Ran Targas
SOC-14 1K
Yes, welcome aboard Oz! What did you do in the Nav?
Purpose of Escorts
- Thread starter Jame
- Start date
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Not that it matters here, but I was a nuclear power plant operator in USS Eisenhower (CVN-69).
Tom Schoene pointed out that modern escorts are different from what Traveller escorts might be. He's right that modern escorts exist to deal with threats that capital ships cannot be risked to deal with. However, there is one similar threat to capital ships in the Traveller universe: ironically, it's other capital ships with meson guns.
As was noticed a long time ago, according to High Guard (Book 5 of the LBBs, for those who don't remember the good old days) a decent-sized spinal meson gun (factor-J or better) is almost certain death to any ship if it can hit and penetrate the defenses. A duel of meson-gun armed battleships often results in mutual suicide.
But....
If escorts are allowed to use their meson screens to defend other ships, you get a different dynamic. The goal becomes reducing the escort force to a level that allows a good chance for the meson guns to get through to the capital ships. The battleships keep trying for lucky penetrations with their spinal mounts, while everyone's missiles and lighter beams concentrate on the escorts hoping to knock out their meson screens and let the battleship's big gun get through to their battleship.
Of course, drawing this much attention isn't good for the escort's life expectancy, but, hey; if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined the Navy in the first place.
Tom Schoene pointed out that modern escorts are different from what Traveller escorts might be. He's right that modern escorts exist to deal with threats that capital ships cannot be risked to deal with. However, there is one similar threat to capital ships in the Traveller universe: ironically, it's other capital ships with meson guns.
As was noticed a long time ago, according to High Guard (Book 5 of the LBBs, for those who don't remember the good old days) a decent-sized spinal meson gun (factor-J or better) is almost certain death to any ship if it can hit and penetrate the defenses. A duel of meson-gun armed battleships often results in mutual suicide.
But....
If escorts are allowed to use their meson screens to defend other ships, you get a different dynamic. The goal becomes reducing the escort force to a level that allows a good chance for the meson guns to get through to the capital ships. The battleships keep trying for lucky penetrations with their spinal mounts, while everyone's missiles and lighter beams concentrate on the escorts hoping to knock out their meson screens and let the battleship's big gun get through to their battleship.
Of course, drawing this much attention isn't good for the escort's life expectancy, but, hey; if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined the Navy in the first place.
Ran Targas
SOC-14 1K
^ Oz, I agree. I just disagree with discounting any comparison between space warfare and modern naval combat. All the same factors come into play including economics and politics.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Ran, you're right that in many ways Traveller warships are influenced by the same things that influence modern warship design, but Tom is also correct that the technology, especially weapons/defense technology, is a big factor in warship design.
As was mentioned earlier in this topic, back in the days of sailing ships all warships were pretty much alike, differing only in their overall size and the number and power of their weapons. They all had more or less the same speed and maneuverability (smaller ones tending to be somewhat faster and more agile, but only somewhat and very dependent on the wind blowing at the time). They all had the same sensors, fire control, etc. Bigger ships were more powerful from having more guns firing bigger shot (not shooting much if any further than the little guns) and bigger ships could take more damage from their sheer size and thicker hulls.
Sailing ships did not have to fear any weapon that could kill them in one shot, especially a "one-shot-zot" weapon that could be delivered by some small, inexpensive ship. Primitive mines and incindiary weapons were close, but not very effective and often dangerous to the side using them. So battleships in Napoleonic times (Ships of the Line) really only feared other battleships: nothing else could both deliver and withstand the kind of pounding that another battleship could dish out.
This is pretty much like Traveller warship combat without spinal meson guns. Bigger ships are more powerful, but it's just because they have more of everything. Even nuclear missiles and spinal particle accelerators are not that dangerous to really big, well-protected Traveller battleships.
