LBB2 Naval Doctrines

[Golan2072]

I am thinking on the question of fleet composition and tactics in my small ship universe (TL12, Nuclear Dampers not available yet IMTU, LBB-2 with some of Sigg Oddra's HG grafts); Moreover, I'd like different polities to have different (to a degree) naval doctrines.

But all official Traveller publications (the ones I have access to, that is - no TNE ot T20) use HG and similar, big-ship concepts - where fighters are quite irrelevant and the battlefield is dominated by monstrous dreadnaughts and their ilk (and anything below 10Kdton is considered "light"). So MTUs naval doctrines would probably vary from these products (though they still provide valuable reference). So, has anyone tried to construct an LBB-2 fleet?

My first attempt, presented here is the Solar Triumvirate's Navy. Thisis the "classic" carrier navy: big (in MTU terms - that is, 5,000 dton+) carriers launching wave after wave of fighters and bombers (slower, missile-armed, heavy-armored boats). Each Carrier Group includes:
- 1 Carrier (5,000 dton)
- 5 Missile Cruisers (2,000 dton each) using HG-grafted "missile bays" firing bigger missiles abouve 50Kg)
- 10 Destroyers (600 dton each) for screening purposes.
- 5-10 Type-S scouts for recon use
- 5-10 Couriers (200 dton each with "high tech" - in IMTU terms - Jump 3 drives) for communications
- 1-2 5,000 dton Tankers
- 1-2 supply ships (5,000 dtons each)
- 1 Assault Carrier (either 1,000 dton or 5,000 dton, model depends on mission) for troop use.

Cruisers are independant ships of the 1,000-3,000 dton range, carrying their own fighter complements, used for independant operations as well as for reenforcing Carrier Groups.

Corvettes are "pocket cruisers" of 300-1,000 dton (and thus include the traditional 400 dton Patrol Cruiser) used mostly for independant operations as well as for additional carrier (or Cruiser) screening. Corvettes differ from Destroyers in that they serve mostly in independant duty rather than in screening duty.

Again, Fighters and Missiles do most of the naval "work"; think of this as an equivalent of a Medieval Cavalry/Footmen/Artillery "doctrine" - The fast Cavalry (Fighters) as well as mounted archers (Bombers) charge at the enemy, supported by semi-stationary Archers (Missile Cruisers) defended by Footmen (Destroyers); Some Cavalry (Fighters) also help defending the Archers (Missile Cruisers/Carrier).

 

[The Oz]

In a LBB#2 world carriers would still be the way, truth, and light, so I think you've got it. Possible variants might include:

1. "Battle Carriers" - heavily armored and armed but still carrying enough fighters to add to their firepower. Since you're using only J-2 or J-3 drives there's plenty of tonnage left (after drives, fuel, and other essentials) to put in lots of armor and and weapons and still have some room left for fighters.

2. "Deep Carriers" - ships that have two (or more) jumps of fuel internally, so they can move past enemy frontline systems and strike deep into enemy space (hence the name). Deep Carriers would also make a good reserve force since they can jump twice without needing to take time to refuel.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by The Oz:

1. "Battle Carriers" - heavily armored and armed but still carrying enough fighters to add to their firepower. Since you're using only J-2 or J-3 drives there's plenty of tonnage left (after drives, fuel, and other essentials) to put in lots of armor and and weapons and still have some room left for fighters.

That's the idea behind Battle Cruisers, used by the Serpentis Quadrant Alliance (another polity IMTU, rival to the Solar Triumvirate); they basically merge the "Carrier", "Missile Cruiser" and the "Cruiser" aspects in a 3,000 dton armored hull. Instead of being the sole flagships of a Group, the Battle Cruisers usually travel in packs of 3-5, escorted by screening Destroyers and the usual supporting craft (Assualt Carriers, Tankers, Supply Ships, Scouts and Couriers). That's the main difference between Alliance and Triumvirate naval doctrines - the Alliance uses Battle Cruisers instead of Carrier+Missile Cruisers. Another difference is the use of Raiders (or "gunboats", think Babylon 5 "White Stars"), small (200 dton) Jump-3 and high-G capable armored attack ships used as "Heavy Cavalry" (or alone in squadrons of 10 Raiders each for hit-and-run attacks).

