Imperial Battleships

[phavoc]

The problem with this theoretical discussion is that we're comparing a mish-mash of versions of a game that didn't exactly have a firm foundation upon which to build it's tech bible upon to begin with. And it's also not a wargame, it's an RPG that got this stuff tacked on to it.

As to Theophilus comment about VTOL aircraft on assault ships, the USN originally discarded the smaller carrier concept after the 50s in pursuit of the larger carrier to handle bigger and heavier jets. Other navies have maintained the idea of smaller carriers, mostly because they can't afford the budget required for a full-sized carrier. We've seen a mix of smaller and less capable VTOL jets to smaller jets with less payloads using ski-jumps and the ships carrying fewer (think Chinese and French).

At the end of the day it's probably boiling down to more of a budgetary question than a force projection/mission question. No other nation has the same mission needs that the USN has for global force projection. And no other nation has the budget that the USN has either. Were this a pure space question I'd think you would see planetary navies using smaller carriers as well, and just the Imperium deploying larger fleet carriers.

 

[WHULorigan]

At the end of the day it's probably boiling down to more of a budgetary question than a force projection/mission question. No other nation has the same mission needs that the USN has for global force projection. And no other nation has the budget that the USN has either. Were this a pure space question I'd think you would see planetary navies using smaller carriers as well, and just the Imperium deploying larger fleet carriers.

It would also depend upon Space Force tactics as dictated by the environment and technology.

As Traveller technology currently stands, Carriers would be more likely carrying Aerospace support fighters for Surface/Orbital operational support, as well as for minor screening and reconnaissance and picket. Not the "Space Superiority" concept mapped from modern Navy Carriers and achieving Air Superiority. (I am talking about Fighter Carriers, not Fleet Carrier/Tenders with Battle & Escort Riders - that is a different thing altogether).

• An Air Superiority Fighter's airspeed is 10x-20x the nautical speed of a surface fleet unit and operates with an extra dimension of freedom of maneuverability to "get above" the battlespace. It also carries a weapons package that can potentially cause major damage or cripple its target with a single hit, depending upon where the hit lands.
• A spaceboat / gunboat / attackboat (fighter) - whatever name you want to give a small craft combatant - has an acceleration at best 1x to 2x that of its targets and operates within the same battlespace dimensionality. Its weaponry is generally insufficient to do much against its large targets' armor and screens, and the target can potentially turn around and chase the attacker along all axes of motion/acceleration and maintain distance. The "Battleship"/"Battlecruiser"/"Capital" (whatever you want to call it) is the queen of the battlespace in this combat environment until a small and cost-effective weapons package that can introduce major damage to a large opponent can be developed.

Air Superiority Fighters in a "Wet Navy" Carrier Battle Group simply do not map to "Space Fighters" in a "Space Force Navy" Fighter Carrier Group. Any Carriers carrying smallcraft will have a very different mission than the Wet Navy analog, and they will not be considered "Capital Vessels" - but they may be crucial units in invading Assault Groups/Fleets carrying Surface/Orbital Aerospace assets.

 

[Condottiere]

It sort of depends on exactly how many battleships are actually on the field.

And, in theory, battlecruisers are somewhat thinskinned.

 

[WHULorigan]

It sort of depends on exactly how many battleships are actually on the field.

The Traveller presupposition for the Charted Space setting is Fleets surrounding "Battleships" (plural) at the center as Main Battle Units. It might be the case that a battle going very badly might leave only one or two viable Main Battle Units in the fray unescorted/unsupported, but are you going to go to the expense to build fleet units whose primary function is to carry smallcraft to exploit that eventuality should it arise, and try to whittle them down bit by bit? Or just spend the credits on a few more Main Battle Units and Support/Escort Vessels?

And, in theory, battlecruisers are somewhat thinskinned.

Yes, I was avoiding the "naming terminology" angle. Whatever you want to call the "Primary Capital Warship", it can be sufficiently armored/defended to withstand smallcraft.

