A different paradigm for naval warfare (and maybe even piracy?)

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Arthur hault-Denger:

Cherryh's Merchanter's Luck and subsequent texts of the Cyteen universe are seminal works describing merchant life. Is that little gem still in publication? Highly recommended reading!

Last time I was in my FLBS, yes, though they are in paperback. My wife, with whom I traveled to many a SF-con, met the esteemed author in Oklahoma City in 1984, along with several other of her fav authors. We own the original hardback editions too, these she had signed by the authroess and are among our library treasures at the house.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
We can make jump masking painlessly go away with a 'ballistic' jump model. What sort of things can we do with temporal uncertainty? I'm open to any suggestion here. I want this fixed.

Well, it's not an issue imtu with my interpretation (mentioned elsewhere before) of the time and distance variables(1).

Basically both are simply "game" artifacts reflecting all the variables(2) that go into a jump plot when it all goes smoothly, and in a misjump the same numbers can be used as the actual error in the jump plot.

The Navigator (if they do their job right and nothing else goes wrong) will know exactly where and when the ship is supposed to drop out of jump. In fact they absolutely HAVE to for a safe jump!

Supposed to, such that crews can be ready in anticipation of jump precipitation without being at stations for hours, and that the vector and position can be a known quantity relative to the destination.

Supposed to such that in the case of a misjump the crew/pax may have a rude drop from jumpspace hours before anyone is expecting it, or tense hours after the call for jump precipitation stations has come and passed with no drop. And what's worse in a misjump is your position is an unknown and your vector may be very dangerous to yourself and other bodies in the system.

Some other points related to this and mtu...

Pre-generated jump plots are possible, and can even be bought (though at much less imtu than the LBB price) if you don't have your own Generate program. No need to make them one use, self erasing or anything since they have a limited use window. Trying to use one much outside the projected window (distance, time, position, and vector) will result in a misjump and nobody likes that.

My jump distances are stated as J1, J2, etc. but actually cover a range of about 0.5 parsecs each side. So J1 will range between J0.5 and J1.5. Yes, I've also toyed with the idea that J fuel is a variable (but it is all used on the entry end and there is no flash at the destination). And of course mtu has J0 as well (actually anywhere from 0 to 0.5 parsecs) and it uses half the fuel of a J1.

A good deal of info can be guessed if a jump entry is observed. Very little info can be guessed from the exit even if you're lucky enough to see it.

Misjumps always precipitate on a strong(3) gravity well. Of course imtu there is no jumping into empty space. You need some kind of anchor to connect the end of your jump to. It doesn't have to be much, anything bigger than your ship will work if you can get precise data on it's motion and gravity.

Jumps can be plotted to end within 100d in mtu, with the same risks associated with entering jump within 100d of a strong(3) gravity well. And misjumps can also result in dropping out of jump closer than 100d (at ref whim).

I've also toyed with the idea that jump navigation requires a constant monitoring by the Pilot/Navigator. Keeping the ship "in the bubble" for the best jump. It seems to require a certain level of human intuition, machines just don't seem able to do it with enough certainty. So no automated jump-bombs or such. No automated x-boats. And the Navigator earns their pay.

I've also considered that a good Navigator can actually make the run quicker with good work. The plot is the same but if they can keep the ship "sweet in the bubble" they can actually shave time off the trip, and adjust the exit point to preserve the exit point and vector relative to the desitnation. Conversly, a rough run, "rubbing the bubble", will slow the ship down and may throw off the exit. Really rough runs are misjumps (or vice versa), often caused by not considering or calculating some critical gravity well, or by having one placed in your path unknown to you.

Which of course gets into the area of information transfer between J-space and N-space. Possible, but of limited practical use.

I guess I went a little farther than answering Bill's question but it's all related. And I'm forgetting some I'm sure(4). Anyway, it's more fat to chew. Enjoy!


(1) Haven't seen this addressed yet in this thread (or missed it) but MWM says somewhere that there is also a distance variable of (iirc) 1,000km (or is it 10,000km?) per jump-number.

(2) Jump shadows and masking, comparitive system velocities and ship vector, etc.

(3) Relative to the ship size. Basically anything smaller than your ship won't affect you and anything bigger will.

(4) Like Fleet Jumps. They can be done, without much trouble in fact. It takes a little more time and coordination but it's no big trick to have your fleet come out of jump just how you want them to. Arranged order of arrival, position, and vector, all preplotted for the best tactical deployment.

