Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests

SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!
Post by tlb   » Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:48 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3854
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Daryl wrote:The RN of the early to mid 20th century, did many things well, but stuffed up vital small things like flash prevention, and insufficient deck armour on battle cruisers. As was demonstrated at Jutland, and a generation later with the Hood.

Part of the problem at Jutland was that the flash prevention measures were being bypassed in Beatty's ships to increase rate of fire (except for the flagship) as I understand.
Top
Re: SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!
Post by Loren Pechtel   » Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:37 pm

Loren Pechtel
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:24 pm

Theemile wrote:Any amature Historian can go on for hours listing techs that matured during or just after a long peer war - so why wouldn't it be expected in a future one?


I think the MAlign expected technologies to mature--they expected Haven to be a serious threat to the SLN. The problem is they didn't realize weapons would undergo a phase change--first, from energy weapons to missiles, and then from single drive missiles to multi-drive missiles. Both of these advances utterly changed warfare rather than simply being the maturing of existing technologies.
Top
Re: SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!
Post by kzt   » Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:54 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11337
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Loren Pechtel wrote:
Theemile wrote:Any amature Historian can go on for hours listing techs that matured during or just after a long peer war - so why wouldn't it be expected in a future one?


I think the MAlign expected technologies to mature--they expected Haven to be a serious threat to the SLN. The problem is they didn't realize weapons would undergo a phase change--first, from energy weapons to missiles, and then from single drive missiles to multi-drive missiles. Both of these advances utterly changed warfare rather than simply being the maturing of existing technologies.

Missiles were obviously on the march by 1880. And salvo density was obviously a solution the defense penetration. Energy range fights were pretty clearly not going to be the sole way to decisively win in a decade or two.
Top
Re: SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!
Post by Theemile   » Wed Jan 05, 2022 9:25 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5060
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

Jonathan_S wrote:
Theemile wrote: Yes, the HMS Captain really spelled the end of the classic Ship-of the Line in 1858, but by the end of the ACW 7 years later, everyone knew such ships were relics.
Did you mean HMS Warrior (1860)? Because HMS Captain (1869) postdates the ACW though she was one of the earliest turret ships intended to be properly ocean going -- unfortunately her stability and freeboard were rather lacking and she sank in a storm less than 6 months after being commissioned. (Some of the USN Monitors did manage to make it across the Atlantic, but usually partly under tow and weren't really designed to be fully ocean going warships)

HMS Warrior on the other hand was the first major ironclad - a steam powered (but also sail carrying) armored frigate capable to defeating any wooden ship of the line in the world when she launched.


Also note that some of the armored self-propelled gun batteries of the Crimean War of a decade before the ACW were comparable to many of that later war's ironclads. They just didn't get much chance to go up against wooden warships and primary had to face off against shore fortifications so you didn't get the first fight between iron clads until the ACW, nor a direct showdown between (unarmored) steam frigates and iron clads until CSS Virginia (nee USS Merrimack) came out to try to drive off the Union blockage of Hampton Roads. So the ACW gave the first major ship to ship combat use of armored ships - but they were neither the first nor the most technologically advanced such ships.


And then shortly after the end of the ACW the Battle of Lissa (1866) showed that maybe ships of the wall weren't quite as obsolete as expected against ironclads; at least not yet. The Austrian unarmored ship of the line SMS Kaiser at various times in the battle faced off against 4 of the 12 Italian armored ships (included one armored turret ship). Now the Austrians did have 7 armored ships of their own, and Kaiser did have a steam engine and screw propulsion to augment the sails; which help in maneuverability but still she survived the battle as part of the victorious Austrian force despite ramming attacks and gunfire from armored Italian ships, on and off, throughout the battle. And she wasn't alone, the other unarmored Austrian warships also held up surprisingly well in close combat with Italian ironclads and inflicted damage despite the latter's armor.


Still, enough nitpicking the naval ironclad side. Armored ships were the way of the future for at least most of the next century; and conflicts (and arms races driven by fear of conflict) did drive forward its development.


Yes, I meant HMS Warrior, and got the 2 swapped in my head. Just another example of amature Historians discussing the major points - professionals should have learned the same lessons.

And the rest follows my points- technologies might have existed prior to a major conflict, but the long peer conflicts have a habit of condensing, advancing, and maturing existing technologies, and maturing the tactics using them. I would also call the Crimean wars a long peer - enough blood and treasure of multiple empires was poured into them to count, and the mentioned Gun Batteries is a good example of maturing technologies.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just 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: SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Wed Jan 05, 2022 1:28 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4105
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

tlb wrote:If it had not been for the Malign, this could have been a fair comparison. Of course, if it had not been for the Malign, the League and the Grand Alliance might not have come to blows. In particular, Byng and Crandall would not have left Sol.


They may never have got the promotion to flag rank. Or, if they somehow achieved such lofty status, they may have been pushed to a desk job or an SLNS Francis Mueller.

