Building Your Interstellar Navy | Ship Types, Naming Conventions, & Fleet Doctrines

[@TemplinInstitute]

Attention Institute Personnel! If you'd like to see more of these ultra-long episodes, please consider pledging to us on Patreon. This episodes take a ton of work, and are only possible through your support! www.patreon.com/templininstitute

[@comentnine1574]

You know Spacedock made a video about ship types in interstellar use have you considered his views?

[@Thought_Processing_]

I promise that if I get the chance I shall dub a RSN corvette type the HMSS Templin. RSN - (Royal Space Navy) HMSS - (Her/His Majesty Space Ship)

[@draconisthewyvern3664]

actually it spurred the UK into conflict with the USA. in fact the two were virtually on the brink of war. than the assassination happened that started WW1. the usa saw an opportunity to expand unhindered by the UK by being a nuisance to germany and encouraging class (an partly race) division of the german blooded elite in their colonies and in countries where german companies had large scale operations as well as monoplies. this caused germany to try and convince mexico into invading the usa, than the rest is history. a better name for battle cruisers would be cruiser killers. they were cruisers that went after other cruisers. secondly the reason why battle cruisers are treated as mini battleships might have to do with the WW1 germans. prior to calling the three ships they created dreadnought cruisers, they were known as battle cruisers. an the term dreadnought cruiser and battle cruiser was used interchangeably while referring to them in the book: Dreadnought, The Ship That Changed The World speaking of dreadnought’s defining characteristic was gun uniformity of the primary, secondary, and if any, territary guns. for example, the german navy after seeing the HMS dreadnought built 3 ships and called them dreadnought cruisers. these dreadnought cruisers had about 80% of the total protection a battleship would have and were all armed with twelve 8 inch guns and six 6 inch guns. gun calibre uniformity.

[@draconisthewyvern3664]

also, wolf pack doctrine was used in WW1 by germany it wasn’t a WW2 thing exactly, it was more else ironed out by germany after WW1 and the first two very disastrous wolf attacks that occurred during the war.

[@cortezpaige9175]

When are the Solaris videos coming out

[@Marylandbrony]

I'm a safety inspector at a nuclear power plant. But this is much more important.

[@jimmyseaver3647]

I'm pretty sure that's something Homer Simpson would say.

[@andrewgaiennie2002]

I mean, to be fair, things arnt supposed to be broken anyway.

[@julonkrutor4649]

i hope you are not close to me ^^

[@TheSenorAwesome]

Completely normal phenomenon

[@23AlexandreJ]

I... Will be checking the news in the next days...

[@Ithirahad]

Ahhh yes, the frigate: the ship classification for when you spend way too long trying to puzzle out a fitting term for your odd warship, but then just go "ah, frig it."

[@raidermaxx2324]

hahahahah but on the other hand, it seems like there may have been one exception to that friggin rule... For the life of me.. i can seem to recall the name of that one ship... you know, the one that is really long, black, hard, and full of seamen? ? Ah a submarine thats the one! A friggin submarine!! kinda hard to fit that one in a box without a little bit of work

[@Naofumi-Iwatani]

@@raidermaxx2324 dont forget that it likes to shoot its load into the afts of u suspecting targets

[@JustElijahRS]

The fuc-

[@diantebaileu9163]

The greatest military dad joke

[@AFMR0420]

I once said very similar, just like Oreo is I don’t know with your mouth full.

[@xveers]

When it comes to ship designations and politics, I remember a little ditty "She's a corvette when authorized. A frigate when laid down. A destroyer when commissioned. A cruiser when going to war. But if sunk, she's only a corvette."

[@thomasjoyce7910]

Not a Submarine?

[@xveers]

@@thomasjoyce7910 Only if she surfaces again afterwards :D

[@inf3cted194]

Where's that from?, Sounds really cool.

[@Zack_Wester]

@@inf3cted194 I would guess the Japanese/German during the pre World war 2 whit the London treaty that limited armaments and tonadge some countries tricked a bit whit all of them in different way like ship build just under but could over a weekend ups its weight class. Note Navy uses a wierd Ton that im refering to as NavyTons. then there are practical problem like some one designing a 100NavyTons destroyer Convoy escort. constriction starts the gun design is changed from 120mm to 122mm because a standard was finally set after years of argument. Convoy ships got a 10% speed boost as a result of a new engine design. miss calculations whit steal and other mishaps and now its a 105NavyTons that can´t perform as a Convoy Escort be cause its a bit to slow. then the arguments about what class a ships is because I remember a story about I think it was a Italian ship the Italian are like this is a Light Cruiser. Germany no its a Cruiser. UK: its a heavy destroyer. US: its a destroyer. Japan: its a Corvet whit no main gun. not sure what each country called it but thats more or less that story. it was a mess Pre World war, it was still a mess During World war. and almost all ship got reclisided post war again. and note it took a long time to build a ship. so have a ship design presented at the London treaty and approved as classed as something, mid construction have it re classified and as you complete it have it re classified again was not impossible. (that said going from battleship to Destroyer was not really a thing but usually around the general spectrum).

[@zed12-ui4jy]

ditty?

[@scotty1928]

While i find the UNSCNs naming conventions pretty cool (with results like Forward Unto Dawn, Pillar of Autumn, Point of No Return, Purgatory's Key, The Space Between, Midsummer Night, In Amber Clad, ...), the Covenant ship names are even more so: Enduring Conviction, Shadow of Intent, Seeker of Truth, Breath of Annihilation, Long Night of Solace, Splendid Intention.

[@christopherfleetwood5252]

So true, so very Extra!

[@s1rcr4b]

UNSC Infinity in yo a

[@shadxw_hunter]

It felt very Shakespearean

[@alexbedel6320]

My Favorite is the UNSC Say My Name

[@shadxw_hunter]

@@alexbedel6320 Alex Bedel

[@JoaoPedro-gc8mw]

"Politics of naming ship types" Starfleet: That is not a warship, it is a heavy escort!

[@richieThach]

This right here. When Starfleet started making anti-borg ships, they called them "escorts" or "tactical cruisers" rather than battleships or warships.

[@Heegaherger]

Star Trek is an odd collection of contradictions. In TNG, Starfleet desperately clings to unrealistic visions of moral high-ground. With both the Romulans and Klingons have warships that happen to be able to fulfill other uses, but they are first-most warships. Starfleet uses Naval culture, but seems to forget what it is for. Review Reiker's protestations about the Enterprise not being a warship for war-game episode or that exchange that started so incredibly arrogantly between Pichard and Q in the first encounter with the Borg about loosing people or Scottie's comment about being on a cruise ship/liner in the Dyson Sphere episode. Also note how they left the killing to their allies and went after the Automated orbital defenses during the Battle of Cardasscia. Heaven forbid humans actually kill anything in battle. And I *LIKE* TNG. At one point, I could identify (but not name) every episode by half way through the teaser (sometimes by the end of the first shot.)

[@nikujaga_oishii]

Trek is full of inconsistencies anyway

[@Eiskralle1]

Jackie Fisher's "Large Light Cruisers"

[@podemosurss8316]

New Republic: Star Defender (Legends) and Star Hawk (canon) for their Star Destroyer counterparts.

[@QuestionableObject]

Everyone likes the name "Dreadnought" It literally means "fear nothing" It's the perfect term for a type of vessel that is a complete game-changer and can't be fought fairly without devastating loss.

[@gilson9702]

or plot

[@gwest3644]

“Fairly” being the key word. Hence why they generally aren’t made anymore.

[@Nostripe361]

I liked space docks idea for dreadnaught being a name that’s used as a sort of taunt to scare your foes or for propaganda use on your side to play up the ship rather than a specific type of ship.

[@MarionetteDuAuguste]

@@gwest3644 you’re right, fairly is the operative term here, but if you succeed in creating a notable enough vessel it becomes a sort of challenge to the enemy, who have three options. 1) Fight it fairly (in which case they take excessive losses) 2) Fight unfairly (in which case you know where their attention will be, leaving the rest of the fleet to maneuver relatively unimpeded. So long as you don’t fall to hubris you’ll be fine) 3) ignore it (in which case you can use it to steamroll anything in its way)

[@Clonetrooperz48]

I Agree with that. But With one of my Personal Space Baring Dreadnoughts, 'Cyclops' Has Defined the Term for me to a Single Sentance. "Fuck You Battleships! I'm Better!"

[@jimmyseaver3647]

Re: The Rebel Alliance and capital ships: The Rebels kept capital ships around for the same reason the Kriegsmarine did. They may be few and expensive, but they pose a threat if they sally forth towards something poorly-protected. They serve to tie down enemy resources as naval units are drawn to search for and contain or destroy them. Convoy PQ-17 is perhaps one of the finest examples of this. The German battleship _Tirpitz_ could inflict massive damage on a convoy, and when news arrived that she had sortied (even though she didn't and it was simple misinformation), convoy PQ-17 and its escorts (which included battleships) was ordered to scatter. Even if the battleships engaged, _Tirpitz_ could still sink many poorly-protected merchantmen before going down or being forced into retreat. When the convoy scattered, many merchants, alone and unprotected, were picked off by U-boats and aircraft, and less than half made it to their destination of Arkhangelsk. Capital ships typically need to be countered by other capital ships. The Royal Navy made multiple attempts to sink _Tirpitz_ before the famous Dambusters finished the job, tying down resources that could've been used elsewhere. It's a similar case to the Rebellion's flotilla of Mon Calamari cruisers. They're few in number, but they're big, heavily-armed, and can show up to beat up ill-protected Imperial positions. The Empire knew it needed to take out the Rebel capital ships if it was to maintain a tight grip on the galaxy, hence the trap at Endor that so infamously blew up in their faces. They had been tracking the positions of those ships for some time before, and decided that the time was right to remove them from the board and secure ultimate victory.

[@joaomiguelmoreira6363]

Thats one of the most concise analysis that I've ever seen on that subject, really nice dude.

[@jimmyseaver3647]

João Miguel Moreira I've had practice, and to be honest, I'm quite happy with how that post turned out as well. Naval history has been a subject that fascinated me and can be applied heavily to science fiction since so much of it draws from naval history. The US Navy even recognized this and did a number of lectures a while back showing how science fiction can be used to understand real-world naval issues and affairs.

[@shaider1982]

The problem was that they followed Rader's plan for large ships, with few submarines. A threat, yes, but was put down easily. Though, for space, no counterpart for the submarine.

[@dragonmaster1500]

@@shaider1982 Actually, there are. SW the Clone Wars season 2 episode 16 a prototype stealth ship, the prototype IPV-2C Stealth Corvette, was introduced and then never seen again. Apparently in the Star Wars universe it's pretty difficult to put a clocking device on smaller ships, this was mentioned in the Empire Strikes Back, though an exact reason is never given. My headcanon is because of how advanced Sensors are in the SW universe the power requirements needed to run a stealth generator sophisticated enough to fool all of them was immense and far greater than what most smaller ships were capable of.

[@caad5258]

Good points. Have a reply.

[@dr.gordontaub1702]

I love that you used the Yamato as both the maritime and interstellar example of a Battleship.

[@cmelton6796]

Even better - it's meant to be THE SAME SHIP 😁

[@Ryvaken]

Wouldn't a better example of a battleship be something that's not pretending to be a reef?

[@jacksonborrello6848]

@@Ryvakenyea there’s way too many fish in something that’s supposed to be floating ABOVE the water

[@keiyakins]

​@@Ryvaken That's just cover for it being refit as a spacefaring vessel!

[@juanmanuelpenaloza9264]

It's the same damned ship!

[@MaybeNotARobot]

Thank you, Japan, for allowing us to use the same ship for both interstellar and maritime examples of a battleship.

[@wyrmofvt]

Yep. _Exact same ship._

[@timber_wulf5775]

Despite this being an old comment it’s only natural to start a verse about such. UCHEN SEKAN YAAAA MAAAA TOOOOOOOOO

[@aureusknighstar2195]

Oh boy, where should I start explaining one of my most favourite Sci-Fi Franchise. Well simply, they overhauled the Yamato battleship into an intergalactic traveling battleship to find a certain planet that can save the near-extinct humans and a half-dead earth. They also duke it out with massive one-ship stand versus a grand alien fleet.

[@JesseMcCullough]

@@aureusknighstar2195 Considering that this is exactly what the Allies were terrified might happen if Yamato wasn't just a floating hotel for most of the war, nice bit of backhanded chin scratching by the creators right there.

[@andrew3203]

@@wyrmofvt Yeah. 200 meters ship is not much in space. WH40k corvettes are over 1km, destroyers at 1.6 km and real battleships at 10kms or more.

