[FT] NAC Fleet Roster (unofficial, of course)

Greetings,

Here is something I've been working on, on and off, for the better part of
half a year now, and has grown by a factor of 2.5 in the past week. It is
strongly *patterned* after the US Navy Fleet Roster, a book on which I got
from my brother who works at the Annapolis Naval Academy. The main thrust
of this list was to make it easier for pick-up games (someone sets a
point-
ceiling, I would then try and find a force from the list here which would
best fit), and makes for making pseudo-historical scenarios a lot
easier.
In my last two real-life engagements (against Iceberg last friday - see
also the AAR I posted which has generated a LOT of 'stealth' traffic! -
and
against Aaron Teske last saturday - AAR yet to be written up; next
week?),
I used forces from the accompanying roster. Against Noam's NI stealth ships
I used Cruiser-Destroyer Group 24, and against Aaron's GW Imperial
Gothic
Squadron I used Destroyer Squadron 13. You already know the fate of C-DD
Group 24; you will have to await the AAR to see how DD Sqd 13 faired.
:-)

Anyway, a couple of people have suggested that I either post this to the list
or put it up on my webpage. As you are reading this, I've obviously posted it
to the list.:) I will also put it on my webpage later this week or next.

Understand this *is* an unofficial roster! And that I did take some liberties
with the naming conventions for the Carrier Battlegroups and Heavy
Battlegroups. Hell, I like naming ships.:)

Note: if you were to count up the number of ships massing less than the
Battledreadnoughts (for example, the FB says there are only 56 HURON CLs, but
I have below 100) you will very likely find discrepencies between the numbers
I have here, and the numbers listed in the Fleetbook. This is because Jon has
said that the FB is just a sampling of what each nation
has, and I, in order to do points, abstract in that a destroyer - unless
otherwise noted - is going to be 100 pts (NAC), a heavy cruiser 261 pts
(NAC), etc, be it whatever variant or variety the NAC may really have. Points
can easily be adjusted by differencing the FB points with whatever you have
designed in place of a given ship. I have also presented some
non-FB ships herein, and their difference details - including point
differences - are included at the bottom (along with a little historical
blurb about each one). If you don't like the fact the numbers I have below
don't agree with the FB numbers, redesign some other ships to fill out the
numbers, OR drop enough of the groups/squadrons/ships to make 'em fit!
:)

I don't know if I'll get any time to do this for the ESU, NSL, or FSE in the
near future. I'd love to be able to, but it's a lotta time. If no one else
works on them, I'll start the next project by tackling the ESU Fleet Roster.

Mk/Indy
************************************************************************
**

(note: highly unofficial, of course!:)

NAC Fleet Rsoter
                      ----------------

** Destroyer Squadrons **

Designation Comprised of ~NPV
-----------               ------------                   ----
Destroyer Squadron 1 3xCL, 4xDD, 4xFG 1225 Destroyer Squadron 2 1xCE, 2xCL,
3xDD, 2xFG, 4xCT 1179 Destroyer Squadron 3 2xDD, 2xCT 282 Destroyer Squadron 4
5xCL, 4xDD, 2xFG, 2xCT 1479 Destroyer Squadron 5 1xCE, 1xDD, 4xFG 643
Destroyer Squadron 6 8xDD, 4xFG 1124 Destroyer Squadron 7 1xCE, 4xDD 619
Destroyer Squadron 8 2xCL, 10xDD, 4xFG 1658 Destroyer Squadron 9 1xCL, 5xDD,
3xFG 910 Destroyer Squadron 10 6xDDH 786 Destroyer Squadron 11 1xCE, 1xCL,
3xDD, 4xFG 1010 Destroyer Squadron 12 1xCL, 2xDD 367 Destroyer Squadron 13
1xCL, 4xDDH, 2xDD, 1xFG 972
Destroyer Squadron 14     2xCL, 1xCLE, 2xCVE, 4xFG       1033 + ftrs
Destroyer Squadron 15 3xCL, 4xDD, 2xCT 983 Destroyer Squadron 16 1xCE, 2xCL,
4xDD, 2xFG 1115 Destroyer Squadron 17 3xDD, 3xFG, 2xCT 625
Destroyer Squadron 18     1xCL, 4xDDH, 2xCVE, 1xCT        974 + ftrs
Destroyer Squadron 19 6xDDH 786
Destroyer Squadron 20     1xCE, 1xCE+, 6xCL, 4xCT        1606
Destroyer Squadron 21 2xCL, 2xDD, 2xCT 616
Destroyer Squadron 22     1xCE+, 2xCL, 4xDD, 4xFG        1279
Destroyer Squadron 23 3xCL, 1xDD, 6xFG 1987 Destroyer Squadron 24 1xCLE, 2xDD,
2xFG, 4xCT 695 Destroyer Squadron 25 1xCE, 1xCL, 4xDD, 2xFG, 6xCT 1194
Destroyer Squadron 26 1xCl, 4xDD 567 Destroyer Squadron 27 2xCE, 2xCL, 4xDD,
2xFG 1334 Destroyer Squadron 31 1xCl, 6xDD, 10xCT 1177 Destroyer Squadron 33
4xCE, 4xCL, 2xDD, 2xFG 1906 Destroyer Squadron 34 1xCE, 1xCL, 2xDD 586
Destroyer Squadron 35     1xCE+, 1xCL, 4xDD               788
Destroyer Squadron 36 1xCL, 5xDD 667
Destroyer Squadron 37     1xCL, 1xCLE, 2xDD, 3xCVE, 2xFG 1007 + ftrs
Destroyer Squadron 38     2xCE, 2xCE+, 4xCL, 3xDD, 2xFG  2010
Destroyer Squadron 41 1xCL, 4xDD, 2xFG 729 Destroyer Squadron 43 1xCL, 2xDD
367
Destroyer Squadron 44     3xDD, 3xCVE                     609 + ftrs

