Harrington ship question

[Richard Saunders]

Hello All.
Just a short question.
On Harringtons ships the two grav bands accelerate the ship, and on the new cruisers they have bow and stern walls, now the question is why does activating the stern wall stop the ship accellerating its not like its a reaction drive and activating the bow wall dosn't stop accel.
Question no 2 - does the grav bands slop down to the front or down to the back, I invisage it down to the front, kinda like a wedge smaller at the front.
Bye.

 

[The Oz]

Question #1) As I understand it, a ship using a bow wall or a stern wall cuts off their ability to use their own wedge for acceleration, because of interference problems between the bow/stern wall and the wedge. Ships with a bow wall (and I assume a stern wall, although this is nowhere demonstrated that I can recall) can use reaction thrusters for some acceleration and attitude adjustment.

Question #2) The grav bands of a ship's wedge are two flat surfaces, one above and one below the ship. The distance between the front edges of those flat surfaces is greater (the "throat" of the wedge) than the distance between the rear edges of the flat surfaces (the "kilt" of the wedge). So the grav bands slope from front to rear, and the opening between them is greater on the bow aspect than the stern aspect. Things work this way because David Weber says they work this way.

 

[BetterThanLife]

I kinda envisioned the Wedges, wedge shaped, like a Scout/Courier. With the pointed end at the front. One above and one below. That would give you a bigger opening at the front than at the rear. The Wedge does extend a ways beyond the physical ship in all directions so Above and below would still be blocked from direct fire or observation. But they are called wedges for a reason.

The idea that you can roll ship with your Wall of battle and leave very few holes though would tend to imply Diamond shaped or Hexagon shaped. But those wouldn't leave the rear aspect more or less open than the front.

I do believe when the Sternwall was placed on the LAC Squadron they still maneuvered on Reaction Thrusters with the Stern Wall up. (Unfortunately the books haven't been unpacked yet so I can't check.) Though it did mention due to physics that only one aspect, the bow or the Stern, could operate at once.

I also seem to recall picturing the maneuvering being something like using a Ram Jet, which is why the front and rear had to be open to maneuver. Since they have to be open to work and since the Front opening is bigger than the back I guess that is why I picture it that way.

 

[aramis]

Webber basically uses the "Walls" to explain the "Starfireisms" of the setting. (David was the line manager for the Starfire line by TFG for quite some time. The honorvers is essentially "Starfire done Right")

 

[Andrew Moreton]

As I understand it the Wedge ie essentially a standing wave moving from the front of the ship to the back, If the ship accelerates a grav wall at the front or back of the ship would move with it thus moving away from the generator and preventing movement.

As to the starfire bit, as reader of David Weber books and a player of starfire the correlation between the battles in the two is not all that high and various attempts to introduce some of the Harrington bits to starfire on the mailing list have IMHO not worked.
The wedges and the wall of battle are in IMHO a way of producing an 18th century feel to navel battles with the line of battle and the raking tactics important in that era

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Andrew Moreton:
The wedges and the wall of battle are in IMHO a way of producing an 18th century feel to navel battles with the line of battle and the raking tactics important in that era

That's how I see it: DW wanted a world where the naval tactics felt like those of sailing ships, to go along with the rest of the "Horatio Hornblower in Space!" theme.

 

[Richard Saunders]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Question #1) As I understand it, a ship using a bow wall or a stern wall cuts off their ability to use their own wedge for acceleration, because of interference problems between the bow/stern wall and the wedge. Ships with a bow wall (and I assume a stern wall, although this is nowhere demonstrated that I can recall) can use reaction thrusters for some acceleration and attitude adjustment.
----------------------------------------------
Hello Oz.
The lacs can put up either the bow (and still accel) or the stern (and not accel) walls.
Stern walls on a cruiser is in one of the anthologies cant remember which but its the one where Harrington was a middy in Silisia and was left on a planet with a shuttle and some marines.
I think its Worlds of Honor, but i know its not Changer of Worlds.
The cruiser was captained by the merchant captain (rear admiral) cant think of his name, who Harrington re-meet in Silisia when the peeps relaunched the war.
---------------------------------------------

Question #2) The grav bands of a ship's wedge are two flat surfaces, one above and one below the ship. The distance between the front edges of those flat surfaces is greater (the "throat" of the wedge) than the distance between the rear edges of the flat surfaces (the "kilt" of the wedge). So the grav bands slope from front to rear, and the opening between them is greater on the bow aspect than the stern aspect. Things work this way because David Weber says they work this way.

