Taurian Navy pre-Reunification Wars

[Colt Ward]

See, I think it would have made sense in 2540s as tensions rose to start upgrading the Winchesters . . . more armor, heavier broadsides, that sort of thing.  The basic design is decent, but like the TH ships of its era, it needed to be upgraded.  And the TC navy was clearly capable to do that when you look at the fleet they had on hand.

[Maelwys]

What doesn't make sense is the Winchester being the TCN's flagship design... The Concordat is a great design, but why Historicals: RW didn't include a grandaddy Taurian Battleship or even a decent Destroyer doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me. You've got this great navy that accomplished legendary feats, but little more than a good corvette and two halfway decent Cruisers. ???

Could be worse, the MoC's WarShip still is just a name :)

[Colt Ward]

Except they get Concordats and Wagon Wheels?  Oh, and Pintos.

[Maelwys]

Yeah, but the MoC produced WarShip is still just a class-name. If it was going to show up anywhere, it would've been Reunification War.

[Weirdo]

Yeah, but the MoC produced WarShip is still just a class-name. If it was going to show up anywhere, it would've been Reunification War.

...or any other yet-unreleased product dealing with that era, the likes of which we can expect several in the near future?

Here's a question: Aside from low actual mass, what prevents TC players from using the Concordat in the same role as TH/SL destroyers? It seems to me that the TCN actually has a strong advantage in the sub-cruiser category over the Hegemony, and their hit-and-run tactics would seem to easily negate the Hegemony's numbers.

I will admit that the SL has the TC completely beat in the cruiser+ category, but that's probably where unconventional tactics probably came in, as well as using wolfpacks of smaller ships to go after any isolated ships they might find.

[Isanova]

While the SLDN didn't have any of the heavy hitters we think of when one thinks of the Star League (McKenna, Texas, Black Lion) during the Reunification War, the Taurians lack anything that can stand up to the hitters they did have (Farragut, Baron, Monsoon)

I feel there should be some sort of a Destroyer/Battleship the the Concordat's fleet, allbet in small numbers (say 3 to 7 ships total made) but that can stand up to the SLDF in a slugfight... not superior or even on par... but something that can fight a SLDF battleship-based squadron and stand a good chance, without needing a 5-1 advantage.

[Weirdo]

I feel that we need rules for things we've already seen them use, such as fireships and heavy asteroid-based gun batteries.

[Colt Ward]

I am fine with them not having a battleship . . . or even a battlecruiser.  The Concordat's weapons nose weapons and fluff made it sound like it was one of the old gun galleys, nose on they can smash anything open . . .

[Archangel]

While the SLDN didn't have any of the heavy hitters we think of when one thinks of the Star League (McKenna, Texas, Black Lion) during the Reunification War, the Taurians lack anything that can stand up to the hitters they did have (Farragut, Baron, Monsoon)

I feel there should be some sort of a Destroyer/Battleship the the Concordat's fleet, allbet in small numbers (say 3 to 7 ships total made) but that can stand up to the SLDF in a slugfight... not superior or even on par... but something that can fight a SLDF battleship-based squadron and stand a good chance, without needing a 5-1 advantage.

That would be like saying that Venezuela should have something that could stand up to a US Carrier Group or the Colonies that could stand against the pride of the British Navy during the Revolutionary War.  The Taurians were over a hundred years behind in developing the infrastructure capable of designing, building and maintaining such a vessel.  In addition, they realized that, due to their inherent lack of speed, any battleship would be unable to be used in the hit-and-run tactics  that they favored as it would be unable to elude pursuit.  It might take down a couple ships but will quickly end up be hunted down and destroyed and end up being a bad investment.  That annoying problem of having to choose between speed, armor and firepower.

[foxbat]

I've always thought naval analogies in space warfare had serious limits in Battletech...

- The strategical speed , being constituted of "jumps", is about the same for everyone, and a battleship facing superior forces in a system has just about as many chances of recharging its KF drive and jumping away as any other class of vessel.

- the way protection works in Battletech (ablative armor), shots will always end up penetrating, while naval battleships were immune from the guns of lesser ships (shells either bouncing off the armour or penetrating outright).

Points that are well illustrated by the saga of the Vendetta, and its eventual demise, in another era.