   ** Cruiser-Destroyer Squadrons **

Designation Comprised of ~NPV
-----------               ------------                   ----
Cruiser-DD Group 1        3xCA, 1xCE, 1xCL, 4xFG         1493
Cruiser-DD Group 2        2xCA, 2xDD                      722
Cruiser-DD Group 3        4xCA, 2xCE                     1482
Cruiser-DD Group 4        1xCA, 1xCE+, 1xCL, 8xDD        1449
Cruiser-DD Group 5        3xCA, 1xCE+, 1xCL              1171
Cruiser-DD Group 6        1xBCN, 3xCA, 1xCM, 2xCE, 2xCL, 2530
                            4xDD
Cruiser-DD Group 7        2xCA, 1xCM, 1xCE, 3xCL, 3xDD   1759
Cruiser-DD Group 8        2xBC, 1xCE, 6xDD               1535
Cruiser-DD Group 9        1xCA, 1xCE+, 4xCL, 2xDD        1350
Cruiser-DD Group 10       1xCA, 1xCM, 1xCE, 4xDD, 2xFG   1259
Cruiser-DD Group 11       1xBCE, 2xCA, 2xCL, 4xDD        1616
Cruiser-DD Group 12       2xBCN-B, 1xCE, 1xCE+, 2xCL,    1890
                            4xDD
Cruiser-DD Group 13       3xBC, 10xDD, 6xFG              2560
Cruiser-DD Group 14       3xCA, 3xDD, 2xFG               1245
Cruiser-DD Group 15       3xCA, 4xFG                     1107
Cruiser-DD Group 16       2xBCN, 1xCE, 2xCL, 2xDD        1469
Cruiser-DD Group 17       2xCA, 1xCE, 1xCL, 4xFG         1232
Cruiser-DD Group 18       2xCA, 1xCE+, 1xCL, 2xDD, 2xCVE 1316 + ftrs
Cruiser-DD Group 19       1xBCN, 1xCA, 1xCE, 3xDD, 3xFG  1381
Cruiser-DD Group 20       2xBCN-B, 2xCA, 2xCE, 2xCL,     2700
4xDDH, 2xDD, 4xFG
Cruiser-DD Group 21       1xBCN-B, 1xCA, 2xCE, 4xDDH     1581
Cruiser-DD Group 22       2xCA, 2xCM, 1xCE+, 3xDD, 2xFG  1639
Cruiser-DD Group 23       1xBCN, 2xCM, 2xCE, 3xDD, 2xCVE 1736 + ftrs
Cruiser-DD Group 24       1xBCN, 1xCA, 1xCM, 1xCE,       1598
3xDD, 3xFG
Cruiser-DD Group 25       1xCA, 1xCE, 1xCE+, 3xDD        1001

