So....imagine you are Admiral Parnell's staff officer

cthia wrote:But you do take it into consideration. That's exactly why Eloise was able to dangle the carrot of an alliance under Beth's nose. So that her navy could "save the rest of those god-awful missiles" for a misbehaving gorilla, or for anyone else out there for that matter.

It's at least a subconscious consideration. You still must be able to protect your Home System after a war, or someone may smell death from a dying or injured carcass like a vulture flying overhead.

Much like a gorilla smelling the blood pouring out of your deep wounds from Oyster Bay.

That was the Apollo-equipped RMN in 1921. I also think the RHN could hold its own against the SLN at the time. I put the divider at the moment those navies got a sufficient number of their SD(P)s and MDMs: RMN and GSN in 1915, RHN in 1919 and IAN sometime in 1921. If you can hit your enemy from well outside its range, it can't fight you back. At one point in the later books, someone in the GSN (don't remember who) emits the opinion that the Yeltsin Star's System could defend itself against 1000 SDs -- and I suspect those were their own SD(P)s.

That was not the case for the the PRN or RHN in 1915 at the end of the first war or at any point before. Even at its peak, which probably happened just before Operation Buttercup in 1914, the PRN could not successfully defend against the SLN if the SLN decided to invade the Haven system. Sure, if it massed 700 of its SDs there, it would cause horrendous losses to the SLN -- I'm sure the SLN would first come with 400 SDs armed with a lot of arrogance and then see them all annihilated. The second assault would capture Nouveau Paris.

So I reiterate my point: until you have hundreds of thousands of system-defence pods with MDMs and a dozen squadrons of SD(P)s, your plan is to not provoke the SL to the point it would want to capture your home system. Haven could have got a way with a lot more because it would take at least a quarter of the Battle Fleet to do that. But it could not win after the first SLN SD got destroyed.

Brigade XO wrote:My impression on the contriving of the uprising on Medusa was to provide an excuse for the RHN fleet to come in (having been alerted by the Q ship etc) and occupy the orbitals.
Without going back and rereading, it wasn't clear that Haven was immediatly going to occupy the terminus. More like they were going to take over the system as a Protectorate and then force a negotiated sharing of the terminus.

This would have to be viewed from the perspective of grabbing the system as OFS has been doing for centuries and then getting some assistance from the SL as a party helping with the arbitration of operation of the terminus (for a fee).
Haven was very carefully trying NOT to start a war with Manticore at that point. On the other hand, having a "legitimate" right to the terminus, it's use and a portion of it's fees, would enhance Haven's cash flow and improve shipping times. That terminus is presented as having practical benfits in shortening travel time between the SL and the Silesia area (probably relative distance closer to parts of Silesia than the Gegor and parts of RH than Trevor's Star. So there is money and economic advantage. It also eliminates the next closes point Manticore could use against Haven when war eventualy comes because Haven could ligitimatly have forces very close by to interdicdt the terminus once Haven decides to take on Manticore.

For Haven to have immediatly posted a military force on the Basilisk teminus would have strained the credibility of even the SL as to the "humanitarian" responce to the Medusa uprising and quite possibly kicked off the Haven-Manticore war right away. What would a RHN squadron/etc have done when RMN warships started comming through to Basilisk terminus once news had been transmitted to Manticore? Shooting them out-of-hand as they came through? Denied them moving into the Basilisk System- and then enforced that how- again, opening fire?
Haven didn't- that we know of- have ANY warships posted in other places to react to Manticore taking an agressive stand against Haven taking effective possession of Medusa. They apparently were not ready to take on Manicore with open war, they wanted to chew away at the edges and improve the territorial holds.

That's probably what Have wanted at the time. The question is whether it would have worked.

Basilisk was, even though disputed in the government, a part of the Star Kingdom. If Haven invaded it, it could have caused a war. It might not and Haven was betting it wouldn't, but the RMN could have decided to fight back there and then. It could also decide to fortify its position on the Basilisk terminus so Haven wouldn't, thus keeping the option open to sending sorties out of it.