[Isanova]

That would be like saying that Venezuela should have something that could stand up to a US Carrier Group or the Colonies that could stand against the pride of the British Navy during the Revolutionary War.  The Taurians were over a hundred years behind in developing the infrastructure capable of designing, building and maintaining such a vessel.  In addition, they realized that, due to their inherent lack of speed, any battleship would be unable to be used in the hit-and-run tactics  that they favored as it would be unable to elude pursuit.  It might take down a couple ships but will quickly end up be hunted down and destroyed and end up being a bad investment.  That annoying problem of having to choose between speed, armor and firepower.

The Hegemony was not that far advanced, and the Concordat not that far behind, in 2575. Both nations had an emphasis on naval shipbuilding as a means of warfare, though for differing reasons. The Hegemony did it to survive being surrounded by much larger (manpower and army size) nations. The Taurians did it to keep the dictatorial Inner Sphere out, and to expand their horizons peacefully.

I just have issues reconciling the long-time image of a capable and self-sufficient Taurian Navy with the rag-tag corvette "rebel alliance" style fleet we are seeing now-a-days. The Concordat seems to be in dissonance from what it was to what it is being portrayed as now... I recognize I am biased and that is an unfair criticism of TPTB, but I just don't see the Battle of Robsart being fought with nothing but Corvettes, Cruisers and civie fire ships. Playing out the space campaigns loses a good bit of epicness when it comes to those big fights.

A good fan can never be happy. :-P

[MadVoorpak]

Aye, reading the books always gave me the impression that the TCN was the SLDF navy in miniature, and without some high tech goodies.

Even then, the In Miniature can be debated at some points.

[lrose]

I just have issues reconciling the long-time image of a capable and self-sufficient Taurian Navy with the rag-tag corvette "rebel alliance" style fleet we are seeing now-a-days. The Concordat seems to be in dissonance from what it was to what it is being portrayed as now... I recognize I am biased and that is an unfair criticism of TPTB, but I just don't see the Battle of Robsart being fought with nothing but Corvettes, Cruisers and civie fire ships. Playing out the space campaigns loses a good bit of epicness when it comes to those big fights.

Actually as a long time Taurian fan I think the navy that TPTB created fits how I imagined the Taurian Navy.  I always saw the TC has having smaller, better designed ships then the SLDF.  I think the Concordat class Frigate is a great example of how I saw Taurian ships- it's barely bigger then a Vincent Corvette, smaller then every SLDF Destroyer, about half the size of an SLDF Frigate and capable of taking on most of them.  I actually think the Winchester is a bit too big.  And remember- from the earliest days of the Taurian Navy, the TC was using corvettes to take out larger Davion warships.  The TC fleet doesn't feel rag tag in the least bit, it's well organized and well equipped, just lighter then most other navies.

[FedComGirl]

- the way protection works in Battletech (ablative armor), shots will always end up penetrating, while naval battleships were immune from the guns of lesser ships (shells either bouncing off the armour or penetrating outright).

It's more than just jumps though. Warships can move around to get better possitioning or set up ambushes.

[sillybrit]

I assume you meant to comment on this point of foxbat's post:

- The strategical speed , being constituted of "jumps", is about the same for everyone, and a battleship facing superior forces in a system has just about as many chances of recharging its KF drive and jumping away as any other class of vessel.

I believe that foxbat's point is that comparing BattleTech WarShips to real world warships, as some have been doing, isn't always workable.

A 2.5Mt battleship in BattleTech can be just as maneuverable both tactically (thrust drive) and strategically (jump drive) as a 100kt corvette, whereas real world navy vessels would have very different maneuverability with such disparate size differences, plus some factors that don't necessarily apply to BattleTech vessels. For example, a fast patrol boat will outmaneuver and could be faster than a battleship (ignoring the issue of heavy seas), but the battleship would almost certainly have far greater cruising range due to deeper fuel bunkers.

Similarly, his point regarding armor that you quoted is that real world naval battleships would effectively be all but immune to gunfire from the typical destroyer or lighter vessel, suffering mostly superficial damage to the topside, whereas in BattleTech even a single Medium Laser could eventually destroy a McKenna.



That said, there are some broad similarities between BattleTech and real world naval vessels from the WW1/WW2 when using well designed and properly operated ships. For example, barring the use of certain silver bullet weapons, such as the torpedo/mine/bomb (the latter from carrier-born aircraft, of course), a battleship could defeat more than its own tonnage in lighter vessels. Likewise, an Atreus, Monsoon, McKenna, etc is typically going to defeat more than their own tonnage in lighter WarShips, barring the use of nukes (and with the right battleship even nukes don't help much, if at all).