** Carrier Battlegroups **

Designation Comprised of ~NPV
-----------               ------------                   ----
Ark Royal Battlegroup     1xCV, 2xBCN, 2xCA, 2xCE+,      3194 + ftrs
5xDD, 4xFG
Independence Battlegroup  1xCV, 2xCVL, 1xBDN, 2xBC,      5510 + ftrs
                            4xCA, 2xCE, 1xCE+, 3xCL, 3xDD, 2xFG
Connestoga Battlegroup    1xCV, 4xCA, 1xCE, 3xCL, 4xDD,  3220 + ftrs
4xFG, 2xScout
Hornet/Yorktown           2xCV, 2xCVL, 6xCA, 2xBCE,      5870 + ftrs
     Battlegroup            2xCE+, 2xCL, 3xDD, 2xFG
Intrepid Battlegroup      1xCV, 1xBCN, 1xBC, 3xCA, 2xCE, 3685 + ftrs
2xCL, 4xDD, 4xFG
Agamemnon Battlegroup     1xCV, 1xBDN, 2xCA, 3xCE+,      2795 + ftrs
1xCL, 2xDD, 1xFG
Saratoga II/Matterhorn    1xCV, 1xSDN, 1xBCN, 2xCA,      3675 + ftrs
Battlegroup 2xCE, 3xCL, 2xDD, 4xFG, 2xScout
Enterprise Battlegroup    1xCV, 1xCVL, 1xBDN, 1xBB,      4983 + ftrs
1xBCE, 4xCA, 4xCE, 1xCL, 2xDD, 3xFG, 2xScout
Nimitz Battlegroup        1xCV, 1xCVl, 4xCA, 2xCE+,      3325 + ftrs
3xDD, 4xFG, 2xScout
Lexington Battlegroup     1xCV, 1xBDN, 5xCA, 3xCE, 4xDD, 3890 + ftrs
4xFG, 2xScout
Forrestal Battlegroup     1xCV, 2xCVL, 1xBDN, 2xBCN-B,   4898 + ftrs
3xCA, 2xCE, 1xCL, 3xDD, 4xFG, 2xScout
Invincible/Vinson Massif  1xCV, 2xCVL, 1xSDN, 1xBCE,     5260 + ftrs
     Battlegroup            1xBC, 3xCA, 2xCE+, 2xCL, 4xDD, 3xFG, 2xScout
Prometheus Battlegroup    1xCV, 2xBDN, 2xBCE, 3xBCN-B,   5607 + ftrs
                            3xCA, 1xCE+, 2xCL, 4xDD, 4xCVE, 4xFG,
3xScout

** Heavy Battle Squadrons **

Designation Comprised of ~NPV
-----------               ------------                   ----
Valley Forge Group        1xSDN, 4xBB, 2xCE              2704 + ftrs
Normandy/Vistula          2xSDN, 1xBDN, 2xBB, 4xCA,      4488 + ftrs
Group 4xCE
Shiloh Group              1xSDN, 2xBB, 2xCLE, 4xCL       2291 + ftrs
Eiger/Denali Group        2xSDN, 2xBDN, 2xBB, 2xBC,      4413 + ftrs
                            3xCE
Richmond Group            1xSDN, 3xBDN, 2xBB, 1xBCE      3230 + ftrs
Antietam Group            1xSDN, 3xBB, 3xBC, 1xBCN,      4168 + ftrs
                            4xCE
Agincourt Group           1xSDN, 3xBDN, 4xBB, 2xCA       4204 + ftrs
Annapurna Group           1xSDN, 2xBCN-B, 3xBB           2894 + ftrs

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

NAC Notes:
----------
o assuming Heavy Frigate for FGs; otherwise -20 pts per standard frigate
o BCE: drop SMLs and 1xFireCon, 1 aft arc off each Class-3, add 2xADFC,
    1xClass-2 (3-arc), 5xPDS, 1xArmour; +2 pts  -  AEGIS CLASS
o BCN: drop SMLs, add Needle Beam, 3-arc P-torp, 1xPDS; 0 pts  -
MONTANA CLASS
o BCN-B: drop Needle Beam, add 1xClass-2 (3-arc); 0 pts
o CM: drop ADFC, add 2 arcs to Class-3; -2 pts  -  SENECA CLASS
o DDH: Mass 40, Ave Hull, Thrust-6, 4xClass-2 (FP/F/FS), FireCon, 1xPDS,
FTL;
    131 pts  -  TUFFLEY CLASS
o CVE: Mass 30, Weak Hull, Thrust-6, 1x Hangar Bay, 2x PDS, 1x Armour;
103
    pts  -  ZEPHYR CLASS  (yes, based on Weber's "Insurrection" tin-can
CVEs)
o CLE: drop off-center Class-2 batts, add 1x ADFC & 2x PDS; +2 pts  -
SERRA
    ANGEL CLASS
o CE+: an improved CE - drop p-torp, add 1xADFC, 2xPDS; +2 pts  -
FURIOUS II
    CLASS

NAC Notes II:
-------------
o Purpose of this roster is to allow for quick pick-up games, using a
given force with a given point value.

o It is *assumed*, unless otherwise noted, that the ships assigned to a given
Group or Squadron are essentially FleetBook ships or a variant thereof (any
variants may need to have their point values checked). This is just for ease
of play so others can use this roster if they so desire.

o CLs and CEs were included in Destroyer Squadrons as CLs are seen as Large
Destroyers (or Destroyer Leaders, or 'capital ship' destroyers), and the
  CEs were included to offer some anti-missile/anti-fighter protection
for some squadrons. As not all squadrons would necessarily be sent to areas
  prone to fighter/missile attacks, not all squadrons have been assigned
a CE (or grouping of CEs).

o BCs were given to Cruiers-Destroyer groups as BCs are seen as Command
Cruisers or 'capital ship' cruisers ('cruiser leaders'?).

o Just because a given Group or Squadron is assigned as it is, this does not
preclude the commander of the force from having the option of subdividing his
forces as the situation requires (thus Destroyer Squardon 41, which consists
of 1xCL, 4xDD, 2xFG, is sent to a system to investigate commerce raider
activity in the region; commander of the force could opt to divide the group
up in any way that is best seen fit, so a given scenario may only include 2xDD
and 2xFG vs a raider force; this would still be Destroyer Squadron 41, but a
subgroup of the squadron).