 

[Whipsnade]

Dan,

All of that is very good. I use most of the fixes you wrote about IMTU. That's the kicker though, it's all IMTU and IYTU stuff. I'm discussing the OTU alone.

When you consider how many IMTU and IYTU 'fixes', 'wiggles', and 'handwaves' are required to make it work, our understanding of jump from a game perspective is broken. What else can you say about something a GM must fix before he can use? It is broken.

Given the many canonical descriptions and as it stands in the rules now, jump masking is canonical. It may not be mentioned by name in CT or MT, but the logical result of the 100D limit jump precipitation descriptions dating back to LBB:2 is jump masking. There is no way around jump masking without changing the 30-year-old canonical description of jump.

You can handwave and tweak all you want, the logical application of the rules produce something else entirely.

Temporal uncertainty is another problem. The 33.6 hour jump arrival window means you cannot 'hit' a jump limit as often as all the color text seems to imply.

I say color text because I cannot find anything in CT that specifically states you arrive in your target system at the 100D limit. Every description is artfully vague, speaking of 'arriving in-system' or near the 100D limit only. Nothing I've read, and I have not read it all, in the rules, and not in color text, says anything about arriving at the 100D limit. Even the book that comes the closest so far, MT's 'Imperial Encyclopedia', only says you arrive near the 100D limit.

I'm beginning to suspect that our belief in routinely 'hitting the 100D limit' is more a matter of conflating the various texts than an accurate reading of the same.

Again, as with jump masking, you can handwave or tweak away this problem with tighter arrival windows, 100D limits that somehow 'attract' ships(1), and other fixes, but none of them are in the rules.

That's why I'm bringing all this up, I want it fixed in T5. One way or the other, let's just fix things. Jump masking is either in or jump is described in such a fashion throws jump masking out. Temporal uncertainty is either emphasized and the many 'hitting the 100D limit' quotes written off as hyperbole or a model of jump is described that allows you to hit those limts.

It doesn't matter which way things go as long as they are fixed.


Have fun,
Bill

1 - Oddly enough, many of the same folks who dismiss jump masking because 'nothing can effect a ship in jump' also promote the idea of 'attractive' 100D limits to remove the effects of canonical uncertainty. It seems nothing effects ship in jump until they need something to effect a ship in jump.

P.S. I suspect vector matching is another case of conflation. What is actually written in the color text, i.e. helpfully matched vectors, and what we think that means; i.e. perfectly matched vectors, are two different things.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
Dan,

All of that is very good. I use most of the fixes you wrote about IMTU. That's the kicker though, it's all IMTU and IYTU stuff. I'm discussing the OTU alone.

Ah, so you are. I took the "open to anything" a bit too literal and it blinded me to the previous OTU parameters.

Still, I think the random temporal and loci rolls can be OTU rationalized in the same way. At least it seemed still logical to me even as MWM et al expanded on the details of jump. Naturally the more something is detailed the more likely problems will crop up.

I would argue the randoms are game rules and the colour text is the rpg application of the rule. So it seems, to make the two work for the OTU, the random is a known in the game to the charcters, except when there is a mistake (ie misjump) and then it is a truly random element.

The rules say to roll random time in jump but the colour text describes that the first inkling of trouble (ie misjump) is sometimes that the ship does not come out of jump at the right time. That certainly implies that the inhabitants of the universe know with certainty when they should come out of jump, unless they have in fact misjumped.

The rules say you conserve and carry your vector through jump. And the colour text describes using that vector to shave your normal space travel time. The only way that works is if you can precisely plot your position and orientation relative to the destination system. So the random distance must also be a known factor to the inhabitants of the universe. Again, as long as it is not a misjump.

There are some rules saying you make a different roll in the case of misjump. In those cases the base roll is taken as the known, expected and anticipated result, while the different roll would be the actual experience.

The other extrapolations and such will tend to run further into the MTU/YTU realm, at least until there is "official" detailing of it all. At which point most refs choose to continue with their (now) non-OTU rather than mess up a good game by changing the rules mid-stream just to remain an ideal OTU. Some will adopt the new OTU definition when starting a new game, others will have so many other details already expanded on the earlier interpretations that they can't.

Naturally and as expected there is only one OTU and that would be a game run by MWM. Any other game is by definition HTU (Homebrew TU) since we all interpret the use of language a little differently. We all subject it to our own experiences, prejudices, and education. And we are all subject to our own fallibility. I myself have interepreted rules one way while others read the exact same wording quite differently and until they pointed out their logic it never would have occured to me that it could be meant any way but how I read it.

