Back-up Meson Screens, Nuclear Dampers, and Force Fields

[sabredog]

And with culture. What you say is eminently true for recent history and current state of affairs on Earth today. But the Imperium isn't just the 21st Century transposed to the 57th, is it? The Imperial Navy isn't just the Royal Navy in Space, is it?

I repeat, in the 3rd Imperium, 'cruiser' is the term used for a ship big enough to mount a spinal mount but unable to stand in the line of battle. Nothing to do with its role. Well... no doubt the term derived from the fact that cruisers are often used to cruise.


Hans

Oh my, I seem to have sparked another one of those "what kind of ship/navy is the OTU ships/Navy analogous to in current Earth history" arguments. Sorry about that...

I agree with Whipsnade on this: names of classes, and what those classes are used for haven't had a lot to do with tonnage since the development of reliable missiles for naval warfare. I wold argue it's more having to do with tradition and whatever givne mission that ship type is equipped to do - and a lot of them seem pretty much equipped to do a lot of different roles. At least the non-carrier types.

A cruiser now just seems like a big destroyer that has more missiles and more C3 capability. But in some navies the destroyer is more like a cruiser since it carries really large missiles. And anything that can carry a large enough missile can carry a nuclear one, too, so how does that fit into the traditional definitions? And nobody uses lines of battle or armor anymore.

And BTW: I keep pointing out that I have my own TU and it was developed long before all this 3I stuff and even before HG2 came out. So I have my own design specs. Imperial Navy destroyers range from 20-50kt, cruisers from there up to about 80kt, and battle ships average around 100-150kt. Carriers are rare but the 6 that exist are 250kt and are more of a combination carrier/flag/battle ship. They each form the core of one of the fleets. There are myriad smaller ships, and ones in between. And any capital ship is one that is cruiser on up and has a jump drive. Anything w/out a jump drive and/or smaller is just a ship. The Terran Imperials don't use battleriders, but their enemy does.

Destroyers tend to be more missile heavy but that's because they have a landing support role - which is a big part of the reason for the spinal meson guns in some of them: to pound the heck out of the ground defenses prior to landing. The missile bays salvo nuclear strikes on the surface troops while the big meson guns hit the deep meson batteries of the enemy. Since the bigger ships have probably cleared the way already, the spinal meson gun-equipped destroyers can then attack the ground emplacements while the jump troops can start dropping in. They don't have to be agile so much as just cheaper than a cruiser+ and have the juice to use a meson J or N gun.

And all that tends to be just background color. The players are small fish that swim in the shadows of the Imperial Fleet Great Whites ... the authorities they mainly deal with are the small-ship universe types of the Colonial Fleet: the biggest is 5000 tons and the average is just your regular 800 ton cruiser from LBB2. I use a two-tiered system of HG for the serious big events that the players try to stay away from and LBB2 for the player adventure stuff. If an Imperial squadron jumps in-system and the players attracted its attention, well, they must have done something realllllly bad.

 

[rancke]

I agree with Whipsnade on this: names of classes, and what those classes are used for haven't had a lot to do with tonnage since the development of reliable missiles for naval warfare.

That's the current naval tradition. It's evidently not the Imperium's naval tradition where the term 'cruiser' does refer to its role rather than its tonnage: Carrying a spinal mount and nevertheless staying out of the line of battle. There's a correlation to tonnage there, of course.

I would argue it's more having to do with tradition and whatever givne mission that ship type is equipped to do - and a lot of them seem pretty much equipped to do a lot of different roles. At least the non-carrier types.

I too would argue that it is more to do with tradition. Just not 20th Century wet navy tradition but 57th Century Imperial tradition. In fact, I have been arguing precisely that.

A cruiser now just seems like a big destroyer that has more missiles and more C3 capability. But in some navies the destroyer is more like a cruiser since it carries really large missiles. And anything that can carry a large enough missile can carry a nuclear one, too, so how does that fit into the traditional definitions? And nobody uses lines of battle or armor anymore.

That was then (21st Century). This is now (57th Century).