Anyway, if not for the MAlign's interference, I expect the SLN would have noticed the numbers from Operation Buttercup. They'd have seen the SD(P) design and may have constructed one prototype by 1919. So when the Second Manticore-Haven war started and the missile numbers crept up again, and more importantly, the potential Peeps had access to SD(P)s and MDMs of their own, the SLN would have embarked on a crash construction of its own based on that prototype. They may not have perfected an MDM, but they'd have their own Cataphract without MAlign assistance. An SLN SD(P) firing pods of Cataphract-equivalents would be quite interesting.

Even if the war had started in 1921 due to other circumstances anyway (*), the the SLN Admiralty would have been much better informed about the RMN and RHN capabilities. They'd be far less inclined to escalate the effort at that point in time. They knew their own SD(P) fleet would be within a year of commissioning, so they'd have pushed things out, using diplomacy to buy time.

On the other hand, the GA would know their window of opportunity was much narrower. Would they have gone for broke and attack those shipyards to catch the SLN SD(P)s in their build slips?

(*) what other circumstances? Well, even without the MAlign, the OFS would have seen the Talbott Quadrant annexation as encroaching on their territory and might have launched some operations of their own. Provoke an incident where a Solarian-flagged freighter gets seized and the SLN would have an excuse to come to Spindle to demand someone's head.
Top
Re: SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!
Post by kzt   » Wed Jan 05, 2022 3:26 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11337
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

A contrary view: Look at the list of who were the observers in the Russo-Japanese war, consider what they saw, and consider what changes their organization took in response to what they learned.

For example, Major General Arthur MacArthur Jr., USA. Captain John Pershing, USA, LTG William Gustavus Nicholson, British Army, Captain Max Hoffmann, IGA and General Oscar de Négrier, French Army.

What they saw was entrenchments, belt-fed machineguns, barbed wire, massive artillery, all producing massive casualties.

What their organization learned from this can be clearly seen by how the BA, IGA and FA were shocked and horrified by the the lethality of belt-fed machineguns, and how rapidly entrenchments and barbed wire locked the front, and everyone ran out of artillery ammunition a few months into the war.
Top
Re: SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Thu Jan 06, 2022 7:34 am

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4105
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

kzt wrote:What they saw was entrenchments, belt-fed machineguns, barbed wire, massive artillery, all producing massive casualties.

What their organization learned from this can be clearly seen by how the BA, IGA and FA were shocked and horrified by the the lethality of belt-fed machineguns, and how rapidly entrenchments and barbed wire locked the front, and everyone ran out of artillery ammunition a few months into the war.


I'm not as well-versed in military history as some others here, so can I ask to take this argument to the next logical step and spell out the conclusion? IIRC from History classes, WW1 was an entrenched and locked war, with no side gaining advantage once they dug in, but that changed in WW2 with tanks, the Blitzkrieg.
Top
Re: SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!
Post by tlb   » Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:27 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3854
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

kzt wrote:What they saw was entrenchments, belt-fed machineguns, barbed wire, massive artillery, all producing massive casualties.

What their organization learned from this can be clearly seen by how the BA, IGA and FA were shocked and horrified by the the lethality of belt-fed machineguns, and how rapidly entrenchments and barbed wire locked the front, and everyone ran out of artillery ammunition a few months into the war.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I'm not as well-versed in military history as some others here, so can I ask to take this argument to the next logical step and spell out the conclusion? IIRC from History classes, WW1 was an entrenched and locked war, with no side gaining advantage once they dug in, but that changed in WW2 with tanks, the Blitzkrieg.

In the pre-tank ages, the crucial factor was the number of men each side had for an area: the western front locked into trenches from Switzerland to the sea, but the eastern front remained a war of maneuver. The difference is between a battle with open areas to allow movement and a siege. Most of the American Civil War saw battles of maneuver (unless someone was foolish enough to try a frontal assault), until massive forces gathered around Richmond and Petersburg near the end. Even then Sherman was almost all maneuver.

The lines were finally broken in WW1 with new tactics and one side gaining a massive increase in men.
Top
Re: SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!
Post by Theemile   » Thu Jan 06, 2022 2:11 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5060
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

tlb wrote:
kzt wrote:What they saw was entrenchments, belt-fed machineguns, barbed wire, massive artillery, all producing massive casualties.

What their organization learned from this can be clearly seen by how the BA, IGA and FA were shocked and horrified by the the lethality of belt-fed machineguns, and how rapidly entrenchments and barbed wire locked the front, and everyone ran out of artillery ammunition a few months into the war.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I'm not as well-versed in military history as some others here, so can I ask to take this argument to the next logical step and spell out the conclusion? IIRC from History classes, WW1 was an entrenched and locked war, with no side gaining advantage once they dug in, but that changed in WW2 with tanks, the Blitzkrieg.

In the pre-tank ages, the crucial factor was the number of men each side had for an area: the western front locked into trenches from Switzerland to the sea, but the eastern front remained a war of maneuver. The difference is between a battle with open areas to allow movement and a siege. Most of the American Civil War saw battles of maneuver (unless someone was foolish enough to try a frontal assault), until massive forces gathered around Richmond and Petersburg near the end. Even then Sherman was almost all maneuver.

The lines were finally broken in WW1 with new tactics and one side gaining a massive increase in men.