I rarely consider this possibility until someone clubs me hard with it. And for this sound blow I thank you Bill

It rings very true that much of what we take as gospel may indeed be myth and not at all as MWM intended. Not that that's a bad thing. I think there may also be some blame on his end with not being plain enough, perhaps even purposely so, at least in the early years.

I am reminded of an early quote by EGG (in the first edition of the AD&D DM guide iirc) to the effect that the "rules" are guidelines and whatever the players and ref do with them is still D&D. He later contradicted himself with another quote to the effect that if you're not playing by the strict letter of the rules you're not playing D&D, even when that "letter of the rules" is fraught with inexactness and plainly obvious mistakes. As if we were somehow supposed to be mindreaders.

Sadly I see shades of this from MWM as well. Happily they are only shades (or I'm being willfully blind) and I am quite pleased to continue making my interpretations of the rules and imagining I'm still playing "Traveller". On the rare occasions when I actually get to play or ref a game.

I honestly can't see some OTU ideal surviving past first contact with any ref worthy of the job. Not unless the tome detailing the OTU is on the order of the Encyclopedia Galactica, And really, who's gonna want to devot a lifetime to just learning the rules

You know I'm beginning to finally see that games have suffered from the same "code bloat" that computer programs have. Used to be we could run a word processor in a couple K and our game only needed 3 small books. Now my word processor needs a Gig and regular updates to correct the flaws and deliver needed features, much as our game now requires a huge tome just to get started and you can expect numerous errata publications and extra source books to play the game. But we're way off topic, I'm just rambling, and it's late so I'm not sure I'm still making any sense except to myself, and no guarantee even on that in the morning

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by far-trader:
I rarely consider this possibility until someone clubs me hard with it. And for this sound blow I thank you Bill.

Dan,

In my case it's more like repeated clubbings before anything sinks in! It hasn't been jump masking either, I misapplied the HG2 armor limits for over 20 years!

Anyway, I modeled jump much the way everyone else who loathes jump masking does: ships blithely travelled every which way without heed of all those 100D limits. It was GT:FT that conked me on the dome and made me read what the rules had been saying all along.

Like it not, jump masking is the logical result of CT's various jump descriptions. Everything else then flows from that; the descriptions 'begat' masking which 'begats' straight line jump courses which 'begats' all the other troubling aspects I've been blathering about.

It's a real mess and T5 is a chance to clean it all up. That's why I've been pointing to the elephant in the middle of the room for months now. Surely we can come up with an internally consistent model of jump that won't contain any future surprises. Whether that model contains 'full' masking like GT or some modified version that MWM's questions in the playtest seem to point towards, I don't care.

I just want things fixed.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by far-trader:

...The other extrapolations and such will tend to run further into the MTU/YTU realm, at least until there is "official" detailing of it all. At which point most refs choose to continue with their (now) non-OTU rather than mess up a good game by changing the rules mid-stream just to remain an ideal OTU. Some will adopt the new OTU definition when starting a new game, others will have so many other details already expanded on the earlier interpretations that they can't.

So true. That's why I have little respect for companies that want to "force" their canon on customers. Are we supposed to wait around until something "official" comes out then change our games because of it? Frankly, when I give somebody my money for their product I don't need their attitude* on how to use it as well. It's not like they are my doctor or lawyer, or I could use a limb if used incorrectly. (*The attitiude part going more to the quote below.)

...I am reminded of an early quote by EGG (in the first edition of the AD&D DM guide iirc) to the effect that the "rules" are guidelines and whatever the players and ref do with them is still D&D. He later contradicted himself with another quote to the effect that if you're not playing by the strict letter of the rules you're not playing D&D, even when that "letter of the rules" is fraught with inexactness and plainly obvious mistakes. As if we were somehow supposed to be mindreaders.

So true. It's called talking out both sides of your mouth IIRC. One thing is said in the product to sell it (supposedly) then the complete oppositie attitude and thing is said in editorials. Which, to me, speaks volumes about a persons personality.

Sadly I see shades of this from MWM as well. Happily they are only shades (or I'm being willfully blind) and I am quite pleased to continue making my interpretations of the rules and imagining I'm still playing "Traveller". On the rare occasions when I actually get to play or ref a game.

I've not seen these shades you speak of, but I believe there are enough heretics out there that we won't start accusing each other of not playing "Traveller" in a derogatory fashion or tell someone to play another game because they don't use the OTU.

Also I've never seen anythinng from MWM that compares to the ad hominum screes of EGG.