From about 1900 to the modern day warships have had to fear weapons that are capable of destroying them in one hit and that can be delivered by cheap, expendable units. First it was torpedoes, then aircraft bombs were added, now it's cruise missiles as well, with nuclear warheads added just to top it all off. No modern warship can withstand a nuclear warhead, and even a big US supercarrier can't take more than a few torpedoes or cruise missiles. And these weapons can be delivered by small, cheap, expendable units like aircraft or diesel-electric submarines.
All this makes Traveller space combat something like Napoleonic sailing ship combat, in that the only thing battleships really have to fear is other battleships, but Traveller space combat is also like modern naval combat, as there does exist a "one-shot-zot" weapon; it's just not deliverable by anything less than another battleship.
Without some way for escorts to protect the Traveller battleship from the meson guns of enemy battleships, escorts don't serve much of a defensive purpose. Their only role is as scouts and pickets.
Give escorts the ability to use their defenses to protect other ships and escorts become very useful and battles could well be decided on whose escorting forces get shot up first.
As was mentioned earlier in this topic, back in the days of sailing ships all warships were pretty much alike, differing only in their overall size and the number and power of their weapons. They all had more or less the same speed and maneuverability (smaller ones tending to be somewhat faster and more agile, but only somewhat and very dependent on the wind blowing at the time). They all had the same sensors, fire control, etc. Bigger ships were more powerful from having more guns firing bigger shot (not shooting much if any further than the little guns) and bigger ships could take more damage from their sheer size and thicker hulls.
Sailing ships did not have to fear any weapon that could kill them in one shot, especially a "one-shot-zot" weapon that could be delivered by some small, inexpensive ship. Primitive mines and incindiary weapons were close, but not very effective and often dangerous to the side using them. So battleships in Napoleonic times (Ships of the Line) really only feared other battleships: nothing else could both deliver and withstand the kind of pounding that another battleship could dish out.
This is pretty much like Traveller warship combat without spinal meson guns. Bigger ships are more powerful, but it's just because they have more of everything. Even nuclear missiles and spinal particle accelerators are not that dangerous to really big, well-protected Traveller battleships.
From about 1900 to the modern day warships have had to fear weapons that are capable of destroying them in one hit and that can be delivered by cheap, expendable units. First it was torpedoes, then aircraft bombs were added, now it's cruise missiles as well, with nuclear warheads added just to top it all off. No modern warship can withstand a nuclear warhead, and even a big US supercarrier can't take more than a few torpedoes or cruise missiles. And these weapons can be delivered by small, cheap, expendable units like aircraft or diesel-electric submarines.
All this makes Traveller space combat something like Napoleonic sailing ship combat, in that the only thing battleships really have to fear is other battleships, but Traveller space combat is also like modern naval combat, as there does exist a "one-shot-zot" weapon; it's just not deliverable by anything less than another battleship.
Without some way for escorts to protect the Traveller battleship from the meson guns of enemy battleships, escorts don't serve much of a defensive purpose. Their only role is as scouts and pickets.
Give escorts the ability to use their defenses to protect other ships and escorts become very useful and battles could well be decided on whose escorting forces get shot up first.
Big ships still probably need escorts to protect their attendant auxiliaries (supply vessels, repair ships, medical ships, troop transports, etc).
However, part of the question as to whether or not escorts have a role for big ships other than scouts or pickets probably does depend on the version of Traveller in question. I seem to recall that the "equivalent of carrier battlegroup" came down to a similar question as to whether or not big ships had anything to fear from fighters.
Another point is that it'd be foolhardy to build a navy just out of big ships with meson weapons. The big ships are just very expensive and few in number. A navy would still need to have smaller ships to patrol the places the big ships can't go and go after the smaller enemies. After all, you wouldn't want to send your sole Tigress dreadnought trying to hunt down the 300 dTon corsair which is somewhere in the subsector.
Ron
However, part of the question as to whether or not escorts have a role for big ships other than scouts or pickets probably does depend on the version of Traveller in question. I seem to recall that the "equivalent of carrier battlegroup" came down to a similar question as to whether or not big ships had anything to fear from fighters.
