Re: Sensor Range Question [Evasion]

On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Michael Llaneza wrote:

> At 2:35 AM -0700 4/29/99, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> >On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> >
> >>	The reason most jump drives in SF use fixed jump points
> >>	is the reason given in Pournelle's "The making of the
> >>	Mote in God's Eye".
> >
> >i really must read that ...
> 
> I though the full text of the novel was in the FAQ for this list ?

lol!

> >>	   Without the choke points mandated by
> >>	fixed jump points there would be few, if any, space battles.
> >>	Space is so freaking huge that battles can only happen
> >>	by mutual consent, lacking such choke points.
> >
> >secondly, i don't think battles do need special points. the same
theory,
> >applied to modern naval or aerial warfare, would predict a lack of
> >battles, when in reality there is certainly no shortage. in these
cases,
> >the sites of battles are decided by interception: one side will chase
the
> >other until they meet, and then they will fight. this, in turn,
depends on
> >the relative speed and points of origin of the forces.
> 
> contrast the number of land battles over the last 100 years to the
> number of naval battles. You'll find that naval battles are *very*
> scarce by comparison.

agreed, readily. i seem to recall reading that Jutland was in fact the
only significant fleet engagement of ww2. i'm not sure that this
necessarily reflects on my argument, though. one of the key reasons land
battles have been so common is that they are somewhat easier: in many
cases you can just march your troops in over the border. however, in a
mostly non-balkanised interstellar environment, that's not an option.
*every* planetary assault must be predeced by a convoy, which is an
opportunity for a fleet action. thus, naval actions have considerably
more
importance.

perhaps the best comparison is the island-hopping in the pacific in ww2,
where there was a constant naval element. of course, this took place in
a
situation where the allies had a significant naval superiority, so there
weren't as many naval battles in defence of islands as there could have
been.

> In almost all cases I can think of, naval
> battles, even deep water interceptions such as Midway, took place in
> relationship to a fixed point.

isn't that what i was saying? looking back now i see i wasn't very
clear.

> This happens even when the objective is
> the enemy fleet and not a specific target.

this is *exactly* what i said - battles need not take place *at* special
points, because you can derive a new point from any two existing special
points - midway between a planet (fixed special point) and a jump-in
point
(non-fixed special point, ie only special because that is where the
fleet
jumped in this morning; it won't be special tomorrow).

> >consider how few major naval or aerial engagements have been fought
at
> >targets: the battle of Jutland was at Jutland because that's where
the
> >fleets were when they met, not because someone was going to Jutland.
the
> >battle of Britain was fought over a gigantic patch of sky, not around
the
> >targets the germans were attacking.
> 
> I'm afraid the history does not support this point.

i was afraid it might not. history has a tendency to do that to me :-).

> At Jutland the Germans were intercepted on a sortie from a fixed
point,
> and while passing through a narrow stretch of sea.

ah; my memory of the geography of jutland is rather hazy, i must say.

> Although, due to the
> strong influence of Mahan's theories, both fleets were trying to find
> each other.

i'm not familiar with Mahan, nor his theories; could you by any chance
provided a pointer to some info, or some sort of potted "Mahan for
Dummies" version?

> I strongly recommend reading Mahan. His analyses just beg to be
applied
> to a wargame, or preferrably wargames. It's on my list already.

well, point me in his direction, and he can start keeping Sun Tzu
company
on my shelf!

> At Trafalgar, Nelson intercepted the Allied fleet on leaving port, it
> justr took a long chase to bring them to battle. At Tsushima, Togo
> intercepted the Russians at Tsushima Straight. Check a map, that's a
> fixed point if I ever saw one; they Russians were also heading for a
> known port (the only one they had left). Ditto for Midway, Intel
helped
> here. The Solomons campaign is also a good example of combat at

i'm assuming that was going to be "at sea" but that the 0630 effect got
in
the way :-).

but i take your point. tsushima is certainly an example of combat at a
fixed point. i think trafalgar is sort of what i was saying: although
the
fleets closed at a port, the actual interception (as in where the battle
was) was some way away. midway is a bit of a funny example, as it was
basically a carrier action, which has different logistics from line
action
(the "weapon" ranges are comparable to the strategic distances). that
said, substitute leyte gulf (iirc - the last real battleship action?)
and
your point holds, as that was fought in, well, leyte gulf, a restricted
piece of water.

> At the Battle of Britain, the
> Germans were going after specific targets (just changing the selection
> at ill-advised intervals). The RAF vectored their interceptors in on
> the bombers.

so, the germans sent bombers to, say, Leeds. did the battle take place
at
Leeds? no, it took place at a point determined by the speed and starting
points of the bombers and interceptors. that is exactly what i was
saying:
start with two special points (bomber base, Leeds) and make a third
(interception area).

> In all cases in air combat. the defending fighters tried to intercept
> before the targets. It is far better to shoot down a loaded bomber
than
> one that has already dropped its bombs.

precisely; this is why it's better to intercept an attacking fleet well
away from your planet, as if you leave it until they're close, they can
just lob in a few nukes anyway.

now, i suspect we really agree on the essential concept (engagements
occur
at certain points, but not necessarily permanent points), but differ
over
a detais and the wording. what an unprecedented situation in the annals
of
humanity :-).

Tom