-----------------------------------------------
And i have no problem with his method.
So the gap at the front is wider than the back.
SO it would be safer to back into battle and you could actualy get a higher missile count if you mounted tubes on the top and bottom of the hull facing backwards (you launch them with thrusters programed to fire until they clear the skirt then the drive cuts in and they target the enemy), If you what to target forward you do the same with the missiles told to fly around the drive bands (over and under so they dont interfere with standard missile launches). Also how come they dont appear to be able to fire missiles of target (the launcher has to be facing the target) Yes in the last book the Manties can but not very far of angle. Launch the missile with a baring and then tell it to turn on its sensors OR control the missile at launch (they do update the ECM & ECCM in flight so updating trajectory at launch cant be that hard).
Until next time.
Bye.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Andrew Moreton:
As to the starfire bit, as reader of David Weber books and a player of starfire the correlation between the battles in the two is not all that high and various attempts to introduce some of the Harrington bits to starfire on the mailing list have IMHO not worked.
The wedges and the wall of battle are in IMHO a way of producing an 18th century feel to navel battles with the line of battle and the raking tactics important in that era

That they do... but DW himself has admitted a correlation between SF and HH... he had mentioned it on his website at one point. Not that it was "Starfire done right" but that elements of HH tech were inspired by starfire.

BTW, DW's website is down for reworking right now...

Essentially, tryign to go the other way (HH to SF), however, is NOT going to be popular with Marvin and crew... then agian, they want to SFB-ize the d*** game anyway.

When i read the HH novels, I could readily visualize the HT 3-5 ships maneuvering in starfire terms... and couldn't figure why til I hit his web page! (Then I dug out my SF stuff... and drat, I've been playing that for FAR too long... since 1st ed)

The 3rd and 4th ed stuff has grown in different directions... but many aspects are clearly "Better rationale" for starfire-playable battles.

The wedge is much akin to the starfire drive field in its interdict of mass-involved weapons (missiles, PBeams), and the missiles are again very similar. As the two have grown further apart, the visibility of the connection fades. Unlike Starfire, however, the wedge also bends lasers...

ODG has a sequence that sounds just like one from one of my Starfire campaigns...

Starfire, overall, has a strongly "WetNavy" feel. (Lasers are 5", F are 12", Fc are 16", R re harpoon, G are DFM's, etc)

 

[Richard Saunders]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
I kinda envisioned the Wedges, wedge shaped, like a Scout/Courier. With the pointed end at the front. One above and one below. That would give you a bigger opening at the front than at the rear. The Wedge does extend a ways beyond the physical ship in all directions so Above and below would still be blocked from direct fire or observation. But they are called wedges for a reason.
------------------------------------------------

Hello Bhoins.
Yes i thought the drive bands would look like a wedge too but i saw it the other way with the bands slopping down from the back to the front so the opening was smaller at the front. Yes you cant englobe a ship (you would pinch of a part of the universe??????).

-----------------------------------------------
The idea that you can roll ship with your Wall of battle and leave very few holes though would tend to imply Diamond shaped or Hexagon shaped. But those wouldn't leave the rear aspect more or less open than the front.
--------------------------------------------
I see the rolling more as an attempt to put a bloody big impenatrable plate between your ship and the enemy.
---------------------------------------------

I do believe when the Sternwall was placed on the LAC Squadron they still maneuvered on Reaction Thrusters with the Stern Wall up. (Unfortunately the books haven't been unpacked yet so I can't check.) Though it did mention due to physics that only one aspect, the bow or the Stern, could operate at once.

---------------------------------------------
Yes they needed thrusters with the stern wall but not the bow wall (strange the drive isn't reaction, maybe it sucks the matter from infront, no that wont work or thrust would stop when you close the bow).
----------------------------------------------

I also seem to recall picturing the maneuvering being something like using a Ram Jet, which is why the front and rear had to be open to maneuver. Since they have to be open to work and since the Front opening is bigger than the back I guess that is why I picture it that way.

-------------------------------------------
But they can use the drive with the bow wall up but not the stern wall.

Bye.

