CT Only: Destroyers and other escorts

[McPerth]

Historically, main Destroyers¹ mission has been the defense of the "more valuable" targets (Capital Ships or transports, be them troop transports, freighters or tankers) against smaller targets taht can threaten them (mostly torpedo boats, subamrines and, latter, aircrafts and missiles). As a secondary mission, they used their superior speed and agility and its smaller size to perform torpedo attack runs by themselves.

In CT:HG things are quite different, as there is no equivalent for torpedoes/submarines, nor plane equivalent threat (at least at higher TLs, where fighter's threat falls under heavier screens/armor on Capital Ships). Likewise, Destroyers lose the speed and agility advantage when all ships have the same speed limits and may be equally agile.

So, they are too small (and lightly armed) to even dent a capital ship, while they are an overkill for anti-piracy fighting (assuming most piracy will be small ships, on the 200-800 dton range).

Then, what's Destroyers niche in this environ?

Some notes:

1. Along this thread, I will refer to all HG built (over let's say 1000 dtons) and under cruiser category as Destroyers, be them Destroyers, Frigates, etc...
2. I ignore the hamsters told about in TCS contests, as I find them quite useless in more strategical picture, as useful as they can be in those single engagement artificial contests

 

[Condottiere]

Depends on the design rules.

Most designs are compromises to begin with, and it's a question of what role(s) you need them for.

In real life, you may have noticed size inflation, to the point some are like battlecruisers from a prior age.

 

[McPerth]

Depends on the design rules.

That's why I specified this thread as CT only. Design rules are CT:HG (and could be extended to MT).

As you hint, in MgT all this reasoning would be void, as threats exist and Destroyers can damage capital ships, and I don't know enough about other versions to even mention them here.

Most designs are compromises to begin with, and it's a question of what role(s) you need them for.

In real life, you may have noticed size inflation, to the point some are like battlecruisers from a prior age.

That's again why I specified them as over 1000-2000 dton and smaller than a cruiser (in fact, IIRC, a cruiser is defined in CT as "the smallest ship to have spinal mount", so the true upper limit in this definition would be "without spinal mount).

 

[Condottiere]

Even one's interpretation of the Classics can evolve.

Three to five kay tonnes seems about the usual range for destroyers, which has enough volume to be a more general purpose vessel, as compared to a frigate, which you'd think would be specialized to a single role.

While you might want to limit frigates to one to two kays, I think that if you do hold to the specialization doctrine, they can be larger.

Corvettes would be more robust patrol ships.

That's the modern perspective imposed on Traveller.

The Great Patriotic War one would have destroyer escorts being purpose built commerce protectors, or converted obsolete Great War destroyers; I wouldn't really consider them frigates.

Corvettes should be enough to scare off the run of the mill pirate, as they should be in the five hundred to the thousand tonne range.

If you look at it in three dimensions, you'd also have to account for destroyers built to previous tech level standards, which most navies would deploy in less intensive environments.

 

[McPerth]

Yes, but it's the role of those Destroyers what I would like to discuss here.

• They are to small and lightly armed to confront even a Cruiser, even in some numerical advantage...
• They are no quicker, nor more agile tan larger ships...
• Capital ships have seccondaries enough to deal with fighters (that, after all, represent little danger for them, at least at higher TLs)...
• They are too big (and expensive) to be simply used against pirates (assumed, as said in the OP, most pirates are in 200-800 dton ships). Smaller ships can do this more efficiently...
• There are no submarines to hunt or defended against (the main role of the WWII escort destoryers)...

So, what's the true role of Destroyers (as described in note 1 in OP) in this space combat field?

 

[mike wightman]

High Guard models TL 7-15 space warfare, it does this using ship type names from history, unfortunately, and people get hung up on using ironclads to 21 century naval warfare terms so much so they think that TL 7 to 15 space warfare should follow this model.

It doesn't.

In HG destroyer/escort class ships are effectively any ship that can carry bay missiles or repulsors but doesn't have a spinal mount.
They should have the best armour and screens you can pack in for their TL.

Their job in HG2 combat simply put is to hold the line while capital ships appraise the opposition, or hold the line while the capital ships retreat.

And note - the nature of the 'destroyer' class ship will change from TL to TL.

 

[Condottiere]

This would be the point that size inflation comes in, and the destroyers upgrade to bay weapons.

They'd also attack in packs.