Ship Design Notes:
------------------

BCE - After a few devastating skirmishes with the FSE, it was realized
that the FURIOUS CE didn't always offer sufficient protection (and in fact as
would be
later learned, wasn't anywhere near as good an anti-fighter/missile
platform as the NAC had hoped; too many other roles it was trying to fill), so
for added
fleet protection a number of MAJESTIC hulls were re-designed to be
PDS-heavy
vessels. The basic hull structure remained the same, just the internal
configuration and capabilities changed. This design proved to be highly
effective for anti-fighter and anti-missile operations - and it still
retained
a significant punch for ship-to-ship combat. While it could survive
longer than
a VANDENBURG CA against Ships-of-the-Line, it really was not intended to
go
head-to-head with dreadnoughts.

BCN - in order to provide for independent operations that were below the
purview of BBs, yet would put a CA in over its head, the NAC came up with a
non-ammo using BC design, created to longer-duration missions. The
initial design, shown here, mounted a Needle Beam for disabling shots. It
would be
learned through experience that this weapon was little-used in combat,
and many crews grew lax about its upkeep during standard maintenance periods.

BCN-B - a variant to the BCN, which swaps out the Needle Beam for a
3-arc
Class-2 battery, giving it just that much more 'punch' power. Crews of
the
BCN-Bs were a much happier lot in combat than those of the BCNs.

CLE - in an effort to save some costs, the NAC commissioned a series of
light cruiser escorts to supplement the FURIOUS CEs in the fleet. They ended
up proving to be slightly more capable than the FURIOUS CEs, but they also did
not have the armor levels of their cousins (ie, no armor!) Thus while they
proved
to be more effective in the anti-fighter/missile role, they also proved
to be a
little more fragile in ship-to-ship action. Retaining the level-1 screen
does
help against beam attacks, though, and it is hoped that the high-thrust
level of the CLE will also insure its survivability.

CE+ - after studying the ESU's highly effective 'defense close-support'
variant
of the BEIJING/B CEs, the NAC decided to pull some of the currently
under construction FURIOUS CEs and redesign them for a more specialized
anti-fighter/missile role. Thus was born the FURIOUS II, which could now
either
offer anti-fighter/missile protection to two seperate ships, or
concentrated withering protective fire for one ship. By losing the pulse
torpedo, it lacked the extra punch the original FURIOUS class had, but this
was not a large
detriment as the restricted arc of the pulse torpedo (and the Class-3
battery)
did not always allow it to come into play in ship-to-ship combat
actions. As it
is, the Class-3 battery doesn't always come into play, either. Some
BuShip
Designers have suggested replacing the Class-3 battery with either 4
more PDS
arrays, or a couple of offset Class-2 batteries, or a combination of
both. So far only two FURIOUS IIs currently under construction have been
slated to drop
their Class-3 batteries in lieu of another suite of PDS'. They will be
assigned to the ENTERPRISE Carrier Battlegroup (replacing the current 4 CEs in
the
roster) in order to judge their effectiveness in combat trials. Most CE+
ships were assigned to Carrier Battlegroups, with a number of others being
scattered
in the Cruiser-Destroyer Groups and some in the Destroyer Squadrons on
an experimental basis (these DD Squadrons would be sent into areas prone to
high
probability of encountering enemy fighters/missiles). None have been
assigned
directly to Heavy Battle Squadrons. Usually an HBS will gain CE+
protection
from an accompanying Cruiser-Destroyer Group.

CM - with the FURIOUS CE being an all-around ship that did not quite
make it for what it was designed for, BuShips came up with a specific
ship-combat
cruiser using the CE hull. This cruiser dropped all pretense at being an
escort cruiser by losing the ADFC, and to expand it's combat capabilities, the
Class-3
battery arc was expanded to become a 3-arc battery. While not as fast at
the VANDENBURG CAs, this new design has proven itself capable in combat
situations.

DDH - A specialized heavy/attack destroyer, the TUFFLEYs were designed
to operate in packs, much like wolves Their tactics evolved to the point where
they acted like extra-huge fighter squadrons. They generally require
support ships, though, in most situations. They do not function well in
independent operations. Against fighters and missiles they have limited
defenses.