I honestly can't see some OTU ideal surviving past first contact with any ref worthy of the job. ..

Amen to that.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Ptah:
So true. That's why I have little respect for companies that want to "force" their canon on customers. Are we supposed to wait around until something "official" comes out then change our games because of it? Frankly, when I give somebody my money for their product I don't need their attitude* on how to use it as well.

Ptah,

No one is suggesting you have to use the rules in any specific way and no one is cramming the OTU and only the OTU down your throat. That is not what this is all about.

What this is about is getting the OTU to work. As it stands now, jump is broken and has been been broken since CT. Think about that for a second. We're talking about a game with a FTL drive whose characteristics determine the shape of the games' setting but the rules and descriptions of that FTL drive are not internally consistent. That's a fundmental problem, don't you think?

We all fashion our own TUs to one extent or another. We do so out of our personal preferences for the style or tone of our games. However, when we need to fashion personal TUs because the game fails to provide an internally consistent depiction of something as central to the setting as jump drive, the game needs fixing.

That fix won't effect your TU one whit and it shouldn't be seen as effecting it either.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[sgbrown]

-clip-

What this is about is getting the OTU to work. As it stands now, jump is broken and has been been broken since CT. Think about that for a second. We're talking about a game with a FTL drive whose characteristics determine the shape of the games' setting but the rules and descriptions of that FTL drive are not internally consistent. That's a fundmental problem, don't you think?
-clip-

Have fun,
Bill [/QB][/QUOTE]

So am I correct that the two issues you would like to see addressed are 1) Jump masking and 2) How well one can "hit" the 100D limit given the temporal unceretainty?

Why not have the precipitation possible in the "end of jump" temporal window but not before? (This is a suggestion for T5) This eliminates jump masking on the jumping end (other than whatever the clear zone for entering jump space needs to be) and could be explained by the gradual weakening of the jump bubble as it is forced back into normal space.

As for the 100 D limit issue, ships coming out early should usually be close to the 100 D limit as the navigator obviously overshot and they encountered the large gravity well early in the "precipitation window." Ships coming out in the later part of the window should be a bit further out - sometimes near a random asteroid or some other bit of matter as the bubble has weakened to the point where smaller influences can cause percipitation. Ships coming out at the very end of the window should usually be significantly more than 100D out - since the bubble collasped of its own accord - without the influence of the gravity well. It might even make sense to give a DM for navigator skill to lower the travel time (due to a more accurate jump calculation.)

This would be a way to address both issues with one common and consistent approach.

Just a thought.

Steve B

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
Why not have the precipitation possible in the "end of jump" temporal window but not before?

Steve,

That's the 'ballistic' or 'parabola' approach. It's a nifty suggestion and one that neatly removes jump masking from the picture.

Instead of the normal to jump space relationship being: Normal-Jump, a 'transition' layer is added: Normal-Transition-Jump.

You pass through the transition layer when you're moving between normal and jump space. The 100D limits only effect a vessel in the transition layer. This way 100D limits only work when you're in the transition layer and you're only in the transition layer at the beginning and end of jump.

As for the 100 D limit issue, ships coming out early should usually be close to the 100 D limit as the navigator obviously overshot...

Overshooting, undershooting, and the rest still presume aiming and you can't aim when you don't know when you'll arrive.

Part of the problem is that we all automatically use the wrong frame of reference when thinking about jump exit points. Because you don't know when you'll arrive, you can't plot your exit point in relation to objects in the arrival system. Instead you plot your exit point in relation to your position in the departure system.

If you're jumping from Hefry to Regina, you can't say I'm going to jump one parsec and exit this far from Regina instead you say I'm going to jump one parsec and exit this far from Hefry because you know where Hefry is when you initiate your jump. Your frame of reference is the Hefry system and not the Regina system.

Confusing, isn't it?

It might even make sense to give a DM for navigator skill to lower the travel time (due to a more accurate jump calculation.)

That's a very interesting idea.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[flykiller]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It might even make sense to give a DM for navigator skill to lower the travel time (due to a more accurate jump calculation.)