[@TheLordofMetroids]

"The Imperium of Man doesn't care though." Understatement of the year.

[@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777]

Millennium actually

[@hyperion8382]

Boarding torpedoes away lol

[@MrMarinus18]

Warhammer 40K is all about that though. "Realism or even sense be damned, rule of cool above all!" I don't mean that as a negative though. I love that about Warhammer 40K. They can have the coolest, most interesting, most badass concepts, governments and vehicles of any Sci-Fi setting. I think more Sci-Fi should do that. It's never totally realistic so why not throw realism out of the window entirely?

[@manggkee3161]

Melee fighting ships? "For The Empraaahhh!!

[@victornoel36]

@@MrMarinus18 I'm not against your statement, but I think it must be applied carefully. My rule of any fiction is that there must be the right balance of realism and "fantasy/cool factor". Too much realism and your story becomes dull and doesn't stand out. Too much fiction and your story is not relatable and looses all credibility. So, what's the correct balance? It depends on who's your target audience.

[@matthewharder2778]

In my Stellaris game I was playing as a Neo-Roman Empire. I named my two Titans Romulus and Remus. I was so proud of myself hahaha.

[@dogefromtheblacklagoon3358]

What exactly is Neo-Roman ? Cause it sounds cool

[@thattotalwarguy7911]

@@dogefromtheblacklagoon3358 New Roman. In essence, a restored Roman Empire.

[@moonwolf8470]

@@thattotalwarguy7911 so neo-classical is restored classical? /s

[@saganaki_1]

@@dogefromtheblacklagoon3358 Roman empire, except in space

[@dogefromtheblacklagoon3358]

@@saganaki_1 dark caesar

[@LIA-52]

28:10 My naming scheme would be to call *everything* a frigate: Patrol boat: Nano frigate Corvette: Mini frigate Destroyer: Slightly larger frigate Cruiser: Big frigate Battlecruiser: Fast, decently armed, big frigate. Battleship: Very heavily armed, very big frigate Dreadnought: Very heavily armed, very big, slightly different frigate Carrier: Fighter delivery frigate Titan: Gihugic frigate

[@Eggmayor]

Soldier: very tiny, very different, intelligent, very mini frigate

[@itswindyyy]

Tank: somewhat tiny, very different, light single cannon frigate@@Eggmayor

[@mattstorm360]

Fighter: Micro frigate.

[@owens7647]

Frigate: Frigate sized Frigate

[@Nuts437]

Torpedo: unarmed kamikaze frigate

[@robertcapestany6019]

I feel that the role of Titans or Juggernauts is less a practical one and more a political one, showing the naval might of an Empire. It makes a pretty big statement when you roll up on your foe with a ship big enough to have it's own gravitational pull after all.

[@TheRezro]

In my opinion Titan isn't as much class as way to classify absurdly oversized ships. Juggernaut is straight propaganda. Also many ships of this size serve as mobile shipyards (in such case they usually are referred as motherships).

[@epicninja2378]

Could be like the historical yamato, we can't build a lot of ships so let's build a few really big ships and hope they kill a load of enemy capital ships.

[@TheRezro]

@@epicninja2378 Size and might of Yamato was overblown by Imperial propaganda. Iowa class was seven meter longer, though has 1/7 less displacement. Still I would call them comparable. British Battlecruiser Hood has similar length and 2/7 less displacement.

[@epicninja2378]

@@TheRezro I meant the idea of the Yamato class was few big ships, the practical reality of it doesn't matter to what I was saying cos I was just using it as an example.

[@Abandonsoyciety]

Craftworlds would like to have a word with you.

[@ocinnico2608]

"Any navy with an Advanced Ultra Heavy Tactical Assault Dreadnought has gone too far" *Proceed to cancel plans for Advanced Ultra Heavy Tactical Assault Dreadnought building*

[@thewanderer7307]

"I may have gone too far in a few places." - George Lucas

[@AuxenceF]

Instead start plans for the templin class Strategic tactical ultra heavy assault mega Juggernaut

[@malcanthetduffy3613]

But I just wanted to have my tiny four man laser boat to sound intimidating ...

[@Tiyev]

Perhaps rebranding the ship as a 'Tactical Heavy Interdictor Class Cruiser/Carrier'?

[@eboranshard6220]

Ou so I also cant make a High Imperial Tactical Support Command Aggressive Reconnaissance Heavy Assault Cruiser ?

[@brentmason4338]

The Mass Effect Universe has strict restrictions on how many Dreadnoughts each race is allowed to construct. Humanity got around that by building "Carriers" that were of a comparable size. Basically the same as the New Republic. "That's not a Dreadnought. We only have 3 Dreadnoughts. Those are aircraft carriers."

[@ascendedraven1934]

If I remember correctly, there was a codex entry in one of the games that said the other council races had never really considered the idea of building a massive ship whose sole purpose was to carry as many fighters as could be stuffed into the hull.

[@ladywaffle2210]

@@ascendedraven1934 "Man has fought themselves for ten thousand years. Therefore, they have no excuse for not fighting well."

[@fan9775]

So what japan is doing..now..

[@azzameentv]

And then the Council Races started copying it. It really sold the idea that Humans may be new to the Galactic Stage but they brought fresh ideas that impressed races that have been travelling in space far longer.

[@murkywateradminssions5219]

Germany: *what battleship?*

[@Ar_Tank]

Your analogy of a cloaked ship being a sub is actually pretty good. In star wars for example, there was a ship (fairly small) in the clone wars series in the cat and mouse episode that used cloaking tech and torpedoes. It was basically a space sub. To launch its torps it had to uncloak and recloak

[@nil981]

Except...that there is absolutely no stealth in space. It's physically impossible unless you had some way of violating the laws of thermodynamics.

[@dragonbornexpress5650]

@@nil981. There is still a way of stealth, though: Combine cloaking tech with sensor jamming and the enemy can't see you on any front even if they were to use the naked eye. You could also find a way to disrupt heat scanning to combat infrared sensors.

[@nicolasheredia956]

In Legends they take it further, for example the TIE/ph Phantom used cloaking tech, and even a fucking Executor class, the Terror, was equipped with one

[@wwrainbowbeastrainbowbeast9687]

@@nicolasheredia956 I find it really stupid how are you supposed to hide a ship that is more than 5 miles long never mind actually the The galactic empire’s military is more of a show of force than a shock force

[@nicolasheredia956]

@@wwrainbowbeastrainbowbeast9687 In short: Stigium crystals are incredibly good at hiding things

[@mannofdober873]

"Oh, this isn't a Death Star. It's a missile carrying assault starfighter supplying strategic defence Death Star."

[@wilfchapman-gandy8120]

"No no, this is a Hyperspace Capable Support Weapon Carrying Super-Station"

[@jamham69]

@@wilfchapman-gandy8120 long range laser support mobile supply depot

[@raidermaxx2324]

*Birth Star

[@KamiRecca]

Ah yes, the MCASSSDDS, an important part in every spacenavy.

[@MDP1702]

You still called it a death star, just a special one

[@Will_Forge]

Hey, if you're curious about why the Autumn had troops onboard, its because they were about to initiate a sort of "last resort" strike on the Covenant homeworld. The ship was extra heavily armored and outfitted to enter into Covenant controlled space, and deliver every single Spartan II onto a Covenant cruiser to capture it. Fill that Covenant cruiser to the brim with ground forces, and use it to sneak up on the Covenant homeworld High Charity for invasion. Based on how much damage Master Chief was able to do to High Charity single handedly in Halo 2, this attack would have likely been a successful one. The UNSC would have captured the Forerunner key ship to "reclaim" as reclaimers, and study, and the Covenant would have lost their most important relic (the same Keyship) absolutely vital to initiate their great journey. If not for the Covenant attack on Reach occurring minutes before the Autumn was supposed to launch this mission, the UNSC and Humanity would have won the war in less than a month, and ended it in just a year or so after reverse engineering the Keyship. You would have seen a UNSC Infinity a few years earlier than expected, as that relied on reverse engineered Forerunner tech. TL;DR: That's why the Autumn was so heavily outfitted for ground warfare. It was meant for boarding action behind enemy lines followed by immediate ground invasion without the benefit of a refit and resupply.

[@RJALEXANDER777]

And the courage and balls behind such a mission was immense. Would be like North Korea planning a mission to capture the president from Washington D.C.

[@Will_Forge]

@@RJALEXANDER777 yes exactly. Although maybe more realistically it would be like Britain with the Royal Navy vs the US. The US has about 3 times the numbers, and is decades ahead of the Royal Navy in tech, which is approximately applicable to the Human Covenant war. They also have soldiers that are close enough to equal that they could theoretically dominate on the ground before factoring in air support like the Humans do against the Covenant, although it would be dependant on heroism and strategy as our troops are about equal. The main reason the Covenant dominated Humanity is that they had better ships and the ability to glass a planet should it become too difficult to beat with ground forces, like we saw on Reach. Further more The British colonies across the ocean are in a comparable state to the Human colonies in Halo in that they are spread out compared to the US states, and they need to cross distances of space to send relief from one to the other, like the british and the seas. If the US and Britain went to war without any outside interference except her colonies, it would be a similar conflict on paper. Of course the US fields strategies far more advanced than that of the Covenant, and are equal with the British military in that way, so Britain wouldn't actually have the land domination that the Humans have in Halo. But the tech, numbers, and territory spread is pretty closely comparable. TL;DR: If the US used colonial era land combat strategies against Britain and her colonies in war with no one else interfering, it would be almost exactly comparable to the Human/Covenant war due to factors like fleet power and spread of the British colonies.

[@ClassMRule]

Keep in mind how well the Spirit of Fire preformed throughout Halo Wars as well and tell me that having that sort of flexibility is a dumb idea. It makes sense that you would equip your starships with the means to launch a ground assault considering how it allows you to engage the enemy on multiple fronts simultaneously through use of drop pods, pelican support, and starship coverage you can face the enemy on land, air, and sea all while commanding them from your orbital flagship likely with some AI assistance for combat logistics.

[@danielherman2509]

seeing all these comments, I want to clear a few things up on this: 1 the UNSC usually has troops on anything bigger than a corvette, which is a bad idea considering the overall fragility of their ships. 2 the spirit of fire is a phoenix class colony ship, (specifically a phoenix class refit) and due to the type and propose of the ship it always carries tons of troops / vehicles, being a colony / invasion ship.

[@Will_Forge]

@@danielherman2509 well the reason they have troops on every ship is to prevent the Covenant from boarding, which they like to do and due to the difference in tech levels are able to do even on a defense station in orbit of Earth. Since hiding Earth's location was a top priority of the war, and since their number of ships was always kept lower than ideal, the ground forces ended up with troops to spare, this arangement became vital for the success of the war. Also the tactical advantage of ODSTs dropping out of orbit in seconds is pretty hard to argue against. Every war is different, and every engagement in a given war is unique. Yes it seems dumb to include ground forces in every ship, but given the circumstances of the world building in Halo, it was the best choice. I would say that drones would be an even better idea, but AI rampancy in Halo makes that a no go as well. Slipspace is the defining factor in the world building for most of this. Space combat rarely takes place away from the orbit of a planet where ground forces may also need to be rapidly deployed, and covenant boarding ships like the Tick are outfitted with powerful shields and sometimes slipspace capabilities. That all being said, you're right about the other stuff. I just wanted to explain why that wasn't as dumb as it seems when taking Halo worldbuilding into consideration.

[@lunokhod3937]

About the UNSC having marine battalions on most of their ships: The Covenant would often board ships in order to capture forerunner relics and/or access human star maps. They would also board stations, land on moons, asteroids, etc, for the same reasons. Thus, having a marine battalion on every ship would mean that boarding would become much less of a threat and would make enacting the cole protocol much easier as it would not always require the self destruction of an entire ship if it is at risk of capture; the marines already on board could just kick the covenant off the ship, protecting any sensitive data or forerunner relics without sacraficing the entire ship. This also allows any ship to help defend stations or even planetside locations in the same way, as we see with the defence of Earth where multiple human ships chase after Regret's carrier and deploy their troops directly to new mombasa to help defend it. I do agree that hauling around tanks and stuff seems like a waste of resources, but I imagine the insane industrial capacity that the UEG must have to make such huge warships makes most UNSCMC equipment inexpensive to the point where wasting them is not really an issue.

[@reavercity568]

when every one is literally working toward getting not glassed from existance a few tanks on a space ship are not really a cost to worry about.

[@kirk_7632]

re industrial capacity; i haven't played halo or gone into its lore, but any nation capable of fielding a space navy can afford to equip its ships with some 300-1000 men and their equipement in such situations. all of those marines and their equipement probably add up to less than or about equal to the cost of one of its ships.