 

[phavoc]

It would also depend upon Space Force tactics as dictated by the environment and technology.

As Traveller technology currently stands, Carriers would be more likely carrying Aerospace support fighters for Surface/Orbital operational support, as well as for minor screening and reconnaissance and picket. Not the "Space Superiority" concept mapped from modern Navy Carriers and achieving Air Superiority. (I am talking about Fighter Carriers, not Fleet Carrier/Tenders with Battle & Escort Riders - that is a different thing altogether).

• An Air Superiority Fighter's airspeed is 10x-20x the nautical speed of a surface fleet unit and operates with an extra dimension of freedom of maneuverability to "get above" the battlespace. It also carries a weapons package that can potentially cause major damage or cripple its target with a single hit, depending upon where the hit lands.
• A spaceboat / gunboat / attackboat (fighter) - whatever name you want to give a small craft combatant - has an acceleration at best 1x to 2x that of its targets and operates within the same battlespace dimensionality. Its weaponry is generally insufficient to do much against its large targets' armor and screens, and the target can potentially turn around and chase the attacker along all axes of motion/acceleration and maintain distance. The "Battleship"/"Battlecruiser"/"Capital" (whatever you want to call it) is the queen of the battlespace in this combat environment until a small and cost-effective weapons package that can introduce major damage to a large opponent can be developed.

Air Superiority Fighters in a "Wet Navy" Carrier Battle Group simply do not map to "Space Fighters" in a "Space Force Navy" Fighter Carrier Group. Any Carriers carrying smallcraft will have a very different mission than the Wet Navy analog, and they will not be considered "Capital Vessels" - but they may be crucial units in invading Assault Groups/Fleets carrying Surface/Orbital Aerospace assets.

I agree with you concerning the tactics issue - force plans are governed by technology and the risks one encounters on a battlefield. That's been a norm for most of the history of warfare. Some are just better at recognizing such things than others.

The question of fighters has been hotly debated, and if one looks at the technology (and discards the limitations that are artificially imposed within the game), there's nothing inherently wrong with fighter swarms taking out ships. A jump-capable combatant can only be in one place at one time. However a carrier can launch its fighters who can then split up to attack multiple targets within a system or else maneuver to engage the enemy and retreat faster than they can be followed by a ship. That has always been the allure of the small craft - taking the fight to the enemy while safeguarding your own ships.

There's also nothing stopping a fighter (technically) from ripple-firing it's loadout within a single combat turn and disengaging. Fighters are relatively cheap and saturation of a ships defenses works in this century or any other.

The speed of a fighter depends on which rulesets are used. In the rules that limit all combatants to the same 6G accelerations, fighters lose a lot of their potential worth. In those that allow them to be far faster, then they become even more useful and valuable as scouts and elements with which a force can deploy quickly to either take advantage of an opportunity or to fill in a gap.

Now that the technology is starting to be developed and fielded, the loyal wingman concept can turn a lot of the issues with fighters on their heads. Technically having a single manned fighter (probably 2-man so your pilot is free to concentrate on piloting) controlling additional drone spacecraft that would either get closer to the enemy to launch their missiles (to minimize time to defend against) while their controller stayed at a distance, or else accompany their controller in an attack run to soak up defensive fire, would make cheaper and more disposable craft a big threat on the battlefield.

 

[phavoc]

It sort of depends on exactly how many battleships are actually on the field.

And, in theory, battlecruisers are somewhat thinskinned.

If deployed properly, a battlecruiser would be considered a screening element for the larger ships. And it would engage ships of it's same size in the enemy's screen while your battleline engaged theirs. Having battlecruisers engage their much larger counterparts has proven to be rather disastrous historically.

 

[Sigtrygg]

One of the issues is that the setting no longer matches the rules that are supposed to describe it. The same can be levelled at most of the ship combat systems Traveller has had over the years, with the exception of TNE.