CVE - Looking for a cheap way to deliver fighters to a theater of
operations without dedicating one of the specialized carriers or dreadnought
ships, the NAC came up with these 'tin can' carriers. These are generally
assigned to
Destroyer Squadrons or Cruiser-Destroyer Groups where having a
dreadnought or one of the specialized carriers would be overkill, but yet
where some presence of fighters is desireable. As these ships look identical
to the TICONDEROGA DDs, it generally is impossible for an enemy to determine
which is which until either the ship in question fires weapons or launches
fighters. This has given more than a few raiders and skirmish instigators a
surprise when a couple of 'lowly' destroyers suddenly disgorge a flight of
fighters. Of course these ships were not meant to stand up there with the
TICONDEROGAs, so an enemy may figure out they are CVEs by their hanging back,
and take appropriate action.

Tactical Doctrines
------------------

Heavy Battlegroups are rarely sent out unless Heavy Power is needed for an
operation, and then when they are, they are often accompanied by at least one
or two Cruiser-Destroyer Groups, and a few Destroyer Squadrons as
escort. Two Heavy Battlegroups (the AGINCOURT and ANNAPURNA Groups), when sent
to areas with high probabilities of encountering fighters or missiles, will
have
assigned to them either several anti-fighter/missile escort ships, or
certain
Cruiser-Destroyer Groups which have sufficient anti-fighter/missile
capabilities.

Carrier Battlegroups are generally well-rounded enough to operate in
independent operations, with no definite need for escorting
Cruiser-Destroyer
Groups or Destroyer Squadrons, but often one or two will be assigned if they
are available (the NAC Naval Command is rather loathe to risk losing their
prize carriers if it can be prevented).

Cruiser-Destroyer Groups are sent on a wide variety of missions:
diplomatic escort duty, 'show of force/flag', inner system patrol,
others. They will be assigned to accompany Heavy Battle groups in the event of
major
fleet maneuvers and/or actions.

Destroyer Squadrons are sent on an even wider variety of missions than the
Cruiser-Destroyer Groups. They are sent to areas where cruisers would be
considered a 'bit much' or overkill, to general patrol duties, general escort
duties, scouting duties, frontier patrol tours, etc. They are often assigned
to escort Heavy Battlegroups in major fleet actions.

In all groups/squadrons ships may be sent out on an individual basis,
depending
on the mission (see Notes II, above). No group/squadron is restricted to
stay
together for a given scenario/game. This is just the command the ships
are assigned to.

[end]

> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, kochte (under another ridiculous pseudonym) wrote:

> NAC Fleet Rsoter

one or two comments.

(a) it looks pretty cool. looks suitably inhomogenous to be real!

(b) you seem to have used american names, with just one or two exceptions!
surely you can spare a battlegroup or two to be called "Prince of Wales" or
"Royal Oak"?

> o CLs and CEs were included in Destroyer Squadrons as CLs are seen as

is that common? i note the NRE have destroyer leaders. is this how current
navies operate, an/or is there a good reason for this pattern? i'll
admit
that my current fleet has two "independant squadrons" of CL + 2FF, but
that's because i only have two CL and four FF and can't fit them in anywhere
else...

> DDH - A specialized heavy/attack destroyer, the TUFFLEYs were designed

funny, i've only ever seen one at once...

Tom

> Thomas Anderson writes:

Hey, I just try and keep y'all entertained.  :)   (only change it once
a week)

> NAC Fleet Rsoter

Well, like I said, I patterned it strongly after the US Naval Fleet
Organization. I wish I could find books on fleet organizations of other
countries (might be able to find them at libraries, but haven't
had any time to look :-/ )

> (b) you seem to have used american names, with just one or two

Be fair, Citizen G'Kar! I used a mix of UK, US, and Other. Things like
Agamemnon, Vistula, Normandy, and Vinson Massif are definitely not American
names. ;-)  Besides, I only had so many given groups to work with. I
don't
think there are any more SDN-types and Big Carriers in the NAC fleet,
despite
what Jon said that this is just a sampling of each fleet - there are
only so many variants you can do on a Mass carrier!:)

I actually put "Prince of Wales" in my (personal) list of
Excalibur-class BDNs.