And BTW: I keep pointing out that I have my own TU and it was developed long before all this 3I stuff and even before HG2 came out.

And I keep refraining from arguing about your TU and sticking to the OTU.

So I have my own design specs. Imperial Navy destroyers range from 20-50kt, cruisers from there up to about 80kt, and battle ships average around 100-150kt. Carriers are rare but the 6 that exist are 250kt and are more of a combination carrier/flag/battle ship. They each form the core of one of the fleets. There are myriad smaller ships, and ones in between. And any capital ship is one that is cruiser on up and has a jump drive. Anything w/out a jump drive and/or smaller is just a ship. The Terran Imperials don't use battleriders, but their enemy does.

That's nice. I agree with everything you say about your own TU.


Hans

 

[Whipsnade]

Oh my, I seem to have sparked another one of those "what kind of ship/navy is the OTU ships/Navy analogous to in current Earth history" arguments. Sorry about that...

Don't worry Tom. You haven't sparked another of those arguments, you and I are just on the receiving end of the usual deliberate incomprehension.

I agree with Whipsnade on this: names of classes, and what those classes are used for haven't had a lot to do with tonnage since the development of reliable missiles for naval warfare. I wold argue it's more having to do with tradition and whatever givne mission that ship type is equipped to do - and a lot of them seem pretty much equipped to do a lot of different roles. At least the non-carrier types.

Exactly and, believe it or not, that's exactly what Hans is writing too. He's just approaching things from the other end and either can't or won't see that we're all talking about the same thing.

You and I have both agreed that mission determines class. In the 57th Century and in the Imperial Navy, the mission Can carry a spinal mount and cannot stand in the line of battle means a vessel is a cruiser. Because the ability to carry a spinal and the inability to stand in the line of battle suggests a certain range of tonnages, class is strongly linked to mission and only loosely coupled to tonnage.

Historically naval powers have said "This is the mission a cruiser does therefore any vessel which performs this mission is a cruiser". In the 57th Century, the Imperial Navy has said "This is the mission a cruiser does therefore any vessel which performs this mission is a cruiser". The missions which define whether a vessel is a cruiser or not have most definitely changed, but the idea that the mission defines the ship has not.

Hans wants to believe that, because we're using historical analogies to support the argument of mission determining class, we're also using those historical missions. We're not, of course. We're simply using the structure of the historical mechanism along with the "details" of the 57th Century.

Class is determined by mission, mission requires certain capabilities, certain capabilities require certain equipment, certain equipment requires certain tonnages, and certain tonnage ranges are thus coupled to class.

 

[McPerth]

Sorry to stick with MT material here, but IIRC, in one challenge (sorry, canno't give exact data, I have not it handy now), on an article called Ships of the Black War, there was a 12000 dton J3 ship with a J rated spinal meson gun, and it was labeled as Destroyer.

I was surpriesed, as I've also understood that a ship with spinal weapon would be automatically be rated as Cruiser, as it was part of its definition, but (again IIRC), it was there...

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Sabredog,

Imperial Navy destroyers range from 20-50kt,.

With the information on displacement tonnage I am no longer confused, since my concept is a destoyer displaces > 5,000 and < 20,000 tons. The 20,000 to 50,000 tons explains how a destroyer can have a spinal mount.

If an Imperial squadron jumps in-system and the players attracted its attention, well, they must have done something realllllly bad.

On the flip side the players may have been in the wrong place at the right time for the squadron showing up. In one adventure I was in the GM had naval assets pop into the same system as the group I was with and we where the only ship to be looked at for no other reason than the GM wanted to shake-up the person playing the ship's captain. The player did a great job of keeping us from being volunteered for service.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Whipsnade,

Class is determined by mission, mission requires certain capabilities, certain capabilities require certain equipment, certain equipment requires certain tonnages, and certain tonnage ranges are thus coupled to class.

I agree with this what through me for a loop was not knowing Sabredog's frame of reference for the displacement tonnage of a destroyer's hull. My general frame of reference is that a destroyer has a displacement of > 5,000 and < 20,000 tons. Of course there is a little bit of wiggle room that occurs when I make adjusts to fit somethings in, like having a hull that actually adds up to 21,010 tons.