Under current rules build lots of the smallest hulls with one 500t bay, particle or meson makes little difference. Until spinals are boosted or bays are nerfed then the large bay is a way more effective weapon system.

A capital ship can carry many such large bays and they are way more versatile than spinals, and yet the spinal is supposed to be the battle decider within the charted space setting. Under MgT HG2e rules this is not the case.

 

[Vormaerin]

If deployed properly, a battlecruiser would be considered a screening element for the larger ships. And it would engage ships of it's same size in the enemy's screen while your battleline engaged theirs. Having battlecruisers engage their much larger counterparts has proven to be rather disastrous historically.

yeah, but that just makes it a cruiser. That's the role of all cruisers.

 

[phavoc]

yeah, but that just makes it a cruiser. That's the role of all cruisers.

That was meant to be a specific response, not a generalized one. Expanding it to a generalized comment, cruisers can be deployed in many ways. They are essentially the first level of a 'capital' ship - in as much as their armor and armament set them apart from their smaller brethren. In a fleet cruisers can be deployed in many ways, or as the mid-layer of the escort screen for the heavier elements of the battle line.

Battlecruisers can be the heavies of a squadron or smaller flotilla where you don't need to use a pure capital ship. In that specific role they function the same as a battleship would - except they should not try to take on a battleship (which you would almost never find unescorted or in singletons anyways). If you go with the classic role of the battlecruiser, it can beat up on anything smaller than it or run away from anything larger. It's unfortunate that the RN put their battlecruisers up against true battleships simply because they had big enough guns to play with the big boys. They didn't have the matching armor to take the damage.

There aren't a lot of historical battles between true battlecruisers (the Renown vs Scharnorst & Gneisenau is one - there the Renown beat up on the Germans and won a tactical victory, but lost strategically as the krauts were able to complete their Narvik landings. The Renown had the bigger 15" battleship class guns, but was considered a battlecruiser by the RN. The kraut ships had more appropriate (and smaller) 11" guns that you'd expect from a battlecruiser. I don't recall the USN vs IJN in any of the Guadacanal/Savo battles doing similar (though I think the Kirishima got sunk by a US BB in a night-time battle. Kirishima/Kongo class may be a poor example as they started out as battlecruisers, but after their rebuilds they were classified as battleships.

We don't have a lot of historical battles though to cite. Just some pockets here and there, and aircraft came and made the big gun ships obsolete too quickly.

 

[Condottiere]

Doctrine for battlecruisers in the fleet scouting mission, was to brush aside enemy light and armoured cruisers, in order to get a glimpse over the hill, and pin point the opposing battle squadrons for their battle squadrons.

What is somewhat unclear, if and when, the realization came that the enemy could build and deploy their own variants of upgraded first class armoured cruisers.

Since supposedly you can't hide anything in the clear ether, scouting tends to be more a case of scanning neighbouring hexes.

 

[Endie]

yeah, but that just makes it a cruiser. That's the role of all cruisers.

It's very much not the role of all cruisers. These days, their most common role is to provide air cover. Historically, cruisers (particularly light ones) have been commerce raiders (the historical version that the name comes from), heavy screens (of the sort you describe), anti-aviation assets, anti-submarine helicopter taxis, auxiliary convoy defence, major surface combatants (eg the Kirovs: 'heavy nuclear-powered guided-missile cruiser') and more.

 

[Condottiere]

With the exception of Emden, heavier cruisers would be more suitable for commerce raiding, since, in theory, you'd have to provide prize crews, stores, and, likely, prisoner of war facilities.

Currently, it seems that frigates tend towards anti submarine, destroyers air defence.

I rather suspect that mid range anti aircraft cannons are going to be added, to deal with drones.

 

[Vormaerin]

It's very much not the role of all cruisers. These days, their most common role is to provide air cover. Historically, cruisers (particularly light ones) have been commerce raiders (the historical version that the name comes from), heavy screens (of the sort you describe), anti-aviation assets, anti-submarine helicopter taxis, auxiliary convoy defence, major surface combatants (eg the Kirovs: 'heavy nuclear-powered guided-missile cruiser') and more.

