Stagnation and innovation in RMN thinking

[Kevin Horner]

The link below is an essay by one Benjamin Jensin, obviously about innovation and such in the US Marine Corps. Mr. Jensen's content is debatable, of course, as it is his opinion, but I bring it to people's attention as what might be an interesting jumping-off point for discussion on strategic and tactical stagnation in a Royal/Imperial military of semi-immortals.

https://warontherocks.com/2018/08/diver ... rd%20Brief

[John Fairbairn, GCE GACM]

Seems like a call to remember that bigger and more is not always the answer. It seemed like Mr. Weber spoke to that issue when he described the 1st Battle of Manticore, the 2nd Battle of Manticore, and then again when he described the Mesa attack on Manticore. Most times better wins.

[Chester Beedle]

There needs to be a balance. Some of the thinking that we can do it all by being "better," is just a justification for not being larger or more numerous. "Quantity has a quality all it's own." However, pure quantity can not make up for a large enough gap in technology, equipment, or ability. As long as there are enough of those with superior equipment and ability. It has to be good enough, and there has to be enough of it. Focus too much on one or the other and you will lose.

[Michael Bonh]

This is a cool topic to dig into. I'm currently reading Gen. Mattis' book Call Sign Chaos, and it is brought up that bigger is not all ways better and that superior tech can be a crutch. I believe that it's a bottom to top skill/work cycle that can and will make the difference. You could have the best radios, weapons and gear in the world but have crap intel, mission prep or logistics and your bound to fail (or die).

[Michael Bonh]

More on this topic I recently led a CLAC dissection on my discord in relation to a paper I'm had to do regarding the U.S.N.'s fleet tactics (maneuvers) in relation to a fictional equivalent. It wasn't as big as I had hoped but I did learn a lot. One is that even in this universe the Z plane is often forgotten. This is something only seen IRL with Sub warfare but can make a huge game changer in space combat. I have not learned enough about the capabilities of how the wedges could effect free motion in space( like can you change the ship to move on inertia with a wedge up facing another ship?) but I'd love to dig more into it.

If anyone want to bite into this please check out my posts in the FB LAC Bay group.

[Thomas Hathaway IV]

More on this topic I recently led a CLAC dissection on my discord in relation to a paper I'm had to do regarding the U.S.N.'s fleet tactics (maneuvers) in relation to a fictional equivalent. It wasn't as big as I had hoped but I did learn a lot. One is that even in this universe the Z plane is often forgotten. This is something only seen IRL with Sub warfare but can make a huge game changer in space combat. I have not learned enough about the capabilities of how the wedges could effect free motion in space( like can you change the ship to move on inertia with a wedge up facing another ship?) but I'd love to dig more into it.

If anyone want to bite into this please check out my posts in the FB LAC Bay group.

Even in submarine warfare, the z axis does not come into play very much. To a “skimmer” there is only surfaced or submerged. The z axis is essentially a 2 state system more concerned with ease of detection than actual depth. In some cases you could add a third state: above or below the thermocline. However this still is a matter of detect ability and not a true axis.

Even to us “bubbleheads” depth is a matter of concealment. Hidden or not. That is the question. We hide below the surface, hide below the layer, above it, or if we are really lucky, between 2 temperature layers to hide from those above and below.

When you think about it, this makes sense. Most submarines operate in water not much deeper than 250 meters (800 feet). Compared to the vast depths of the oceans this is incredibly tiny and might as well be the surface as far as the ocean is concerned.

The only place real, three dimensional combat truly exists is in the air. It might be interesting to look at arial dogfighting as a source for fleet tactics. There are some differences once you get out in space. The rules of movement change bound by the laws of orbital mechanics.

A ship’s wedges are generated by its impeller rings, the impeller nodes are tuned to establish the inclination of the wedges which is more or less fixed. Acceleration is controlled by the strength of the wedges. This is why ships flip when executing turnover to begin decelerating. To answer your question a ship generates velocity by accelerating in the direction the bow is pointed. This works exactly like a thruster burn for a rocket. Starships use their wedges to establish a velocity (speed and direction). Acceleration along your current vector of travel changes speed without changing direction. Acceleration along any other vector changes your speed and direction.

Here where orbital mechanics comes in. In system a starship’s vector is greatly affected by gravity while at slow speed. Every primary has an escape velocity if a ship is traveling slower than the primary’s escape velocity it is in orbit around the primary or around a body orbiting the primary. Above primary escape velocity a ship is essentially free roaming within the system. Contrariwise, starships have to slow to a “capture velocity” within range of a body to achieve orbit.