My own feeble attempts at designing the smallest starship hull carrying a spinal mount have frequently worked out to be around 24,000 tons. My spacecraft have come in around 19,500 tons.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello McPerth,

Sorry to stick with MT material here, but IIRC, in one challenge (sorry, canno't give exact data, I have not it handy now), on an article called Ships of the Black War, there was a 12000 dton J3 ship with a J rated spinal meson gun, and it was labeled as Destroyer.

I was surpriesed, as I've also understood that a ship with spinal weapon would be automatically be rated as Cruiser, as it was part of its definition, but (again IIRC), it was there...

Not a problem about relating CT to MT in my opinion.

"Ships of the Black War" by Charles E. Gannon appeared in Challenge 60, May 1992 on pages 25 - 32. Page 32 lists that the 12,000 ton Manzikert-Class Destroyer as carrying a Type J Meson Gun Spinal Mount. I think the secondary armament is made up of missile bays, I'm really rusty at translating the ship data card.

 

[mike wightman]

Canon defines cruisers in two main places:

Cruiser. Ship capable of independent operations and of support of the main line of battle. Cruisers are intended to fulfil two diverse missions- in battle, they support and reinforce capital ships which are present and which form the main line of battle, generally from the flanks, and they perform independent operations, often forming the center of task forces which have no capital ships. Cruisers are also put to use as independent ships.

Library data A-M

Cruisers: Cruisers are the smallest ships to carry the large spinal weapons needed to cause serious damage to a large armored ship, although most are too lightly armored to stand in the line of battle. They form the cadre of commerce raiding task forces and provide fire support for planetary invasions. Sizes range from 20,000 to 100,000 tons. Cruisers serving with a battle fleet are generally grouped in CruRons of from four to eight ships, while individual ships or pairs of cruisers are used to form the hard core of scouting or raiding groups.

S:9 Fighting ships.

IMHO the type J meson gun is too small to be considered a large spinal weapon, hence the destroyer designation for the black war ship. Also note that S:9 does not define destroyers.

 

[sabredog]

Howdy Whipsnade,



I agree with this what through me for a loop was not knowing Sabredog's frame of reference for the displacement tonnage of a destroyer's hull. My general frame of reference is that a destroyer has a displacement of > 5,000 and < 20,000 tons. Of course there is a little bit of wiggle room that occurs when I make adjusts to fit somethings in, like having a hull that actually adds up to 21,010 tons.

My own feeble attempts at designing the smallest starship hull carrying a spinal mount have frequently worked out to be around 24,000 tons. My spacecraft have come in around 19,500 tons.

The two destroyer classes I have that carry spinal guns are 28kt for the Meson N, and 20kt for the J. They both have a plenty of batteries of missile bays and lasers. The one with the J is the slower of the two if using the spinal weapon. BTW: I think the Jump Drive standard for the OTU Navy is J-4? I have a denser map IMTU and the standard is 3, but the cruisers all start at J-4 so they can ...cruise.

Older designs have had some refits done to replace bays and hangars no longer used with fuel so J-2 or 3 ships can now carry the fuels internally for and extra jump. But these tend to get shifted to the outer frontier colonial navy while the Imperials get the newer ships with tailfins and thick chrome.

 

[sabredog]

On the flip side the players may have been in the wrong place at the right time for the squadron showing up. In one adventure I was in the GM had naval assets pop into the same system as the group I was with and we where the only ship to be looked at for no other reason than the GM wanted to shake-up the person playing the ship's captain. The player did a great job of keeping us from being volunteered for service.

I worded it it badly. Generally that is the case - the players are caught up in something serious, either as a bystander or as unwilling (or unwittingly) participant, and The Fleet jumps in to sort out the big picture. The players then try to figure out how to get out of Dodge before the big battle/siege/assault happens and everyone if in a system-wide free-fire zone. Or at least make it through the invading fleet "lines" and close enough to the friendly squadrons for a rescue...but they would have preferred just jumping out as safer.