> o CLs and CEs were included in Destroyer Squadrons as CLs are seen as

Command and control. This gives the squadron a 'flagship' and/or a ship
akin to a 'capital' ship which is the squadron leader. This isn't totally 100%
how current navies operate. So not all squadrons have CLs and CEs. Again, I
*patterned* this after the US Org charts I have access to, and took some
liberties with class designations (ie, I 'let' normal DDs remain DDs, but
specialized or newer DDs which in contemporary standards are akin
to cruisers became CLs and/or CEs; often, though, I just added CEs to a
squadron to give them some limited anti-missile/fighter capabilities for
the group). These same liberties I took for cruiser-destroyer groups
(hence the inclusion of BCs)

I did not consult the NRE stats before doing this (and as I mentioned in my
original posting, I'd actually been fussing with this since early last year,
so recent threads of national fleet organizations had no influence
in how the NAC Roster I put together was done - only influence it had
was to spur me on to *get* it done!:)

> i'll admit

heh:)

> DDH - A specialized heavy/attack destroyer, the TUFFLEYs were

:-)

I was kinda thinking of the few conventions I've been to and ran FT games at;
I've usually gotten descended upon by a 'pack' of FTers.  :-)  Call it a
tip of the hat nod to the list. Ship names for this class come from names of
people on the list (eg, HAN, DAVIS, TESKE, ISENBERG, BELL, GUNDBERG, FIELD,
etc)

Mk

Replying to my own post:

> (b) you seem to have used american names, with just one or two

D'oh! That was SUPPOSED to read 'Mass 200 carrier!' - sorry!

Mk

> Thomas Anderson wrote:

> > o CLs and CEs were included in Destroyer Squadrons as CLs are seen

Note: There is no real modern analoge to the Destroyer Leader class. It seemed
to me to be simply an alternatative interpretation of the
Super-Destroyer category from the Fleet Book.

Stop the car?? This is a car chase! I went through considerable trouble
> to set this up. wrote:

> Be fair, Citizen G'Kar! I used a mix of UK, US, and Other. Things like

Actually, Normandy is an American name. We have a tradition of naming
our ships after our battles--see the USS Bunker Hill, etc.  And I can
name a couple of US divisions with a battle honor reading "Normandy" on
their colors--mine, for one.

> I did not consult the NRE stats before doing this (and as I mentioned

I'm considering doing up something like this. I run into a couple of
problems--the primary one being that I believe I have seriously
underestimated the number of escorts and cruisers in the NRE fleet,
and/or overestimated the number of capitals.  I'm going to sit down,
print yours out, break it out by ship class, subtract 25%, and redo my fleet
list based on that.:) How's that for imitation being the sincerest compliment?
I also have to divvy it out based on the four fleets... Anyway.

Stop the car?? This is a car chase! I went through considerable trouble
> to set this up. wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> >Be fair, Citizen G'Kar! I used a mix of UK, US, and Other. Things

It is only the difference between an barge and fleet flagship, Just cannot
understand the problem.   What's in a name anyway?

:-)

It's a Joke!!!

Bye for now,

> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, John M. Atkinson wrote:

> I'm considering doing up something like this. I run into a couple of

The way we came up with the break down of our NSL, NAC fleets, was based
on the Order of Battle for the Battle of Jutland 1916 - one of the last
great fleet only battles (i.e. no carriers). It can be found at:

http://history.cc.ukans.edu/~kansite/ww_one/naval/jutob.htm

I know the NSL has a more Austro-Hungarian flavor, but they followed the
German order of battle closely -

A&H Adriatic Squadron 7th Aug 1914;
1st Battleship divison - 3 Dreadnoughts
2nd Battleship divison - 3 Battleships, 1 Cruiser
2nd TorpedoFlotilla - 1 lt.Cruiser, 6 Destroyers, 13 Torpedo Boats

http://history.cc.ukans.edu/~kansite/ww_one/naval/j0400000.htm

Stop the car?? This is a car chase! I went through considerable trouble
> to set this up. wrote:

XXX You know, I have been meaning the respond to this for a couple
days,	I may expound on this after dinner.   In short, Nice work.

Bye for now,

Stop the car?? This is a car chase! I went through considerable trouble
> to set this up. wrote:
Comments:
1:   Just how many ships do you have anyway?
2:   A good deal of thought went into this.
3.   It does not violate any of the history/comments in the FB
because the ships and the numbers listed may be considered "the most common
variants".
4.   The concepts stated doe not discourage 'growth' on the
fringes on the central areas and allow the individual player to use his
imigination to create a 'background
     state/colony' for his own enjoyment.
5.   I had a really hard day, I'm signing off.

Bye for now.

Indy of many names sez:
***
I don't know if I'll get any time to do this for the ESU, NSL, or FSE in the
near future. I'd love to be able to, but it's a lotta time. If no one else
works on them, I'll start the next project by tackling the ESU Fleet Roster.

Mk/Indy
***

Captain, 2nd class, Ushlanko replies: Tovarshch Stop the Car?, I eagerly await
your glorious efforts in lists for the mighty fleets of the Eurasian Solar
Union. Unlike others, I recognize
this work, not as an irrationally iron-bound description of fleets as
they must be, but rather the framework on which creative commanders build to
match situations. Or, as you point out, for setting up balanced training
manuevers.