[FedComGirl]

I assume you meant to comment on this point of foxbat's post:

I believe that foxbat's point is that comparing BattleTech WarShips to real world warships, as some have been doing, isn't always workable.

A 2.5Mt battleship in BattleTech can be just as maneuverable both tactically (thrust drive) and strategically (jump drive) as a 100kt corvette, whereas real world navy vessels would have very different maneuverability with such disparate size differences, plus some factors that don't necessarily apply to BattleTech vessels. For example, a fast patrol boat will outmaneuver and could be faster than a battleship (ignoring the issue of heavy seas), but the battleship would almost certainly have far greater cruising range due to deeper fuel bunkers.

Similarly, his point regarding armor that you quoted is that real world naval battleships would effectively be all but immune to gunfire from the typical destroyer or lighter vessel, suffering mostly superficial damage to the topside, whereas in BattleTech even a single Medium Laser could eventually destroy a McKenna.



That said, there are some broad similarities between BattleTech and real world naval vessels from the WW1/WW2 when using well designed and properly operated ships. For example, barring the use of certain silver bullet weapons, such as the torpedo/mine/bomb (the latter from carrier-born aircraft, of course), a battleship could defeat more than its own tonnage in lighter vessels. Likewise, an Atreus, Monsoon, McKenna, etc is typically going to defeat more than their own tonnage in lighter WarShips, barring the use of nukes (and with the right battleship even nukes don't help much, if at all).

Yes, I did. Thanks. I don't know how it got switched like that.  ???

I agree with all of that. I was just trying to point out that naval combat is more than just hoping around and waiting for the KF Drive to recharge. They can light up their drives and move.

[foxbat]

Well, it is indeed, tactically... but at the operational level, a naval force that is outmatched in  a system cannot hope to win (in true Mahanesque fashion) but has to jump away in order to escape :  there is hardly a point in system where they can find enough time to recharge and jump without being overrun by their ennemies. Battletech focuses on ground combat, but (and I'm far from being a seasoned Aerotech player) the way naval forces move and fight makes for interesting dilemnas, truly fascinating.

[Weirdo]

Recharging isn't a major problem, actually. If they have the fuel, they can simply charge the drive off the reactor while they maneuver around the system. You just have to outrun/outmaneuver the enemy fleet for a week or so, and then get outside the jump limit. (Said outmaneuvering is admittedly easier said than done, but that's probably what the SLN's pursuit squadrons were for. Since cross-system travel is most certainly not the realm of extended high Gs, you need deep fuel bunkerage to perform the kind of long burns that can drain your pursuer's tanks dry(or to keep up with teh ones you're pursuing), and raw thrust is useful if they catch up and close to tactical range, where a short high-G burn that your enemies cannot beat will mean the difference between forcing a shooting battle, and avoiding it and settling back into the long chase.

[sillybrit]

Another part of running from the fight would be avoiding pirate points as much as possible, just in case the enemy has forces with already charged KF drives that could jump ahead of you and force a high speed engagement.

Of course, if you're already outside the jump limit then you're SOL.

[Weirdo]

You mean inside, right? If you're already outside, it's just a matter of evading until your drives are charged, then waving good-bye.

[foxbat]

I'd forgotten solar sails were not the only way to recharge your batteries... so indeed, as long as your bunkers are deeper than the ennemy's it is posssible to outrun them to a jumping position. But good LF batteries will save you the trouble too.  ;)

[sillybrit]

You mean inside, right? If you're already outside, it's just a matter of evading until your drives are charged, then waving good-bye.

Nope, outside. If you're outside the limit then and enemy ready and waiting to jump doesn't have to wait for you to near a pirate point to jump in front of you, while if you're inside the limit then a convenient pirate point is the only available option.

[Weirdo]

Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, that could be a viable tactic, though at the speeds ships reach on cross-system transits and whatnot, you'd probably only have time for a high-speed pass engagement as they blew past you, then they'd be long gone before you could get up to speed. If that one pass is all you need though, then by all means, let 'er rip.

[sillybrit]

Yup, which is why I mentioned high-speed engagements.   ;)

Of course, in some circumstances, the use of a jump may be enough to overcome the lead that the fleeing force had built up, allowing a pursuer with an appropriate thrust advantage to get in range for a standard engagement before the foe can recharge and thus escape.