[@the_corvid97]

Imagine if the US Navy and Marine Corps had the UEGs industrial output, they would probably throw around equipment like the UNSC does.

[@nicholaswalsh4462]

Actually it was common up until only a few years ago for any US Navy warship of cruiser or larger had a platoon sized Marine Detachment.

[@dylanbritt6303]

Also don't forget that the Autumn was loaded for red flag in fall of reach or by the the game halo: Reach was one of the last evac ships off world so the extra everything is accountable given correct context and by that context the load out of the Autumn was not standardized and therefor a bad example.

[@alberthunt4631]

Your notes on Titans/Juggernauts point to Stellaris handling them very well! The titans are really just an oversized battleship, built to cary a massive gun and be a fleet's heavy hitter while being just another ship. Juggernauts are absolutely massive and are basically flying cities. But, that use is put into being a massive aircraft carrier, with a ridiculous amount of hangar bays, and even two shipyards, capable of building and repairing everything up to and including a battleship, instead of being just a ridiculous gun platform

[@therealspeedwagon1451]

And then the Colossus is basically the Stellaris Death Star. It is completely unarmed and only meant to come in when the battle has settled down just like a transport ship would to blow up the planet or neutron sweep it if the empire decides the planet has economic value and they just need to purge it of xenos quickly.

[@legostarwarsfan1662]

Plus you can set your juggernaut as home base for your main battle fleets if you are operating well outside your own territory, cutting down on mia and repair time if you keep it just behind the front line. Its ridiculous size means that it is able to be both a warship and a starbase.

[@piotrekb586]

as far as i know juggernaut is able to repair titan altho it is not able to bulid one

[@thedischarger12]

oh and dont forget about aura components as well target acquisition array is best juggernaut aura imo because of first strike though that has been reduced in recent patches you can easily change it due to the shipyards titan auras like shield damper or quantum destabilizer provide bad debuffs to enemies and inspiring presence, targeting grid, or nanobot cloud are really good as well with their buffs

[@time391]

Eve Online's Titans used to be overpowered with deadly weapons and area effective destruction that were basically the death stars of their day.

[@lachlanmccormick3486]

This is perfect for all the Space Engineers ships I'm never gonna finish

[@Hades_Space_Engineer]

Maybe try avorion. It has similar ship building qualities and most importantly. You can USE your Ships.

[@PraetorPaktu]

lol true

[@matthewclark7885]

You too? Lol, I have 2 creative works in progress, but I just can not get the stern, mostly around the engines, to look how I want it

[@ZoeySolarity]

honestly, yeah it is and that's why i watched it personally.

[@CMTechnica]

@@matthewclark7885 I spent so long in that area I called it a day and with with the Spirit bomber design. Sharp angles and black metal. Sure, the drives are exposed, but I use a speed mod so good luck shooting em out

[@23AlexandreJ]

22:10 "tanks aren't useful in space battles" * Laughs in Anakin Skywalker *

[@23AlexandreJ]

Grevious had COVID before it was cool

[@shaysilverlocke6228]

Not sure if anyone knows this, but the Imperium of Man is known to use Taurox APCs/IFVs in boarding action given how large warships can be in 40k

[@Dori-Ma]

_Laughs in Henry Gloval_

[@josephahner3031]

Those were artillery pieces though, not tanks.

[@Delgen1951]

I don't know I have read a few BOLO stories were a Bolo (Cybernetic super heavy tank) was in space and because its main gun is the same caliber as the main guns on a Confederation battleship it shot up every alien ship in range.

[@leonielson7138]

As far as I can tell, the Venator-class star destroyers were named after the Jedi General who commanded it - Anakin's was named 'Resolute' and Obi-Wan's was named 'Negotiator'.

[@minecat1839]

Mace Windu= Endurance

[@batboy555]

I never understood that in star wars. Why are they commanding armies and navies? Better in a commando role

[@count_chunkula9723]

Ah yes, the negotiator

[@leonielson7138]

@@batboy555 Before the inhibitor chip reveal, I assumed that the reason that the clones turned against the Jedi was because most of them were actually piss-poor leaders. Palpatine put them in command of armies and navies knowing that they would fail and alienate those under their command. *Clone:* "We just saw a thousand of our brothers cut down because the 'General' bungled an order." *Jedi:* "You must learn to let go of attachments."

[@mirceazaharia2094]

@@leonielson7138 Well, it worked. I sort of despise the Jedi. Every time a Jedi died onscreen, I felt nothing but relief - another brainwashed puppet of the Force down, good riddance to bad rubbish. Every time a clone died, I cringed in sympathy - those boys were born just to fight and die, they never had a chance at life. The Force has caused more problems than it ever solved, IMO.

[@GuatemalanJedi]

Regarding naming conventions: In David Weber's Harrington series, Weber introduced the idea of an 'honors list', when a ship accomplished something extraordinary, it was added to the honors list, and was thus 'immortal' in that there would always be a ship in service with that name in that general class. I really like the idea of this tradition, and I think you see shades of it in real life, like the number of ships named 'Enterprise' in the US Navy. It would also add some nice depth to the feel of a fictional feet's history if mixed in with their usual ship names, there's a few that don't fit, but which are particularly prestigious postings.

[@TheHalcyonAnon]

I loved it when they gave her the Nike. Also glad when she took Pavel to the field of honor.

[@blackjac5000]

That's already in play in Star Trek, with Starfleet naming everything with no real rhyme or reason for warships, exploration vessels, scientists, aerospace pioneers, and so forth. Case in point: there's a USS Phoenix, which could either be for the bird, the city, or humanity's first FTL-capable ship. Voyager's most likely named for the space probe, but her class is named for the carrier Intrepid. There's the irony of the Battle of Midway with how one of the Enterprise-D's sister ships is the Yamato and how the Akagi and Hornet were part of a blockade. Enterprise NX-01 is named for the space shuttle, not any of the carriers.

[@kharilane1340]

​@@blackjac5000 The shuttle Enterprise was named after the Star Trek vessel. Full Circle irony!!!

[@blackjac5000]

@@kharilane1340 And on top of that, the shuttle was originally going to be named Constitution, the Enterprise NCC-1701's class...

[@hanzzel6086]

​@@blackjac5000And said shuttles name was only charged because of pressure from Star Trek fans. It was originally going to the second shuttle that would be called Enterprise. Because the first shuttle was a none space going test bed, and NASA, who obviously had a few Trekkies in their midst, wanted the first spacefaring shuttle to bear the name.

[@KungfooBucket]

By far and away I like that the Culture ships name them selves: "Irregular Apocalypse" "So Much For Subtlety" "Ultimate Ship The Second" "Attitude Adjuster" "Grey Area"

[@DarthLenaPlant]

Oh, I love the "Grey Area", and also its big sister, "Massive Grey Area" XDD

[@Smo1k]

Plus (of course!) the "Of Course I Still Love You" and "Just Read the Instructions". ...but my favourite name is the "Falling Outside the Normal Moral Constraints". Coming from a Culture vessel, *that* sounds a little bit intimidating ;)

[@hellacoorinna9995]

GSV _"No More Mr Nice Guy "_

[@hellacoorinna9995]

GCU _"Funny, It Worked Last Time... "_

[@UnrepentantWolf]

I often go with the "Don't make me come over there"

[@PARTYARTIE92]

In Mass Effect, the Citadel Council limited the number of Dreadnoughts the Human Systems Alliance could build So they sidestepped it by building Dreadnought-sized Carriers

[@501ststormtrooper9]

I wonder how many turrets- I mean fighters that can carry..

[@CBRN-115]

"Totally not a dreadnaught"

[@derpco.69420]

Ah yes teh carrier class dreadnought

[@owenyin3316]

“It’s okay, they don’t have a spinal gun or broadsides, instead they have a few hundred smaller guns with thrusters”

[@angrykid616]

So like the Russians did with their totally not a carrier class cruiser?

[@zahylon5993]

The Imperial Japanese Navy also had a great naming guidelines. -Aircraft Carriers were named after mythological creatures (Taihou = Great Phoenix, Souryu= Blue Dragon) -Battleships were named after ancient provinces (Yamato, Musashi, Nagato) -Battlecruisers and Heavy Cruisers were named after mountains/mounts (Amagi, Takao, Atago) -Light Cruisers were named after Rivers (Mogami, Suzuya) -Destroyers, and lesser vessels were named after poetic names Only thing to notice, is that ships ordered as one class, but completed as another (Akagi, Kaga, Shinano) kept their original names.

[@RokkitGrrl]

That reminds me of SSI's Buck Rogers CRPG. Earth's battleships were named after deserts, which I thought was pretty clever at the time.

[@dottietyre9062]

So similar to what the U.S. did? USS Arizona USS Washington I don't know how true it is but there's an Aircraft Carrier in Black Ops 2 called the USS Obama so maybe we also named our ships after Presidents?

[@thomaszinser8714]

@@dottietyre9062 To your first point, kind of. The Japanese provinces which gave names to their battleships were historical ones which, iirc, weren't necessarily used anymore. To the second, modern US carriers have a number of examples named after presidents or other politicians. So for example, there's a USS Gerald Ford, a USS Abraham Lincoln, or a USS Carl Vinson (named after a notable US Representative). This sin't necessarily consistent, though. For example, while the most recent class has both Gerald Ford and John F. Kennedy, it also has Enterprise and Doris Miller (the first Black man to win the Navy Cross, did so for shooting down multiple Japanese planes at Pearl Harbor despite not being trained for the AA guns)

[@dottietyre9062]

@@thomaszinser8714 Ya learn something new every day. Now for my historical rant there was a WW2 U.S. battleship I forgot it's name but it survived the entire war even Pearl Harbor,was nuked twice,then destroyed by the navy after a full week of shooting it.

[@thomaszinser8714]

@@dottietyre9062 Oh, that'd be USS Nevada, I believe. Veteran of WW1 as well, and yeah, extremely durable, all things considered. They found the wreck fairly recently as well iirc.

[@Aichi1138]

In the case of the autumn, you pretty much hit the nail on the head, everything about the ships loadout was assembled for a multi-role single ship campaign deep behind enemy lines to try and destabilize the Covenant hierarchy in a desperation attack

[@blaster23456]

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the Ork navy. I mean they have wonderfun names like Rok. And also Big Rok. Also who can forget the Mega Rok.

[@colinsanders9397]

I love Warhammer. Too bad GW is getting political. Also, they changed the Imperial Guard to the Astra Militarum because they couldn't Copyright "Imperial Guard."

[@andrewhughes7181]

Copyright isn’t political, and I don’t blame them for changing the names in their most valuable IP.

[@GasMan1918]

@@andrewhughes7181 what about the elimination of Warhammer KZbin content and what could be called free advertising? I'm talking about animators, not lorehammer etc. And I'm not talking about politics. GW has gotten excessively corporate.

[@HalIOfFamer]

@@andrewhughes7181 true, they are not getting political, they always were, now they are getting stupid greedy. They are killing thier fanbase.

[@Meshakhad]

Do they have a ship called the ‘Ard Rock? Maybe with a cafe on board?

[@PomaiKajiyama]

Some of my favorite naming conventions are: Predatory Birds (Eagle, Hawk, Falcon, etc.), Shark types (Mako, Hammerhead, Thresher, etc), Sword types (Sabre, Scimitar, Katana, etc.), Snake Types (Cobra, Adder, Python), Stormy names (Thunder, Lightning, Hurricane, etc.), and Gods from Ancient Mythology (Zeus, Anubis, Odin, etc.), and then for my biggest ships, the pride of Earths Fleets are named after one of the 7 seas of Earth, starting with The Atlantic and The Pacific.

[@ashraarrafi5810]

But in my scifi universe each ship class named after predator. Such as orca battle cruiser, megalodon super carier. White shark destroyer. Velociraptor frigate and so on. While the ship name taken from earth geographical feature and reflect the nationality of its captain and most of it crews according to their location in which country. For example. Solar Republic Ship (SRS) Rhein captain and most of its crews are german. SRS Merapi captain is indonesian and so most of its crew aswell. This is due to the captain right to name the ship himself. And a better feeling to work with a man with the same custom, work ethics, etc as you already understand the customs of a captain's country if you are from that country aswell.

[@TheE_G_G]

Ibis is also a good name.

[@byshuma3496]

In my Sci-Fi Universe, one of The Faction’s Flagship that started construction in 3987 and Ended Construction 4029. And its called The Morning Star due to its infamous weapon known as ‘Clarity Control’. And its designed to be an Solar System Defence Leviathan Class Citadel

[@PaiSAMSEN]

In my scifi verse, one of the faction named their sub-capital ship after stars, and capital ships after constellations. Another factions named their sub-capital after adjective, and capital ships after mythological figure.