Another point is that it'd be foolhardy to build a navy just out of big ships with meson weapons. The big ships are just very expensive and few in number. A navy would still need to have smaller ships to patrol the places the big ships can't go and go after the smaller enemies. After all, you wouldn't want to send your sole Tigress dreadnought trying to hunt down the 300 dTon corsair which is somewhere in the subsector.
Ron
"The big ships are just very expensive and few in number. A navy would still need to have smaller ships to patrol the places the big ships can't go and go after the smaller enemies. After all, you wouldn't want to send your sole Tigress dreadnought trying to hunt down the 300 dTon corsair which is somewhere in the subsector."
Mr. Vutpakdi,
A very cogent point sir.
As Mr. Oz and the others have pointed out, the role current-day naval escorts play is a hard one to fill in Traveller. Protecting the big boys from the dreaded 'one-shot-pot' (thank you, Mr. Oz for that one!) and expanding sensor horizons really don't work in the OTU. However, as you point out, getting more naval hulls for the same credit does.
Escorts in the OTU may be called 'escorts' but their jobs will be more along the lines of pickets and patrollers. You can buy a lot of nicely sized patrollers for the price of a single Tigress and those patrollers can then perform all sorts of jobs in many different places all at the same time. Why send a BB when a DE can do the job?
So, escorts exist thanks to the idea of 'more crafts for your credit' and not because they can 'escort' or 'protect' the big boys from any potential 'one-shot-pot'.
Sincerely,
Larsen
Mr. Vutpakdi,
A very cogent point sir.
As Mr. Oz and the others have pointed out, the role current-day naval escorts play is a hard one to fill in Traveller. Protecting the big boys from the dreaded 'one-shot-pot' (thank you, Mr. Oz for that one!) and expanding sensor horizons really don't work in the OTU. However, as you point out, getting more naval hulls for the same credit does.
Escorts in the OTU may be called 'escorts' but their jobs will be more along the lines of pickets and patrollers. You can buy a lot of nicely sized patrollers for the price of a single Tigress and those patrollers can then perform all sorts of jobs in many different places all at the same time. Why send a BB when a DE can do the job?
So, escorts exist thanks to the idea of 'more crafts for your credit' and not because they can 'escort' or 'protect' the big boys from any potential 'one-shot-pot'.
Sincerely,
Larsen
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Yes, that's very true. You don't build a fleet of all battleships because you just don't get enough ships to be everywhere you need to be. That must be especially true in the OTU 3rd Imperium with 8,000 star systems to patrol.
As far as Traveller player characters are concerned, the little patrol corvettes are the ships to be afraid of, anyway. It's much more likely for a player character ship to run across a 400 ton Type T corvette than a 200,000 ton BB.
As far as Traveller player characters are concerned, the little patrol corvettes are the ships to be afraid of, anyway. It's much more likely for a player character ship to run across a 400 ton Type T corvette than a 200,000 ton BB.
Well, there may be 8,000 systems to patrol, but there's also a population of over 10 trillion, with naval taxes (assuming 1% of GWP) exceeding a quadrillion credits. You could have 10 billion credits worth of ships in every system, and your overall naval budget would be in no trouble (that's only 5-10% of the total budget)
Tom Schoene
SOC-12
I tend to assume the budget is a lot lower than canon sources claim. I used to scoff at the comments in EE Doc Smith's Lensman series about the incredibly low tax rates, but I'm increasingly incluined to agree that they need to be kept very low to avoid the fleet in every system problem.
I agree that there will be smaller combatants for piraty supressiona nd such like, but I'm not quite sure how small. The Kinunir is probably a good one -- the large marine:crew ration makes sense if the ship will be raiding the ocasional Pirate hideout. But the really small ships like close escorts are problematic. Too many of the cannonical "pirate" ships can give a Gazelle a serious beating.
