The Compleat Battleship

[robject]

So I heard an almost offhandedly casual remark today from Marc Miller.

Almost off the cuff, he said that he thought battleships are metaphorically equivalent to today's aircraft carriers.

By that he decided that they're a self-sufficient platform for the Imperial navy. Why else would you need to build something that big? Especially when spines only get so big.

I think the implications of that include:

... The Lurenti and similar battle Tenders have a similar strategic function as battleships, tho modified.

... the subsector is THE strategic unit of interstellar space, exactly because that's a convenient size for the Imperial navy for dominating a 'space between the stars' with a self-sufficient staging platform; I.e. A battleship group. It sort of makes sub sectors look like squares on a chessboard...

... This creates a basis for not only constructing battleships, but for strategic warfare in general for Traveller, even in a roleplaying context.


It made me pause and think. It also sounds like a good start.

 

[Dragoner]

Battleships are used as singular tactical units (such as the interdiction of Andor and Candory or picking up the assassinated Imperial Ambassador from the Zhodani) that battle riders can't do, eg a higher strategic flexibility. Plus they probably do psychological duty in representing the Imperium ("show the flag" as per supp 9) as well as a place to spend credits. Naval engagements probably aren't very equal most time so if you have out numbered your opponent by x amount, you will win. There a large fleet of battleships supplemented by battle riders makes a lot of sense, as the BR's are (for the most part, never say never) only used in large engagements while the BB's always do double duty.

 

[mike wightman]

Nothing to stop you building a big BB that can carry riders...

 

[McPerth]

Nothing to stop you building a big BB that can carry riders...

True. You can even find an example of that in the Fighting Ships of the Sattered Imperium MT supplement (BZ 15, page 36).

As all designs in that book, it may be quite faulty, so take it with caution (I didn't review this one with attention), but the idea is there.

 

[whartung]

My only nit is that it seems historically, especially recently, the ships are designed around the major weapon that they carry. Wet navy BBs designed around their large guns, aircraft carriers around their deck and fighters, Guided Missile cruisers around their launch systems, magazines, and radars.

Anything beyond what's necessary for the main task of the ship is either stuffed in to the cracks or makes the ship bigger than it needs to be -- thus more expensive, more to maintain, etc.

So I can't see making a ship much larger than it needs to be to fit the major spinal gun. Turrets, bays, etc. are added because they can fit in to the space allotted. Bolting on as many AA machine guns to a WWII BB as you can, wherever they can fit, makes sense. Good bang for the buck.

But making room for two different doctrines of battle (carrier strike vs main line battle) doesn't make a lot of sense. It just leads to conflict where the ship isn't doing what's it built to do as it switches from role to role.

 

[sfchbryan]

My only nit is that it seems historically, especially recently, the ships are designed around the major weapon that they carry. Wet navy BBs designed around their large guns, aircraft carriers around their deck and fighters, Guided Missile cruisers around their launch systems, magazines, and radars.

Anything beyond what's necessary for the main task of the ship is either stuffed in to the cracks or makes the ship bigger than it needs to be -- thus more expensive, more to maintain, etc.

So I can't see making a ship much larger than it needs to be to fit the major spinal gun. Turrets, bays, etc. are added because they can fit in to the space allotted. Bolting on as many AA machine guns to a WWII BB as you can, wherever they can fit, makes sense. Good bang for the buck.

But making room for two different doctrines of battle (carrier strike vs main line battle) doesn't make a lot of sense. It just leads to conflict where the ship isn't doing what's it built to do as it switches from role to role.

Obviously, you have never dealt with military doctrine. Doctrine changes over time, & a Navy will not scrap every ship they have because of doctrinal changes. When the Dreadnaught was launched in 1906, every pre-dreadnaught was instantly obsolete. Nations didn't scrap every one of their predreadnaughts, they were reassigned to different missions. Every pre-dreadnaught in every navy continued to serve during WWI (8 years after Dreadnaught's launch) with different, but important missions. Gallapoli was supported by British & French PDs, British PDs secured the English Channel and the French ports, the last PD squadron in the High Seas Fleet (Ger) sailed & fought at Jutland, Russian PDs slugged it out with the Bayern during Operationan Albion in 1917.

Size:
Compare German & British Battlecruisers:

British BCs had the armament of a battleship, speed & armor of a cruiser. Doctrine was for the BC to chase down scouts & armored cruisers, NOT to stand in the line of battle, which is why 3 of them didn't survive Jutland, when they were inserted in the line of battle.

German BCs had 20% less armament (1 less turret, although the 11" guns were ballistically the equivalent of the British 12") & a BBs armor, & cruiser speed. Doctrine was to scout, chase down enemy scouts & stand in the line of battle (Germany had fewer BBs than England).

The German ships also had a much lower range than the British ships. The "High Seas Fleet" could only operate in the North Sea due to constraints (armor vs. speed vs. range). When the Moltke visited the US in 1912, all of the secondary casemates were filled with coal so she could make it to the East Coast.

Could they have been made smaller, yes they could have. Pre-radar, to accurately range on a ship took a 6 gun salvo. Ships could have been built with only 3 double turrets. Of course, with a six gun broadside, 1 turret strike & the ship is out of action. More weaponry, & the ship can stand in the line of battle longer. There is no upside to having an expensive ship that can't take a punch.

And we haven't addressed the political side of capital class ship building. Take a look at the battleship race pre WWI (esp. with the South Americans). Size mattered.

 

[Dragoner]

In space, the limitation is structural integrity (which is not covered in the Traveller ruleset), so wet navy analogies aren't necessarily accurate. Doctrine discussions are relevant however.