Orbits, velocity and the gravitational influences of a system’s bodies as well as the system’s hyper limits and those of any gas giants

[Philip Culmer]

It might be worth having a look at the infodumps as well,.to see if his Grace has posted anything about his thoughts and/or intentions in this regard.
It's just my speculation, but I suspect that part of it might have been so that ship's had broadsides comparable to wet navy ones, with similar vulnability.

[Michael Bonh]

Thank you for the clarification sir. I also was sent a wonderful list of battels to read up on for reference as well. All this was very educational. After some long nights sucking sand and free time to think on this I came up with some ideas I’d like to share here.

First was that there are several similarities to other space military fandoms such as Halo, Star Wars and Warhammer. In some shape or form the practice of missile attack and defense is shown. I was amazed at how advanced the use of missiles have become in HV over the books. But I’d like to see how something like the kinetic attacks in Halo or the salvo planning in Warhammer could be used to come up with some cool new tactics for our own missile doctrine.

Second was the use of LACs. I recently used the CLAC in a paper for my Mil. Sci. class and compared it to the function of the US modern carriers. I had lots of input form the CLAC FB group that was very enlightening. From that I felt there was something to putting some thought into LAC squadron builds based on role, model and just good old mission planning that could improve the robust roles LACs can hold.

Third was on the use of kinetic weapons. I think looking at the use of old school (in this vers anyway) magnetic rail style weapons (like how ship mounted guns in Mass Effect would work for size reference) could be used by Q ships and the like that would focus on “slow” moving targets.
These were just some of my thought form before. I’d love to learn more and am always open to comments and critiques.

[Thomas Hathaway IV]

Thank you for the clarification sir. I also was sent a wonderful list of battels to read up on for reference as well. All this was very educational. After some long nights sucking sand and free time to think on this I came up with some ideas I’d like to share here.

First was that there are several similarities to other space military fandoms such as Halo, Star Wars and Warhammer. In some shape or form the practice of missile attack and defense is shown. I was amazed at how advanced the use of missiles have become in HV over the books. But I’d like to see how something like the kinetic attacks in Halo or the salvo planning in Warhammer could be used to come up with some cool new tactics for our own missile doctrine.

Second was the use of LACs. I recently used the CLAC in a paper for my Mil. Sci. class and compared it to the function of the US modern carriers. I had lots of input form the CLAC FB group that was very enlightening. From that I felt there was something to putting some thought into LAC squadron builds based on role, model and just good old mission planning that could improve the robust roles LACs can hold.

Third was on the use of kinetic weapons. I think looking at the use of old school (in this vers anyway) magnetic rail style weapons (like how ship mounted guns in Mass Effect would work for size reference) could be used by Q ships and the like that would focus on “slow” moving targets.
These were just some of my thought form before. I’d love to learn more and am always open to comments and critiques.

First with respect to magnetic accelerated projectiles within the RMN we are several generations beyond that. Modern "Missiles" have about as much in common with a 20th century rocket as a wheelbarrow and an cargo shuttle. An MDM contains several microfusion plants which operate by gravitic confinement. Initial energy to establish fusion comes from the ship which fires it. The missiles are propelled by a gravity mass driver rather than magnetics. once the missile clears the ship's sidewalls and wedges the impellers light off and establish the missile's own wedges. The accelerations involved with a missiles wedges are huge well beyond what could be accomplished with electromagnetism.

While it is true that a kinetic penetrator at relativistic speeds could do a massive amount of damage, the reason contact nukes and later Laser heads are preferred is twofold first a purely kinetic weapon would be ineffective against sidewalls. The projected gravitic stress bands would turn a penetrator into dust and radiation. It would look very pretty but do very little actual damage. Secondly, it relates to bypassing the defensive envelope of the target. A missile armed with a laser head is basically just a drone firing a very powerful energy weapon from standoff range. Once it fires, there is no way for the target to intercept or avoid the damage. Just like ship mounted energy weapons, it is impossible for the target to detect until it hits. Energy weapons are bent by a target's sidewall but are not bent enough to be totally refracted away from the target (which is what happens when energy weapons strike wedges)

In the more early days of the RMN (the Travis Long era) magnetic drivers were used to accelerate missiles out of the tubes. Also in that era (and even more recently) kinetic weapons were used in defense in the form of point defense autocannons. The closest we get to a true kinetic energy weapon in the modern era is the counter missile. However, this relies on the countermissile's wedge intercepting the wedge of an incoming attack bird rather than a true kill.

One additional consideration as to why kinetic penetrators are not used is that they are just plain irresponsible. Sure it is rare, but once you launch a kinetic weapon in space, it is going, and it is going to keep going until something stops it. As the Gunny said "someday, somewhere , somehow, you are going to ruin somebody's day"

[Jeffrey J Hughes, MAJ, RMA]

My only wish was turret mounted weapons line in Star Wars on BSG, but with the design of the pod they wouldn't be effective