Of course, I'm speaking in generalities; if you really want to game the system, you'd min/max the design.

Destroyers represent in terms of commerce protection, a deterrence from anything the same size or smaller having a go at the convoy.

As a group, they might be willing and able to take out a light cruiser; individually, it would be a distraction to gain time for the other vessels to escape.

 

[McPerth]

That's the role depicted to them in the description of the 154^th BatDron in SMC, to hold the line while the BRs are deployed, and I can understand it, but see that they are just a handful, not the numbers talked about in other threads.

And never forget that:

• it can well be that the BT exits jump before them, so making their use nullified
• the BT is unlikely to exit jump in the middle of enemy ships to need for them
• as no warning will be received by the defenders that a ship is going to exit jump, they are unlikely to be ready for combat before the BRs (that are assumed to know they will exit jump) are detached (a single combat turn, if the BT is config 7, as they should always be)

As an aside, I believe another important advantage of the BT/BR combo is that the whole squadron reaches the destination together, not being affected by the jump time variations

 

[Redcap]

I think we have to go back to basics in defining the roles for various combatant ships;

Corvette: A fast-moving small warship, intended to defend against and destroy small attack craft.
Destroyer: A ship designed to escort other ships, and defend against and destroy smaller ships.
Frigate: Smallest of the capital ships, designed to deliver a punch against large ships, but capable against smaller ship and craft.
Cruiser: Mid sized capital warship. Intended as a stand-alone ship capable against a wide range of threats.
Battleship. The largest of the capital ships, and very capable in destroying pretty-much anything it sets its sight upon.
Carrier: Larger than capital ships, it's strength lies in it's offensive small craft, such as fighters, which can deliver a much-needed stand-off punch at longer ranges.
Dreadnought: A combination of a Battleship and carrier, rolled into one. Quite probably the most deadly of all warships.

How do those definitions stand?

 

[McPerth]

As a group, they might be willing and able to take out a light cruiser; individually, it would be a distraction to gain time for the other vessels to escape.

Are you sure about that?

If the cruiser is agile and armored and has good nuclear damper, most missile bays will either miss or be inefective (aside from that the cruiser is likely to have repulsors and other active defenses), while the spinal of the cruiser means one hit/one kill (while any offensive secondary might also wear the destroyers out)

In a fight among 6 5 kdton destroyers and a 30 kdton cruiser I would not be so sure about their capability to destroy it...

 

[McPerth]

I think we have to go back to basics in defining the roles for various combatant ships;

Corvette: A fast-moving small warship, intended to defend against and destroy small attack craft.
Destroyer: A ship designed to escort other ships, and defend against and destroy smaller ships.
Frigate: Smallest of the capital ships, designed to deliver a punch against large ships, but capable against smaller ship and craft.
Cruiser: Mid sized capital warship. Intended as a stand-alone ship capable against a wide range of threats.
Battleship. The largest of the capital ships, and very capable in destroying pretty-much anything it sets its sight upon.
Carrier: Larger than capital ships, it's strength lies in it's offensive small craft, such as fighters, which can deliver a much-needed stand-off punch at longer ranges.
Dreadnought: A combination of a Battleship and carrier, rolled into one. Quite probably the most deadly of all warships.

How do those definitions stand?

Nice theory, now let's anlayze it with CT:HG in view:

Corvette: A fast-moving small warship, intended to defend against and destroy small attack craft.

As agility 6 is a must for your ships if you want to still have them after the first volley, all ships are likely to be likewise fast-moving, so nullifing part of the definition...

Corvette: A fast-moving small warship, intended to defend against and destroy small attack craft.
Destroyer: A ship designed to escort other ships, and defend against and destroy smaller ships.
Frigate: Smallest of the capital ships, designed to deliver a punch against large ships, but capable against smaller ship and craft.

Commonly called Destroyers in the OP (or Escorts if you like). They escort other ships against what?

Again, there are no torpedoes nor submarines to be escorted from, and fighters are not too effective against heavily armored and screened (nuclear damper) ships.

And for Transports (you forgot them, while being the very reason of any navy existence), those ships are an overkill against pirates (except perhaps the corvette), while not being able to protect them (unless in really overhelming numbers) against a single cruiser.

Cruiser: Mid sized capital warship. Intended as a stand-alone ship capable against a wide range of threats.
Battleship. The largest of the capital ships, and very capable in destroying pretty-much anything it sets its sight upon.