[@augustday9483]

Mythological beasts work great for fighter craft. Phoenix, dragon, griffin, pegasus, minotaur, harpy, manticore, chimera, hydra, kraken, etc.

[@Khornecussion]

" Having soldiers onboard your ships is kind of useless in space battle. " - Right. Well, you say that, I say *LAUNCH THE BOARDING TORPEDOS! IN KHORNE'S NAME, WE COMMIT SPACE MELEE!*

[@arcdecibel9986]

But that's HERESY! You are a Heretek! Dispatching Kataphron Breachers!

[@Khornecussion]

@@arcdecibel9986 Release the chainsword roombas.

[@MrMarinus18]

Indeed if they relied on boarding. Ships in the age of sail relied in large part on boarding until fairly late because in truth destroying a well build ship with cannon fire is very difficult. They were made of wood so were natively bouyand and so shooting a lot of holes in the side really wouldn't make it sink. There was of course the black powder but that was often stored below the waterline and since it were solid balls even a direct hit wouldn't neccecarily cause detination. Black powder is not very shock sensitive so as long as you didn't have a metal on metal strike it wouldn't detonate. On top of that if a ship was losing it could very easily just sail away from the battle. To actually take out the enemy navy there was no other real option than to capture it. The broadside fire was more so to injure and demoralize the enemy. I wouldn't think in a Sci-Fi setting that would be the case. That ships can't actually do much damage to each other or that you can shoot a ship full of holes and that being considered minor damage.

[@numnutz457]

@@MrMarinus18 What! The solid balls are metal cannonballs, the gunpowder was stored as powder in barrels down below and young men (powder monkeys)would bring it up in bags to the gun decks. And this bit about "sailing away from the battle" is absolute bovine doodoo, the masts, rigging and sails were one of the first targets to be destroyed robbing the enemies manoeuvrability and speed using bar shot cannon balls, look it up.

[@MrMarinus18]

@@numnutz457 Bar shot cannonballs are indeed a thing. The chain served to greatly increase the surface area making the mast easier to hit. Even so it wasn't an easy target. You word your argument about the powder monkeys as if it's contradicting what I said. Of course they have to bring it up. They can't teleport it. But you only bring up what you need and send for more when the current load is running out. You don't have dozens of barrels of powder all sitting there ready to go off. I did look it up and a sail won't really rip and it will still function even if there are a few holes in it. The entire reason why there was so much focus on the mast rigging and other such elements was exactly for the reason I stated. You want to prevent your enemy from sailing away and you also want to prevent them from chasing you if you want to retreat. Just because forcing a decisive naval engagement is very hard does not mean people didn't try and at times didn't succeed. But it was very difficult. Mostly because once a ship manage to get past the horizon in open waters it was pretty much home free. I do know that Nelson's battle of Trafalger was highly unusual in actually being decisive and dealing an inrepperable blow to an enemy sea navy. But it was tricky as you had to surround them and keep them from running before you have manage to cripple their propulsion.

[@datteeu]

I'm working on a Sci-fi fantasy for years now. I have around 600-page notes about the setting right now and I just found your channel days ago. It helped me to alternate some things in my notes for better understanding. In the Martian Republic's Fleet, I can't use it, but the name 'Templin' is fitting for the language of one of the Major races of "my world". So if you let me, I would use the name "Templin-class Battlecruiser". The class will be operating with hardened frontal shielding capabilities, Strong side armors, and large broadside capabilities.

[@Marcharound]

I think you’re okay to name it after the channel. 40:29 “Name a ship after me. One of the smaller ones, though.”

[@grahamradcliffe]

Would love to see it if/when it gets done if that’s ok

[@punishedrev9533]

The Imperium of Man's naming conventions: "you get an adjective, you get an adjective, EVERYONE GETS AN ADJECTIVE"

[@jimskywaker4345]

@@gravy59 star trek, you get an enterprise you get an enterprise everyone gets an enterprise

[@mannofdober873]

In BFGA 2, I once got a ship called Pride of Pride. Naming conventions indeed.

[@koohikoo]

@@jimskywaker4345 tbf the enterprise is always the flag ship of the navy

[@aiosquadron]

@@jimskywaker4345 In star trek, ships name are named to give "Positive feeling" or "Proudness" like Discovery, Enterprise, Defiant, Voayger

[@noblebork7444]

Sci-fi earth ships: You get a place, you get a place, EVERYONE gets a place

[@lamehick7511]

"In Space, you can make your Starship as big as you want" Yeah... until moons are torn from a planets gravity well like with Warhammer 40.000's 25+ Kilometer ships...

[@stephenwalsh2476]

Holy shit what the hell happens if high charity goes near a moon?

[@neooblisk0084]

There is lots of potential strategy in that, I mean you could essentially through moons at people.

[@BierBart12]

@@neooblisk0084 The Orks kinda do that. Strapping giant engines on a celestial body(Probably by crashing a bunch of battleships into it) to build Attack Moons

[@strategicgamingwithaacorns2874]

@@neooblisk0084 Or fling a miniature sun at the enemy space station (see also: Badab War).

[@politenonparticipant4859]

Just turn the moons into a new ship type: a lunar class natural carrier.

[@saj2392]

*Me, sitting in my advanced-ultraheavy-tactical-assault Dreadnought:* "Ah, now you may think this superfluous, but I am an Emperor, so checkmate you dirty commoner."

[@RJALEXANDER777]

The superfluous would be a great name for something like that.

[@grantt1589]

Me literally in a planet sized ship: Pathetic

[@343DeltaSpark]

_laughs in Stellaris Combat Systems_

[@istvanbrooks5319]

*Casually Warps a Marauder on your ships bridge*

[@343DeltaSpark]

@@istvanbrooks5319 *Casually releases xenomorphs and warforms on homeplanet*

[@aSliceOfChoccyMilk]

I think it'd be pretty neat for a space carrier to carry larger slower ships like a battleship or destroyer across large distances quickly. The USS infinity had the ability to store 10 frigates for example

[@RealGracefulGoose]

*MCRN Donnager has entered the chat*

[@majki-1308]

Small escorts, sure. battleships or haevy cruisers, well you will have some problems with that.

[@AusFirewing]

10:30 To be fair, given that we know for a fact that the Galactic Empire has no qualms about blowing up a planet with billions of civilians on it, arming the medical frigate may have been a "The Imperials are going to be shooting at it regardless, may as well let them shoot back" decision by the Alliance.

[@daefaron]

Also being fair, it's much more of a "we stole a frigate and then converted all the spare rooms to medical bays" instead of "we built this ship as a medical ship and then armed it." Every Nebulon b frigate was stolen after all, at least for the first chunk of their use. Iirc in EU there was an Imperial Admiral who complained about how the ship class was Imperial built and paid for, but the rebels stole and used so many it became viewed purely as a rebel ship lol.

[@dakat5131]

@@daefaron indeed- especially if it's a "every effort must be made to stop the threat" battle, they couldn't afford to leave the ships off the battlefield simply for optics. I was under the impression that the Rebel Alliance didn't build too many, if any of their own ships but there's a point or few points in the video that assume the rebels are a conventional force comparable to the empire with shipyards and everything. (Maybe in legends they do, idk)

[@screamingcactus1753]

@@dakat5131 Pretty much all of the ships the Rebels had early in the war were either stolen or donated by sympathetic third parties. By the time of Return of the Jedi, they've started building their own ships. The MC series are a good example. They were built on Mon Cala, who had fully and openly joined the Rebellion by the time you see them. Interestingly, Mon Cala ships are literally flying cities. Mon Cala is a water world, and the Mon Calamari live on the ocean floor in what are essentially fortresses with extremely thick armor and powerful shields to keep both the extreme water pressure and the world's predators at bey. When they started building ships, they would haul these underwater cities into orbit before retrofitting them with engines and guns.

[@JonatasAdoM]

"It's a combat medical ship!" Which in hindsight wasn't a bad idea, considering the rebels sent even transport ships to the Battle of Endor. That fleet was basically a moving military camp.

[@Vote4Drizzt]

There's also little evidence the Empire felt especially bound by any rules of engagement. The senate was dissolved, the Emperor had sole power and a Death Start under construction. We don't have reason to believe a Rebel Alliance hospital ship would be spared in any case, nor that the rebellion could do without the firepower.

[@rolandli4459]

One thing that probably should be mentioned is that, no matter how appealing it may be, to never name any vessel after either your country or the current leadership of it. This is largely a morale-level consideration, as losing a ship named after either of these things could be interpreted as bad omens for the nation's war effort. Another thing to add is to never be tricked into naming your ships names that would give anyone a headache trying to pronounce it in the middle of a heated battle. Worst example is probably the flagship "Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli" from Legend of the Galactic Heroes, which while being in line with naming convention of the factions involved, has exactly zero consideration to practical applications.

[@UGNAvalon]

Oh great, now you have me imagining a Nightmare-class battleship, a Sparkle-class command ship, a Dash-class corvette/FAC, and a Pi(e)-class experimental ship... 😂

[@josephahner3031]

I get the feeling that the actual effect on home front morale in history is greatly exaggerated in historical narratives. HMS Hood's sinking in WW2 was not a death blow to British morale anymore than the Blitz was and while the initial shock of losing a ship hyped by the Navy and media was headline news they quickly learned not to hype individual ships or other weapon systems in Britain. The US on the other hand is doing that with the Abrams tank. Many soldiers and civilians both inside and outside the Armor branch think of the things as invulnerable except for infantry and scouts that think just because they can easily hit a tank in MILES training exercises with a laser pointer from cover that tanks are useless overall. MILES needs to be updated to account for time of flight of projectiles and likely effect on target because as it stands now it's just glorified laser tag. In a real war, it's not as simple as that. Real war is not laser tag. Nor will engagement with T-72B3s be as one sided as those in the Gulf War against Iraqi T-72Ms. In a peer/near peer conflict Abrams will take casualties. Will this shatter the American view that they can win any war against anyone? Maybe, maybe not. More likely it will result in war becoming less popular among voters overall as the lethality of modern war comes home to the public in the long run like in postwar Britain.

[@gilbertosantos2806]

Speaking of LOGH, i personally liked some of the ship names from the respective factions. The Empire naming their ships after German things, like the "Nurnburg" or "Barbarossa", and the FPA having more sci-fi ish names like "Hyperion" & "Achilles" for their ships.

[@Asdayasman]

The USS Theodore Roosevelt would like a word.

[@rolandli4459]

@@Asdayasman Given that there has been no major vessel (or any, for that matter) named after Teddy Roosevelt during his tenure as president, so I find such concerns superfluous. So, unless Mr. Theodore Roosevelt suddenly rose up from the dead and somehow becomes the president of the US again, we won't have much issue on that front. (What I meant in the original comment, is that naming ships after your "current" leadership, especially during war time, is questionable due to morale concerns.) Naming vessels after past leadership, especially ones that had significant roles in creating your modern fleet, on the other hand, is perfectly appropriate in my opinion.

[@jediblackbelt2443]

"A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guarantee of peace." -Teddy Roosevelt

[@yanivgalmor1747]

“Speak softly and carry a big stick”

[@d.b.4671]

@Michael Denison - In Roosevelt's time, it was probably spelled more commonly with a 'y'. The English language is finicky like that. But in terms of present-day English, you are correct.

[@savyskunk6683]

The u.s has been to war ever since and never been in peace

[@savyskunk6683]

He saying we're lying we want war in modern times

[@aiosquadron]

@@yanivgalmor1747 A photon torpedo is sure big enough. (pa-peww)

[@thevoidlookspretty7079]

I like my doctrine in modded Stellaris: Strap a big gun to one side of a moon, strap a bunch of rockets to another. When that doesn’t work, do the same to a planet. When that doesn’t work, get three planets and 6 moons, do that to them, then strap ‘em to a Dyson sphere. It’s so stupid nothing can counter it.

[@svenneumann2816]

May I introduce you to the concept of making a star go supernova?

[@dottietyre9062]

Lol

[@olafgurke4699]

It's so powerful, not even the game's dated engine can handle it. But the devs paradoxically refuse to upgrade it.

[@goose_dove]

@@olafgurke4699 paradox likes to live up to its' namesake

[@olafgurke4699]

@@goose_dove They definitely do.

[@kazmark_gl8652]

continuing on the point of frigates, the US navy once fielded an "Ice Cream Frigate" to the Pacific theater of WW2, the only thing it did was produce and store ice cream for US servicemen during the fight against the Empire of Japan.