Last time it happened it signaled the opening stages of a massive war that collapsed (IMTU) the Terran Confederation into the Terran Empire. And coincidentally allowed me to revamp and reboot my game. The players were on one of the first planets hit by the invading fleets and had to try to get out of the system while trapped on the ground with the invading fleet between them and the recently arrived Confederation fleet.

They had civilians begging them to take them out with them but they were making sure they were going to extricate their patron's family first (who were all there in their company house and why the players were there in the first place...but they got behind the clock), an enemy agent whom they had had encounters with in the past was also there and wanted out, too. His own exfiltration scheme went up in nuclear ashes while the two fleets fought so he wanted their ship now. In the end, the players were able to lift with the Duke's family on board, their fortunes made, and their arch-enemy cursing them below while all-around enemy drop troops were landing through the barrages to take the planet and dig in for the Confederation siege and a war that lasted about 5 years and radically changed my campaign's social and political dynamics. And more importantly, kept me from getting too bored with it.

So now the players get a little edgy when the fleet's in town for a visit, even if it is just Fleet Week, 'cuz you just never know...

 

[sabredog]

Howdy Whipsnade,



I agree with this what through me for a loop was not knowing Sabredog's frame of reference for the displacement tonnage of a destroyer's hull. My general frame of reference is that a destroyer has a displacement of > 5,000 and < 20,000 tons. Of course there is a little bit of wiggle room that occurs when I make adjusts to fit somethings in, like having a hull that actually adds up to 21,010 tons.

My own feeble attempts at designing the smallest starship hull carrying a spinal mount have frequently worked out to be around 24,000 tons. My spacecraft have come in around 19,500 tons.

The two destroyer classes I have that carry spinal guns are 28kt for the Meson N, and 20kt for the J. They both have a plenty of batteries of missile bays and lasers. The one with the N is the slower of the two if using the spinal weapon. BTW: I think the Jump Drive standard for the OTU Navy is J-4? I have a denser map IMTU and the standard is 3, but the cruisers all start at J-4 so they can ...cruise.

Older designs have had some refits done to replace bays and hangars no longer used with fuel so J-2 or 3 ships can now carry the fuels internally for and extra jump. But these tend to get shifted to the outer frontier colonial navy while the Imperials get the newer ships with tailfins and thick chrome.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Mike Wightman,

Canon defines cruisers in two main places:
Library data A-M
S:9 Fighting ships.

IMHO the type J meson gun is too small to be considered a large spinal weapon, hence the destroyer designation for the black war ship. Also note that S:9 does not define destroyers.

What do you consider to be a large spinal weapon?

In my book all the spinal weapons are large compared to bays and turrets. To equal the Type J Meson Gun Spinal Mount displacement of 1,000 would take 10 x 100 ton or 20 x 50 ton Meson Gun Bays. The EP requirement for the bays is about 2,000 where the spinal mount is only 900.

I couldn't find anything, not that the information doesn't exist somewhere, in MT that changed the ship type descriptions in MT from those in CT Fighting Ships. Basically I imported the CT descriptions into MT.

Yep, the closest defined ship type in CT Fighting Ship's to a destroyer is the Escort type which "are meant to be light support craft for larger ships, primarily cruisers."

An additional note is that there is a 14,999.999 ton gap between the escort and cruiser displacement. My brain automatically labeled the hulls displacing >= 5,000 and <20,000 tons as the destroyer type.

Another idea just came into my mind is that the Escort type has a displacement range from > 200 and < 20,000 tons. Hulls > 200 and <= 5,000 tons are light escorts and hulls > 5,000 and < 20,000 are heavy escorts.

I've taken another look at Manzikert-Class destroyer and here the statistics from Challenge 60:

Off: Hardpoints = 120

Meson Gun = J0x (takes up 10 hardpoints)
Missile=x07; Batteries = 3

Def:
Sandcasters = x09; Batteries = 8.

Missile Turret UCP of 7 and Sandcaster turret UCP 9 equals 30 weapons per battery. Unfortunately, I'm failing to figure out if the turrets are dual or triple mounts.