To borrow from our good friends who inspired us in PRN ville:

The emerging dialectic does not present an appropriate correlation of forces and means to achieve decisive success at the operational-strategic level with a first strike/decisive battle doctrine . We have a paper strength of 460 wallers, of which perhaps 90% can be serviceable for immediate operation after mobilization, versus 306 enemy wallers who will initially have around 75% of their fleet units capable of responding within the mobilization window (using some rough round numbers from modern forces here - if anyone has honorverse numbers on how much of a navy is actually capable of coming out after accounting for maintenance, training, personnel shuffling, planned drydock, running up and overhaul, etc...let me know). We can trust the SKM parliament to vacillate long enough to prevent substantial mobilization in the interim. So they can bring 230 wallers available while we have 424.

Their wallers are worth 1.3 of ours, making that really 300 waller equivalents, plus fortress systems. Already, sending the entire available battle fleet barely generates a 1.3:1 advantage in total. We may achieve local advantages as some our our comrades O plans call for, but eventually we will have to fight the majority of the manty fleet before they fully mobilize. Call it 400 of our remaining wallers versus 200 of theirs, equivalent to 260 of ours. Still only 1.5:1, a misleading ratio since their screen ships will enjoy numerical superiority as they aren’t busy ensuring fraternal solidarity.

That may be enough to win, though it far from guarantees it. Regardless, even if we assume the manties fight as if we are not existential threat, we may need to destroy 70+ units (91 PRN equivalent) before they break - which even if we kill them at a ratio corresponding to our force advantage means losing over 60 of our own wallers. If we need to finish this in manticore, we can assume they will fight with significant desperation and that we will need to destroy the vast majority of their fleet in order to get them to strike. Which now means losing just short of two hundred of our own wallers.

Neither of these outcomes can be replaced within the next decade (it will, of course turn out losses like that can be replaced, but only after space Napoleonics start to shift into space WWII, Parnell and crew can’t know they’re sitting on the brink of a paradigm shattering industrial expansion...he' sitting on a PRH that is virtually broke and whose armament program had gotten him 460. No way to know that by 1915 the nation will be able to muster 700 SDs despite a decade of war )

GloriousRuse wrote:To borrow from our good friends who inspired us in PRN ville:

The emerging dialectic does not present an appropriate correlation of forces and means to achieve decisive success at the operational-strategic level with a first strike/decisive battle doctrine . We have a paper strength of 460 wallers, of which perhaps 90% can be serviceable for immediate operation after mobilization, versus 306 enemy wallers who will initially have around 75% of their fleet units capable of responding within the mobilization window (using some rough round numbers from modern forces here - if anyone has honorverse numbers on how much of a navy is actually capable of coming out after accounting for maintenance, training, personnel shuffling, planned drydock, running up and overhaul, etc...let me know). We can trust the SKM parliament to vacillate long enough to prevent substantial mobilization in the interim. So they can bring 230 wallers available while we have 424.

Their wallers are worth 1.3 of ours, making that really 300 waller equivalents, plus fortress systems. Already, sending the entire available battle fleet barely generates a 1.3:1 advantage in total. We may achieve local advantages as some our our comrades O plans call for, but eventually we will have to fight the majority of the manty fleet before they fully mobilize. Call it 400 of our remaining wallers versus 200 of theirs, equivalent to 260 of ours. Still only 1.5:1, a misleading ratio since their screen ships will enjoy numerical superiority as they aren’t busy ensuring fraternal solidarity.

That may be enough to win, though it far from guarantees it. Regardless, even if we assume the manties fight as if we are not existential threat, we may need to destroy 70+ units (91 PRN equivalent) before they break - which even if we kill them at a ratio corresponding to our force advantage means losing over 60 of our own wallers. If we need to finish this in manticore, we can assume they will fight with significant desperation and that we will need to destroy the vast majority of their fleet in order to get them to strike. Which now means losing just short of two hundred of our own wallers.

Neither of these outcomes can be replaced within the next decade (it will, of course turn out losses like that can be replaced, but only after space Napoleonics start to shift into space WWII, Parnell and crew can’t know they’re sitting on the brink of a paradigm shattering industrial expansion...he' sitting on a PRH that is virtually broke and whose armament program had gotten him 460. No way to know that by 1915 the nation will be able to muster 700 SDs despite a decade of war )

That's a good analysis. It might explain why Parnell decided not to attack Manticore directly but chip at the edges (Basilisk) while at the same time providing a source of income for the broke PRH.