My own unit, 2nd Fleet, detached Destroyer Element 465, known amongst the
lazy, sensationalist press as the Red Scorpions, is on the fleet lists as a
destroyer squadron consisting of three Warsaws. However, over my tenure as
commander, I've been able, through creative volunteering for assignments, to
obtain a fourth Warsaw, two Gorshkov's on their way to service in the
Colonial reserves, a  PDS variant Beijing/B, and a Novogorod frigate for
which a certain Admiral is, to this day, seeking for use as a personal gig.

Reports sent back from deep raiding sorties via that 'gig' have been of far
greater value than 100 reviews-of-the-fleet... *ach*

***

;->=
The_Beast

Stop the car?? This is a car chase! I went through considerable trouble
> to set this up. wrote:

> o CVE: Mass 30, Weak Hull, Thrust-6, 1x Hangar Bay, 2x PDS, 1x Armour;
103
> pts - ZEPHYR CLASS (yes, based on Weber's "Insurrection"
tin-can CVEs)

> CVE - Looking for a cheap way to deliver fighters to a theater of

OK, do you have a date of introduction for these guys? I'm going to rip off
the concept, more or less. I was going to credit the introduction of these
things into the NRE fleet to some unpleasant surprises during
the Romanov War, from 2168-2175.  NAC was shipping arms to the Romanovs,
the NRE objected (duh!) and took action to prevent, and the NAC took to
escorting with DesRons, including these CVEs. After loosing two de la Valette
class Battlecruisers, the NRE decides "Hey, this is Nifty Concept" and
converts some of their heavy DDs to the "DV" configuration. What do you think?

> The Avtokrator wrote:

> OK, do you have a date of introduction for these guys? I'm going to

I think if you bring along one ADFC destroyer with about 8 PDS, it'll be more
efficient. When the fighters die, they're dead, and the DV's are useless until
the next contingent of fighters arrives. Fighters die pretty quickly.
Therefore, DV's spend a lot of time being useless. This would
especially be the case for a battlecruiser group--assuming you're using
them
in a "detached raider" mode--since they would be unable to get new
fighters. 8 PDS will on average kill a squadron in one turn, and the BC PDS
should be able to account for a few more if there's a second squadron around.
Fighters are like SLM's, i.e. best used en masse.

(You kind of wonder how they talk anyone into being a fighter jockey).

Not to say that the NRE always does thing in the most effective manner
possible, any more than any other fleet does...except mine, of course
<g>

> CVE - Looking for a cheap way to deliver fighters to a theater of

I have them written down in my notes, but it's late, I'm heading to bed, then
am out of town this weekend. If you're patient enough, I'll dig 'em out come
monday:)

But most of these vars I was thinking would kick in in the late 2170s to early
2180s (gotta have *some* time for the FB versions to have been out a while,
eh?)

'Night and good weekend to y'all; I'm off to da mountains...

M k

> Laserlight wrote:

Oh, ha ha. Boy, you're a funny guy.:)

> I think if you bring along one ADFC destroyer with about 8 PDS, it'll

No, no, no. You see we think "Hey, if this can throw our commerce raider for a
loop, it can do that to anyone's commerce raiders" So the next Free Ukranian
corsair with more balls than brains jumps a NRE convoy would find fighters
swarming out of one of the escorts. No, for the commerce raiding thing, we
just attached some CLEs to the BCs for a
while--they could keep up.

> Not to say that the NRE always does thing in the most effective manner

That would be the Infidel Pagan Dogs, right?

> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Steven Arrowsmith wrote:

> The way we came up with the break down of our NSL, NAC fleets, was

to summarise (numSquadrons x squadronSize, not given for PT/DD):

germany - (4x4, 2x3) 22 BB, (1x5) 5 BC, (1x5, 1x4) 9 CL, 52 PT

uk - (7x4) 28 BB, (1x4, 1x3, 1x2) 9 BC, (2x4) 8 CA, (1x6, 1x5, 3x4) 23
CL, 51 DD

in both cases, battleships were numerically superior to all other classes
of ship except the microlights - PTs for the germans, DDs for the brits.
there seems to be lots of cross-attaching: the british battlefleet has
attached battlecruisers, and the battlecruiser force has attached battleships.

anyway, somewhat larger than the engagements most of us look at, anyhow.
twenty-eight battleships! *fifty-one* destroyers. you'd probably take as
many casualties from arithmetic errors as from enemy fire.

Tom

> Thomas Anderson wrote:

> anyway, somewhat larger than the engagements most of us look at,

28 Battleships... given that I'm looking at a High Space Fleet of 6xSuper
Dreadnoughts, 12xDreadnoughts, 5xCVA, 71 cruisers, and about 80 escorts, yeah,
that's a little bit big. You might run into that large a force if and only if
an entire Fleet were deployed, reinforced by the capital ships from another
fleet. (Of which there are 6: 1xHighSpace, 3xSector, 1xInternal Security[1],
1xPlanetary Defense[2])

[1]CVEs, DDVs, and a bunch of DDs and FFs.
[2]Nominal Command governing all STL PD ships.	Only three capitals, but
a LOT of corvettes.

