Navy Picket/Screens

[Dragoner]

Actually the only CDs left are the T5, JTAS, Challenger and Appocrypha CDs... I have the rest (most of it thru DriveThru rather than FFE, I don't use PayPal so to buy from Marc I have to mail him a check, DriveThru is just easier).

Buying those 4 CD's would be $105 +s&h with the 443 sale and you can use your atm or credit card through paypal, it is just like the same service you get at regular stores except online.

That's is exactly what I did, I just bought the CT, JTAS, Apochrypha and T5 cd's.

 

[jatay3]

just becuase they don't expect combat, doesn't mean that their won't see combat. Units deployed near the Solomani and Zhodani borders would be thier to deter their counterparts form acting, even if they don't ever fire a shot in anger.

Also off the top of my head, possible reasons to do somthing like this include:

Showing the Big Stick during talks with a pocket empire just outside the boarders (ie "we are taking the civil option by talking to you. please do not make us use our considerable ability to ruin your day and aggree to our demands.")

A simple, honest to god fleet exercise ( maybe some simulated battles, testing of logicistic abilites in the area, etc)

ensuring control of a "chokepoint" system, where deployment of SDBs and monitors has not/ can not be done.

back up for a smaller scale op (for example, a intervention in a war between minor powers. the BatRon is the heavy brigade, not part of the assualt team but thier to pull thier asses out of the fire)

pre-positioning of the squadron in case of a contingency (for example, two client states going to war)

A Zho or Soli vessel would definitely not fire on an Imperial battleship. That's a lot different then a Pytheas which can be written down as "cause unknown" if lost. An obscure power with an erratic regime might do so though.

 

[Dagrill]

That would be a reuced strength Batron following the break up ofthe Imperium then presumably? Even a tyrant wouldn't leave his rear undefended from hostile powers so presumably they split them up in a similar way that Hitler doubled his paner divisions by dividing their asset accross 20 division rather than 10 in 1941 so he could fight a war on two fronts.

I suppose first you'd have to decide what definition of a BatRon you want to go by. For example MT's Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium defines a Batron as 4 battleships/dreadnaughts, 3 scouts, 2 auxilaries, 2 transports and 1 tanker.

 

[BardicHeart]

That was a full paper strength batron prior to the rebellion. From my reading of Fighting ships, fleets were made up of several batrons, crurons, and so forth. There were also any number of smaller auxillary ships that weren't as clearly defined. There were, apparently, hundreds of such batrons and crurons spread out across the 3I.

Mongoose Traveller provided a book on fleets that goes into a bit more depth but from what I recall (I don't have it all handy at the moment so this is from memory) produced similar numbers of ships.

 

[McPerth]

You seem to forget a Batron may be also composed of BR/BT combo.

If we take 154 BatRon as example, it is composed of 1 300000 dton BT, 7 20000 dton BRs, 7 5000 dton FEs, about 200 heavy fighters (FH) and 28 SDBs (4/BR) (Spindward marches supplement, pags 32-36). I've also assumed any major (and most minor) fleet element takes some courriers (about 200 dton J4-J6 ships) for courrier/comunication duty, and probably some supply ships (though IMO the BT has enought suplies to allow independent action for some time).

I also understand that BR/BT squadrons are more used by reserve fleets, leaving frontier fleets to the BBs, due to their superior retreat probability in face of unexpected attack/opposition.

But I think the auxiliares in the squadron would not difer much from BBs to BT/BR squadrons (perhaps less escorts, as no need to earn time to deploy/recover the BRs is needed, but they could also be useful as high guard when refuelling).

So, the screen/pickets would be taken from the 7 FEs, 28 SDBs and 200 FH. I would assume the 7 FEs are in costant picket/screen duty, and about 1/10 to 1/6 of the carried craft usually join them in low/mdm threat areas (IIRC that's more or less what is kept on CAP on a US CV today).

That would give us a constant picket/screen of 7 FEs, 2-5 SDBs and about 20-40 FH.