At the time that battle cruisers came into existence (WW1) the primary role of cruisers was as a screen and the design intent of the battlecruiser was to be able to break that screen. In WW2 there was also some thought that they might be able to run down and destroy commerce raiding cruisers. But, afaik, only the Germans were running commerce raiding warships, but it was a very small number (like 10 or 12) compared to their submarine efforts. And then battlecruisers basically vanished. Because they don't have a role except "run down cruisers and beat them up."

And, as mentioned earlier in this thread, in the modern era they classify things as cruiser/destroyer/frigate as much for political reasons as anything to do with what they do. Which is why a bunch of Frigates woke up one day and got repainted as Cruisers a while back. They get called cruiser when they want them to sound big and scary and destroyers or frigates when they want them to sound less expensive. Sometimes they'll be given role specific classifications, but then they'll change that up.

No surface warfare ship classification has had a consistent meaning since the end of WW2, when everyone gave up on the idea of fleet vs fleet actions entirely.

 

[Endie]

At the time that battle cruisers came into existence (WW1) the primary role of cruisers was as a screen and the design intent of the battlecruiser was to be able to break that screen. In WW2 there was also some thought that they might be able to run down and destroy commerce raiding cruisers. But, afaik, only the Germans were running commerce raiding warships, but it was a very small number (like 10 or 12) compared to their submarine efforts. And then battlecruisers basically vanished. Because they don't have a role except "run down cruisers and beat them up."

And, as mentioned earlier in this thread, in the modern era they classify things as cruiser/destroyer/frigate as much for political reasons as anything to do with what they do. Which is why a bunch of Frigates woke up one day and got repainted as Cruisers a while back. They get called cruiser when they want them to sound big and scary and destroyers or frigates when they want them to sound less expensive. Sometimes they'll be given role specific classifications, but then they'll change that up.

No surface warfare ship classification has had a consistent meaning since the end of WW2, when everyone gave up on the idea of fleet vs fleet actions entirely.

Ok even if you want to restrict this to WW2 era, then there were still many different cruiser roles that were different from your definition: the Americans developed the anti-aviation cruiser role and had specialised ships just for that, while the Germans had their commerce raiders (saying it was “just the Germans” doesn’t magic them away!) and the British had merchant and auxiliary cruisers used in convoy protection. There were several other varieties as well, but I’m on a phone so this is not the medium for mid-20th century cruiser doctrines 101.

 

[Vormaerin]

Regardless, my actual point was that defining the battlecruisers the way that was used in the post I responded to just makes them the same as any other cruiser.

The thing that defined a battle cruiser for the very short period of time that they actually existed was "cruiser hunter". Regardless of what that cruiser was doing. Saying that they are screening elements for battle fleets does not make them distinct from other cruisers, because being a screening element for the fleet was what cruisers did in that era.

Yes, some cruisers were also assigned to commerce raiding, but the majority of the "cruisers" used for commerce raiding were not purpose built warships, but converted merchantmen like the Emden or the Atlantis. But that just leads us back down the rabbit hole of what do these terms even mean? Which is not much since it covers everything from a cargo ship with some 5" guns on it to fleet combat vessels.

And the bigger point is that trying to rely on wet navy terminology just leads to confusion because the terms never had any specific meaning (except perhaps battleship?). Which is why the Kinunir is a "battlecruiser" in Traveller. After all, it does cruiser stuff despite being a tiny ship and now it's called a "Colonial cruiser". Despite having nothing to do with colonial navies or colony stuff at all. Because the only thing in common between all the ships called cruisers IRL and in game is that they have weapons. Which is not much to go on.

 

[Theophilus]

At the time that battle cruisers came into existence (WW1) the primary role of cruisers was as a screen and the design intent of the battlecruiser was to be able to break that screen. In WW2 there was also some thought that they might be able to run down and destroy commerce raiding cruisers. But, afaik, only the Germans were running commerce raiding warships, but it was a very small number (like 10 or 12) compared to their submarine efforts. And then battlecruisers basically vanished. Because they don't have a role except "run down cruisers and beat them up."