That's a very interesting idea.</font>[/QUOTE]</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">roll hours spent
2d6 in jump

2 151
3 154
4 157
5 160
6 164
7 168
8 172
9 176
10 179
11 182
12 185</pre>[/QUOTE]navigation modifies the 2d6 roll by (nav skill -1). navigation 3 over the course of a year should yield an average of 200 extra hours per year, or one extra jump run per year, all other things being equal.

one can take the distance approach as well. (say) nav 1 allows jumping to within (say) 100 light seconds per parsec^2 of a desired precipitation point, nav 2 allows jumping to within 10 light seconds per parsec^2 of a desired precipitation point, etc. this approach winds up making navigation skill more critical than the time approach.

adventure seed.

two shippers, both alike in profitability, suddenly find someone with navigation 5 is looking for a job with one of them. the bribes, behind-the-scenes warfare, and subterfuge could be extensive. yojimbo / fist full of dollars.

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
-clip-
If you're jumping from Hefry to Regina, you can't say I'm going to jump one parsec and exit this far from Regina instead you say I'm going to jump one parsec and exit this far from Hefry because you know where Hefry is when you initiate your jump. Your frame of reference is the Hefry system and not the Regina system.

Confusing, isn't it?

-clip-

Have fun,
Bill

I'm not too sure it's that confusing. Artillery does pretty much the same thing - they know where the cannon is and if they have a real accurate fix on the target and know the conditions in between then they know how long a shell will take to get there. Any errors in aiming will cause the impact time for a totally dumb round to vary.

With what I'm proposing, the time to entrance in the transition zone would be known - 151 hours. Assuming nothing interfered, the time to emergence would be known - 185 hours (Both times taken from flykiller's table). The actual time would be 185 hours minus any early exit from transition brought on by a gravity well.


From a game perspective there is still a degree of temporal uncertainty, but the time difference is BECAUSE of aiming error - not inherent in the process. A good navigator tries to be in the transition at a time close to when he's approaching the 100 D limit.

If this approach is adopted, I think there are several implications...

First - If you're coming out in empty space (ie an empty hex), you'd always come out at the max time. If you come out in an empty hex in less than the max time, either you misjumped or something is close by and the hex is not really empty.

Second - The distance traveled within the transition zone would need to be defined. Jump masking within that zone would be possible.

Third - You could tell where a well aimed jump came from by the side of the planet the ship emerges on.

There are probably a number of others that I haven't considered. Any thoughts?

If there's still a desire to limit aiming error but not entirely remove the temporal uncertainty, a slight modification could be made. T5 could make entry into the exit transition zone at 150 + 1D6 and time to unaided emergence 22 + 1D6 hours later. This still gives some temporal uncertainty without allowing jump masking for the majority of the distance.

Just thoughts.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
With what I'm proposing, the time to entrance in the transition zone would be known - 151 hours. Assuming nothing interfered, the time to emergence would be known - 185 hours (Both times taken from flykiller's table). The actual time would be 185 hours minus any early exit from transition brought on by a gravity well.

Steve,

That is extremely interesting! Thank you!

It doesn't do wholly away with jump's temporal uncertainty either, the only time you know prior to a jump that you jump will last a specific period is when you exit in deep space.

Thank you very much for that.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Sorry, the holidays scrambled my "list of posts to do"!

Originally posted by Tobias: Yeah, similar to how it was proven by him that the initial US response to the U-Boat threat under Admiral King was on the whole sound and reasonable, eh? Actually preeminent historians like Michael Gannon tend to disagree.

Tobias,

Gannon's disagreements with Blair are a matter of degree and not kind. Blair's comments have also been misinterpretated by people with an emotional attachment to certain historical 'stories'. Both Gannon and Blair agree that King could have done nothing to prevent the 'Happy Time' off the US east coast in early '42. Gannon and Blair disagree over just how much harder King could have pushed for the changes he knew were necessary before and during that period.

King was a complete SOB and an Anglophobe to boot. Both of those traits, in particular his anglophobia, have colored the post-war picture of King.

Early 1942 found King without the number of ASW tools he said were required, without the types of ASW tools he said were required, and without the centralised control of ASW he said was required. But the failures wwere his fault. Sure.

- Congress ignored the USN's prewar escort tonnage recommendations and focussed building on 'sexy' larger warships instead. The tonnage the USN wanted was only authorized AFTER early 1942. He didn't have the tonnage he wanted and it's his fault?
- Congress, and Roosevelt, ignored the USN's ASW committee's recommendations concerning what type of escorts to build. That committee, chaired by King, wanted a navalized version of the USCG's cutter design. They only got it AFTER early 1942. He didn't have the ships he wanted and it's his fault?
- The USN wanted control of all ASW aircraft assets rightly pointing out that USAAF was only interested in strategic bombing. Congress and Roosevelt denied that request and, again, the USN only gained control AFTER early 1942. King was denied control of those air assets by his political superiors and it is his fault?
- The usual complaint people bring up against King has to do with the lack of coastal blackouts. Being in the civil sector, the declarations and enforcements of coastal blackouts were beyond his control. What was he to do? Send out parties of sailors with orders to shoot out the lights? King's fault again apparently.
- Another complaint, and one usually voiced by Anglocentric writers, claims that King 'hoarded' his best ASW assets or dispatched them to the Pacific. Blair's work with TROMS refutes that. King's 'spare' destroyers spent a great deal of time escorting capital ships and vital 'emergency' convoys or performing other politically mandated tasks. He did what he was ordered to do by his political superiors and it's his fault?