 

[mike wightman]

So, has anyone tried to construct an LBB-2 fleet?

At what TL?
I have a rather nifty 1000t anti-fighter frigate, jump 4, maneuver 6, 8t CIC with two model 5 computers, armed with ten triple pulse lasers which it can double fire because its power plant is one letter above its maneuver drive.
Then there's a 2000t missile cruiser, a 3000t battleship, and a 4000t battlecarrier.

All of these ships also carry as many fighters and 30t ship's boats as I can fit aboard.

Jame posted a load of good book 2 designs a while back that are worth taking a look at.

 

[Golan2072]

Sigg Oddra, the issue here is not individual ship type design, but fleet composition. But yet were your ships posted? I've seen Jame's designs, and I like them, and I'v seen your house rules but not designs.

 

[mike wightman]

Ahh, sorry.
Fleet composition.
I'll have to go digging for that, and the designs (no, I haven't posted them yet).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Actually, 2-4601, it looks like you have almost recreated the mid-WWII to Cold War naval concept, as well as an analogue to the medieval ground warfare. (I guess you did sort of mention that.) I find your distinction between fighters and bombers, interesting, though. Do fighters in YTU attack the heavies? When most people talk of fighters in space, they tend to actually treat them as if they were the torp/dive bombers of old. Nobody ever sank a real ship just by strafing.

 

[Golan2072]

Fighters usually carry light energy weapons (lasers plasma or fusion), have moderate computing power and are capable of 6-G. Their rules are mostly to intercept other fighters, to destroy bombers and to perform anti-missile duty; they could also be used against unarmored or lightly armored targets such as the older carrier models, supply ships/tankers and civilian craft.

Bombers, on the other hand, are bigger, carry missiles and a DAMN BIG magazine, are capable of 3-G or 4-G and have high-quality computers. Their duty is to supply the heavy, anti-capital-ship firepower; they could, ofcourse, engage other targets but are quite slow for tight dogfighting.

And both kinds of small craft could, ofcourse, deal with almost any kind of purely civilian craft.

 

[mike wightman]

Here's a hint for LBB2/Mayday combat purposes - fighters can also lay down quite a thick screening sand cloud at a distance, which is added to the effect that a capital ship sand screen gets.

 

[Ran Targas]

^ IMTU, one star nation has developed 100dt jump capable heavy bombers that rely on surprise and stealth tactics to deliver ordnance on target. Basically a Type S with fusion torpedoes.

A la Pearl Harbor, the bombers were used in an all out surprise attack on human colonies and installations along the common border. My PC's found several left derelict in an Oort cloud and put them to good use attacking merchant convoys (until they ran out of missiles).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Interesting obversation, Sigg.

2-4601, definitely a WWII concept. Good thoughts, all around.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
2-4601, definitely a WWII concept.

Yep, though not intentionally; it flows directly from the LBB-2 fighter-friendly small-ship-universe rules. The Alliance naval doctrine is on the same level, with several of the individual ship types grouped togather (think Cold war carriers, as they were armed with Cruise Missiles and several other forms of armament in addition to fighters; or Babylon 5 Omega-class Destroyers).

I'd like to hear your thoughts about completely different doctrines; The Post-Planetary Matriarchate (belter neo-tribalists, think the "Ousters" in Dan Simmons' Hyperion series) and the Draconis Consortium (high-tech military dictatorship with corp backing) should have quite different, and interesting ones (I suppose the Matriarchate should use many astroid hulls).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I will have to consider that and get back to you. At first glance, I would think the belters would be amenable to light, fast swarming tactics, though.

 

[Golan2072]

So the Matriarchate would use the "mongol horde" tactic you say? That is, "Cavalry" and "Mounted Archers" with little or no "Footmen". I'll probably add to that large Torchships for system defence/heavy fire (5,000 dton buffered planetoid hull, 50 heavy turrets mounting 2 Plasma Cannons each, Sigg Oddra's CIC and a big manouver drive), though the majority of the fleet would be multi-role, high-G craft in the 100-600 dton range.

 

[Jame]

IMTU, the 1000 ton navy/space force ships are the strikers and raiders, and the bigger ones form the fleet to support the 5000 ton ships.


Keep in mind that I haven't really developed my new TU, aside from a map, something written on the back of the map and a whole bunch of planetary systems...