 

[rancke]

If we take 154 BatRon as example, it is composed of 1 300000 dton BT, 7 20000 dton BRs, 7 5000 dton FEs, about 200 heavy fighters (FH) and 28 SDBs (4/BR) (Spindward marches supplement, pags 32-36). I've also assumed any major (and most minor) fleet element takes some courriers (about 200 dton J4-J6 ships) for courrier/comunication duty, and probably some supply ships (though IMO the BT has enought suplies to allow independent action for some time).

The 154th BatRon is a very bad example because whoever designed it made a huge mistake. It's not a squadron of battleship-sized battleriders, it's a squadron of cruiser-sized battleriders. The combat element is seven 20,000T riders. Being riders they're presumbly more capable than 20,000T cruisers, but it is simply not reasonable to suppose that they'd be capable of standing up against the same number of 200,000T battleships.

Whatever it is called, the 154th is actually a cruiser squadron.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

The 154th BatRon is a very bad example because whoever designed it made a huge mistake. It's not a squadron of battleship-sized battleriders, it's a squadron of cruiser-sized battleriders. The combat element is seven 20,000T riders. Being riders they're presumbly more capable than 20,000T cruisers, but it is simply not reasonable to suppose that they'd be capable of standing up against the same number of 200,000T battleships.

Whatever it is called, the 154th is actually a cruiser squadron.


Hans

Most BRs are cruiser sized (in fighting ships, MT, they are mostly on the 30k dton range), and yet their squadrons are BatRons...

And even if they are more like cruisers in size, they still can be in the main battle lines, so, in at least functionally, they are a BatRon.

CruRons need (by mision and conception) to be able to split and that is the main difference (IMO) between a CruRon and the 154th.

 

[rancke]

Most BRs are cruiser sized (in fighting ships, MT, they are mostly on the 30k dton range), and yet their squadrons are BatRons...

Which is evidence of the authors who made up those squadrons not thinking it through, not evidence that 30,000T battleriders aren't cruiser-equivalents.

And even if they are more like cruisers in size, they still can be in the main battle lines, so, in at least functionally, they are a BatRon.

The problem is that they are like cruisers in COST, which means that if they actually were as powerful as battleships, no one would be building battleships. However, the interstellar states of the OTU do build battleships, lots of battlerships. It stands to reason that a ship that costs six or eight times less can not really be just as powerful. If a combat system designed to emulate a reality that has states building battleships makes cruiser-sized ships a match for battleship-sized ships, then that combat system is flawed.

CruRons need (by mision and conception) to be able to split and that is the main difference (IMO) between a CruRon and the 154th.

CruRons are composed of cruisers and their equivalents; BatRons are composed of battleships and their equivalents. Both can be split into half-squadrons and divisions.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

The problem is that they are like cruisers in COST, which means that if they actually were as powerful as battleships, no one would be building battleships. However, the interstellar states of the OTU do build battleships, lots of battlerships. It stands to reason that a ship that costs six or eight times less can not really be just as powerful. If a combat system designed to emulate a reality that has states building battleships makes cruiser-sized ships a match for battleship-sized ships, then that combat system is flawed.

Well, that the ship combat system in HG (and so in MT) is quite fawled is a thing I needn't to be convinced, as you surely know from other threads we've talked on...

Even so, the battleship has other adventages, as the capability to independent action that the BR don't has, easier retreat in face of superior foe (as it doesn't need to retreat to its tender)...

It is because of this that Imperial doctrine is to have the Battleships on frontier duty and the tender/rider squadrons on reserve, as they need more planned moves.

CruRons are composed of cruisers and their equivalents; BatRons are composed of battleships and their equivalents. Both can be split into half-squadrons and divisions.

Yes, but per mission, cruiser are expected to act independently more often than Battleships, and that makes too the difference.

Anyway, this discussion should be better made in another thread, as for what this thread is concerned, doesn't matter if there are BRs or BBs on the squadron, as it concerns about the pickets, that I think wouldn't be so different, Just in case of BBs, the fighters would be carried by them, instead of the tender.

PS This doesn't mean I flee from that discussion )even is as old as the Navy, and so probably no true answer can be found for all situations), just that I think this is not the thread to discuss it.

 

[rancke]

Yes, but per mission, cruiser are expected to act independently more often than Battleships, and that makes too the difference.