I agree that there will be smaller combatants for piraty supressiona nd such like, but I'm not quite sure how small. The Kinunir is probably a good one -- the large marine:crew ration makes sense if the ship will be raiding the ocasional Pirate hideout. But the really small ships like close escorts are problematic. Too many of the cannonical "pirate" ships can give a Gazelle a serious beating.
mad13142000
SOC-13
Nobody said an escort had to be 100 dtons...Yeah, a Gazelle can be beat up by a Corsair ( 
) but a Gazelle is equivalent to our wet navy PC - like PT109. A true escort would have enough firepower to take a corsair.
It's also all about the 'Golden BB'. For all the firepower of an Azhanti (or bigger) class ship, a luckily placed laser head could take one out, and it matters not if the firer was another dreadnought or a lowly escort.
Small craft also will continue to be a threat in the far future...The manpower / cost - loss ratios, however you describe it, it makes more sense to build small and swarm than build big and slow. If a dreadnought takes years to build, and a fighter or LAC can take it out, even if you loose many small ships...a LAC crewed by 10 vs. a SD crewed by 2 thousand..I can waste a lot of small craft (that are cheaper and quicker to replace) to take out that SD..
I don't see where there is a lot of difference between a wet navy of today and Imperial space Navy. If anything, the lack of far reaching sensors coupled with lack of FTC make the presence of small escorts nearly manditory. Imagine the cost of trying to search an area of space measure in light minutes or light hours or <gasp> light days using only BIG ships...A flotilla of cruisers for 20 - 50 Thousand MCr each, or a bigger flotilla of DDR for 800 MCr each...hmmmm....
-MADDog
) but a Gazelle is equivalent to our wet navy PC - like PT109. A true escort would have enough firepower to take a corsair. It's also all about the 'Golden BB'. For all the firepower of an Azhanti (or bigger) class ship, a luckily placed laser head could take one out, and it matters not if the firer was another dreadnought or a lowly escort.
Small craft also will continue to be a threat in the far future...The manpower / cost - loss ratios, however you describe it, it makes more sense to build small and swarm than build big and slow. If a dreadnought takes years to build, and a fighter or LAC can take it out, even if you loose many small ships...a LAC crewed by 10 vs. a SD crewed by 2 thousand..I can waste a lot of small craft (that are cheaper and quicker to replace) to take out that SD..
I don't see where there is a lot of difference between a wet navy of today and Imperial space Navy. If anything, the lack of far reaching sensors coupled with lack of FTC make the presence of small escorts nearly manditory. Imagine the cost of trying to search an area of space measure in light minutes or light hours or <gasp> light days using only BIG ships...A flotilla of cruisers for 20 - 50 Thousand MCr each, or a bigger flotilla of DDR for 800 MCr each...hmmmm....
-MADDog
Ran Targas
SOC-14 1K
A fact that I'm sure our Navy Vets will support:
Modern naval doctrine lays down specific tactics for destroying or rendering inoperative large, high value units such as carriers and big cruisers (only BB's are U.S. so no doctrine necessary). These tactics are specific to target type and include:
a. type of weapons most effective
b. number of weapons launched/fired to expect success
c. optimum launch range and attack vectors
d. most effective guidance and flight pattern
e. method of jamming
f. expected number of hits
Whether these tactics would have worked is not known BUT were all based on overwhelming the onboard defenses of the HVU.
THE POINT: throw enough weapons at a Trav BB/DN and you will score hits. Even nuke dampeners and black globe generators have limits. Think "Sink the Bismarck". This may require a small flotilla of SDB but the economics still favor the small boys. Even if you only blind or cripple a BB, its combat effectiveness drops and it becomes susceptible to follow on strikes.
These same arguements being made here were made in the Golden Age of Battleships (Spanish American War to pre-WWII). Why build destroyers or carriers when our BB's rule the ocean? An IOWA class BB would shrug off a Exocet or torp attack (we used to say, "missile inbound, WHAM!; sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms") but is there a race to build battleships again? No!