In CT:HG as fast and agile as any corvette, armored and screened and carying the feared spinals that use to mean one hit/one kill, aside from their many secondaries, each able to either effectively defend it or be a true threat for smaller ships...

Again, what must they be escorted from?

Carrier: Larger than capital ships, it's strength lies in it's offensive small craft, such as fighters, which can deliver a much-needed stand-off punch at longer ranges.
Dreadnought: A combination of a Battleship and carrier, rolled into one. Quite probably the most deadly of all warships.

They carry their own escorts (in the form of subcrafts), aside from, in the case of Dreadnoughts, being in the battleship category above. (BTW, I understand tenders are among Carriers).

 

[mike wightman]

I think we have to go back to basics in defining the roles for various combatant ships;



How do those definitions stand?

They don't :devil:

and that is part of the problem. :CoW:

'We' use those terms because they are familiar to us and as a result impose those paradigms on the ships we describe.

HG models ship combat and development over a timespan measures in thousands almost tens of thousands of years in the OTU.

Ask yourself this - how often has the definition of frigate changed over the last three centuries? Or cruiser. Torpedo boat destroyer has been used for just over a century and already we are changing what a destroyer means in the modern navy (compare a flight 3 Arleigh Burke with a WW2 cruiser...)

I know we need a common frame of reference for the metagame - but this comes at the risk of forgetting that it is just a name and that the nature of space warfare as modelled by HG2 changes over the time period covered.

 

[whulorigan]

I think we have to go back to basics in defining the roles for various combatant ships;

Corvette: A fast-moving small warship, intended to defend against and destroy small attack craft.
Destroyer: A ship designed to escort other ships, and defend against and destroy smaller ships.
Frigate: Smallest of the capital ships, designed to deliver a punch against large ships, but capable against smaller ship and craft.
Cruiser: Mid sized capital warship. Intended as a stand-alone ship capable against a wide range of threats.
Battleship. The largest of the capital ships, and very capable in destroying pretty-much anything it sets its sight upon.
Carrier: Larger than capital ships, it's strength lies in it's offensive small craft, such as fighters, which can deliver a much-needed stand-off punch at longer ranges.
Dreadnought: A combination of a Battleship and carrier, rolled into one. Quite probably the most deadly of all warships.

How do those definitions stand?

The definition of Frigate relative to Destroyer has varied during the 20th Century. I am not a Naval expert by any means, but the standard (general) definition today of a Frigate is a vessel smaller than a Destroyer that is roughly equivalent to what the US Destroyer Escort used to be during the 1950's.

Basically, the United States had a somewhat odd classification for its warships post-WWII up thru the early 1970's that was different from how the rest of the world navies classified warships.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_1975_ship_reclassification

The old Heavy Cruisers of WWII were re-designated "Gun Cruisers" in the 1950's (Hull Code CA/CAG), with older Destroyer-Leaders called "Frigates" (DL/DLG) alongside regular Destroyers still called such (DD/DDG). Ocean Escort (DE/DEG) was the new term for the older "Destroyer-Escort". This system was different from the rest of the world, for which the term "Frigate" generally meant a small vessel (smaller than a destroyer) that was roughly equivalent to the US Ocean/Destroyer Escort.

Pre-1975 USN Scheme:

Cruiser
|
Frigate (Destroyer Leader)
|
Destroyer
|
Ocean/Destroyer Escort
​

This situation caused a perceived (not real) problem that the US Navy had a "Cruiser Gap" (because we had relatively few "Gun Cruisers" left from WWII, but plenty of "Frigates", which were operationally the equivalent to Cruisers in other countries' navies, just not in name).

So in 1975, the USN reclassified all of its vessels to bring them more into line with the standard terminology used by foreign navies (which eliminated the perceived "gap" in the number of cruisers, because most of the "frigates" became cruisers under the new classification scheme). In this new scheme, the older Ocean/Destroyer Escort were reclassified as "Frigates" (now smaller than Destroyers).

Post-1975 USN Scheme:

Cruiser
|
Destroyer
|
Frigate (old Ocean/Destroyer Escort)

​

I bring all of this up because a number of Sci-Fi games use a classification scheme for their Space Navies based on the old US Navy terminology in which Frigates fell between Destroyers and Cruisers in terms of tonnage and capabilities.

