Remove ads

Semper Ad Meliora (Code Geass/Britannian Royalty Quest)

Reader mode
How stealthy is the submarine tech we are able to access in comparison to sonar, radar, etc. at this time?

Also, are torpedo tube and air deployed naval mines in common use?

If our submarines are stealthy enough and can deploy enough naval mines (or we can get air superiority to fly in and drop mines), then that might open up the option of mining enemy harbors. We could have submarines and aircraft patrol near said harbors to harass the minesweepers to prevent them from clearing the minefields, all the while the pirates are put under massive pressure as their ships can't go back to their home ports with their loot and resupply.

edit: also, aircraft are one of the key components of IRL anti-submarine warfare from World War II onwards. If we are able to maintain air superiority, we could defend our submarines from sonar buoy bearing helicopters or radar bearing planes as well as their depth charges.
 
Last edited:
[X][DOC] Harassment
Archon of Ghosts said:
And unless we can catch the enemy fleet outside of their dock, those carriers and planes will just do the same. The planes will need to be running recon duties constantly, and once they do find something you'll need to recall every other plane sent out to scout so you don't do an ineffective attack. The subs are also death traps at this point. Plus, they're less than useless in shallow seas and solely rely on remaining undetected. They can't even scout properly, since they'd need to surface if they want to re-enter communications. At best, you can use the subs to play high seas raider, or use them as torpedo boats that try and slink in and out of the battle, but since we'd barely have any destroyers, there's not going to be a naval battle. The harassment fleet would be a force only able to do hit and run attacks, since it completely lacks staying power. But I guess they won't be gathering barnacles, you're right on that.

As for the escort duties, you'll note that with the few destroyers we will have, they'll have to remain near the carrier to allow it to escape any kind of attack. The main battlefleet is a battlefleet, which means everything from destroyers to battleships. LCs and DDs are great for escort and doing some scouting or escort duties, maybe add in one of those heavier vessels with scout planes if really want to find something.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
True but most large shipping vessels are slow so we would be able to place our carriers in the middle of the convoy and the destroyers around that or by using the subs to scout ahead find then launch aircraft strikes to hit them that harrassment fleet isn't with out heavy fighting strength just that it's not for set piece battles even if the main fleet is a jack of all trades kind that also means that it a master of none where as the harrassment fleet is about remaining unseen and striking. And as we progress we can make improvements to our fleet plus we could also design battlercruisers for heavy gun fighting seeing as battlecuisers also fit in the harrassment doctrine. Submarines have the capability to communicate with command while remaining undetected it is by using a bouy antenna that sits just below the surface Communication with submarines - Wikipedia . Also why would you use strike craft to scout around that's what radar, lidar, and dedicated reconnaissance carft are for Common Support Aircraft - Wikipedia .
 
Last edited:
Slayer Anderson said:
As good a place to start as anywhere, I suppose. KMF affects on air power...

In a lot of ways aircraft in the world of Code Geass are support vehicles. They, in and of themselves, are not vehicles for decisively winning battles. Aircraft have been developing for the last fifty-sixty years or so, slowed slightly by the move, early in their development, from petrol engines to electric motors. However, unlike the OTL, Britannian combat doctrine places a disproportionate amount of emphasis on what are effectively armored cavalry units (KMFs). The job of the plane, the attack helicopter, and other airborne vehicles, is to support KMF squads and infantry in taking territory and knocking out hardened positions with as little fuss as possible. They're also the primary method of recon for armies of this age.

The secondary role of aircraft in CG is to keep the enemy's air off of the KMF forces. The age of the dogfight is still alive and well during this time period. Because, to refer to your question... what does a KMF do against a fighter jet? Usually they die, either to a well-aimed missle or a strafing run with whatever lesser ordinance they're equipped with.

Knightmares just don't have the capability (yet) to meet a fighter on their own terms. Britannia considers it ungentlemanly warfare on the rare occasion enemy air gets clear shots at their KMF groups, but they're entitled nobility anyway.


Yes, yes the Pacific Ocean is.