Didn't have the number of ships, didn't have the tpye of ships, didn't control the aircraft, couldn't control the civilians, was ordered to provide escorts for all sorts of other missions, so it was all King's fault? Sure it was.

Were his decisions sound? No, no decisions made in those circumstance could have been sound. Were they reasonable? Yes, he did the best he could do with what was given to him. I also happen to agree with Gannon that King could have pushed harder for change to happen faster. King didn't have the escorts to protect coastal convoys, either in numbers or range, and he had to work through USAAF for air cover for any convoys. An undefended convoy, the only kind there would have been, would have only concentrated targets for the U-boats. Instead, King was forced by the situation to choose the lesser of two evils; vessels would move in daylight between harbors of refuge along patrolled courses. It sucked but he didn't have any choice. Concentrating targets in undefended convoys would have been worse.

It's interesting to note that when King did have the escort number, types, and control he insisted were necessary no losses occurred at all; i.e. the various military and 'fast gas' convoys.

He never served as an officer, nor in any position that would allow him to actually be involved in command functions.

He served as an officer responsible for the technical assessment of enemy equipment and he repeated the USN's technical assessment of the XXIs they examined. What other qualifications should he have had and what else should he have said? He presented the assessment of the XXIs in the context of post-war claims that they would have own the war. He wasn't examining the design's post-war successes.

No, he simply spouted off his biased opinion and made several false assertions over alleged failures in their constructions, which it took me about 30 minutes to shoot down (at the time I had access to archives documenting the decade-long service of XXIs.)

Decade-long service? You're comparing apples and oranges again.

Blair examined war time boats and not those built afterwards. He also stepped foot on them, something your study of blueprints cannot match. There's a great difference between blueprints and reality, especially given wartime construction problems. The XXIs were the basis of many if the advances in post-war submarine design, but that wasn't what Blair was writing about. The XXIs constructed in '44 and '45 didn't meet the capabilities of which the design was capable. Coastal Command sank over twenty of them after all. Blair examined the 1945 reality and presented that in his book, not the successful post-war reality or your blueprint reality.

It's interesting to note that of the navies that recieved wartime XXIs as reparations, only two, France and the USSR, actually operated them. France needed any ship she could lay her hands on and domestically designed Soviet subs were simply godawful. The two powers with good submarines already, the US and UK, examined their XXIs, borrowed many ideas for future construction and then scuttled them.

Actually, the Germans, when it was feasible, *did* concentrate on high-value targets (Tankers, usually.) However, unlike the Americans, who were going up against a non-convoying enemy whose every move they were informed about, they couldn't be choosers most of the time.

Telling commanders to sink tankers first and sending them where they could sink tankers are two very different things. Donitz may have ordered the former but he never did the latter. A sustained effort around Trinidad Tobago would have reaped large rewards, but the boats and their milchcows continued chasing less important tonnage elsewhere.

As for codes, Gannon points out that the Germans broke Allied convoy codes on a regular basis. Donitz knew sailing dates, ETAs, and convoy compositions. What he didn't get was real time radio intercepts from convoys at sea thanks to a radio discipline his own forces conspicuously lacked.

Then don't go about how the only effect of the U-Boats was tying up defenses. It was tying up strategic industries (until 1943.)

I wrote that strategic warfare ties up assets and production.

Just a few notes on your flawed comparison:

My flawed comparison? Score a laugh point.

Those numbers and the analysis derived from them are straight out of Michael Gannon's Black May. You know, Michael Gannon? The fellow you say is better than Clay Blair? Gannon chose those two months to illustrate the drop in numbers despite the fact that the new French Atlantic bases allowed U-boats to stay on station longer. They had more boats, more boats at sea, and more boats at sea in the convoy lanes but they were somehow sinking less tonnage per boat per day than a year earlier. Go figure. Maybe, as Gannon claims, the defenses were better and the Allies really had won by '41?