[@zidniafifamani2378]

"Chocolate, Vanilla, Strawberry...so much snacks, so little times"

[@trplankowner3323]

That ice cream was a reward and used as much sought after barter item during the Pacific War. It was tradition that if a submarine rescued a crashed pilot, that pilot's ship would owe the sub a 5 gallon tub of ice cream. I'm not saying that during 1944 USN subs raced around not unlike Sponge Bob with his jellyfishing net, but if someone turned up a photo or film footage of such a thing, I most certainly would not be surprised.

[@zidniafifamani2378]

@@trplankowner3323 ...Goddammit, now I can't shake that imagination out of my mind.

[@trplankowner3323]

Except that the USN didn't have frigates in WW2.

[@mikedangerdoes]

"How did we win the war, Grandpa?" "Well, my child, the USS Frosty Time was our secret weapon"

[@patrikcath1025]

Doctrine: *Railguns* Backup doctrine: *M o r e r a i l g u n s*

[@aethertech]

Backup Backup doctrine: Asteroids and thrusters.

[@koltentaylor221]

@@aethertech Backup Backup Backup doctrine: War moon

[@aiosquadron]

That sounds like something Klingons would do.

[@SkitariiAlpha]

@@aiosquadron *The necrontyr would like to know your location*

[@alexhobbs2209]

you just explained UNSC's war fucking doctrine, their ships are basically flying railguns

[@bsmnt23]

A note about ship classifications that have driven military intelligence analysts and historians crazy over the years. Ship tonnage and classification are usually defined and limited in international treaties. Then as soon as the ink dries on the paper, each signatory of those treaties immediately try to get around the limiting stipulations by building a "frigate" (for example) that is as well armed as the contemporary cruiser and as armored as a destroyer but as long as it is still a "frigate" it remains under the treaty. Numbers are fudged by placing well-armed corvettes under the coast guard or customs office or "mothballing" a shiny new cruiser here and there that can be placed back into active service in about 15 minutes. Same for "training vessels". There's all kinds of fun you have if you look at numbers from a certain point of view.

[@bsmnt23]

oh, well, ok...watching further it looks like you covered that. Oh well, I really should have figured.

[@Poctyk]

>Ship tonnage and classification are usually defined and limited in international treaties. Wasn't there like 2.5 conventions that clearly classified ships? Washington London Montreux about Turkey straights.

[@BurnedBaconGaming]

Rules lawyering during the Washington and London Naval Treaties is hilarious like weighing the ship without fuel to putting battleship grade weapons on submarines. Entire amendments were made that can be summed up as "THAT MEANS YOU JAPAN." Various forms of technically correct all the way to flat out obvious lies followed by "well you go get a scale and weigh it then."

[@PaiSAMSEN]

You can find a lot of hilarious loophole abuse when reading about how EVERY single navies circumnavigate both Washington and London Naval Treaties. Rule : There's a limit on how much heavy cruisers you can make. There's none for light cruisers (aside from total tonnage of your entire navy). The only different between both type of cruisers were the gun calibres. What US and Japan did : Build as many heavy cruisers as they like, then build another type of cruisers on similar/same hull, but use more small caliber guns instead and call it light cruisers. Japan went a step further by building surplus heavy cruisers turret for maintenance purpose, then fit them on their "light" cruiser when the treaty expired. (they're technical issue with it, though) Rule : There's a limit on how many oil replenishment ship you can made, to limit the ability to wage war across an entire ocean. What US did : Made the battleships and aircraft carrier with unusually large ballast tanks that just so happened to be connected to the fuel tank. It just so happened that they can filled these tanks with extra fuel that can also refuel nearby ship. Rule : Ship must be fully loaded when measuring tonnage. What US did : fully loaded main batteries magazines with lighter HE shells. Oh, and remember the ballast tanks I mentioned earlier? They don't need to be filled when measuring tonnage. Come to think of it, some of them are located where you'd expect a fuel tank would be...and the fuel tanks are rather small....hmm......(They managed to squeeze about 10k tons from North Carolina-class this way.)

[@bsmnt23]

@@PaiSAMSEN that was a great read. thanks for this.

[@naomicoffman1315]

39:22 The Lost Fleet has a running joke about ships called Invincible being anything but. The name's such a problem for morale that Captain Geary renames a captured ship (one that's much more valuable for scientific purposes than in combat) Invincible to take the name out of circulation. I always loved that sort of detail, as silly as it is.

[@NerrawGnap]

And then that “Invincible” actually lives up to the name! Honestly one of my favorite scenes in the books! (Also glad to see that I’m *not* the only person who read them after all.)

[@juliemunoz2762]

Marines have traditionally been placed on naval ships to defend those ships from enemy troops bordering. As well as to provide a small assault force for expeditionary or special operations

[@ghostbucket]

Space boarding would be awesome

[@jedhaney3547]

@@ghostbucket It's quite common in scifi...look up Warhammer 40k boarding torpedo...

[@stevemartin4088]

Absolutely correct...most of the various deep water navies have carried marine contingents on their warships. Marines were used to maintain ship security, operations ashore and boarding actions, both as offensive and defensive forces. They were typically carried on ships that were rated 6 or above (small frigates to ships of the line.) In the context of the video, embarking marines on a ship should not be considered as embarking a ground force intended for extensive operations on a planet, or occupation of a planet. Such ships would be assault ships, which would have a more limited ship to ship capability, but may possess sufficient heavy weapons for planetary bombardment. These vessels, along with troop transports would require escort in order to survive in a battle area.

[@ryane3703]

A great sci-fi example of this is the MACOs aboard the Enterprise NX-01 during the conflict with the Xindi. A rare moment in Star Trek where military reasoning is used

[@freedomloverusa3030]

@@ghostbucket I have always waiting for a game where you develop a base, build your ship, and can fight ship to ship, or send your marines in tactical battles. Haven’t found anything like that yet, sadly.

[@morriganshepard]

The Pillar of Autumn is an outlier. It was purpose retrofit for Operation: Red Flag. It carried all that ground support for boarding and capturing a covenant vessel. In addition it was likely that when the spartan IIs landed on the covenant capital that a beach head might be needed or a discrattionary invasion to support the primary mission.

[@spookypepper6900]

That's a good point, however it's not why in this instance it is an outlier. It always bothered my that the UNSC has Marines on every ship when it's clearly not needed as we see the UNSC Navy get pretty much slaughtered. However, the Pillar Of Autumn is an exception, not just because of the refit for Red Flag, but because it was a lifeboat. It wasn't loaded up like in CE just casually always even after the refit, it was stuffed with as much as it could carry before it got the fuck outta dodge for many obvious reasons. It's the only time I forgive the UNSC for carrying so much infantry and stuff they don't need to.

[@bloodysimile4893]

@@spookypepper6900 unsc frigate seem more desgin to help in ground support role when need and protect the breach head. They may just have capable and not be carrying a small all the time but they able to switch role from warship to transport/ground support quickly so the main carrier does have to go around a planet. Amber clad was in the space battle but switch into support role for battle of new Mombasa. Forward unto Dawn was loaded with everything in preparing for everything on whatever is on the other as seen service role as seen in the Ark which is only thing the ship is capable of doing since Elites ships were onlys that stand actual chance in a fleet battle. Elites were free to fight the fleets while human fight the battle they are only capable of, on the ground. In reach they were seen given the role of artillery. See the Covenant covertte performed a support the ground and widen the battle instead of carrier going try to go everywhere. A warship like UNSC frigate were likely best chose to fight ship to ship and able close enough to deliver troops without risking too high a price. The lost would be bad, but it was a small ship, a small lost rather having the carrier being move into the range of the convent battlefleet. Since time is a major in a battle, like how fast the pelicans can be refit, fresh troop send, wounded receive, artillery support. Do you have pelicans possible fly around the world, to be likely interrupted by Covenant portal to reach the carrier or a small ship proketing to support and fight quickly?

[@quindao4431]

wasnt the autumn used for evac after the events of reach that would explain the unneeded personel

[@furimindusties5736]

@@bloodysimile4893 I understood what you said but, I do not intend to offend. Your grammar made me kinda laugh inside. Really good point though.

[@furimindusties5736]

@@quindao4431 yee

[@thomilsvlog4544]

I’m going to have to take exception to your arguments with regards to “medical frigates”, as there are clear precedents to the Rebel Alliance’s actions here on Earth right now. Take the British RFA Argus for example, an auxiliary vessel operated in support of the Royal Navy by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Originally acquired as an Aviation Training Ship, she has since been refitted to act as in effect a hospital ship. As she’s still armed with a couple of miniguns and 20mm Oerlikons, she doesn’t qualify for the legal protections of a hospital ship and is instead referred to as primary casualty receiving ship. I see the Nebulon-B medical frigate in a similar role, primarily equipped as a hospital ship, but still armed for self defence.

[@TemplinInstitute]

That's interesting and something I was unaware of. Thanks for pointing that out!

[@moo4boy]

The way I would do an armed "medical ship" is to only equip it with a few point defence batteries to shoot down incoming missiles. If some of those bullets hit the enemy you can just say "Oops"

[@gnaskar]

Also, the only reason we clearly mark our medical ships is that we have laws of war. The galactic empire is willing to blow up planets to make a point. Against such a foe, I'd feel safer knowing my hospital ships can do a fighting retreat if an imperial patrol happened upon the backwater system it was parked in.

[@Marylandbrony]

Is it weird that i read that in Mark Felton's voice?

[@honestlordcommissarbrighte7921]

We Mark Fealton folks gotta stick together fam.

[@MrMikellsof88]

39:16 - 39:22 Jack Campbell's The Lost Fleet covered that. The Alliance in his series ALWAYS had an "Invincible" in the fleet, and is quick to name a new one when they lose one. IIRC the MC actually reflects on the hubris of challenging the Living Stars by doing so and while engineers within the fleet have tried, fleet personnel on other ships flat out refuse to cannibalize stricken Invincibles to fix their own ships.

[@thehayguy]

I absolutely love that series. His fleet battles are very much how I picture actual space warfare to look like

[@UGNAvalon]

I’d love to see a followup video to this, covering all the additional aspects of naval/interstellar warfare, including: -Boarding actions (as many have pointed out) -Hospital/Wounded-Recovery ships (again, as others have pointed out) -Choke points (we have canals & straits as major trade routes; Mass Effect & EVE Online have Jump Gates, Star Wars has hyperspace lanes (plus Spacedock made a video explaining hyperspace-launch points within systems)) -Related to the above, Blockades, and their impact on interstellar travel (plus blockade-runner ships) -Logistics ships (Spirit of Fire comes to mind) -Stealth ships (Clone Wars had their own space-submarine; Expanse had some too) -Drone Warfare (I think an EVE faction had them? Plus the CIS lucrehulks packed full of culture droids) ; also their impact on conventional human-piloted dogfights (BSG’s Scar comes to mind) -Impact of interstellar distances on travel (modern ships can traverse a globe within weeks, starships might be able to travel the galaxy within similar timeframes (Star Wars), or require accommodations for months-long travel just to get to the next system over (Halo’s cryopods)) -Impact of distance on open-space warfare (Most fighters require line-of-sight distances in order to engage properly (SW especially), but space allows for capital ships to engage each other from beyond visual range (much like the super-battleships of yore)) -Reconnaissance & Data-gathering, both before & during engagements (Most sci-fi tends to forget about the Fog of War, assuming that everything has magical scanners, and only rarely are jammers used, or even mentioned) -The humble Tugs that are used/ignored so frequently near ports (One channel (Spacedock?) had an entire video dedicated to this unsung hero of the Federation) -Communications barriers across interstellar distances (compare to pre-electronic navies of old)

[@honrethgaming8347]

The Galente Federation are the Drone GODS of EVE online. That's their stick. Amar have Lazers, Caldari have Missiles, and the Mimnatar have heavy objects.

[@rommdan2716]

Stealth Ships from The Expanse violates the Thermonidanics laws

[@FearlessSon]

@@rommdan2716 Nah. They have internal heat-sinks, but they can't be used indefinitely. Eventually they need to "go hot" and vent the heat they've been storing up while in stealth mode. It puts them in the same kind of dynamic as diesel submarines, they can only remain hidden for limited periods they use to get into an ambush position from which they can strike decisively. Incidentally, that means that things which don't generate their own heat, such as asteroids, can actually be rendered stealthy for much, much longer than a ship can...

[@233Deadman]

Not just the idea of jammers interfering with data gathering, but how about the expansion into the entire realm of electronic warfare. Would it be a plausible tactic to try and hack the systems of enemy ships like the Cylons do in BSG? How might that affect the idea of drone fighters and even perhaps missile weapons in warfare if the enemy has a chance to turn it against you. Especially since by the time you're build an interstellar navy, computers will likely be infinitely more advanced than modern ones.