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Just a side note to what sfchbyran said:

Look how long it took the US to retire their battle ships. Even in the age of aircraft carriers they maintained 2 battleships. One was retired before the Gulf War the last one after it. They are as much a symbol of power as they are a warship....

 

[Zutroi]

Just a side note to what sfchbyran said:

Look how long it took the US to retire their battle ships. Even in the age of aircraft carriers they maintained 2 battleships. One was retired before the Gulf War the last one after it. They are as much a symbol of power as they are a warship....

We even unretired one at one point, when we realized (after Grenada, IIRC) we could no longer afford to conduct shore-bombardment to support a landing... multi-million dollar missiles were just too expensive to lob ashore in sufficient numbers.

After we developed another generation of more-accurate and cheaper precision-guided munitions, the BBs got mothballed again.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

I must note that many of the larger IN ships have sizeable marine elements in their crew, much larger than i rhink you would need for simple boarding actions. it seems like the IN plans to make significant ground invetentions, which would support the "multi-tasking" theory.

 

[McPerth]

I must note that many of the larger IN ships have sizeable marine elements in their crew, much larger than i rhink you would need for simple boarding actions. it seems like the IN plans to make significant ground invetentions, which would support the "multi-tasking" theory.

I keep deffending the idea that IN, aside from its main defense force, its the main imperial political tool, and battleships are what they use for this use mainly, and it may be as important (if not more) as wining wars.

Big ships with a good marine coplement are what is needed for those duties (Battleship diplomacy...)

 

[Rigel Stardin]

But you wouldn't keep a large amount of idle mouths to feed if it was just for political reasons. You could affectively bombard a planet back to the stone age before bring in the troops to mop up. By having those marines, you basically can do both in a short amount of time. So the BBs have to have a dual purpose...

 

[McPerth]

But you wouldn't keep a large amount of idle mouths to feed if it was just for political reasons.

Sure you won't? Most countries today do...

But we won't talk about real world politics here...

 

[Rigel Stardin]

The Point here is:

They have the troops onboard to conduct a Planetary Assualt Landing Operation (PALO). This would allow a BB to conduct such operations during wartime and PALO are not an easy task. IT also gives the BB more flexibility during wartime operations as well.

 

[whartung]

Obviously, you have never dealt with military doctrine. Doctrine changes over time, & a Navy will not scrap every ship they have because of doctrinal changes.

Obviously you completely misunderstood what I was talking about.

The original premise of the thread is about battleships, and their bigness, and how their bigness goes beyond the size necessary to mount the spinal gun.

The common reference to a battleship being discussed recently is something like the Tigress. And one aspect of the Tigress above and beyond hauling around a large spinal mount is the carrying of 800 (!!) fighters.

The idea, apparently, of having a single ship fulfill multiple roles rather than bringing two specialized ships (a large gun ship and along with a specialized carrier).

Gun ship vs Carrier are two different doctrines of battle.

Historically, ships are built (or refitted) for a specific role.

I'm not sure that a ship that is actively engaging in and trading fire with other ships (as a line of battle gun ship would do) is particularly good at, say, launching and recovering fighter.

Can a ship keep its Agility-6 rating while launching/landing fighters? I dunno.

So, it seems odd to promote the idea of a multi role vessel, especially one as expensive as a BB and with such contrasting roles, a ship that may not be able to fit do either role as well as a specialized ship can.

Mind this is also different from making the ship more "self-sufficient" (whatever that means), but I can hazard a guess on making the ship have reasonable stores (food, parts, ammo, extra crew) on board and able to fuel itself (skimming, on carried fuel tenders, whatever) for longer missions.

 

[Dragoner]

Having Marines on board also acts as a protected reaction force, otherwise you are calling up and transporting forces from other worlds which could easily be months, given the limited communication.

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Having Marines on board also acts as a protected reaction force, otherwise you are calling up and transporting forces from other worlds which could easily be months, given the limited communication.

They could also be used on humanitary missions or as a peacekeeping force...

 

[robject]

They could also be used on humanitary missions or as a peacekeeping force...

Sure!

Good cover story anyhow.

I suppose some marines have been frozen for years...

 

[Dragoner]

I suppose some marines have been frozen for years...

Holy crap!

How long can you be frozen? In Legacy of Heorot they have brain damage from being frozen too long: "ice on the mind."

 

[morfydd]

Self Sufficent Battle Ships

Frozen Watch ..is an assignement you can get during Character Generation ..this can be Marines or Naval Personell frozen ..Not all will be icicles..but having crew replacements on ice and extra Medical low berths on a Large well armoured ..well screened and there for survivable vessel makes good since..

Two its much easier to move a sqaudron of J-4 Battle Boys about than to move a Squadron of Tenders about along with there gun boats...(If using a wet navy analogy ) Think of the Battle riders as Submarines that need the tender to rearm, refuel and replenish them ..they operate with battle groups to day like that..

Tigress ..somone mentioned 800 fighters ..sure theres room but I would bet dollars to donuts that not all are the same type of fighter ..

Your going to have Anti Ship fighters, Ground Assult fighters, Marines Insertion Craft, rescue and recovery craft, the Equivelent of a KA-6 inflight refueler craft (to extend range) Recon, Interceptors etc etc etc..they may be multirole but the mission they are doing is defiantly determined at launch
oh yea do not forget Liberty Launches ..(may be the Marine Insertion crafts secondary duty) ..etc

Full hospitol services will fit in there someplace as are available on all wet navy capitol ships but not on cruisers or escorts..