Notably, this is important because outside of the 'First Pacific War' from canon, in which Japan and China fought over mainland territory (Japan lost, but the military and political damage inflicted on China precipitated the creation of the modern Chinese Federation) has been the only significant, modern, naval engagement in the Pacific between what could be termed as superpower nations.

Even then, though, the vast majority of battles happened in the Sea of Japan or the East China Sea, rather than the Pacific Ocean proper. Add onto that fact, the level of technology at the time wasn't one which could allow the full creation of the carrier (beyond a proof of concept) and you have an environment where Carriers just haven't proven their worth.

In the years since this conflict, both Japan and China signed treaties and haven't expanded their naval powers significantly enough beyond new technology to attempt to incorporate new doctrines. Japan and China both have a few carriers apiece, but they aren't the focus of their doctrines.

Britannia and the Europa United, on the other hand, last fought during the Great War, primarily in the Atlantic, but with a few significant engagements in the Mediterranean as well. This was during the time period of biplanes. Notably, the historical record states that the first carriers developed during WWI were used as vehicles for deploying spotter planes across large bodies of water and weren't effective. Specifically because the range of the big guns on battleships and 'dreadnoughts' outsized the operable spotting range from which the planes could see an enemy fleet and return. IE: They'd usually start taking fire before they could turn and report. This didn't leave all that great a first impression for carriers at the time.

Now, putting all of that aside, there's also the fact that there's some significant inter-service politics going on between the Britannian Navy, Airforce, and Army. In this world, the focus on KMFs means that the Army (knights specifically) get the lions' share of the glory. Both the navy and the air force resent this arrangement more than a little. The highest ranking officers in the navy, specifically, don't want to share what achievements they do get on occasion with the fly boys (and girls) who are, to their eyes, functionally similar to KMF jockeys. Navies actually have something of a history for being politically... insular, partially due to taking a bunch of people and isolating them in metal boxes for months at a time. This is the political aspect I was talking about and, as forward thinking as Britannian military commanders usually need to be, they can be hidebound about certain aspects of warfare doctrine.

If you want a good reason why this political friction exists, one of the main uses for Aircraft Carriers at this moment for the Britannian War Fleets is the facilitation of this:
If you remember this from Season 1? They're beginning to see deployment this year and are making a lot of people in the navy very irritated with having to put up with KMF units launching from ships and the role of the navy being sidelined again to cater to the army instead of being allowed to take some of the glory for themselves.

I'm couching this mostly from Britannia's POV, because that's what's most relevant, but it's not entirely out of line with what the other countries of the world are thinking about their militaries. The navy of the Chinese Federation has their experimental 'iceberg ships,' but they've never seen real battle and are something of a joke even within the Federation at this point. While effective, much of the rest of the Federation's ships and doctrine are considered last-generation by other super-powers. They tend to use the 'lots of people on lots of boats' strategy (officially called 'Fleet in Being' Doctrine by naval historians). The EU, on the other hand, maintains a smaller navy, but one which is considered cutting edge even by a Britannian standpoint. Neither of them acknowledge the aircraft carrier as a capital ship by anything other than displacement or hull size, and even then only technically.

As I said earlier, there just isn't a body of documented military successes to demonstrate the superiority of aircraft carriers, even in the carrier's playground that is the Pacific Ocean.

1) Aicraft Carriers would have munitions and fuel for between 70 aircraft apiece. The heaviest class of carrier carries about 100 at this time, yous will be slightly more economy-size than that, but not by much.
2) They are traditionally armed with either secondary or tertiary armaments for their size of ship class along with a compliment of torpedoes.
3) 2000-2500 km
4) They can't break the sound barrier and are probably 1-2 hundred mph slower than some of the larger ground-launched fighters.
5) You can launch a plane every few minutes. Ideally, you'd manage one every minute, but under battle conditions...
6) Naval guns have longer range than your current radar/sonar systems.
7) Depends a lot on weather and whether or not you have relays in range. Under ideal conditions, probably about 1000 km. Realistically, about 500-700 km.
8) Effectiveness and range varies wildly between factions. If you're talking about a faction with a professional or semi-professional military unit (the Big 3 pirate groups), then they'll have some manner of anti-air weaponry ready to discourage you, at the very least.
9) This question is far too broad to answer concisely. If you're referring only to the pirates as 'enemies' then its still too broad. If you start sinking fleets left and right with an effective new naval doctrine, the general response will be not to engage your forces. If you're talking about a counter-doctrine change to your own, it will likely be several years, at the least, before anyone else can do something besides ape your own fleet composition and try to replicate your results.