That the U-Boat war was strategically lost by ~May 1943 is undisputed.

Gannon's contention in Black May - You know, Michal Gannon? The fellow you say is better than Clay Blair? - is that ~May of 1943 is when the Germans finally realized they had lost. Gannon says the Allies believed they'd won or at least contained the threat by 1941. He even points out that the 1943 date can't be found in Allied documents prior to 1956.

But they were not merely tying up military resources needed to combat them but strategic resources needed to rebuild what they destroyed.

I wrote that commerce raiding is a type of strategic warfare and it diverts an enemy's assets and production. As for strategic production, what other kind of production would strategic warfare effect?

Which is why merchant ship losses in 1942 were twice that of 1941? Ain't buying it.

Again, that isn't my contention. It's made by Michael Gannon - You know, Michal Gannon? The fellow you say is better than Clay Blair? - in his book Black May. Take it up with him.

I would advise you to widen your horizon somewhat beyond Blair's (IMHO biased and lacking, if massive) work. Maybe works by Gannon, or Terraine's "Business in Great Waters".

Read Blair again and pay attention to what he actually says, not what you think he says. As for widening my reading horizons, may I suggest that you re-read those portions of the post above in which I point out that the numbers and analysis that got your knickers in such a knot come from one of the very authors you recommended? It seems that my horizons have been wide all along.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[mbrinkhues]

One comment on "Allies did sink 20 XXI":

They did damage/destroy quite a few more. But NONE of those boats where combat ready, they where still working up and most got pinned near the harbors or in swallow baltic sea waters.

The allies did not manage to sink any of the six smaller XXIII boats that where operational. Again, they did sink seven during workups or in/near the harbor.


On the technical problems:

Sure the boats had some, including a design fault at the rear torpedo hatch and flak-towers that where better death-traps. The new building process (sections where build in-land and brought to the slips) also had teething problems with quality control (quite a few companies involved had never build ships before) and not all of the new systems worked as designed initially.

OTOH quite a few problems are exagregated. Like the "lack of ventilation/clima control" if the boat would operate in the Pazific. When the boats where finalised (1943) there was only one area of operations left - the Atlantic. The boats could not REACH the Pacific and come back anyway. And while the boats where limited in their operational depth (160m, later 200m where allowed with a fixed torpedo hatch) that was still quite compareable to other boats of the time.

A funny side note is that the boats the allies actually captures (mostly boats in Norway) where actually rather early boats from the series. Most of the latter boats did (in disobedience to Allied Orders(1)) sink themselfs in german naval traditions. So quite a few systems that got their bugs worked out late never made it into the operational boats.


(1) Well done, boys!

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
But NONE of those boats where combat ready...

Michael,

That's the usual quibble that is brought up. It's little more than hair splitting.

Several of the wartime XXIs were sunk on their way to Norway while moving to their operational homeports. While they didn't have the full torpedo or supply loads required for a combat patrol, they were already out of the builders' hands, had finished through their work-ups with their crews, and were moving to their assigned ports. All they needed to do was to take on stores before going on real patrol.

These claims are akin to saying that a new Allied destroyer sunk off Panama on it's way to Pearl Harbor wasn't really a warship yet and thus shouldn't really count.

The new building process (sections where build in-land and brought to the slips) also had teething problems with quality control (quite a few companies involved had never build ships before) and not all of the new systems worked as designed initially.

Which is precisely what Blair pointed out and is what I repeated. The XXIs are a good design and many of their characteristics were eagerly copied after the war. The wartime XXIs did not meet the expectations of that design and had teething problems with other aspects. Given enough time and peace to work out those problems; which is what happened after the war, and you'd have a fine submarine, which again is what happened after the war.

OTOH quite a few problems are exagregated. Like the "lack of ventilation/clima control"

When you're a naval power who operates submarines in the Pacific and other tropical waters, like the US and UK, the 'exaggerated' lack of air conditioning is a very big deal indeed.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[mbrinkhues]

A bit more complicated:

+ Most subs where sunk near the coast in waters not deep enough to dive and constricted by minefields. Not a design error. Put any other sub in there and it dies just the same (actually quite a few of the mature VII did)

+ The XXI was designed for use by the German Navy fighting german battles. At that time that meant Atlantic since they lacked the supply network to send the boats into the Pacific. I doubt they had "surrender to the USN/RN" in mind when the designed the beast.