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I gave your stuff a good reading last night (though I couldn't find any extensive postings on the matriarchate), and I think a combination of "mongol horde" (as you put it) and militia is right for this group.

I would say each clan would have a planetoid ship to bring to bear (the "mother ship" if you will), with all the family units within the clan bringing a small warship (200-600 dTon) to the fight. I would see them deploying lots of high-tech sensors, and committing a lot of ambushes. And, I would see a lot of this taking place with no visible presence of one of those planetoid hulls. At least, not one that ever gets reported, as the only folks ever to see it don't make it home.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
I gave your stuff a good reading last night (though I couldn't find any extensive postings on the matriarchate), and I think a combination of "mongol horde" (as you put it) and militia is right for this group.

I would say each clan would have a planetoid ship to bring to bear (the "mother ship" if you will), with all the family units within the clan bringing a small warship (200-600 dTon) to the fight. I would see them deploying lots of high-tech sensors, and committing a lot of ambushes. And, I would see a lot of this taking place with no visible presence of one of those planetoid hulls. At least, not one that ever gets reported, as the only folks ever to see it don't make it home.

I haven't written much about the Matriarchate yet (mostly the Triumvirate/Alliane so far), but your description seems adaquate; each commune (Matriarchate term for what you called a "family") would have its own "shepherds", that is, an armed starship to watch over its fleet of seekers/habitats/farms/orbital factories. In wartime, some of these will join the clan's fleet as raiding ships. And a mothership is a horror to behold - lots of armor, lots of plasma guns

 

[Fritz_Brown]

How big would each of these communes be? Also, how mobile is any one commune (or clan, for that matter)?

Also, how do you justify the Matriarchate having fought the Triumvirate to a standstill? Perchance the one time the Triumvirate managed to locate a "homeworld" and invade, nobody came back? And, they really don't want to try that again, soon. Of course, the Matriarchate was hurt (lost several motherships), but it had planned an ambush massive enough to counter regular fleet tactics. Hmmm.

You have posited a very interesting TU!

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
You have posited a very interesting TU!

Thank you

Anyway, Communes vary in size; they usually include between 50 to 1,000 (usually avaraging around 500) members each (about the size of a small village). Each Clan includes a large number of Communes (a few thousands of them for the very least). Total Matriarchate population is around 30 million, but keep in mind this this seemingly small number is almost 100% spacebourne; the Triumvirate's 20+ billions are mostly planet-based (their space habitat/planet/ship population is not much higher than that of the Matriarchate, even with earth and Mars having "Beanstalks"). So, generally speaking, there should be about 60,000 Communes in the entire Matriarchate, and each of the 21 Clans should have a little less than 3,000 Communes in it.

How did the Matriarchate hold back the Triumvirate? First and foremost, the Triumvirate had much longer supply lines (2 subsectors away diagonically [SP?], TL10, so max Jump-1, and this distance is LONG); the matriarchate has very short supply lines (especially since their "homes" and factories/farms are mobile and occasionally jump capable too). Beyond that and the spacebourne manpower issue, the matriarchate doesn't really have a "homeworld" they have orbital/astroid habitats, so instead of nuking one big planet to end a waryou have to start chasing thousands of small stations some of which are jump-capable as well and could jump away; others could hide in the astroid belt and/or the Oort cloud, masked as stray rocks - it's a hell of a basis for conducting guerilla warfare. Also the Matriarchate has been gearing up for war ever since it's establishment - and they had the highest technology available before the Stagnation - the Triumvirate had to work several decades to reach that tech. Eventually, attrition caused the Solar Triumvirate to sign a cease-fire treaty. Both sides have been gearing up for war ever since, and the Matriarchate helped the Alliance win the Insurrection by supplying it with technical assistance, ship and weapons (all smuggled through the semi-rebellious coreward area which would later become the Coreward Autonomous Zone).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I would think most of the ships would be corvette size, with a few per commune, then. Guerilla warfare doesn't really work as a primary strategy, though - it needs to be backed with a conventional strategy to be more than piracy. Of course, with a single clan, (at 2-3 ships per commune) you could hammer a couple of Triumvirate fleets to nothing.

Why are they spacebourne? Are the systems they inhabit not conducive to regular colonies? I think I see a definite contender for the first use of Hunter's limited license idea.