That would perhaps be easier if you retain the vector you had when you jumped, but I can't recall whether you do or not.

[Weirdo]

You don't. In all cases, you come out of a jump at a full stop relative to the nearest major gravity well. In most cases, that'll be the star of the relevant system, though at certain pirate points, it'll be a stop relative to whatever planet you just jumped in close to.

My only question is if you jump into interstellar space. Are you at a stop relative to the nearest star, or relative to the galactic core? :)

[sillybrit]

Heh, my vote is for handwavium. On a more serious note, I'd assume it'd depend how close to the core as to what would be the most significant gravity well, but for that I'd want to invoke cray or whoever on here is an astronomical expert.

[FedComGirl]

You don't have to have a head on pass. You could jump ahead and to the side then set a course at an angle to meet them. If they continue on course your engagement time will be longer. If they turn away from you, you alter course and speed to persue. That would give you a longer engagement time. Or they could turn towards you for a short engagement and then be past you. Any turning they do however will allow those chasing them to close the distance. 

[sillybrit]

At the interplanetary speeds we're talking about, even approaching from the side with a degree of acceleration along the same vector, you're still going to be performing a high speed engagement. The only difference is that instead of the two forces approaching head on, the fleeing force will be overtaking the intercepting force.

At those speeds, turning is also going to be more along the lines of a slight shifting of course, rather than the sort of more significant alteration in course we think of when discussing turning. Consider this simple example: if I'm moving along at five hexes a Turn and I apply five Thrust at a right angle to my vector, that course is going to alter by 45 degrees, but if I was originally moving at 5001 hexes a Turn - the minimum for an interplanetary style high-speed engagement - then those five points of Thrust are only going to produce a course change of 0.06 degrees.

[FedComGirl]

I didn't mean head on but at an angle. A head on engagement would be short. Coming in at an angle  the engagement time will be much longer. The only way they could shorten it is if they either do a hard turn away from you so you're chasing them, or they do a hard turn towards you for a head on engagement. All the options for them are bad. Interception at an angle lets more ships be damaged or lost do to the longer engagement time. All the other fleet would need is to alter course slightly for a parallel engagement. If they're running they don't want that.  Hard turns burn up more fuel, they also slow velocity allowing pursuers to catch up. Depending on their weaponry and damage their best bet is either attempt to cross the new groups T or to alter course enough to keep both enemy groups behind them and run as hard as they can.

[sillybrit]

Again, at the velocities involved in interplanetary maneuvers, there are no hard turns; for every day it took you to get to your current velocity, it would take you two days to change your course by 90 degress.

And you do not seem to be taking into account that the intercepting force will be starting with a speed of zero after jumping to the pirate point, and that it takes dozens of hours to multiple days of acceleration to get up to the velocities involved, during which time the fleeing force is still accelerating itself. That's why in all probability that it's going to make little to no difference just how offset the pirate point may or may not be; for all intents and purposes, the speed difference will be so great - and remember that it only needs to be a difference of approximately 100 hexes per Turn along just one vector to count as a high-speed engagement - that the difference in course is only going to determine whether its a head on or crossing high-speed engagement.

If, as I noted earlier, the pirate point is positioned just right and the pursuer has a significant thrust advantage - and I believe the court is still open on whether or not ships can maintain multi-G acceleration for days on end, I've seen posts suggesting either way - to allow them to slowly close the range for a standard engagement, it's going to take multiple days. Also remember that if the pirate point is offset from the fleeing force's course, the pursuing force is going to have to divert part of its thrust to close that gap, thus reducing how much thrust it can devote to simply catching the foe and thus extending the time it'll take. The big problem with all this extended maneuvering is that it takes so much time, days that add up with those that the fleeing force has already used to build up its escape vector, and during that time the fleeing force can quite possibly finish its charging, get outside the KF limit and jump away before the interception can occur.

And let's not forget that the fleeing force is going to do its hardest to ensure that it doesn't go anywhere near pirate points, or even possible pirate points, in the first place. Even assuming that the fleeing force doesn't have enough astronomical data to know precisely where and when pirate points will occur, they'll know enough to predict where the possibilities might occur, and if they're really lazy or smart they can just point straight up or straight down from the plane of the ecliptic and simply not have to worry about pirate points at all.