This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the sender's email address (philpugliese@yahoo.com) has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message follows:
Ian,
We also know that the Terrans beat the Vilani using fighters & that's about the best record there is!
We also know that both the TerranConfed & the ZiruSirka both used & stuck w/ fighters all thru the Interstellar Wars.
The fact that the 3I has stuck w/ them for over 1,000 years is quite significant, I think.
There have been many times (when they were stalemated by the Julians, after the early Frontier Wars & the resultant civil war, the aslan wars, & the 3FW/SolRimWar as examples) when the 3I undoubtedly 'rethought' their basic strategy &, in fact, it's probably a continuing process. Witness the 'back & forth' pendulum effect wrt the proper balance 'tween BB's & BR's.
Yet, for some reason, the 'big ships w/ many, many fighters' template has endured.
[Also, AFAIK, the SolConfed followed/follows this doctrine also]
This 'gels' w/ my contention that it is effective & that other doctrines have been found inferior.
Still, I also have been struck by the 3I's poor record wrt *some* wars that it seems like they should have won.
(Remember, the OTU was initially conceived during the post-VietNam 'hangover' here in the USA.)
But there's many, many reasons why a large heterogeneous polity like the 3I can't keep it together long enough to win wars that they should. But they did win the really BIG ones. Like the 3FW/SolRimWar which went for more than 2 decades, didn't it? Losing either of those would have had major, major repercussions. They also won, though not 'decisively', the 5thFW as the Zhodani attempt to seize Rhylanor failed once again & the Zhos were driven back to their territory, & the 3I even made some small territorial gains.
(Remember, the Frontier Wars have been defensive in nature so driving the invaders out is a victory, IMO & certainly NOT a defeat)
I would say that it appears that, in the end, the 3I didn't really want to, or want to bad enough, achieve a decisive victory in those wars. So they settled for a lessor one. That hardly qualifies as a defeat. After all the 'only an Unconditional Surrender' policy is hardly universal these (RL) days & has been more the exception than the rule in RL history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 10/8/14, Ian Whitchurch <ian.whitchurch@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [TML] Why do those big ships carry so many fighters?
To: tml@simplelists.com
Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2014, 2:37 PM
Phil,
We also know the 3I has a really, really bad
record in major wars - despite only fighting them one at a
time, they have been unable to get decisive victories in any
of the Frontier Wars, and the Solomani War saw the Imperium
run out of steam after capturing Terra, leaving the Solomani
Confederation as still an interstellar polity that can
threaten the Imperium.
And this with an average 1 TL advantage against
it's opponents.
Maybe this gels with my contention that their
fleet is full of ships that really, really suck, and that
their doctrine needs major work ?
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at
8:13 AM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <nobody@simplelists.com>
wrote:
This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow
forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the
sender's email address (philpugliese@yahoo.com)
has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message
follows:
Ian,
We know that, w/i the 3I, there not only are old-style
BB's (no longer in production) that carry many, many
fighters.
We also know that there are, currently in production,
capital ships specially designed to carry many, many
fighters.
We also know that this has been the case going all the way
back to the Interstellar Wars.
So, IMO, the main question, as posed in the subject line,
is;
"Why do those big ships
carry so many fighters?"
We know the fighters are there in large numbers &
have been for thousands of years.
Since they are present I prefer to speculate about what they
are used for rather than argue that they shouldn't
exist.
As always & obviously, YMMV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 10/8/14, Ian Whitchurch <ian.whitchurch@gmail.com>
wrote:
Subject: Re: [TML] Why do those big ships carry so many
fighters?
To: tml@simplelists.com
Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2014, 1:57 PM
Phil,
The role of
picket and scout is much better done by something with a
jump drive, because if the main body needs to leave, you
dont need to either lose them or wait for multiple days
for
them to get back.
A
basic tech-12 jump-3 Scout/Courier - and its not easy
to
build better than jump-3 ships that go in the line of
battle
in Trav - costs about the same 1 MCr per dton every other
military ship roughly costs, coming in at a base MCr96
for
100 dtons.
