or does any of his paperwork suddenly wanting to short-stop Eighth Fleet because he wants to go do something "Santino stupid."

The concept is pretty much that the senior battalion commander in Iraq in say 2007 to order all the battalion and company commanders to meet him 10 miles from the Iran border with their entire unit. Somehow I suspect that many of them might find better things to do with their time. And there are likely to be few Brigade and Division COs who might want a word with him.

But whatever.


This is not a good analogy as the communications loop is so radically different. In the Iraq case a response from central command can be expected in hours, in the Honorverse situation a 2 WEEK turnaround of information is quick and in the examples here we are probably looking at closer to 4-6 weeks if I remember correctly. Better analogies would be various actions in the Napoleonic period where the marshals of france had to grab up local forces to oppose the actions of Wellington in Spain. There was no way they could even get a response from Madrid let alone from Napoleon in Paris.

Any situation where there is a weeks long time delay requires a successful army/navy to have ways of local commanders "commondeering" forces to handle local issues that have just presented themselves. Naturally after the immediate crisis they have to be able to justify thier actions to the powers that be.
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by kzt   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:12 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8807
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

The RMN must be strange place if random officer with who have them by date of rank alone of can assign missions to units that are not in their chain of command.

I remember when one of the other battery commanders told the S3 to go pound sand, he works for the CO. So if he wasn't relaying an order from the LTC then he had better things to do. And he was with in his rights to do that.
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by Theemile   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:16 pm

Theemile
Admiral

Posts: 2711
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio USA

kzt wrote:The RMN must be strange place if random officer with who have them by date of rank alone of can assign missions to units that are not in their chain of command.

I remember when one of the other battery commanders told the S3 to go pound sand, he works for the CO. So if he wasn't relaying an order from the LTC then he had better things to do. And he was with in his rights to do that.


Both instances happened in a time of war and have extenuating circumstances. I doubt such behavior is normal or common, especially in times of peace.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just about 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
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by Fireflair   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:45 pm

Fireflair
Captain of the List

Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:23 pm

It's commented about in several ways through out the series. The captain of a ship/commander of a squadron/etc is expected to use their best judgment and initiative, at all times. The communications loops are just two long and the RMN has a strong tradition of not only trusting it's officers to make the right call on the scene, but expecting them to do so.

Given that sort of mindset shortstopping forces might not be quite so ridiculous sounding. Probably not a common occurrence, but still quite probable, given the changing winds of war. No point in going to X station if it's been blown up or there's a bigger problem elsewhere. Intelligence updates could incentivize a CO to take action with what he can get his hands on. As we saw SoS.

Honor's actions in OBS are a micro-example of this. It's just her ship she runs off with, chasing Sirius. She was 'just' a wormhole transit away from home but judged that taking Sirius down was the better idea.
Top

Return to Honorverse