 

[Richard Saunders]

Originally posted by The Oz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew Moreton:
The wedges and the wall of battle are in IMHO a way of producing an 18th century feel to navel battles with the line of battle and the raking tactics important in that era

That's how I see it: DW wanted a world where the naval tactics felt like those of sailing ships, to go along with the rest of the "Horatio Hornblower in Space!" theme. </font>[/QUOTE]Hello Oz.
Yes i have answered everyone in order and now its your turn AGAIN.
its not just Horatio Hornblower its the whole of the french revolution with the peeps cast as the french even to the names i'm just waiting for Napolean or could that be the new president but she was an officer but then so was Napolean ??.
Bye.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Lionel Deffries:
Hello Oz.
Yes i have answered everyone in order and now its your turn AGAIN.
its not just Horatio Hornblower its the whole of the french revolution with the peeps cast as the french even to the names i'm just waiting for Napolean or could that be the new president but she was an officer but then so was Napolean ??.
Bye.

Yes, DW originally started with a very strong correlation to the time of the French Revolution. However, he has always said that he intended to take the analogy only so far, and the HH universe is not following that pattern any more. Right now I can't think of any close historical analogies to the situation in the HH books (as of WAR OF HONOR, which is the latest in the main series).

Esther McQueen was the "Napoleon analog" in the HH universe, and we saw what happened to her.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually the books do say that the Bow is more open than the Stern.

Rolling Ship as a Squadron is a Fleet Tactic and blocks virtually all incoming fire. So there aren't many holes in the Wall if the Wall of Battle is properly formed. I believe it was Giscard that did it the right way for the Peeps first but I haven't found the reference yet.

You are limited to reaction thrusters when either the Bow or Stern Wall is up. As a matter of fact when the Bow wall was first discussed in Echos of Honor, they were limited to reaction thrusters and didn't even have stern walls until Ashes of Victory.

Originally posted by Lionel Deffries:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
------------------------------------------------

Hello Bhoins.
Yes i thought the drive bands would look like a wedge too but i saw it the other way with the bands slopping down from the back to the front so the opening was smaller at the front. Yes you cant englobe a ship (you would pinch of a part of the universe??????).

-----------------------------------------------
The idea that you can roll ship with your Wall of battle and leave very few holes though would tend to imply Diamond shaped or Hexagon shaped. But those wouldn't leave the rear aspect more or less open than the front.
--------------------------------------------
I see the rolling more as an attempt to put a bloody big impenatrable plate between your ship and the enemy.
---------------------------------------------

I do believe when the Sternwall was placed on the LAC Squadron they still maneuvered on Reaction Thrusters with the Stern Wall up. (Unfortunately the books haven't been unpacked yet so I can't check.) Though it did mention due to physics that only one aspect, the bow or the Stern, could operate at once.

---------------------------------------------
Yes they needed thrusters with the stern wall but not the bow wall (strange the drive isn't reaction, maybe it sucks the matter from infront, no that wont work or thrust would stop when you close the bow).
----------------------------------------------

I also seem to recall picturing the maneuvering being something like using a Ram Jet, which is why the front and rear had to be open to maneuver. Since they have to be open to work and since the Front opening is bigger than the back I guess that is why I picture it that way.

-------------------------------------------
But they can use the drive with the bow wall up but not the stern wall.

Bye. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Richard Saunders]

Hello Bhoins.
They had stern walls the first time they used lacs in combat, Thats how the lac commander got killed, the peeps shot through the turbulence at the border between the aft shield and the side walls (yes it was an experiment).
Bye.

 

[BetterThanLife]

That was from Ashes of Victory. It was Scottie Tremaine's Squadron and the Cutthroat that got shot through the eddie in between the Stern Wall and the Wedge. The LAC Commander, Jackie Harmon, Aka Harpy1 Was in an LAC, in the first engagement in Echo's of Honor, (The book before Ashes of Vicotry.) when her LAC was shot, up the kilt as the engagement wound down.

The Stern wall was first deployed aboard the Missile LAC's in the third generation of LAC and then adapted to the Regular LACs of that generation. (If you count the LACs in Honor Among Enemies aboard the Q-Ships as first generation.)

Originally posted by Lionel Deffries:
Hello Bhoins.
They had stern walls the first time they used lacs in combat, Thats how the lac commander got killed, the peeps shot through the turbulence at the border between the aft shield and the side walls (yes it was an experiment).
Bye.