The difference between CruRons and BatRon is that CruRons are made up of ships that are large enough to carry spinals but not strong enough to stand in the line of battle and BatRons are made up of ships that are strong enough to stand in the line of battle. I don't know how to state it any clearer.

Anyway, this discussion should be better made in another thread, as for what this thread is concerned, doesn't matter if there are BRs or BBs on the squadron, as it concerns about the pickets, that I think wouldn't be so different, Just in case of BBs, the fighters would be carried by them, instead of the tender.

You brought up the 154th as an example of a BatRon. I pointed out that even though the 154th is called a BatRon, it is effectively a CruRon. That seems fairly relevant to the discussion.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

The problem is that they are like cruisers in COST, which means that if they actually were as powerful as battleships, no one would be building battleships. However, the interstellar states of the OTU do build battleships, lots of battlerships. It stands to reason that a ship that costs six or eight times less can not really be just as powerful. If a combat system designed to emulate a reality that has states building battleships makes cruiser-sized ships a match for battleship-sized ships, then that combat system is flawed.

I’m not so sure that the fact a cruiser stands a good chance against a Battleship must be a flaw of the game.

Are you sure on 80’s a combat among an Iowa class (the only remaining battleships) and a cruiser would have been a one sided affair? Military planners (for what I know) didn’t seem to think that…

The main advantage a bigger ship has is the capability to take more punishment. Once this punishment may be given by the main weaponry of a smaller ship, advantage begins to blur.

In CT and MT, the main weaponry for any capital ship (cruisers, BRs and battleships) may give punishment enough in one shoot as for destroying any ship, so the advantage of being able to receive more punishment is nearly nulled.

The main advantage of larger ships then remain (IMO) in the secondary weaponry, and so, in their capability to stand versus large numbers of minor ships.

 

[rancke]

I’m not so sure that the fact a cruiser stands a good chance against a Battleship must be a flaw of the game.

It may not be a flaw in a wargame, but it is a flaw in a role-playing game set in the universe described by the setting material:

"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 [...]" [FS:9]

"Battleships: As their name suggests, battleships are jump-capable vessels which are, due to their armament and protection, capable of standing in the line of battle. While battleships [...] generally have little better in the way of primary armament than cruisers, their extensive secondary batteries render them virtually immune to missile and small craft attack while their bulk provide a tremendous ability to absorb damage and keep fighting." [ibid.]​

I submit that a ship design system and combat system that makes it feasible to design cruiser-sized ships that can stand up to and defeat battleships costing six or eight times as much without some offsetting vulnerability that means they can't really do that is not reflecting the setting described in those paragraphs. Because apparently battleships do not, in fact, have a tremendous ability to absorb damage and keep fighting.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

It may not be a flaw in a wargame, but it is a flaw in a role-playing game set in the universe described by the setting material:

"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 [...]" [FS:9]

"Battleships: As their name suggests, battleships are jump-capable vessels which are, due to their armament and protection, capable of standing in the line of battle. While battleships [...] generally have little better in the way of primary armament than cruisers, their extensive secondary batteries render them virtually immune to missile and small craft attack while their bulk provide a tremendous ability to absorb damage and keep fighting." [ibid.]​

I submit that a ship design system and combat system that makes it feasible to design cruiser-sized ships that can stand up to and defeat battleships costing six or eight times as much without some offsetting vulnerability that means they can't really do that is not reflecting the setting described in those paragraphs. Because apparently battleships do not, in fact, have a tremendous ability to absorb damage and keep fighting.


Hans

They have, 'against missile and small craft attack', and even against spinal PAs, that is the main difference between cruisers and battleships.

Anyway, I think those capital ships are more for wargame oriented play than for roleplay. Do you think on a playing party with a ship able to stand against any of them (be it cruiser, BR or battleship)?

 

[rancke]

They have, 'against missile and small craft attack', and even against spinal PAs, that is the main difference between cruisers and battleships.

They are supposedly virtually immune to missile and small craft attack AND able to sustain tremendous damage and keep fighting.

Anyway, I think those capital ships are more for wargame oriented play than for roleplay. Do you think on a playing party with a ship able to stand against any of them (be it cruiser, BR or battleship)?