And a weapon must be used in it's planned context. Take a nuke-sub or a carrier into the Baltic or North Sea and it is slaughtered by the European E-Boats (even older ones like 206A or Upholder) since they can't use their abilities and are far too loud/big. OTOH a 206A is a totally useless plattform to liberate Kuwait, for that you need a carrier.

Same with the german MARDER IFV's of Cold War fame. Neither is useful if you fight peacekeeping missions in Somalia. But for their job (Hold up the red hordes) those 35 (45to with Marder 2) slabs of armored steel and composite armor where just what the army needed.

+ A lot of the problems where solved during the war. They did get the production process running as well as the new sonar and torpedo systems. But those boats mostly died on the slips or where sunk. OTOH the "almost ready" boats where not recalled and those made it into allied hands (IIRC less than 20 from almost 100 that where completed)

 

[Black Globe Generator]

There are so many things that I would love to respond to in this thread, but I just don't have the time, so I'll pick one for now:

Originally posted by flykiller:
one can't simply slap the word "nomadic" onto a group and say "thus".

Actually, that is based on applying accepted definitions of nomadism to pirates. This has actually been done with real-world pirates, as well as the homeless, rock climbers, and Phish fans. All of these populations exhibit consistent characteristics relating to mobility, social status, and resource allocation and use.

Really, I didn't just pull that out of my ass!

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
[qb]Number 1 isn't exactly canon, then, bill... Canon for GT, but not for the rest of Traveller.

Aramis,

GT's take on jump masking flows from one paragraph in a certain JTAS article. They applied it in a logical manner and made everyone angry!

The paragraph is: On the other hand, there seems to be a built-in safety feature for ships trying to leave jump space within 100 diameters of a world. Ships naturally precipitate out of jump as they near the 100 diameterlimit.</font>[/QUOTE]What makes it canon for CT is that Chris specifically asked Marc Miller how it worked and Marc gave a definite answer. The paragraph Bill quotes could just as easily be interpreted to mean that the universe only affected jumpspace near the entry and exit points, allowing a ship to jump from one side of a gravity well to the other without being masked by it. That's the way I always assumed it worked, and I don't think there's anyting in any material prior to GT that contradicts the non-existence of jump masking. But neither is there anything in that previous material that rules out jump masking. And now that Marc has explicitly introduced jump masking, I'm pretty sure it's here to stay.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
Just to reiterate, to approach a planet's 33.6 hour path on a course perpendicular to that path, your straight line jump course must be perpendicular to that 33.6 hour path for it's entire length. That may be possible in some cases at certain times. It will not be possible in a vast majority of cases however.

I'm actually not quite sure what you're saying here, but I can't restrain myself from a small burst of nit-picking. People keep using the figure '33.6 hours', and it annoys me every time. +/-10 percent of 168 hours is not 33.6 hours. It's 34 hours. The uncertainty is on the last digit. +/- 10% of 168.0 hours would be 33.6 hours.

(And that's not even taking into account that '10%' is a round number. The 'true' figure could be 10. But it could equally well be 8 or 9 or 11 or 12. (IIRC the formula T20 give for determining jump duration (147+6D) is a little under 10% (not that the formula is anything but an approximation too)).

Sorry about that. I just had to get it off my chest .


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
We can make jump masking painlessly go away with a 'ballistic' jump model. What sort of things can we do with temporal uncertainty? I'm open to any suggestion here. I want this fixed.

I've been thinking about this after our last discussion on the subject, and I've come up with a notion. Tell me what you think about this:

You do aim for a specific point is space, and what the world you're aiming for does in the meantime does not affect your prospective exit point (this is a change from my previous position).

Assume you're aiming for a world that moves 100 planetary diameters in 12 hours. You aim for the point where it will be if your jump takes 168 hours.

If you jump takes 156 hours, you will arrive in the orbit of the world 12 hours before it gets there. In other words, at its 100 diameter limit.

If your jump takes 180 hours, you will arrive in the orbit 12 hours after it was there. Again, at the 100 diameter limit.

If you jump takes anywhere between 156 and 180 hours, you will intercept the 100 diameter limit somewhere and be precipitated out there.

So as long as your jump doesn't take less that 156 or more than 180 hours, you will arrive at the jump limit.

If jump variation is distributed along a bell curve, 90% (that number is just taken out of thin air, but it will be high) of the time you'll arrive at the jump limit.

Any rules that says a jump always ends at the jump limit of the world you aim for are simply ignoring the 10% for the sake of simplicity.

Since you don't know where along a half circle relatively to your destination that you'll arrive, you try to make your vector neutral vrt. it.

Comments?


Hans