 

[snrdg082102]

The two destroyer classes I have that carry spinal guns are 28kt for the Meson N, and 20kt for the J. They both have a plenty of batteries of missile bays and lasers. The one with the J is the slower of the two if using the spinal weapon. BTW: I think the Jump Drive standard for the OTU Navy is J-4? I have a denser map IMTU and the standard is 3, but the cruisers all start at J-4 so they can ...cruise.

Older designs have had some refits done to replace bays and hangars no longer used with fuel so J-2 or 3 ships can now carry the fuels internally for and extra jump. But these tend to get shifted to the outer frontier colonial navy while the Imperials get the newer ships with tailfins and thick chrome.

Since I now have a frame of reference for displacement tons destroyers can have spinal mounts without any problems.

Usually happens that way the real Navy gets the goodies and the reservist gets the hand me downs.

 

[sabredog]

Yep, the closest defined ship type in CT Fighting Ship's to a destroyer is the Escort type which "are meant to be light support craft for larger ships, primarily cruisers."

This is part of the problem you are having: A) letting your own vision of how your game should be be dictated by someone else's vision of how it should be, and B) not allowing for the fact that "destroyers" can come in many flavors and breeds: escort, fast, missile, heavy, light, etc.. Or even just a catch-all name for a ship big enough to be a threat, but not as big as a "capital" ship that you would base a squadron or fleet around. But they are cheap, variead, adaptable, and most importantly - plentiful.

Labels, labels. This is why I just do it my way. IMTU destroyers are the "do-everything in-between ship". Someone governor needs a gunboat - send a destroyer. Pirates? Send a destroyer. Enemy cruiser inbound and you don't have a cruiser handy? Send a bunch of destroyers.

If the pirates get the kind with a Meson J or N onboard them it's doom on them...if the bunch of destroyers going out to delay the inbound enemy cruisers are just a pack of smaller ones without spinal weapons and small PAW and missile bays that's how heroes are born.

 

[mike wightman]

I consider a large spinal weapon to be at least 2000t.

The factor J meson gun is a game changer of sorts. It is small enough and power efficient enough to fit in sub 20kt ships.

My proposal is the look again at the ship designations - a destroyer originally got its name as the shortened form of torpedo boat destroyer.

Below TL15 there is a clear distinction between the ships that can carry spinals, 20kt+ and those that can't which rely on bays or batteries of turret weapons.

These sub 20kt craft are what we call escorts.

The TL15 type J meson gun allows an large escort sized ship to carry a weapon that can mission kill other escort class ships since they tend to lack high factor meson screens of properly designed cruisers and battleships.

So an escort class ship equipped with a J spinal becomes an escort destroyer - or destroyer for short.

 

[sabredog]

Mike:

I agree, and that makes sense. The J is a game changer - and so is the N, but for the N coughing up more EP is the issue, which is why the N-carrying destroyers have to throttle down the agility to fire up the main gun. But the J is the sweet spot.

And for MTU that is what makes them a a destroyer, too. A real capital ship wouldn't have to throttle down or shut off anything - it will have sufficient power to unleash all the heck it carries at all at once. So a cruiser can fire its main gun, all its lasers, energy weapons, replusors, and screens all while dodging about like a ballerina on crack.

A J-class (referring to the meson gun) destroyer can, too, but only because the bulk of its other weapons are missiles and relies on its agility for defense, with only nuke dampers. The N-class has to slow down because it carries screens and some PAW bays in addition to more laser and energy weapon batteries than missiles. So admittedly, except for the lack of fitting my definition above as what a capital ship is IMTU, it could be argued that the N-class is as much a light cruiser as it is a destroyer+.

But "escort" duties are mainly for what I call frigates and corvettes. Or it would be just the mission of the day for whatever ship is assigned to it, regardless of the ship's "class".