But other ACW battles, such as Vicksberg, showed glimpses, (and the horrors) of trench warfare. When maneuver warfare stopped, things got bloody. We even saw the massive explosive charges used to break the trench stalemate, as was repeated in WW1.

The Gattling Gun was developed in the last days of the ACW, and other automatic firing guns were developed and used by both sides throughout, and quickly showed what such weapons could do to troops on open ground. (but the Ord. department hated such devices for the amount (and cost) of ammo used). The Minie Ball cartridge changed the average rifleman, allowing them to file 10+ rounds a minute ACCCURATELY, at distances over 200 yards (something known, but not accounted for at the beginning of the war, where Napoleonic musket tactics were still used.

A little known fact, the US Army had a BREECH loading rifle in mass use starting in 1819 - the Hall rifle. Made at Harper's Ferry Arsenals (yes, that one). Th Army used a 38 man infantry company to test the guns, versus an army smoothbore musket and a Muzzle loading riffle. In one minute of firing at 100 yard targets, the Halls fired ~145% as many rounds a when firing muskets (~260% that of rifles), and hit 36% of their targets, compared to 25% of the muskets and 33% on the muzzle loading Rifles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1819_Hall_rifle

These were given to Dragoons and Auxiliary troops. Most were worn out and retired before the ACW, but some later models served at the beginning of conflict. The US Army knew the advantages (and perils) of high volume gunfire well previous to the ACW. Despite the advantages, the guns were never given to mainline troops, only specialized skirmishers

But this proves kzt to be correct, the lessons of the Hall on the US Army were never taken to their main infantry force and lost 40 years later, even though the guns were still in auxiliary roles, while Napoleonic tactics still reigned on the battlefield - even though all the weapons used had outstripped the tactics of old.

The British had a similiar design invented a couple years earlier - it too had limited use and quickly fell out of use.
Last edited by Theemile on Thu Jan 06, 2022 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just 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: SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!
Post by Jonathan_S   » Thu Jan 06, 2022 3:09 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8269
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Theemile wrote:
But other ACW battles, such as Vicksberg, showed glimpses, (and the horrors) of trench warfare. When maneuver warfare stopped, things got bloody. We even saw the massive explosive charges used to break the trench stalemate, as was repeated in WW1.

The Gattling Gun was developed in the last days of the ACW, but quickly showed what such weapons could do to troops on open ground. The Minie Ball cartrigde changed the average rifleman, allowing them to file 10+ rounds a minute ACCCURATELY, at distances over 200 yards (something known, but not accounted for at the beginning of the war, where Napoleonic musket tactics were still used.

A little known fact, the US Army had a BREECH loading rifle in mass use starting in 1819 - the Hall rifle. Made at Harpor's Ferry Arsonal (yes, that one). Th Army used a 38 man infantry company to test the guns, versus an army smoothbore musket and a Muzzle loading riffle. In one minute of firing at 100 yard targets, the Halls fired ~145% as many rounds a when firing muskets (~260% that of rifles), and hit 36% of their targets, compared to 25% of the muskets and 33% on the muzzle loading Rifles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1819_Hall_rifle

These were given to Dragoons and Auxiliary troops. Most were worn out and retired before the ACW, but some later models served at the beginning of conflict. The US Army knew the advantages (and perils) of high volume gunfire well previous to the ACW. Despite the advantages, the guns were never given to mainline troops, only specialized skirmishers

But this proves kzt to be correct, the lessons of the Hall on the US Army were never taken to their main infantry force and lost 40 years later, even though the guns were still in auxiliary roles, while Napoleonic tactics still reigned on the battlefield - even though all the weapons used had outstripped the tactics of old.

The British had a similiar design invented a couple years earlier - it too had limited use and quickly fell out of use.

Though the ACW was in a ugly spot in the advancement of firepower. You're right that effective battle ranges had significantly increased. But the general infantry did not yet have sufficient rapid firepower to reliably stop infantry, or cavalry, charges by fire -- so they still needed to be concentrated into fairly tight formations lest a dispersed formation be overrun and destroyed in melee combat by a concentrated one.

The early Gatling guns simply were too large and had too significant a limit on their sustained rate of fire, to stand in for the later machine guns. Those didn't become really effective until after the inversion of smokeless powder allowed far longer operation before you'd start getting malfunctions and had to stop and seriously clean your weapon. And WWI's deadliness wasn't just machine guns but also quick firing artillery, which also wasn't a thing yet in the ACW.

So in the ACW you generally didn't have sufficient troops to prepare positions and then prevent the enemy force from maneuvering around its flanks (more WWI eastern front than the trench warfare of the narrower western front) so you usually had to maneuver and meet them in the field instead of from behind your prepared positions. But in the open field your guns, while deadly at several times longer range than smoothbore muskets were, did not yet have sufficient firepower to make massed formations less effective that dispersed ones. So you ended up with a lot of "Napoleonic tactics" fights, but now starting at even longer ranges thanks to Minie balls and rifled muskets, as those seemed to be the best of a bad lot of options.
Top

Return to Honorverse