Aren't battleships effective in combat? Sure but they're not cost effective, easy to maintain, or easy to upgrade. Plus high resource cost and long construction time means ample opportunity for the enemy to destroy/sabotage it or even invade your capitol prior to launch.
And how effective would a spinal mounted meson cannon be against a Gazelle conducting evasive maneuvers at full burn? And while the BB was chasing the one, what about the other 11 firing on it? The harassing fire alone would prevent effective targetting.
I still hold that a lone BB in enemy territory is in serious kim-chi. Again, "Sink the Bismarck"!
Modern naval doctrine lays down specific tactics for destroying or rendering inoperative large, high value units such as carriers and big cruisers (only BB's are U.S. so no doctrine necessary). These tactics are specific to target type and include:
a. type of weapons most effective
b. number of weapons launched/fired to expect success
c. optimum launch range and attack vectors
d. most effective guidance and flight pattern
e. method of jamming
f. expected number of hits
Whether these tactics would have worked is not known BUT were all based on overwhelming the onboard defenses of the HVU.
THE POINT: throw enough weapons at a Trav BB/DN and you will score hits. Even nuke dampeners and black globe generators have limits. Think "Sink the Bismarck". This may require a small flotilla of SDB but the economics still favor the small boys. Even if you only blind or cripple a BB, its combat effectiveness drops and it becomes susceptible to follow on strikes.
These same arguements being made here were made in the Golden Age of Battleships (Spanish American War to pre-WWII). Why build destroyers or carriers when our BB's rule the ocean? An IOWA class BB would shrug off a Exocet or torp attack (we used to say, "missile inbound, WHAM!; sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms") but is there a race to build battleships again? No!
Aren't battleships effective in combat? Sure but they're not cost effective, easy to maintain, or easy to upgrade. Plus high resource cost and long construction time means ample opportunity for the enemy to destroy/sabotage it or even invade your capitol prior to launch.
And how effective would a spinal mounted meson cannon be against a Gazelle conducting evasive maneuvers at full burn? And while the BB was chasing the one, what about the other 11 firing on it? The harassing fire alone would prevent effective targetting.
I still hold that a lone BB in enemy territory is in serious kim-chi. Again, "Sink the Bismarck"!
And how effective would a spinal mounted meson cannon be against a Gazelle conducting evasive maneuvers at full burn? And while the BB was chasing the one, what about the other 11 firing on it? The harassing fire alone would prevent effective targetting.
The problem the Gazelle's face is that their light energy weapon fire bounces off the battleships hull armour , and by closing to such a range they have opened themselves up to being destroyed by the light guns and missile bays on the dreadnought while it's spinal mount is used to blast something bigger. A Typical DN carries several hundred laser turrets or similar capable of despatching a close escort with ease
I still hold that a lone BB in enemy territory is in serious kim-chi. Again, "Sink the Bismarck"! [/QB][/QUOTE]
Bismarck was attacked by aerial torpedo's and damaged by a lucky hit a weapon which has no real traveller equivlant (weapon capable of hurting a powerful capital ship severely launched from a small fighter) and then destroyed by 2 battleships of comparable power pounding it with their main guns.
Even in the pacific battleships proved difficult for aircraft to sink although they could not achieve much as the carriers stayed beyond thier range. However in traveller there is no equivlant of the long range aircraft swarm whatever attacks you has to come within range of your weapons and then the Battleship can destroy it.
The Age of sail analogy seems more similar small ships had no chance against a SOL , however they performed vital roles in commerce raiding and protection. Several smaller vessels could engage one larger vessel and might win with luck and skill but would suffer for their victory , I think there is one instance of a Frigate defeating a SOL in a one on one battle and it did so by luring the SOL onto a Lee shore and wrecking it.