And I love you, Random Citizen!

...but, no, seriously, I'm glad someone said something along these lines. It saved me from having to do it.

Torpedoes, yes. Cruise Missiles, no. After you invent them, then we'll talk.

I'll still be available to answer questions for a few hours, but I think there's been significant enough discussion that I'm going to open the vote now. Usual 24 hour period and feel free to continue asking questions and discussing ideas well into the regular period.

IN OTHER WORDS: VOTING IS OPEN!

[ ][DOC] Main Battle Fleet
[ ][DOC] Land Invasion
[ ][DOC] Harassment
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It occurs to me that one of the things preventing A/C dominance might be that KFs also work as AA guns? Like we know they carry giant machine guns, and that's basically all an AA gun is.

And that's pretty crazy. They're effectively super tanks (stronger, more mobile, better defended) that can also function as AA weapons at the same time
 
rogthnor said:
It occurs to me that one of the things preventing A/C dominance might be that KFs also work as AA guns? Like we know they carry giant machine guns, and that's basically all an AA gun is.

And that's pretty crazy. They're effectively super tanks (stronger, more mobile, better defended) that can also function as AA weapons at the same time
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Eh I wouldn't say a knightmare is that good. Pretty much any antitank weapon could take one down, the issue being actually hitting it. They are just far more mobile and flexible than tanks.
 
[X][DOC] Main Battle Fleet

The main issue with harassment in my opinion is that itlacks the ability to blockade or hold areas. Losing the initiative is a death sentence with carriers and these ones lack alot of modern tech that people are assuming we have. Plus the tech development isn't going to be as fast as canon (otherwise we should have pink nukes and flying battleships by now) so upgrading them won't be as fast.
 
no one has mentioned how deterrence plays into this. we don't strictly need to kill the pirates, though thats the best outcome, we can prevent piracy by making it much harder to get away with it and much riskier.
 
Eebex said:
True but most large shipping vessels are slow so we would be able to place our carriers in the middle of the convoy and the destroyers around that or by using the subs to scout ahead find then launch aircraft strikes to hit them that harrassment fleet isn't with out heavy fighting strength just that it's not for set piece battles even if the main fleet is a jack of all trades kind that also means that it a master of none where as the harrassment fleet is about remaining unseen and striking. And as we progress we can make improvements to our fleet plus we could also design battlercruisers for heavy gun fighting seeing as battlecuisers also fit in the harrassment doctrine. Submarines have the capability to communicate with command while remaining undetected it is by using a bouy antenna that sits just below the surface Communication with submarines - Wikipedia . Also why would you use strike craft to scout around that's what radar, lidar, and dedicated reconnaissance carft are for Common Support Aircraft - Wikipedia .
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'll remind you that Code Geass timeline means that we are in the 1950s/60s equivalent, even if the tech is all over the place. Common Support Aircraft isn't a thing yet, and at the time, common carrier doctrine was to have modified light fighters do the scouting, who would generally also act as additional escorts for the bombing/strike craft, reinforcing the fighters already in use. Slayer stated that current radar range is less than the current range of capital ship guns, which means that we'd rely a lot on scouting craft to do recon. And that would mean risking the strike craft being seen and followed. Carriers also have limited capacity to launch and recover airplanes, generally only having a single runway, and with limited capacity for whatever is used as fuel, it means needing to know what to prioritise. Also, if you read what we're getting with the harassment choice, you'll notice that our only capitals are carriers, and our only surface escorts are destroyers. Instead of starting with an already balanced navy that lacks carriers and adding some to the mix, we're starting with a horribly balanced force that can't risk itself in a sustained engagement.
 