[@averagegamer1684]

"You can make it as big as you want" *Thrust to weight ratio has entered the chat*

[@zpascual6869]

Does that even matter in space with little to no gravity or water/air resistance

[@elmateo77]

@@zpascual6869 Absolutely. No gravity and resistance just means that if you don't apply any force you'll keep moving at the same speed in the same direction forever. If your ship has so much mass it takes your engine 3 days to accelerate it to 1 m/s you're not going to be getting anywhere in a hurry.

[@nguyenbagiap7433]

@@zpascual6869 If physic of mass doesn't apply, anyone would just build a fleet consist of titans.

[@TheCaptainTrout]

As an Engineer: *Square Cube Law has entered the Chat*

[@zpascual6869]

Thank you for the answers, was genuinely curious

[@onebigchaz]

Regarding dreadnoughts, while it's unlikely the type name could evolve in exactly the same manner as the historical term, there are other avenues by which it could come into usage. "Dreadnought" is just a fancy way of saying "fears nothing", after all. In a non-Earth setting, it's not outside the realm of possibility that a nation could choose to call their largest capital ship - something that literally has nothing to fear from any enemy vessel it might encounter - a dreadnought. In fact, this is sort of what you touched on in Politics & Ship Types.

[@Dong_Harvey]

Or the navy could respell it as 'Dreadnaut' and it becomes Fear Sailor.. Which can be confusing

[@krispalermo8133]

As I heard/ read years ago, .. Dreadnought is next generation cruisers. A frigate is last generation cruisers. Old wind & sail, frigate was anything light, fast, and cover in light cannons and anti-personal deck clearers. They were meant to collapse ship rigging and not sink the ship. . Cruisers carried heavy cannons to raid " burn "cities and sink other ships.

[@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818]

In my own setting I have designated dreadnoughts as ships that are the same tonnage as battleships, but are slower and often not quite as well armed in exchange for much heavier protection over a battleship, which generally balances firepower with protection and while not cruiser or battlecruiser fast, battleships still have a respectable speed. How they would have gotten the term dreadnought, i still haven't quite figured that out, but it is the closes term to describe such a ship.

[@LumenFox777]

@@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818 For reasoning you could simply base it off the meaning of the name "Fears nothing" that when naming/designing the ship they could have thought that nothing would be able to damage or pierce it and thus should fear nothing. Even if it isn't the case that ships still can damage/pierce it could have just been hopeful optimism that caused them to beleive that but the name stuck around because once everyone is calling something by a name it can be hard for people to change it expecially if it's just what the name of the ship is now.

[@naomicoffman1315]

​@@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818 Assuming this is a setting without Earth, I've always chalked it up to Tolkein logic - it's not *actually* called a dreadnought, because they're not *actually* speaking English. It's just a translation.

[@CommanderWolf888]

"It would be an easy propaganda victory for the Empire if they could prove that the Rebels were hiding behind the sick and wounded." Maybe so, but the counterpoint to that would be that many Imperials wouldn't hesitate to fire on a Rebel hospital ship, armed or otherwise, so the Rebels reasonably would a) arm those ships to give them a fighting chance, and b) keep them guarded within the fleet. So while I agree the Empire could use that as a propaganda boost, it's not unreasonable for the Rebels to want their hospital ships to defended.

[@jeremydale4548]

Yeah. AND it can also be propaganda for the rebels who can easily say that the Empire fires on hospital ships. Plus, in space, what idiot WOULDN'T arm a hospital ship in case it needs to blow an asteroid out of it's way or something?

[@colbygordon6936]

@@jeremydale4548 Except star wars has deflector shields that can do that job easily.

[@jeremydale4548]

@@colbygordon6936 And if the asteroid is too large for a mere deflector shield? All I'm saying is space is dangerous and I doubt anyone would mind if a hospital ship was armed to defend itself when needed.

[@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman]

Not arming everything is unwise

[@paulmahoney7619]

@@jeremydale4548 I think it depends, the space equivalent of CIWS guns are probably fair game, full-on turbolaser batteries definitely not.

[@nerdyredneck40000]

I feel like I need to help clarify what actually makes a "Dreadnought" battleship different from previous battleships. The H.M.S Dreadnought had three key design parameters: one be capable of cruising at least 20 knots for extended time periods, two possess a unified battery system, and three have armor belt resistant to shellfire equivalent to its own main gun battery. To put these points into more general terms a Dreadnought type ship needs to be slightly faster than its contemporaries and maintain that speed for long periods of time without damaging itself, have its weapons organized into batteries according to size and caliber so that they can be ranged in more efficiently, and finally its armor belt (the section of armor that is thickest and spans most of the length of the ship) has to be resistant or outright immune weapons equivalent to the ships own main battery (the biggest weapons on the ship). These parameters of what defines a "Dreadnought" made the dreadnought race inevitable. I hope this info is helpful for anyone crafting stories or just world building in general.

[@MagiconIce]

That also explains the name of the "Dreadnought"-Type, that this ship class doesn't fear anything, since it's armor belt was immune to every gun. But at some point it evolved into navies naming their Dreadnoughts "Battleships" and that stuck. Maybe, I don't know, the guns, in some designs (that never made it to reality like the Shikishima) reaching so large calibers, that you can't put that much armor on a ship so it can't be immune to enemy shells, thus it lost the name "Dreadnought" and just became a Battleship.

[@MagiconIce]

@Nathan Dundas Yeah but think about it, the HMS Dreadnought only had 305mm guns. It triggered an arms race, followingly designed battleships were designed to counter that with armor, thus the armament also increased etc. But Marc got a point in this video: On earth, because of gravity and buoyancy and stuff, you can only pack so much armor on a ship of certain size without causing it to sink. The (hypothetical) Shikishima project of the japanese was supposed to have 515mm guns. I'm not sure that you could put so much armor on a ship to make it immune vs this kind of guns, without causing the ship to drown because of the weight. Basically, only technology ended this particular arms race with the advent of aircraft carriers and later on Anti-Ship-Missiles.

[@PaiSAMSEN]

Even by interwar period, the idea of armoring your ship enough to protect against an increasingly powerful main batteries were becoming increasingly difficult, to the point American (relatively) modern battleships weren't even tried to have enough armor to protect against her own gun. Even if protecting critical area of the ship from main guns were possible, it's still possible to mission-kill a ship by shooting at combat-critical system located outside the area protected by the belt armor. Several battleships found this out the hard way. Japanese battleships Kongo and Hiei, in separated battles, were forced to withdraw from the battle after some ballsy destroyers managed to land a hit with an otherwise harmless gun at the right area.

[@Mortlupo]

And the Battleships were also faster.

[@gokbay3057]

@@MagiconIce no other battleship at the time the Dreadnought was built had guns bigger than 12inch (the ones Dreadnought had)

[@rooseveltbrentwood9654]

So two possible advantages of having troops onboard your ship: If you’re in a low realism/naval themed universe you can use them as a boarding party. Also, If you have a lot unstable/rebellious colonies, a cruiser with a substantial troop capacity might be just the thing you need to keep order in your far flung frontiers.

[@TheRezro]

Agree on that.

[@auggerautenrieth2317]

Plus depending on the time of shielding or lack there of or after shields have been reduced I like the idea of having special troops whom are shot over to ships with no chance of getting anything faster than impulse power and they could either be boarding parties or just tearing through hulls and decks and finishing ships that way Or sending em over during a space battle to destroy, shields or engines and if they could feel or we told a ship was firing up their FTL drive or preparing to jump to hyperspace they could be kamikaze types and could detonate a nuke or few

[@TheRezro]

@@auggerautenrieth2317 You are aware that it would take you averagely a weak to close to target you shooting at? Impulse drive is fictional. And FTL bring tons of new problems, not to mention that any actually advanced ship would be a literal slaughterhouse. I don't have problem when setting actually establish good reason for boarding, but we talking here about kids who think that dreadnought is actual ship type, assault ships don't deliver ground forces and marines are on every ship.

[@rooseveltbrentwood9654]

@@TheRezro I did specify a low realism setting. What he’s saying works in a Star Wars type setting where the ships take the nautical theme pretty far. Even as a kid I wondered why Star Wars had reciprocating energy weapons, but I still found the movies massively entertaining.

[@TankHunter678]

That is actually the reasons the USNC had marines on their ships. Before the Covenant War the UNSC had issues of colonies rebelling, havine marines with armor support on ships that could be cheaply made allowed them to quell numerous uprisings before they could spiral out of control. The Pillar of Autumn specifically was modified for a special mission to take control of an enemy Capital Ship in order to find out where the Covenant's Leadership was. The Marines were there to support the Spartans in this task, with armored units being provided because the most likely scenario where a Covenant Capital Ship could be captured would be a surprise attack while they were landed. Though they also had the option of specially modified Pelican dropships that would fly in while the Pillar of Autumn used its modified triple shot MAC to beat down the shields of the capital ship and the fighters providing cover against enemy fighters.

[@daedalus-N7]

My favorite ship naming convention is from a book series called The lost fleet, by Jack Campbell Battleships and battle cruisers were named after attributes Heavy Cruisers were named after hard objects/minerals like diamond Light Cruisers were named after fast objects/fast actions like Swift or bolo And destroyers were named after weapons like claymore, musket, saber

[@GhostEye31]

And don't forget the running gag of Battleships named Invincible having great misfortunes heaped upon them.

[@kuhluhOG]

16:55 Actually, the Dreadnought was so influential that a lot of people (especially at the time) counted it as an invention of a new ship type. And for a LONG time it was viewed as its own distinct ship type.

[@TheRezro]

Except it was not. Historians distinct pre-Dreadnought category. Also HMS Dreadnought was actually Battlecruiser anyway.

[@gabrielho1874]

​@@TheRezro Powercreep

[@TheRezro]

@@gabrielho1874 Yeh, bane of good SF.

[@gabrielho1874]

@@TheRezro On the topic of HMS Dreadnought, how long that ship hold the "best battleship" title for until it got outclassed and how long until it was hopelessly powercreep by the next generation?

[@TheRezro]

@@gabrielho1874 Not that long. It is quite possible that they start construction counter before it was even finished. The actual revolution were the Fishers ideas.

[@ItsJustVirgil]

So I’m just going to disagree on exactly one point, that being the Marines / Army / whatever equivalent being stationed on ships, and that reason is ship security. Yeah, it’s true that most Navies also have a security or anti-boarding unit on each ship, but they’re usually specifically for that ship. A marine force, even just a squad or two, gives an unparalleled advantage in terms of both defensive action, offensive boarding, and it gives an excellent rapid reaction force in the event a ship goes down on a planet. They can be used as improvised police forces to supplement a space station they’re docked to, they can be used to EVA walk in order to check out derelict craft or small asteroid tunnels, etc etc. They’re not a Swiss Army knife that solves all problems, but they’re one of the tools on the Swiss Army knife, just as useful as all the others.

[@keithsimonh]

On any ship big enough, I always like to design for two dropships and a platoon of security forces as a rough minimum.

[@allenson321]

In his example of the UNSC he forgot that before the war with the covenant that the UNSC had to deal with rebels and that often entailed sending a force unto a planet or station. So by having marines on even the smallest of ships in the navy, they were useful. I can see how in the war with the covenant they would not be as useful however they still have to deal with rebels and having the capacity to drop ODST anywhere on the battlefield still gave then an edge in the war.