Nice piece of work, you've gotten me started on a TOE for the NCS navy.

More to come.

> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, John M. Atkinson wrote:

> Thomas Anderson wrote:

interesting; you seem to be far more cruiser-heavy. i think around ww1
the cruiser was used as a scout, and a bit as a flank guard for the
battleships. i imagine this is how most ft fleets are - people
instinctively go for a pyramid of numbers from capitals at the top to escorts
at the bottom.

> You might run into that large a

that is pretty much what the rn fleet at jutland was.

Tom

> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Thomas Anderson wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, John M. Atkinson wrote:

Now lets look at the NSL ship numbers listed in the fleet book: 15xFighter
Carriers, 12xSuperDreadnoughts, 15xBattleDreadnoughts, 13xBattleships,
     or
55xDreadnoughts/Battleships, 43xBattleCruisers, 63xCruisers,
85xDestroyers, 44xFrigate, 51xCorvetts

These numbers can be easly put to the German order of battle for Jutland
1916..

Keep a eye on this spot, for a NSL Order of Battle - based on the Fleet
book levels

Tom, de man, sez:
***
> You might run into that large a

that is pretty much what the rn fleet at jutland was.

Tom
***

Well, the fleet in home waters. I've not checked, but my feeling is that the
fleet around the world had a much heavier balance towards smaller ships. Even
if not, we ARE talking about a time period of expansion and exploration, and I
think stretching the fleet over larger and larger areas would require more
ships, tending towards smaller ships.

Again, I haven't done the numbers on what were in the fleets, but during
Napoleonic times, it was the frigate that was the work horse of the navy. A
large battle might well have large numbers of fodder ships simply because they
existing in large numbers because, between such battles, they are so useful.
No matter, I'm not suggesting the Napoleonic as THE model, just another
illuminating one.

All, whether discussing FT, DS, or SG, try not to model the future too
closely to the past. Whether tactical 'realities', command-and-control,
size of equipment, physics, the future is going to be JUST like today, only
different.

The_Beast

> Thomas Anderson wrote:

> interesting; you seem to be far more cruiser-heavy. i think around ww1

If you note the way the NAC Fleet Roster broke down, there were 289
cruisers, 382 DD/FF.  The High Space Fleet is cruiser heavy, compared to
the Sector Fleets--it's also capital heavy.  Overall breakdown of the
HSF&3xSFs works out to 211 cruisers, 320 DD/FF.  Add in about. . . 50
more escorts for Internal Security (havn't worked out details yet--these
guys are more Coast Guard than Navy, and so to me they don't "really" count in
the totals). Sector fleets also have 1xDNV, 6xBB, 10xLight BB, and a lousy
4xCVLs for capital ships, vice the DSF's 21 Dreadnoughts and 5 CVAs. The
Romans don't have a lot of capitals to waste, and a good bit of the slack is
taken up by Cruisers. If you assume every BatRon or CVBG has a heavy cruiser
or two, a pair of escort medium cruisers, and a light cruiser of some type,
your cruiser numbers start to really add
up.  I'm not really happy (what Admiral is?) about the final numbers--I
really would like more heavy and medium cruisers, but you know how the Senate
is... What I really want is a few more CVAs and escorts as appropriate, but I
can't figure out where to scrape up the escorts.:)

I may have the OOB for the DSF and 1st Sector Fleet up in the next day or two,
2nd & 3rd SecFlts are simply variations on a theme (Pun Intended)[1].

> Steven Arrowsmith wrote:

> Now lets look at the NSL ship numbers listed in the fleet book:

And this doesn't cover the full KRF; it doesn't include the Bayern-class
BCs, Lutjens-class CAs, Nibelungen-class FFs and probably other classes
as well that aren't even mentioned in the FB. And then there's the Reserve...

Regards.

> Well, the fleet in home waters. I've not checked, but my feeling is

> From Imperial Military Geography, 8th ed, 1935 edition:
RN: 15 BB/BC, 44 cruisers, 7 CV, 146 Flotilla Leaders & destroyers, 54
submarines. Royal Oz Navy: 4 cruisers, 1 CV, 11 flotilla & DD RCN: 4
destroyers NZ Squadron: 2 cruisers Under construction: 4 capital, 18 subs, 2
CV, 12 DD

At the same time, the British Regular Army had 199,000 men, of whom 110,000
were at home, 30,000 in colonial stations, 59,000 in India. This did not
include Reserve (125,000), Supplementary Reserve (19,000) or Territorial Army
(130,000)