 

[snrdg082102]

Afternoon Sabredog,

This is part of the problem you are having: A) letting your own vision of how your game should be be dictated by someone else's vision of how it should be, and B) not allowing for the fact that "destroyers" can come in many flavors and breeds: escort, fast, missile, heavy, light, etc.. Or even just a catch-all name for a ship big enough to be a threat, but not as big as a "capital" ship that you would base a squadron or fleet around. But they are cheap, variead, adaptable, and most importantly - plentiful.

Labels, labels. This is why I just do it my way. IMTU destroyers are the "do-everything in-between ship". Someone governor needs a gunboat - send a destroyer. Pirates? Send a destroyer. Enemy cruiser inbound and you don't have a cruiser handy? Send a bunch of destroyers.

If the pirates get the kind with a Meson J or N onboard them it's doom on them...if the bunch of destroyers going out to delay the inbound enemy cruisers are just a pack of smaller ones without spinal weapons and small PAW and missile bays that's how heroes are born.

I'm trying to work with what the design sequences and supporting documentation provides me for the most part. However, my background as a military history nut and a slightly brain damaged submarine sailor does play a part in how I interpret the rules. In the case of Supplement 9 coupled with my background Escorts includes everything not covered in one of the discussed canon types.


Nope, I know that every base type can have sub-type. I've created a Destroyer Leader (DL), Fast Frigate Missile (FFM), a cutter armed with a beam laser identified as YBL, and a number of other units.


Next, I use the terms of light and heavy once again based on my knowledge of naval terminology and the material presented in Traveller. The Type S Scout is a light combatant compared to everything else. Escorts, which is where I slip destroyers, in the TU are light combatants compared to everything else. Cruisers, battleships, and dreadnoughts are heavy combatants based on displacement tonnage and weapons mix.


Book 2 the Mercenary and Patrol Cruisers are very light combats since they are armed only with turrets and are really little more than armed merchants, better weapons of course. Book 5 provides for creating true warships. Heavy combatants can utilize every weapon available not to mention a lot more than the light combatants.


The issue is not sharing the same frame work on which to base the terms. I try very hard to stay in the frame work of, in this case, Classic Traveller. When dealing with MT, TNE, T4, GT, MgT, T20, and even Traveller 2300 AD I true to use each of their frame of reference.


Thanks for the comments which are at least partially true and some I disagree with.

 

[Carlobrand]

Day of the Destroyer

WW-II, the Battle of Leyte Gulf - the battle off Samar

American forces were invading Leyte, one of the several islands of the Phillippines. The Japanese crafted a rather complicated plan to ambush the American forces on the beach by luring off and/or punching through American naval forces. Three forces were to attack from three directions: two battleship/cruiser groups and a carrier group. The carrier group was a diversion - Japan was short of aircraft, and it was hoped that the sacrifice of the carriers might open the way for the battlewagons to reach the beaches lf Leyte and attack the transports and ground forces there. In the subsequent series of battles, both battlegroups were hit hard and forced back. Then the American force found the carrier group and, believing the two Japanese battle forces were out of the fight and going home, went after the carriers with the bulk of their force, leaving behind a screening force of escort carriers - little 8000-12,000 ton ships, about a third the size of the fleet carriers - and destroyers to protect the landing zone.

And one of the Japanese battle forces turned around.

The subsequent engagement, the Battle off Samar, saw four Japanese battleships - including Yamato - six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and 11 destroyers surprise an American force of 6 escort carriers, 3 destroyers, and 4 destroyer escorts. Against overwhelming odds, the Americans won. The escort carriers, caught by surprise, launched their aircraft with whatever arms they happened to have mounted at the time - in some instances, aircraft attacked the enemy ships with depth charges - then fled as best they could. The destroyers, tasked with trying to protect the carriers, laid smoke to try to cover them, then charged in point blank to attack the battleships and cruisers of the Japanese Navy. They paid heavily - two of the three destroyers were lost, as were one destroyer escort and two carriers - but their attack had been so heroically aggressive that the Japanese lost 3 heavy cruisers, saw another three damaged, and decided to withdraw in the belief that they were fighting the American battle fleet rather than a collection of escorts and pocket carriers.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Carlobrand,

This example is true, however the Japanese Imperial Navy (JIN) involved at Leyte Gulf was a shadow of itself. There are a lot of variables that could have tipped the outcome in favor of the JIN and made a shambles of the landings. I watched a history show that discussed several key battles and Leyte Gulf was one of the segments. One comment that stuck out was that had the Japanese Admiral continued his attack the units that got through would have done a lot of damage to the invasion fleet, even at the cost of losing all the ship's in his fleet.