[@codyraugh6599]

@@allenson321 I'll be the voice of why the idea is bad, even for the UNSC, and why the Covenant ironically didn't use this very stupid idea. We're talking EVERY ship class, so your aircraft carrier now has turned space that fighters can be fit into into space for warthogs and tanks, vehicles that cannot operate effectively on over 70% of the earth's surface due to this things callwd oceans and then after that rough terrain. Likewise for smaller ships, not only are they not preferred targets for boarding actions, litterally just destroying them being far far simpler and more effective than boarding them, they don't have much space for vital details for things such as ammo and food storage at their designated ship classes, adding marines takes away from ammo or food and adds hungry mouths to feed on a ship most enemies will want to just destroy anyways....that takes marines away from the battlefront and takes away from Admirals and Generals being able to effectively plan for troop deployment on a scale that will make a real difference on a planetary scale, 20-80 dudes who have to hike 300+ kilometers aren't worth the effort, and to deploy the troops in sufficient numbers you've gone from one relatively small deployment area to landing ships across half a continent and/or dramatically lengthening the deployment time. When planning a planetary invasion you need air transports with fuel, the numbers to take and hold at least one city if not dozens, and then the armor and heavy weapons to hold said position or to break enemy armor. All things you're not fitting on a frigate, or a Cruiser serving a dedicated combat role. The Covenant even recognized this and had ships for the designated task of delivering troops, and they wrote off the very idea of ship security since they were a warrior culture so every member of the ship's crew also served as a marine, and it took special forces and authorial bias/a player on the other side of the controller for a Covenant ship to even be boarded successfully...not that the UNSC had much chance in that field since they were dumb enough to put troops on all their ships without a effective method of weaponizing those troops via boarding action, no boarding torpedoes, no designated boarding barge/transport, only a pelican which for a space boarding action is the opposite of a good design. Now if said Universe you live in follows Hollywood logic where all the badguys stop being a problem and just Phantom Menace themselves then yeah a ship with just 2 marines is going to be by far well and good enough to end a galaxy wide war, but following real world military logistics upscaled to at minimum WW2 standards thats just impractical and detrimental, and upsaling to world vs world conflicts it's infeasible to even try, unless your specifically using these marines as a offensive weapon firing them in boarding torpedoes and such, and NOT carrying tanks and land vehicles.

[@yoloman3607]

You don’t seem to understand the tactical situation makes it very obvious why every UNSC ship has a large marine contingent, instead of all fighters or bombers. If the UNSC loses the battle in space, they planet and everyone on it is effectively fucked. The war is also entirely defensive. There is no reason to build an additional specialized troop carrier if it can’t secure or assist in space battles. If every naval ship is also carries marines, they at least have a chance in a combined arms fight since their ship can fight back and can jump away when threatened. A dedicated transport would instead be even more vulnerable than a slightly less efficient warship and most likely be destroyed first. When the UNSC is barely able to stay afloat with their inferior tech base, it isn’t a stretch to see their captain sacrificing a pure troop transport to get away or gain an advantage just like their refit platforms. It also doesn’t hurt to mention how ineffective the outclassed marines are, so it is even more understandable that such little attention was given to giving UNSC marines obtaining their own dedicated transport ships. Fighters of the UNSC are also hopelessly outclassed and nearly useless in fleet battles. They simply lack the punch of a MAC or plasma cannon needed to punch through warship shields, so there is no need to have more than needed to destroy enemy recon pickets.

[@codyraugh6599]

@@yoloman3607 for the very reasons you listed there is NO reason to field GROUND forces on a ship of the line. What are they going to do shot their rifles out a airlock and suddenly stop the plasma torpedoes and energy lances that will destroy the ship? And notce it's a defensive war, the civilians are they evacuating onto the warships, who by virtue of being warships have to stay until the very end? Do the marines have to stick around pointlessly dying on ships where they per the books and games cannot do jack? Or does the UNSC navy suddenly have orders to run away at the first sign of Covenant leaving civilians to their fate? A dedicated troop transport ALWAYS opens more opportunities for combat ships than having to play a pointless duel role. The marines could have already been off workd with their supplies instead they died with captain dumbass who stayed too long to save civilians, or those civilians could have lived, maybe even hitched a ride with the marines, instead they all died because their only ticket off planet had a covvie armada behind it. Duel role ships like this only work in Star Trek where kogic and logistics are thrown out the window.

[@saj2392]

*Dreadnaught:* Mass Effect: Fleet anchor and powerful ship to duke it out. Star Wars: Fleet anchor and powerful ship to duke it out. Warhammer 40K: Suit of power armour...

[@weldonwin]

Not a suit of armor, Dreadnoughts are basically cyborgs, since the 'pilot' is permanently surgically implanted into them

[@McCheese-xc9ig]

@@weldonwin He could be talking about Tactical Dreadnought Armor, AKA Terminator armor.

[@Rtgv123]

Actually in star wars most powerful ships are destroyer

[@fadelsukoco3092]

Siddhant Yelve Except that Star Destroyers are not actually destroyers, they are their own proper ship classification.

[@weldonwin]

@@fadelsukoco3092 In universe, Star Destroyer is more like a corporate brand, something the marketing division at Kuat Drive Yards came up with in order to make their line of big battleships sound cool. Likewise in Babylon 5, Earthforce's mainline battleship is called a Destroyer and its cruisers are much smaller vessels, because the writers thought that Destroyer sounded more badass.

[@thecoolerrats7144]

The UNC’s doctrine of having marines on board makes a little sense when you consider that the Covenant liked to perform boarding actions.

[@thecoolerrats7144]

Granted most of their navy predates the covenant war, but before the point of their navy was power projection and subduing rebelling colonies, in which case I feel like it still makes sense to have marine compliments aboard for ground action.

[@colscottoneill]

We also have to remember that the Pillar of Autumn was evacuating equipment and personnel from a besieged planet and most did not know that the Halo was the indented destination as it was supposed to be a random jump.

[@themastermason1]

Number of personal kills is one of the major factors in Sangheili promotion in the Covenant.

[@SpaceNerd117]

@@colscottoneill It had also just been stocked up for a mission to capture a Prophet.

[@LostMaster100]

@@SpaceNerd117 the problem is , why the hell has this ship so much space to even host a half army. It suppose to be a cruiser not a transporter.

[@joshuamiller7502]

As far as what you said about keeping landing forces aboard warships. While full planetary invasion forces shouldnt be kept, historically small detachments of marines are routinely assigned to large warships for a myriad of duties. I can see that being even more prevalent in space, since when you disable a spaceship it doesnt just sink into the ocean, and theres a real chance to the crew will be able to salvage the ship enough to limp home if you leave it, or even reactivate some weapons, even in circumstances you thought that would be impossible. Boarding actions will likely be the inevitable ending to space battles, unless you just want to entirely obliterate the entire ship which would take a lot of time and waste tons(litterally) of resources. Here it would likely be very beneficial to keep a relevant-sized garrison of marines aboard any ship that can fit them. As a trained force of marines would have a MUCH easier time of fighting off your boarders long enough for help to arrive than normal Navy Spacemen would. And on bigger ships like battleships I can totally see massive rooms hundreds of meters in size being used for all kinds of things, and therefor potentially space for armored defence vehicles to give you an even greater advantage there.

[@Indoor_Carrot]

"Having soldiers onboard your ships is kindof useless in a space battle" *laughs in 40K*

[@TheRezro]

40k is straight fantasy. Like they FTL through hell.

[@501ststormtrooper9]

*Laughs in Heavy Gravity Stormtroopers literally tipping apart frigates*

[@doorknockerpingu6932]

Its for when your commanders love to use "boarding rams" laughs in fenrisian....

[@Mikalent]

@@doorknockerpingu6932 when the HALO Covenant would rather board your ship to plant a bomb, rather than just let the swarm of smaller craft bomb your ship into oblivion.

[@AlbertoMartinez765]

yeah going to disagree there, Soldiers aboard ships ,specifically marines are Used for Boarding, security and Defense against enemy boarding..sailors are NOT trained for that kind of Close Quarters combat.

[@Bondubras]

In the Honor Harrington series by David Weber, the main propulsion method used is gravity manipulation. And the systems impose a specific design constraint on the ships themselves, with combat vessels being a dumbbell shape, using a cylindrical center with blocky hammer like structures on the ends, with the propulsion systems themselves being mounted to rings at the junctions where these two structures meet. The so-called 'wedges' of stressed gravity actually serve multiple purposes: As stated before, propulsion is the first use. It's also used as a defensive measure. In-universe, the wedges are impenetrable barriers that will rip apart any incoming projectiles, but there's also a vulnerability in the front and back to 'down the throat' and 'up the kilt' shots due to the nature of the technology. But these wedges are also used on smaller craft, but that can be a double-edged sword. In one book, a small shuttle was hacked to activate it's wedge while still docked in the hangar of a larger capital ship. The resulting wedge interference between the shuttle and the larger ship triggered an explosion that completely annihilated both ships in question and caused an EMP that caused a system wide blackout for several hours. Anti missile countermeasures also take advantage of that effect. In-universe, ship-killer missiles are the primary offensive weapon type, with powerful x-ray warheads that pump enough energy into ship armor to melt it completely. And the best countermeasure is to use smaller missiles that don't have warheads themselves, but instead use their drive wedges to interfere with the drive wedges of ship killers and destroy both missiles. Carriers are also a very recent development in-universe, with specialized fighter-type craft specifically built to handle that kind of combat being launched from a heavily modified Battleship hull that had all it's side armor replaced with movable blast doors. Obviously, since it's so early into their usage (The idea was first introduced 6 or 7 books into the series, iirc), there's a lot of problems. Tldr: David Weber's Honor Harrington series is one of the better examples I've seen of an interstellar navy.

[@JohnYossarian]

"A ship without Marines is like a garment without buttons." -Adm. David Porter, USN A detachment of Marines aboard a ship enables meaningful participation in boarding actions and amphibious assaults, as well as protecting the ship while in port. There have been a few articles not readily googled in Proceedings, published by the US Naval Institute, on the benefits of a modular approach to future ship design allowing for mission packages tailored to hauling jarheads or civilian medical specialists or supplies for humanitarian aid. While they may not be sniping from the rigging, they'd be better utilized as the default teams for VBSS and customs enforcement instead of assigning ancillary duties to the rest of ship's company.

[@jonnomonodesu]

Marines also provide the oppertunity for dedicated damage control parties without further reducing the ship's compliment while in action where every able bodied hand is required for combat operations. Think I learned that school of thought from the Honor Harrington series.

[@josephahner3031]

Realistically boarding actions in space are a ridiculous concept when combat would likely take place at ranges measured in tens of thousands of miles, maybe even millions of miles.

[@belldrop7365]

"A spaceship full of marines, is like a spacesuit full of buttons." - Einstein.

[@DarkAshenfall]

@@josephahner3031 The concept of space battles happening at such ranges is forgetting one key fact: travel time. Regardless of whether its a projectile or an energy beam, it has to travel to its target. Even a laser beam would appear 'slow' at such distances. Computer systems, by the time space combat on that scale becomes viable, would be so advanced they could easily see/predict/calculate the lasers flight path with more than enough time to spare for the ship to lazily make a minor course adjustment with thrusters (not even main engines) and be well out of the way of the laser by the time it reached the spot the ship had previous occupied. Rapid fire of a laser to saturate an area could still be countered by constant movement or through the use of point defense. Missiles suffer from the same issue. While missiles can track, they would easily fall victim to a point defense system. Given the great distances, a point defense system would have 'forever' to shoot the missile. For these reasons alone, plus others I am not even thinking of, combat in space would have to be in the same relative distances that occurs on Earth. There would be no point to that kind of warfare, because no one would be able to kill each other. It would just be a ludicrous and endless game of dodge ball.

[@jesseberg3271]

@@josephahner3031 that assuming you never need to capture a ship or station intact. In space, even an unarmed auxiliary or freighter can just keep moving, daring an enemy to shoot it, assuming it has something onboard that is worth aquirring. Likewise, space stations may not only be essential infrastructure for capturing and holding a system, but the risk of deorbiting one onto an inhabited planet may be far too great to contemplate, especially if your nation is trying to avoid a war of mutual kinetic bombardment. In both situations, having a dedicated force of zero-gee trained and space suit armored infantry (i.e. Space Marines) would be extremely useful and cost-effective.

[@nddragoon]

my favorite example of naming conventions in sci-fi are the Laconian magnetar-class ships from the later books of The Expanse. They're called Voice of the Whirlwind, Heart of the Tempest, and Eye of the Typhoon. such an awesome and consistent scheme

[@RealGracefulGoose]

The Laconian Navy is probably the single coolest space navy in all of sci-fi lol

[@regalplays7135]

On the naming of ships, a lot of thought goes into specific names. The name Enterprise, for example, was one of the first ships in the US Navy and so it’s been reused and kept in service throughout history. Several of the first batch of Essex-class carriers were named for carriers sunk earlier in the war (Yorktown, Hornet, Lexington) to serve a bit of a propaganda role

[@RobtheStampede]

The Space Shuttle Enterprise is also acknowledged as one of the ships to bear the name is Star Trek even though it's named after the TV show. Think about that.

[@Dong_Harvey]

@@RobtheStampede the Space Shuttle was named after both StarTrek and US Naval ships, after all there is also the Endeavor, named after rthe HMS Endeavor or Bark Endeavor.. But then again there is the Atlantis

[@tylersoto7465]

Would a heavy destroyer/ carrier ship hybrid be a good idea?