 

[Theophilus]

I had know idea there were so many harrington fans

 

[Straybow]

I only read the first two (and my brother said those were the best so I wasn't diligent in digging up the others). I don't see why a stern wall just tough enough to scatter a laser beam or prevent a missile from physically penetrating would make a big difference in the net 400 gee acceleration from the main bands.

I interpreted what I read to mean that the mains were angled open to the rear. If instead they are angled open to the front, then a stern band need only be wide enough to cover the gap. The net acceleration of the bands goes "around" the stern band.

Then again, who says the technobabble is necessarily consistent or intuitive.

 

[The Oz]

The books seem quite clear that having a bow or stern wall up prevents a ship from using an impeller wedge for thrust. They don't really tell us why, just that the bow/stern wall "interferes" with the impeller wedge. Yet ships do have sidewalls that don't interfere with the impeller wedge; military ships even generate sidewalls inside the two layers of their impeller wedge, just to make the wedge really impenetrable.

As I think of it, the regular sidewalls that protect an HH universe ship from the sides do not interfere with the impeller drive wedge because they are "in line" with the wedge: that is, the long axis of the sidewalls is parallel to the thrust axis of the impeller wedge. Note this also would also include the sidewalls that are generated in between the two layers of the impeller wedge itself.

However, bow/stern walls have a long axis that "cuts across" the thrust axis of the impeller wedge and this does cause interference with the impeller wedge. That's how I'd try to explain it to my players, if I were running an HH universe game, anyway.

I think of the sidewalls as being "tied" to the impeller wedge. I believe the books do say that you can't have sidewalls without an impeller wedge. Certainly ships fighting inside a grav wave do not have any sidewalls because they are moving under Warshawski sails instead of impeller wedges.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Somebody has to be buying the books.

And Hunter is no dummy. If he got the rights to the game there has to be a market.

Originally posted by Theophilus:
I had know idea there were so many harrington fans

 

[BetterThanLife]

The rest of the series is actually quite good. I do highly recommend it especially to Traveller fans. If money is the issue you can borrow them from the library or find a Hardback copy of War of Honor and read the series on Disk.

It does specifically state that closing off either the bow or stern means the ship can't maneuver. Since the books also state that the Front opening is bigger than the rear that is why I always pictured it operating similar to a RamJet. It also states that Warships have two bands and Merchants only one. (THough both bands are above and below.) Not quite sure how that plays into the whole thing but it does.

Originally posted by Straybow:
I only read the first two (and my brother said those were the best so I wasn't diligent in digging up the others). I don't see why a stern wall just tough enough to scatter a laser beam or prevent a missile from physically penetrating would make a big difference in the net 400 gee acceleration from the main bands.

I interpreted what I read to mean that the mains were angled open to the rear. If instead they are angled open to the front, then a stern band need only be wide enough to cover the gap. The net acceleration of the bands goes "around" the stern band.

Then again, who says the technobabble is necessarily consistent or intuitive.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually it does mention that you can have sidewalls without wedges. Forts have them. A sort of sidewall bubble is how it is described. There is no gap between the sidewall and the wedge which implies that they have to be carefully tuned. The factory installed bow wall and stern wall had the same thing in the LACs but the user installed stern wall had a seam. I guess slight imperfection in the tuning.

Originally posted by The Oz:
The books seem quite clear that having a bow or stern wall up prevents a ship from using an impeller wedge for thrust. They don't really tell us why, just that the bow/stern wall "interferes" with the impeller wedge. Yet ships do have sidewalls that don't interfere with the impeller wedge; military ships even generate sidewalls inside the two layers of their impeller wedge, just to make the wedge really impenetrable.

As I think of it, the regular sidewalls that protect an HH universe ship from the sides do not interfere with the impeller drive wedge because they are "in line" with the wedge: that is, the long axis of the sidewalls is parallel to the thrust axis of the impeller wedge. Note this also would also include the sidewalls that are generated in between the two layers of the impeller wedge itself.

However, bow/stern walls have a long axis that "cuts across" the thrust axis of the impeller wedge and this does cause interference with the impeller wedge. That's how I'd try to explain it to my players, if I were running an HH universe game, anyway.

I think of the sidewalls as being "tied" to the impeller wedge. I believe the books do say that you can't have sidewalls without an impeller wedge. Certainly ships fighting inside a grav wave do not have any sidewalls because they are moving under Warshawski sails instead of impeller wedges.