But I find it hopelessly optimistic. I don't see any reason why a third of the RMN would not fight if the PRN invades the Manticore Binary System. Aside of units that aren't armed or are down for maintenance, all RMN forces in the system would mobilise. So his calculation shouldn't be against ~200 RMN SD and DN, but against 330. (Note: we're using 1905 numbers; in 1901 it would have been fewer but we don't have Haven numbers for the same year)

As others have pointed out, there's no coming back for the RMN from a defeat in Manticore. If the Queen surrenders, her ships are ordered to stand down. Those that choose not to could perform harassing "navy in exile" operations like we discussed for the other systems Haven occupied, but there are very few ports that can service a full up SD. An RMN-in-exile would decline sharply in combat effectiveness while Haven absorbed the Manticore tech and economic might.

So Parnell had to expect a fight to the last. If he couldn't be very certain he'd win, the PRH itself would be doomed. Maybe your analysis is that the best case scenario wouldn't be enough.

d-eye wrote:in 1900 while at peace would have been the best time to try it.

Yes, but it's pointless. You need to bring and can expect to lose as much firepower and ships in taking the Junction as you would need to take Manticore. And you know what you get if you take Mancticore? The Junction.

The reverse isn't true.

Essentially, the 200 is assuming that a tricky O-plan managed to knock off the others before the main event. As to the mobilization rates, right now the USN manages to keep 3/11 carrier groups deployed, 3/11 ready-ish, 3/11 in training "unready" (yes, they could go to sea, but it requires a longer run up time or sacrificing significant capability), and the other two in some sort of long term refit - though there may be others in dock in the short term for refit. E.g., a few years ago, a carrier had to spend near six weeks in dock because of a colossal foul up with the new supposedly superior waste disposal systems.

Hence a real "max mob" of 90% on short notice for the PRN. If the manties don't match the PRH's mobilization schedule, the odds that their unready/long term refit pool is up to speed by the time the PRN decides to kick down the door is poor, hence 75% mobilization (being generous, also it makes easy math). They might go to 90% actually capable of rolling out, but the last 15% are going to have...issues.

As to why "strike at 30%." Mostly pulled from ground combat studies, so any naval historian is free to jump in...basically, units that lose 30% of their strength start to fall apart and grow way less aggressive, and by 50% it's anyone's guess if they'll keep fighting. There are a few historical examples on the east front of units fighting down to 10% or less and continuing to resist...but those were in situations of desperation we cannot really conceive today. Surrounded SS units, Russians trapped in basements, that sort of thing. I'm guessing based on how Napoleonic naval engagements went, a fleet that has lost 30% of its strength is also badly battered and is basically hanging on - whether they'll continue to commit, or their officers will continue to commit for a poor prize is quite questionable. After all, the British only actually destroyed 2/3rds of the French fleet at Trafalgar and no one has any question that the fleet had now ceased to exist.

GloriousRuse wrote:Hence a real "max mob" of 90% on short notice for the PRN. If the manties don't match the PRH's mobilization schedule, the odds that their unready/long term refit pool is up to speed by the time the PRN decides to kick down the door is poor, hence 75% mobilization (being generous, also it makes easy math). They might go to 90% actually capable of rolling out, but the last 15% are going to have...issues.

Ok, got it. A surprise attack is going to find a non-negligible portion of the fleet laid up or in other stages of un-ready. But could that be any worse than the first Battle of Manticore, the Volsung Invasion, where they sent out two battlecruisers out with a skeleton crew and no missiles? Any SD you can get out into space is more target for enemy missiles, soaking up damage that would otherwise fall on fighting units. At the very least the majority of its PD laser clusters should be working.

This is "At All Costs". If you lose the fight, you lose all the ships that didn't fight anyway.