Since Harassment seems to be winning I think we should consider grabbing Hashima's Theory next phase. While I would love to start on our archaeology I think we should at least find out what the Stockholm Syndrome victim has to offer when it comes to upgrading our aviation tech.
 
[X][DOC] Harassment

Slayer Anderson said:
Software complexity is low, processing power is high. Brute force is the name of the game in most cases.

That said, hackers are experiencing something of a golden age as the internet really blooms for the first time over the past ten years. Corruptive code is becoming more and more common outside of isolated system (which yours is). Also, the lack of satellite infrastructure means that there are still wide swaths of the world without internet service. Most of China, India, Indonesia, Africa, the Middle East, and extensive parts of South America are still cut off from what is becoming a world wide web.

There is some nascent conflict between the Imperial and the United cyber services, though it hasn't escalated to 'warfare' yet. Mostly it's just a different set of standards and an inability (and lack of desire) to facilitate communication between the two networks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So, I'm currently working on a PHO-style omake and now I'm slightly worried I shouldn't have made it something of a somewhat Underground, international site thinly covered up as a forum a la Sufficient Velocity. With the Web as it is would that even be possible?

Two of the so far three 'threads' are Britannia/ Area 5 focused so that'd require minimal changes but I have ideas for one focused on China and Taiwan.

Also, in keeping with the spirit of these kinds of things I was considering using participant usernames of this quest as horribly butchered facsimiles forum members. You could let me know in your Vote post if interested to keep things from getting clogged up.
 
What kind of artillery guns do ships carry in this setting?
Unless its railguns (and if it were how'd you target them), radar being restricted below artillery range doesnt make sense.
Even back in WW2 they already used targeting by ship-based radar, and they didnt even have modern computers to assist.

If this is about plane-based radar (which still shouldnt suck so badly to be unable to detect ship sided targets below 40-60km, or ~100 if rocket assisted).
There's a fix for that too - blimps.
No, really. You put the huge-ass radar antenna inside the baloon portion of blimp and let it serve as a slow moving radar station with huge range which doesnt need to land for days at a time. Navy had one back in the 30s.
Modern ones could even be unmanned.

Also, speaking of jet engines. Ok so we dont have turbofans or liquid rocket motors or whatever.
But modern missiles can be made with solid propellant rocket engines. SS engine has no moving parts (I think) and is relatively simple if you have optimized the mixture. We may be missing decades of industry development for jets/rockets, but all you need to figure out solid propellants is computers and chemical industry. Which, given their material science, is likely more advanced than ours.
They may have already done the work to develop rocket-assisted artillery shells.
Once they have the propellant, building a single use engine out of that is simple.
We should be able to make AAM, long range SSM, ballistic and space rockets with basic performance comparable to modern ones.
As for targeting. Well they may not have advanced radar or IR sensors, for some reason, but they have factspheres, whatever that it. From the multiple examples of their tracking capability in the show I think they work well enough as a replacement.
 
Last edited:
nkd1325 said:
Eh I wouldn't say a knightmare is that good. Pretty much any antitank weapon could take one down, the issue being actually hitting it. They are just far more mobile and flexible than tanks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean,

A. An antitank weapon can also take down a tank
B. Canon shows that that "dificulty" of hitting it thing is pretty huge. KF are repeatedly shown to basically he unstoppable on the ground by anything other than another KF
 
Despite my misgivings regarding AtE, it did a fantastic job as to why Knightmares dominate combat the way they do. They're absolute monsters if they have the right pilots. They even have variable loadouts, so you can turn any of them into an artillery platform if required (Jeanne made great use of this feature). Sutherlands have a ridiculous number of variants as well, ranging from Long-range specialists, CQC, AA, and even ones that act as a moving sensor suite.

Assuming Slayer made use of these parts of AtE, Britannia makes use of gigantic railguns with effective ranges in excess of 500 km. I would imagine that Navy vessels have a proportionally smaller variants of these guns (maybe 230 or so km as range?). As far as detection goes, IIRC, the EU made use of unmanned blimp-like aircraft (with ranges in excess of 500km or so as well) as detectors.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top