OTOH in Traveller (going all the way back to CT), the authors seem to have used the later USN classification scheme (paralleling most modern world Navies) of frigates being vessels smaller than Destroyers and similar to Ocean/Destroyer Escorts in capabilities. That is why in Imperial Naval terminology "Patrol Frigates" and "Destroyer Escorts" are both usually small 600-1000 dton vessels, whereas "Destroyers" seem to fall into the 1kton - 3kton range. Corvettes are smaller still (usually about 400-800 dton).

 

[Condottiere]

If I recall the rule set correctly, it's progressively harder to hit smaller objects.

So I would design a corvette in the 900-999 tonne range.

And maybe a large smallcraft destroyer at nine thousandish tonnes.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

The definition of Frigate relative to Destroyer has varied during the 20th Century. I am not a Naval expert by any means, but the standard (general) definition today of a Frigate is a vessel smaller than a Destroyer that is roughly equivalent to what the US Destroyer Escort used to be during the 1950's.

Basically, the United States had a somewhat odd classification for its warships post-WWII up thru the early 1970's that was different from how the rest of the world navies classified warships.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_1975_ship_reclassification

The old Heavy Cruisers of WWII were re-designated "Gun Cruisers" in the 1950's (Hull Code CA/CAG), with older Destroyer-Leaders called "Frigates" (DL/DLG) alongside regular Destroyers still called such (DD/DDG). Ocean Escort (DE/DEG) was the new term for the older "Destroyer-Escort". This system was different from the rest of the world, for which the term "Frigate" generally meant a small vessel (smaller than a destroyer) that was roughly equivalent to the US Ocean/Destroyer Escort.

Pre-1975 USN Scheme:

Cruiser
|
Frigate (Destroyer Leader)
|
Destroyer
|
Ocean/Destroyer Escort
​

This situation caused a perceived (not real) problem that the US Navy had a "Cruiser Gap" (because we had relatively few "Gun Cruisers" left from WWII, but plenty of "Frigates", which were operationally the equivalent to Cruisers in other countries' navies, just not in name).

So in 1975, the USN reclassified all of its vessels to bring them more into line with the standard terminology used by foreign navies (which eliminated the perceived "gap" in the number of cruisers, because most of the "frigates" became cruisers under the new classification scheme). In this new scheme, the older Ocean/Destroyer Escort were reclassified as "Frigates" (now smaller than Destroyers).

Post-1975 USN Scheme:

Cruiser
|
Destroyer
|
Frigate (old Ocean/Destroyer Escort)

​

I bring all of this up because a number of Sci-Fi games use a classification scheme for their Space Navies based on the old US Navy terminology in which Frigates fell between Destroyers and Cruisers in terms of tonnage and capabilities.

OTOH in Traveller (going all the way back to CT), the authors seem to have used the later USN classification scheme (paralleling most modern world Navies) of frigates being vessels smaller than Destroyers and similar to Ocean/Destroyer Escorts in capabilities. That is why in Imperial Naval terminology "Patrol Frigates" and "Destroyer Escorts" are both usually small 600-1000 dton vessels, whereas "Destroyers" seem to fall into the 1kton - 3kton range. Corvettes are smaller still (usually about 400-800 dton).

On the other hand, the pre-1975 American system was closer to the historical conventions, where a frigate was a medium sized warship bigger than the "unrated" brigs and sloops, and smaller than (line of) battleships. so it really depends on which terminology you wish to follow.

 

[salochin999]

I've been wondering the same thing.

The labels for ship type were originally based on function and even though the strict meanings change over time if we assume they generally always come back to function sometimes combined with a consistent sequence of relative size: corvette, frigate, destroyer, cruiser, battleship.

If function is the foundation and one function = escort = destroyer then a lot of the wet navy threats that require capital ships to have escorts: subs, fighters, missiles etc might disappear in space depending on various assumptions.

1) If there's no stealth in space then the sub equivalent threat goes away.

2) If the point defense assumptions are

a) that lots of short range energy weapons can take out swarms of missile or fighters

and

b) that capital ships have the space and energy capacity to carry lots of short range energy weapons

then big capital ships would be their own escorts like they were before subs, planes and missiles.

If assumption (b) didn't hold for some reason then you'd still want escorts carrying lots of short range energy weapons to protect against swarms of fighters and missiles.

#

So those are the assumptions.