A squadron
of these can travel with the battlewagon, meaning it
doesnt
need to piss several percent of it's total volume up
against a wall in carrying fighters that are equally
unimportant in battle and cannot run messages back and
forth
to the fleet's other detatchments.
If, for some reason, the Navy
absolutely insists on carrying non jump capable craft
that
arent useful in the line of battle, then the Navy should
commission some sort of close structure platform for them
that can sit somewhere safe while it's fighters do
the
best they can to replace the Type S.
But me, I say buy the good old Type
S by the tens of hundreds, and if they need to go at
jump-3
or jump-4, then build dedicated close structure carriers
for
them (a 20kton tech 13 jump-4 jeep carrier came in at a
base
GCr11, and carried 40 100dton and 2 1kdton craft ie 40
scout/couriers and a pair of fuel shuttles).
Ian Whitchurch
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at
11:39 PM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <nobody@simplelists.com>
wrote:
This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow
forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the
sender's email address (philpugliese@yahoo.com)
has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message
follows:
Uh, yes they do work just fine.
The discussion *has* been about their use as pickets,
scouts, etc, for which they quite capable but even so, in
sufficient numbers they can be effective against much
larger
craft (depends on exactly what you mean by "real
military ship" as there are plenty of escort types
that
don't carry much armor) though those *are* escorts.
I think the main problem is with the term 'heavy
fighter'.
It seems to imply a capability that really cannot
actually
exist.
It's only 'heavy' in the sense that it's
'heavier' than some other designs such as a
10-11dT 'light' fighter I recall from
somewhere.
Azhanti HL class maybe?
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 10/7/14, Ian Whitchurch
<ian.whitchurch@gmail.com>
wrote:
Subject: Re: [TML] Why do those big ships carry so many
fighters?
To: tml@simplelists.com
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2014, 4:26 PM
Phil
Pugliese alleged "The canonical 50dT heavy fighter
that the 'Tigress' class carries works fine in
CT,
less so for later morphs..."
No. It
doesnt. Under Book 5 High Guard They cannot actually
scratch
any real military ship built with actual armor, and
they
dont have a big enough Size to avoid internal crits, or
enough crew to cop radiation damage.
They
are auxilary craft, useful against civilians and other
auxiliaries.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:20
AM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <nobody@simplelists.com>
wrote:
This email was sent from yahoo.com which
does not allow
forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the
sender's email address (philpugliese@yahoo.com)
has been replaced with a dummy one. The original
message
follows:
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 10/7/14, Jeffrey
Schwartz <schwartz.jeffrey@gmail.com>
wrote:
Subject: Re: [TML] Why do those big ships carry so
many
fighters?
To: "tml" <tml@simplelists.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2014, 11:59 AM
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at
2:28 PM, Craig Berry <cdberry@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes, gravitics change a lot. But
you still need streamlining to
> operate
in an atmosphere -- both per the rules, and per
reasonable
> extrapolation. A streamlined
shape will move through the air more
>
easily, with less turbulence. This is going to be
especially
true for
> a fighter, which presumably
will be zipping around at high Mach
>
numbers. All those smooth curves and fairings are
dead
mass
for a
> vacuum fighter.
Do they have to be dead mass
though?
I mean, the curved
surface is going to contribute to armor
protectiveness, for example, which is an
advantage in space as well.
I guess the
amount of 'waste' depends on how much
unusable
volume is
between the hardware and the
skin.
I think the rules
give a 10% increase in weight for streamlining, and
I half remember wedges having no weight penalty
for streamlining.
Is 10% a
big enough difference for a _meaningful_ edge?
IIRC, the example fighter in
MT was too small for M-Drives, so it had
"just" 12G of gravitics, and accepted
the penalty for using gravs on
the distant
edges of a gravity well.
I'd read that as out between 50D and 100D,
the fighters have 1.2G or
1.3 G of accel,
both of which round down to 1G for combat rules...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The canonical 50dT heavy fighter that the
'Tigress'
class carries works fine in CT, less so for later
morphs...
========================================================================================
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=Qjs81DnfPhuRQ7Rw3I0XVltos3d36yjy