I'm mainly interested in figuring out (roughly) how many battleships and how many cruisers the Imperium and its neighbors buy. But mostly I like background detials to make sense.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

They are supposedly virtually immune to missile and small craft attack AND able to sustain tremendous damage and keep fighting.


I'm mainly interested in figuring out (roughly) how many battleships and how many cruisers the Imperium and its neighbors buy. But mostly I like background detials to make sense.


Hans

And they can sustain all this damage, unless it is done by meson spinals.

To keep with my previous example, Iowas may sustain a tremendous amount of damage and still be operative, but they're not supposed to survive a tac nuke missile. IMO, meson spinals are more or les the equivalent in space (without the political restrictions nukes have)

 

[McPerth]

They are supposedly virtually immune to missile and small craft attack AND able to sustain tremendous damage and keep fighting.


I'm mainly interested in figuring out (roughly) how many battleships and how many cruisers the Imperium and its neighbors buy. But mostly I like background detials to make sense.


Hans

And they can sustain all this damage, unless it is done by meson spinals.

To keep with my previous example, Iowas may sustain a tremendous amount of damage and still be operative, but they're not supposed to survive a tac nuke missile. IMO, meson spinals are more or les the equivalent in space (without the political restrictions nukes have)

 

[rancke]

And they can sustain all this damage, unless it is done by meson spinals.

Which it will be if the battleship is performing its designated role as an element in the line of battle. A battleship isn't supposed to face oodles of missiles and small craft. That what escorts are for. Battleships are supposed to stand and face enemy ships armed with spinal weapons. Go back and read the definition I quoted. "Capable of standing in the line of battle."


Hans

 

[jawillroy]

Which it will be if the battleship is performing its designated role as an element in the line of battle.[/I]

That'll certainly be true in the case of a TCS competition - but in terms of the OTU, is that actually the case? I haven't got the numbers in front of me, but what are the operational tech levels of the Imperial Navy's adversaries?

If Imperial battleships have to stand up to a fleet of a like tech level, then I agree, the model and the setting itself are broken: there's no way the Imperium could maintain superiority in the field if there wasn't an advantage in tech.

But if the IN's TL 15 fleet is actually up against TL 12-14 navies, that might make a big difference. No?

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

And they can sustain all this damage, unless it is done by meson spinals.

To keep with my previous example, Iowas may sustain a tremendous amount of damage and still be operative, but they're not supposed to survive a tac nuke missile. IMO, meson spinals are more or les the equivalent in space (without the political restrictions nukes have)

correct me if i`m wrong, but isn`t this like saying a ww1 battleship was well armoured, expect against 12" naval guns, which punched right though, hit a magazine and blew the whole ship up?

a warship in the line of battle is only well armoured if it can take the hit of a the enemy primary weapons repeatedly without loss of ability. I've not run the numbers myself, but if a ship with even the most heavy meson screens cannot take a spinal meson hit, then it makes more sense to build as many "disposable" hulls as you can.

if your ships are one hit OK`d by enemy fire, the only option is to have as many as you can and hope enough survive to return fire.


personally, the flaw is not with meson spinals per se, but with the effectiveness (or lack thierof) of the meson screens. it should be possible to either reduce or even negate the meson threat to a point where other options become an equally valid threat.

i must point out i have no experence with High Guard or any traveller set apart form MgT. i don`t know how meson screens work in CT or MT.

 

[rancke]

That'll certainly be true in the case of a TCS competition - but in terms of the OTU, is that actually the case? I haven't got the numbers in front of me, but what are the operational tech levels of the Imperial Navy's adversaries?

You mean that the Imperium would be building ineffecient ships because they're good enough? That's certainly possible, provided the tech level advantage is enough to offset a factor six to eight discrepancy in fighting hulls. But is it? The Imperium's two main enemies are the Sollies and the Zhos, both fielding TL14 ships. (Curiously enough, some Vargr worlds are TL 15, but that's by the way). And the Zho are also building big buxom battleships, despite being on the wrong end of that TL difference.

With TL14 opponents, Imperial battleships only have to face factor S meson guns at the most, and they have a one step advantage with computers. But the armor cost is the same, and I can't think of any other significant difference. But then, I'm no TCS expert.


Hans