The problem the Gazelle's face is that their light energy weapon fire bounces off the battleships hull armour , and by closing to such a range they have opened themselves up to being destroyed by the light guns and missile bays on the dreadnought while it's spinal mount is used to blast something bigger. A Typical DN carries several hundred laser turrets or similar capable of despatching a close escort with ease
I still hold that a lone BB in enemy territory is in serious kim-chi. Again, "Sink the Bismarck"! [/QB][/QUOTE]
Bismarck was attacked by aerial torpedo's and damaged by a lucky hit a weapon which has no real traveller equivlant (weapon capable of hurting a powerful capital ship severely launched from a small fighter) and then destroyed by 2 battleships of comparable power pounding it with their main guns.
Even in the pacific battleships proved difficult for aircraft to sink although they could not achieve much as the carriers stayed beyond thier range. However in traveller there is no equivlant of the long range aircraft swarm whatever attacks you has to come within range of your weapons and then the Battleship can destroy it.
The Age of sail analogy seems more similar small ships had no chance against a SOL , however they performed vital roles in commerce raiding and protection. Several smaller vessels could engage one larger vessel and might win with luck and skill but would suffer for their victory , I think there is one instance of a Frigate defeating a SOL in a one on one battle and it did so by luring the SOL onto a Lee shore and wrecking it.
It helps if you deploy the Gazelles in squadrons.
Hans </font>[/QUOTE]Even one on one a similar sizr corsair will be at a disadvantage vs the Gazzelle as it must carry cargo to be an effective pirate. Also the Gazzelle does not have to win to ruin the pirates day if it inflicts heavy damage the pirates will not be able to recoup their losses and if their drives are damaged may not be able to catch the fleeing merchants or jump out before more warships arrive.
Pirates are not interested in fighting warships there is no money in it, and if they kill navy crews they are likely to earn the enmity of the Navy and be hunted down , look at how much extra effort the police put into catching a cop killer , it is much safer to avoid the warships.
In wartime the raider ships may be uniterested in capturing cargo and more poweful but even then by forcing the attacker to engage it the escort can buy a convoy time to scatter and prevent the raider killing more than a few of them (c.f the rawalpindi in WW2 )
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Andrew has a point about escorts in the Traveller universe. Since escorts cannot stop enemy fire going at what the escort is protecting, escorts protect their charges by attacking the enemy ship.
This is just what escorts did in sailing ship days; they attacked the enemy, or at least put themselves in such a position that the enemy could not attack the convoy without suffering attack by the escort.
This again emphasizes the similarity between Traveller and the Napoleonic era. Only the spinal meson gun makes Traveller combat really different from three-decker ships of the line slugging it out while the frigates and gunbrigs do the dirty work.
This is just what escorts did in sailing ship days; they attacked the enemy, or at least put themselves in such a position that the enemy could not attack the convoy without suffering attack by the escort.
This again emphasizes the similarity between Traveller and the Napoleonic era. Only the spinal meson gun makes Traveller combat really different from three-decker ships of the line slugging it out while the frigates and gunbrigs do the dirty work.
mad13142000
SOC-13
Just think of the Meson as a spinal mount Mk7 16in 50cal from an Iowa class...Now THAT would be a sailing age monster..
-MADDog
Ran Targas
SOC-14 1K
^ I concur with the tonnage for battlegroup escorts; my choice the Gazelle as an example was very poor and I request it be stricken from the ledger!
A question to those who adhere to the BSG/ISD model:
Before committing your Star Destroyer to entering planetary orbit, how do you check out the far-side of the planet for possible threats?
A question to those who adhere to the BSG/ISD model:
Before committing your Star Destroyer to entering planetary orbit, how do you check out the far-side of the planet for possible threats?
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Ran Targas asked:
This is a classic example of the "picket" function of an escort.
I'd use some kind of remote sensor platform: either a drone or fighters or an escort. If I don't have meson communicators I'll have to have a chain of repeating units to provide comm links to the scouting unit.
This is a classic example of the "picket" function of an escort.