And, as mentioned earlier in this thread, in the modern era they classify things as cruiser/destroyer/frigate as much for political reasons as anything to do with what they do. Which is why a bunch of Frigates woke up one day and got repainted as Cruisers a while back. They get called cruiser when they want them to sound big and scary and destroyers or frigates when they want them to sound less expensive. Sometimes they'll be given role specific classifications, but then they'll change that up.

No surface warfare ship classification has had a consistent meaning since the end of WW2, when everyone gave up on the idea of fleet vs fleet actions entirely.

I would argue they disappeared because the fast battleship overtook their capabilities.
Early WW1 Battlecruisers sacrificed armor for speed, but by the time the battle of Jutland occurred the British had four fast battleships that joined the Battlecruiser force. By WW2 all battleships were at or over the 30 knot speed of the Battlecruisers with far heavier armor. Propulsion technology caught up with guns and armor, end of Battlecruisers. Even the Alaska class, arguably the last Battlecruisers ever built only made 33kts, same as the Iowa class battleships

 

[Condottiere]

One theory is, that if the Royal Navy had sprung for faster engines for the Queen Elizabeths, they would have had a speed of twenty eight knots, instead of twenty four.

Which would have put paid to the battlecruiser right then.

The question would be what speed is required for a line of battle, which doesn't unduly effect operating range, nor take up a great deal of volume.

 

[Vormaerin]

I would argue they disappeared because the fast battleship overtook their capabilities.
Early WW1 Battlecruisers sacrificed armor for speed, but by the time the battle of Jutland occurred the British had four fast battleships that joined the Battlecruiser force. By WW2 all battleships were at or over the 30 knot speed of the Battlecruisers with far heavier armor. Propulsion technology caught up with guns and armor, end of Battlecruisers. Even the Alaska class, arguably the last Battlecruisers ever built only made 33kts, same as the Iowa class battleships

Lots of other things changed at the same time, but that is certainly a factor.

It's just that this conversation is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On one hand, the assertion is that using terms like Cruiser, Destroyer, Frigate, etc actually conveys information about the ship in question. On the other hand, any attempt to actually define what any of those terms actually means for modeling space ships runs into the fact that, no, actually, they don't actually have any established meaning.

If you want to convey what a ship does, it's probably best to just say what it does. "Fast Patrol Ship". "Close Escort". "Fleet Escort". "Missile Strike Ship" Because if you call it a "Cruiser", you will still have to say how big is it and what is it for.

 

[Endie]

The thing that defined a battle cruiser for the very short period of time that they actually existed was "cruiser hunter". Regardless of what that cruiser was doing. Saying that they are screening elements for battle fleets does not make them distinct from other cruisers, because being a screening element for the fleet was what cruisers did in that era.

Even this is not true. The great era of the battle cruiser - under the likes of Jellicoe, Fisher and Scheer, Hipper and Beatty - saw them primarily as scouting forces to engage and fix the enemy battle line.

Yes, they got used for other tasks, including hunting German armoured cruisers around the Falklands at one point, but the problem for you there is that, yet again, they were hunting German commerce raiders which were, contrary to your misunderstanding, purpose-built cruisers and not conversions.

 

[Condottiere]

As I recall, with the event of ye steam engine and ironcladding, the Russian started constructing first class armoured cruisers, that the Royal Navy had to figure how to hunt down, and mission kill, to protect their trade routes.

The last gasp of that would have been the Deutschland class panzerschiff, though it seems that the British eleven kilotonne Town class light cruisers were supposedly being prepped to disrupt the Japanese commercial shipping, except the Germans got in the way first.

Inbetween, Fisher came up with the dreadnought armoured cruiser, as being an overall cheaper and more efficient solution to cruiser hunter killer, and fleet scouting.