I'm really glad the US won however, but from the comments from the show and what I've uncovered our victory was a much luck as tactics and guts of the escort carriers, pilots, and destroyers.

By the way, depth charges may not be the best way to sink a surface ship, but they can do so or at least make the other guys wish they stayed in port.

WW-II, the Battle of Leyte Gulf - the battle off Samar

American forces were invading Leyte, one of the several islands of the Phillippines. The Japanese crafted a rather complicated plan to ambush the American forces on the beach by luring off and/or punching through American naval forces. Three forces were to attack from three directions: two battleship/cruiser groups and a carrier group. The carrier group was a diversion - Japan was short of aircraft, and it was hoped that the sacrifice of the carriers might open the way for the battlewagons to reach the beaches lf Leyte and attack the transports and ground forces there. In the subsequent series of battles, both battlegroups were hit hard and forced back. Then the American force found the carrier group and, believing the two Japanese battle forces were out of the fight and going home, went after the carriers with the bulk of their force, leaving behind a screening force of escort carriers - little 8000-12,000 ton ships, about a third the size of the fleet carriers - and destroyers to protect the landing zone.

And one of the Japanese battle forces turned around.

The subsequent engagement, the Battle off Samar, saw four Japanese battleships - including Yamato - six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and 11 destroyers surprise an American force of 6 escort carriers, 3 destroyers, and 4 destroyer escorts. Against overwhelming odds, the Americans won. The escort carriers, caught by surprise, launched their aircraft with whatever arms they happened to have mounted at the time - in some instances, aircraft attacked the enemy ships with depth charges - then fled as best they could. The destroyers, tasked with trying to protect the carriers, laid smoke to try to cover them, then charged in point blank to attack the battleships and cruisers of the Japanese Navy. They paid heavily - two of the three destroyers were lost, as were one destroyer escort and two carriers - but their attack had been so heroically aggressive that the Japanese lost 3 heavy cruisers, saw another three damaged, and decided to withdraw in the belief that they were fighting the American battle fleet rather than a collection of escorts and pocket carriers.

 

[Carlobrand]

...This example is true, however the Japanese Imperial Navy (JIN) involved at Leyte Gulf was a shadow of itself. There are a lot of variables that could have tipped the outcome in favor of the JIN and made a shambles of the landings. I watched a history show that discussed several key battles and Leyte Gulf was one of the segments. One comment that stuck out was that had the Japanese Admiral continued his attack the units that got through would have done a lot of damage to the invasion fleet, even at the cost of losing all the ship's in his fleet.

I'm really glad the US won however, but from the comments from the show and what I've uncovered our victory was a much luck as tactics and guts of the escort carriers, pilots, and destroyers...

Yup, luck and guts ... and a slight tech advantage. The U.S. ships had better fire control - and the smaller more maneuverable destroyers were simply harder for the Japanese to hit. On the luck side, the Japanese, expecting to meet a heavier force, started with armor-piercing explosive rounds which often went all the way through the destroyers and out the other side before bursting. And, given that the expectation was he should sacrifice his fleet to damage the invaders, Kurita's decision to preserve his force was rather surprising, but apparently he really thought the mission could not be achieved.

I think of a squadron of Imperial destroyers suddenly confronted with Zhodani cruisers, using agility and their slight tech advantage to stay alive and fend them off, surprising the Zho by doggedly accepting losses rather than retreating until the Zho force decides the attrition to their weaponry isn't worth the mission. Unfortunately, the game doesn't do that fog-of-war thing - and given that it's future tech, it probably can't. However, I can see a series of lucky hits persuading a Zho commander that the Imperials were fielding new Model-10 computers.