As to why "strike at 30%." Mostly pulled from ground combat studies, so any naval historian is free to jump in...basically, units that lose 30% of their strength start to fall apart and grow way less aggressive, and by 50% it's anyone's guess if they'll keep fighting. There are a few historical examples on the east front of units fighting down to 10% or less and continuing to resist...but those were in situations of desperation we cannot really conceive today. Surrounded SS units, Russians trapped in basements, that sort of thing. I'm guessing based on how Napoleonic naval engagements went, a fleet that has lost 30% of its strength is also badly battered and is basically hanging on - whether they'll continue to commit, or their officers will continue to commit for a poor prize is quite questionable. After all, the British only actually destroyed 2/3rds of the French fleet at Trafalgar and no one has any question that the fleet had now ceased to exist.

That makes sense... only so long as the other side wasn't reduced to comparable numbers. Morale may be in the drain, but so should the enemy's. Unless they know something you don't, like reinforcements coming.

You're probably right that the fighting would last only until 30 to 50% of the units got disabled and removed from the battle. After that, stalemate. The aggressors are likely to withdraw than to suffer further losses. This favours the defenders in the immediate aftermath, since they can capture the aggressors' ships and databases and their repair facilities are closer by (if they were successfully defended). In the long run, a stalemate benefits the aggressor since their territory and infra weren't shot up and the populace scared.

What happened at the actual battle at all costs wasn't a stalemate.

GloriousRuse wrote:Hence a real "max mob" of 90% on short notice for the PRN. If the manties don't match the PRH's mobilization schedule, the odds that their unready/long term refit pool is up to speed by the time the PRN decides to kick down the door is poor, hence 75% mobilization (being generous, also it makes easy math). They might go to 90% actually capable of rolling out, but the last 15% are going to have...issues.

RMN doctrine was 5% of the Fleet was normally under maintenance, and could not exceed 15% at any time. PRN doctrine favored Depot maintenance, so 15-20% of their fleet was normally under maintenance- however they also built forward bases to maintain and rearm as close to the front as possible. This is also seen in endurance, RMN ships usually had 25-33% more endurance and larger magazines.

The PRN was not built for slugging matches, their primary theory was called "Win on the first salvo". It was literally a mob theory of overwhelming an opponent quickly so they couldn't react via the mass of numbers, or special operations. They had 2 classes of Special operations q-ships, and they were used multiple times to take over governments, along with assinations, and buying off portions of local governments.

Re: what causes striking/withdrawing/why 30%. The issue with routs is that they aren’t really a logical command decision most times. It’s a matter of wills breaking; either that of the commander or of his forces. It isn’t that they say “ah, we’ve crossed the preplanned withdrawal point at .7%, let us consider the broader tactical scenario and make an informed decision.”

They are, rather, human affairs. Dead and wounded leaders, people panicking, people making what seems to be the right decision at the time, or at least an excusable one. It’s one thing to valiantly declare that you are in the tradition of Sagami when most of your port side compartments are venting into space and half your weapons are gone after an initial volley...it’s entirely another to do it when you’ve watched half your squadron die and the endless, mind numbing stress of it all is crashing on you as ships die in numbers you never imagined. Oh, it seemed fair to lose a ship here and there, even a bit of the ole furor and glory that there would be some losses. But when a proud Waller squadron is suddenly shattered and the ship and crew that have been your life and home are bleeding out and the captain is screaming because her arm is off at the elbow while the XO is sitting catatonic in the corner? Maybe you don’t really give a shit what some admirals tactical display says.

———

Re: maintenance. Hmm. So 5% on full maintenance long work, probably double that for shorter projects in the multi day to a few week range (such as the earlier mentioned BCs sans missiles), a handful of ships working up, and whatever proportion have new or incomplete crews. Seems like the COFMs is shifting more and more to the point where winning a decisive battle with the manties means crippling the PRN.

GloriousRuse wrote:Re: maintenance. Hmm. So 5% on full maintenance long work, probably double that for shorter projects in the multi day to a few week range (such as the earlier mentioned BCs sans missiles), a handful of ships working up, and whatever proportion have new or incomplete crews. Seems like the COFMs is shifting more and more to the point where winning a decisive battle with the manties means crippling the PRN.

The 5% makes me wonder what their ship life-cycle is. That means you get into a major maintenance overhaul once every 20 years. Or you throw away the vessels in a decade or so.