Browncoat Navy

POSTED BY: Talvin
UPDATED: Friday, April 16, 2004 23:29
VIEWED: 7513
PAGE 3 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3

MILESLONG

Friday, April 16, 2004 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
As to the South's "lack" of skilled sea captains, I would like to remind you of Captain Raphael Semmes, commander of the CSS Alabama, a very successful commerce raider. The Alabama sunk the USS Hatteras and captured its crew. It only lost to the USS Kearsarge due to poor powder sold to them by an English merchant. The powder was of such low quality that it was slow to light or did not provide the power to accurately fire the Alabama's cannons.

There was also Capt. James I. Waddell, commander of the CSS Shenandoah. In less than a year on the seas the Shenandoah burned seven Union ships and captured two more for ransom, all with the liability of a crew less than what was necessary for the proper running of the ship. After taking on more crew in Australia, they captured four more Union ships before learning the war ended. They then sailed to Britian and gave up the Shenandoah so they could return home.

Very true. Only lack of resources and actual ships to convert to warships kept the South from having a navy of note. There were skilled officers enough, just no ships for them to command.

All staffed by competent officers. But would you put them on the level of of a Lee ro Jackson? My opinion. That would be a stretch. Especially given the limited competence across the board of the Union offers (Navy and Army) that marked the front end of the war (Until Grant).

Trying to bring this away from history, and back to the Firefly fiction, I'll offer this. Good Drama doesn't assume that "all men are created equal" and that officer competence isn't defined by either a competent or incompetent state. In Drama (and in History too) we see a scale that includes a third state that would be defined historically by the personas of Lee, Grant, Patton, Rommel etc. These aren't just effective military leaders. They are greatly driven men who often end treated as Heroes and Villains (caps intended) by cultures they defend or assault. In Firefly Mal Reynolds is one. We have yet to be offered the names of others. But I wouldn't be too suprised if the Alliance was short on great heroes, and if the Great Heroes on both sides were ground pounders.

Miles Long
or Jeff

HOBBES

Friday, April 16, 2004 8:30 PM

First off I don't think the 'Verse has satellite to surface weaponary. Far too easy to shoot down satellites (we can do it now). That kills real time communication and surveillance.

This makes having a fleet (much harder to shoot down then satellites) important for communication, command, and surveillance.

As for ground weapons if you orbital space you can deploy a variation on Project Thor.
Take big iron bars. Give it basic sensors and steerable vanes. Put bundles in orbit. If you see a target call it down in the basic area. Small computer has silhouette data (i.e. tanks, artillery, APC's, etc...) and laser illumination abilities. Drop say 20 thousand over an armor division and goodbye armor division.

That makes any combat beyond infantry actions near impossible if you can't contest orbit.
And if the other side has tanks, APC's, heavy artillery and your side has mortars you can pretty much see where that's going.

I think that makes a fleet a far sight more important.

-------------------------------------------------
May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May you be in heaven an hour before
The Devil knows you’re dead.

KUGELBLITZ

Friday, April 16, 2004 8:32 PM

Missiles gotta fly or they are rocks. Fight-=use.

The Why Missiles part though. In a universe as dark as Whedon's can be, where people are just plain armed, how can there be a void where weapons aren't?

"We are exporting democracy because we have all of this unused democracy lying around at home. Why not make some money doing it?"

TALVIN

Friday, April 16, 2004 10:26 PM

(What have I started, here?)

My basic premise, from the beginning, has not been that space weapons were infeasible or that either side *couldn't* possess them. Rather, I propose that they did not have them for a while, because there had not been a need for weapons to fight an interstellar war before the Unification War. In any military, technology develops in response to need, at least in theory.

Once the need becomes apparent, then you have to build it. Perfecting a single piece of new tech takes time, money, and bright people willing to take risks. Putting a whole generation of new tech into one shell and making it a Capital Ship takes all that and cubes it and cubes it again. Then, did they ever need a ship the size and complexity of an Alliance Cruiser before? Probably not. A whole infrastructure has to be built to build and support it. People have to be trained in how to operate it: it is not Serenity on a larger scale, it's a whole new skillset! Logistics has to be taken into account: something that big uses alot of beans and chow mein, not to mention parts that had never existed before the war.

It can be done. Look at the histories of the American Civil War* and World War II, respectively. Both saw huge RMAs (Revolutions in Military Affairs). They also took more time, in part for that very reason.

Another reason why it might have been more focused on ground combat, at least from the Alliance end of things: somebody had to pay for that war. We get a sense that it was largely confined to the outer colonies; those in the Core just weren't affected by it all that much. "Why do we need to fund a whole fleet of these big ships in such a hurry? It's just a bunch of upstart hicks! That's what we pay the Army for!" As somebody else pointed out, people are cheap, especially in a 'Verse that sees nothing wrong with slave labor in various forms.

* With respect to the International Browncoat Community, I am now trying to be careful to identify *which* Civil War I speak of. Sadly, "The Civil War" has many meanings to many people. I refer, of course, to what many of my fellow Tennesseans still call "The Recent Unpleasantness With The DamYankees." I imagine everybody knows, but it is perhaps a bit less jarring to the thought-processes with that extra word thrown in.

"I give up. I admit it. I'm a Browncoat."

VETERAN

Friday, April 16, 2004 11:29 PM

Maybe ship based space weapons were initially developed just prior to the migration from Earth. Seems plausible since they didn't know for sure if there were any threats that the people who left Earth would have developed some sort of vessel for defending the migration fleet. I have no idea how long the newer worlds and moons have been settled in the Firefly 'verse, but at worst case they could have started building ships with weapons based on old designs. An at best case they could have just taken the old escorts out of mothballs and pressed them into service.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3