If you don't have stealth in your space combat and if large capital ships can carry a ton of short range lasers and a ton of short range lasers can take out swarms of fighter/missiles then you don't need escorts.

If those assumptions are wrong then you still need escorts and destroyers can fill that role.

#

Capital ships would still want small expendable scouts to prevent ambush but if their main purpose is to be expendable then the smaller the better and possibly best performed by fighters from the capital ship itself like wet navy ships in the past having their own scout plane but either way not really destroyer sized.

#

So depending on the combat rules battle fleets are either
- capital ships + escorts (destroyers in this context) + scouts + tenders
or
- capital ships + scouts + tenders
or
capital ships + tenders (if the capital ships carry their own scouts)
with the second option being conceptually more of Napoleonic era ship of the line type navy than a modern carrier group type navy.

#

Cruiser (as a function) might then take on a similar meaning to the one it had in the napoleonic era also - ships that performed the cruising role, commerce protection, raiding etc.

#

That might be the answer to your question in this case. If cruisers (functionally) were the commerce raiders then the destroyer function might become the second of their traditional roles - convoy escort.

They wouldn't need to be able to dent a capital ship just a cruiser but being able to dent a cruiser would be the condition or at least be able to hold them while the merchants got away.

Although if you wanted a smaller ship to be able to take on a larger one then an SDB would be more the thing - so at least along protected routes it might make more sense for convoy escorts to be SDBs - one escorting to the jump point and a second waiting near the exit jump point.

In which case following the logic that ship type labels follow function over time the label "destroyer" might gradually become attached to large merchant escort SDBs on the main trade routes and/or small jump-capable anti-pirate ships in the backwaters.

#

Obviously this all depends on the rules used but it's interesting to follow through what happens when you change assumptions.

##

edit

consistent sequence of relative size: corvette, frigate, destroyer, cruiser, battleship.

or in light of other comments maybe not so consistent

a more general way of putting it might be

escort, cruiser, battleship

with frigate as the smallest cruiser and escorts varying from small merchant escorts (corvettes) to large fleet escorts (destroyers) so the sizes overlap depending on the era.

 

[whulorigan]

I think we have to go back to basics in defining the roles for various combatant ships;

Corvette: A fast-moving small warship, intended to defend against and destroy small attack craft.
Destroyer: A ship designed to escort other ships, and defend against and destroy smaller ships.

Frigate: Smallest of the capital ships, designed to deliver a punch against large ships, but capable against smaller ship and craft.

Cruiser: Mid sized capital warship. Intended as a stand-alone ship capable against a wide range of threats.
Battleship. The largest of the capital ships, and very capable in destroying pretty-much anything it sets its sight upon.
Carrier: Larger than capital ships, it's strength lies in it's offensive small craft, such as fighters, which can deliver a much-needed stand-off punch at longer ranges.
Dreadnought: A combination of a Battleship and carrier, rolled into one. Quite probably the most deadly of all warships.

How do those definitions stand?

Another thought: The Imperial Navy has a "Fleet Escort" classification that generally displaces about ~5 kton. That is a classification that fits between the Destroyer and Cruiser range as well. Perhaps Escort/Fleet Escort fits the role that you have listed above for "Frigate".

And most Traveller vessels designated as Frigates under Imperial nomenclature are specifically called "Patrol Frigates".

 

[McPerth]

If I recall the rule set correctly, it's progressively harder to hit smaller objects.

So I would design a corvette in the 900-999 tonne range.

And maybe a large smallcraft destroyer at nine thousandish tonnes.

This frigate in the <1000 dton range (I considere the 999 as a cheat, but that's for another discussion) could be a nice pirate hunter.

That's why I set the lower limit at 1000-2000 dton, s they are too small to mount a bay, and so definitely not a combat (not even am escort) ship, but a patrol ship (or a commerce raider), cheap and expendable and able to cope with most pirates (or mosts merchants, if in the commerce raiding role).

 

[Condottiere]

I'm not to sure about the exact legality, I did design one patrol ship at 1'451 tonnes.

Which means one bay and four or five turrets.

I think the reason was to remain under the size advantage covered by a thousand tonnes category.

 

[McPerth]

I'm not to sure about the exact legality, I did design one patrol ship at 1'451 tonnes.

Which means one bay and four or five turrets.

I think the reason was to remain under the size advantage covered by a thousand tonnes category.

And that's perfectly legal. What I meant is to keep a ship just under the treeshold for the size modifiers...