[@D3LTA48]

I always saw Dreadnoughts in a sci-fi setting as a ship which was more or less a weapons platform. i.e. a ship which was dedicated to the operation of a powerful weapon used in either ship-to-ship or ship-to-planet combat. In the game Stellaris, Colossus type ships are equiped with one of five diffrent weapon of mass destructions which ranged from your standard World Cracker to the grey goo Nanobot Diffuser.

[@electronicmayonnaise5692]

Another game to check out.

[@shadowconquer-yv5yd]

Good game and as expected of a paradox game you would have too manage a lot of things and the end game lag. You can go for RP playthroughs or challenging ones. Although you would have to spend a lot of money for the dlcs.

[@ComradeRedmond]

"In space combat, tanks wouldn't be useful" **remembers that one time in star wars where they put at-te's on asteroids to ambush droid ships from below**

[@awolpyro6400]

I was thinking the exact same thing when that came up.

[@mattmanhero2375]

The natural spin on all (99% of) astroids + the tanks recoil increasing that spin would make that impossible irl. Tho it was cool to watch

[@bluelionsage99]

Well, if you have BattleMechs (or Gundams, etc if from Asia rather than the US with your sci fi) then just like the at-tes you can station your mechs on the skin of your ship.

[@awolpyro6400]

@@mattmanhero2375 aah I didn't think of that, but what about lasers? I know we don't have actual laser guns, we have some degree of one's built but nothing like star wars. I'm not sure on the specifics but doesn't a laser when shot only go one true direction? Instead of a bullet where you have to calculate the shot, like speed and trajectory? Or am I just stupid and over thinking right now lol.

[@d3str0i3r]

@@awolpyro6400 lasers are a good point, a friend's math says that even a laser the size of the death star's would only have about the recoil of a handgun

[@KiithNaabal]

The "Lost Fleet" from John G. Hemry has a very details naming convention and big differentiation of ship types. Surprisingly they have not carriers like you predicted, instead they most "capital" ships have shuttles and dropships. There is also a ship type specilised to supply and logistics which is actually a mining + factory ship. The argument is that in space supply lines become unsustainable and resources are readily available through astroids and gas-giants, so why not harvest them there?

[@lord6617]

The reason they don't have carriers isn't surprising - ships pass each other at meaningful fractions of the speed of light and weapons fire based on computer calculations in passing engagements. There's no room for a "fighter craft" level of of maneuver combat that carriers bring to the table. There isn't much "piloting" but rather calculations plotted for navigation.

[@longshot007]

interstellar example: Yamato Martime example: Yamato

[@tigara1290]

That's what happens when you let the japanese gloat over and make anime about their "WW2 glory"

[@pompiliosouto2480]

@@tigara1290 I wouldn't call it gloating, more like reminiscing and trying to "make up" for their failures. I mean, it's no coincidence that "Operation M2" is used so much in anime for pivotal battles usually won by the "good guys". It's the name they gave to the Battle of Midway, which was... quite the smackdown for them, to put it lightly.

[@米空軍パイロット]

It's not even a good example for a space battleship. It's one of the most agile scifi warship he brought up. It's just an all-around overpowered vessel.

[@cupojoe9462]

"An example would be the Yamato" "As space ship or sea ship?" "Yes"

[@ThePCguy17]

@@tigara1290 Did you not watch the show? It was pretty much all about how you have to be careful about propaganda and warmongering tendencies from your government, a blatant object lesson based on the memories of the second world war. Sure, the Yamato itself is stupidly powerful compared to its contemporaries, but the crew of the ship deal with some pretty major moral quandaries over the course of the show, some of which even paint humanity (who for all intents and purposes are entirely Japanese because it's a show from Japan) as pretty shady individuals with little to no honor. And one thing the show is careful to _never_ do is gloat about 'the glory of war.' War is hell, and SBS Yamato is all about convincing you of that.

[@aerilum]

First thought: Wow, nice idea for the video, gotta watch! Second thought: HOLY SHIT 40 MINUTES

[@matthiasbecker5064]

And i DO NOT think any single minute of that is wasted!

[@aurnoradasati6896]

wuh woh

[@marrqi7wini54]

Well time to get a drink and a snack.

[@ThatJerseyBloke]

Yeah, but it's a good and informative 40 minutes. (Hudson)

[@ChargeUp_CampOut]

Didn't even look at the time, I just saw the title and I was like "yes please!"

[@tTaseric]

22:40 The Pillar of Autumn was one of the few ships able to escape Reach, which was the UNSC's largest military stronghold aside from Earth. It's possible that ships were ordered to stock as many supplies as they could before attempting to retreat back to Earth, in order to boost defenses.

[@Orinslayer]

Also the thought that a couple brigades worth of materiel can some how burden a 9 million ton light cruiser is highly funny.

[@Saltymeatman]

Pillar of Autumn is not an ideal example. It was specially refitted with extra marine/ODST/armor detachments for a special operation to seek out and capture one of the Covenant's prophets. The Halcyon class (of which it was originally) was normally not equipped for such ground assault missions.

[@nguyenten6877]

@@Saltymeatman Halcyon class actually.

[@Saltymeatman]

@@nguyenten6877 doh! edited. :) thanks!

[@reddragon4482]

Agreed. I remember fighting my way to the ship with cortana at the end of the game. ( that was a bastard on legendary lol)

[@colonelx185]

The reason the Executor SSD was designated as a 'Star Dreadnought' was because of the fact that one of the ships the Galactic Republic used was called the Dreadnought heavy cruiser

[@kharilane1340]

Indeed

[@ryanlaurie8733]

Dreadnought just means "Fear Nothing" in archaic terms so... Yeah.

[@marykateharmon]

@@ryanlaurie8733 More it was a pun. There's a verse in the Bible in the KJV that says in part "Fear the Lord and dread naught." And so, the guy that named the Dreadnought class basically just said. "Fear the Lord and Dreadnought."

[@KilroyMosin38]

35:00 It's worth noting that while navies tend to have fairly consistent naming conversations for ship types, the exact naming convention is usually dictated by the class name and the lead ship. For instance, Ohio-class submarines are named after states, Nimitz-class carriers are named after either Chiefs of Naval Operations or presidents, Britain's County-class cruisers were named after British counties. If different ships of the same type have different names, distinguish them by class. US carriers were mostly named after battles until one Midway-class carrier was named after the late FDR, thus beginning a new trend. Just some world building food for thought.

[@MrMarinus18]

With the US cruisers were usually named after cities and destroyers after heroes.

[@martyndyson9501]

Britain 1800's on upto mid 1900's had the best names for ships, i find naming them after cities/generals or other important/famous people very boring! Nothing was off the cards really for the names the Brits used back then, things like HMS Magic or HMS Vampire, HMS Warspite just to name a few very different styles of name, but for me they work, unfortunately even us Brits have ended up going down the road of famous names and cities far too much! Even before the age of steam the old boats of sail us Brits still had cool names like Golden hind or Queen Ann's Revenge! Id love to see these types of names used again in the British Navy! HMS Balaraphon!

[@MrMarinus18]

@@martyndyson9501 I think in terms of naming scheme's the best was actually the US with enemy planes.

[@MrMarinus18]

@@martyndyson9501 Queen Ann's revenge was not a British ship. It was originally a French ship that was captured by the legendary English pirate Blackbeard that was originally called "Concorde". Yes that's where they got the name of that plane from. Edward Teach, aka blackbeard got all his naval experience from the Queen Ann's war and became a pirate because he was fired when the war ended.

[@martyndyson9501]

@@MrMarinus18 i was talking about the name not where the ship was built, the British being the best at naming ships! Nothing to do with where the ships were built.

[@nathansibley9749]

It'a hilarious that the Yamato is used as both the maritime example and the interstellar example. Gotta love crazy anime stories.

[@Delgen1951]

it is Also in the board game Star Fleet Battels as the USS Yamato Battleship of the Ferdation.

[@absboodoo]

@@Delgen1951 Always love the idea that there are quite a few famous non-USN oriented ship names in Starfleet.

[@podemosurss8316]

*Laughs in admiral Okita

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

15:20 In Leijiverse. the two ships are ONE and same. The spaceship iteration was the original designs by Leiji Matsumoto. the show itself however was once contested between him and his former employer, Yoshinobu Nishizaki. When asked. Leiji Matsumoto cited that the Space Yamato has a lenght of IJN Yamato + 30 meters of jet aft (still some 200 meters long). in 2199 remake the ship is 333 meters long

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

@@DiscothecaImperialis I mean in the show they literally use the hulk of the yamato to build the starship into, so yeah. Its the same ship.

[@Artemis0713]

"Interstellar example: Yamato Class" "maritime example: Yamato Class" Well you're not wrong. But I really wish you hadn't done the we

[@Charistoph]

Especially when both were dreadnoughts...

[@franciscoaraujo6624]

wouldn’t the Yamato (not the IRL Yamato) be considered what he called a battlecarrier? Battleship and carrier hybrid

[@Barri2410]

@@franciscoaraujo6624 not really 'cuz the aircraft carried are quite low. Compare that to the _Apollo Norm,_ _Antares,_ and _Neu Balgrey_

[@johnilarde8440]

Upper Yamato: Useful Lower Yamato: Useless (Seriously, who the fuck construct a battleship but just parade it on the sea and not put it on most of the battles then have a bad idea to use it to halt carriers even though carrier planes can destroy battleships).

[@Barri2410]

@@johnilarde8440 _2199_ fix that by adding missiles (remember when _Yamato_ goes upside down on Pluto surface to destroy a reflection satellite? Those are the ventral missile launchers)

[@boxtears]

I like what you said about needing to avoid slapping too many labels onto a ship type to try to make it sound cooler or more specialized. I use terms like 'command' and 'tactical' in my setting, but not for those reasons. In my setting, major interstellar powers officially renounced the use of dedicated warships following a massively destructive conflict, but over the decades needed to maintain security using increasingly advanced and more heavily armed vessels. Terms like 'destroyer' and 'battlecruiser' were subsequently omitted in favor of more euphemistic, less overtly aggressive designations like 'frigate' and 'cruiser'. As a result (through politics like you also mentioned), fleets became jam-packed with ships that were officially classified as things like patrol corvettes, expedition frigates, escort frigates, heavy cruisers, command cruisers, assistance carriers and so on - specifically to avoid (however flimsily) classifications that implied a direct and dedicated combat role. Ships known as tactical cruisers were only recently introduced, the term basically unavoidable considering their blatant strategic role, and are of course currently viewed as highly controversial.

[@ppenmudera4687]

The way I personally identify Juggernoughts/Behemoths/Dreadnoughts: any ship that is made solely to scare the enemy. The ship will be so big, full of weapons and other stuff that everyone knows the ship will break if it fires any of its weapons, but its size alone will make the enemy uncomfortable and uncertain. I imagine smaller powers using these ships to show 'hey guys, yeah we can make big ships too! Respect us please!' The OPAS Behemoth from the Expanse is my go-to example for this type of ship: it's massive and scary and will go boom if it fires, but it shows that the Belt is more than just an exploit colony, and that the Beltalowda are willing to fight for their rights.

[@eps200]

The stellaris juggernaut fits what Mark said, it's a shipyard with a hyper-drive, with long range weapons on the nose and fleet carriers welded to each wing.

[@noytelinu]

So the Tarkin Doctrine but no death star.

[@The_Viscount]

"This is a weapon of terror: it is designed to intimidate the enemy. This is a weapon of war: it is designed to kill your enemy!" --Jack O'Niell comparing Gould Staff Blaster to P90 SMG.

[@Hammerheadcruiser]

I think the fear comes with the territory of building something so impressive that when used as intended, wins. They may be massively inefficient and 95% of the time a waste of resources, but sometimes it's a winning strategy to be able to say 'yea that battle? I win that one. Cause I brought a super unit and you didn't". They're the kind of unit that entire theaters and even entire wars revolve around, which the enemy must respond to or be defeated. When used correctly, they can win a key battle by making a critical breakthrough, destroying a key target or forcing the enemy to dance to your tune. Examples of this are 40k titans, Sins of a Solar Empire titans and Star Wars super star destroyers or subjugator heavy cruisers.

[@marcus1997leung]

Hammerheadcruiser I feels like you are describing nuclear weapons of our world. Something extremely destructive, expensive af to build and maintain, but you probably would never use them.

[@AgentExeider]

23:44 *"I'm not sure I understand the point of these..."* They're Space Penises. I'm serious, the primary purpose of Titans is to inspire fear and convey a sense of overwhelming power, that your enemy would rather just surrender to you then risk being completely and utterly annihilated. This is why Titans have limited role capability, often have some flaw in their design, sometimes fatal flaw, and generally are cumbersome, expensive, and unwieldy, yet they are built anyway. And in fact, the only thing that often makes them even worth it, is they are also often the platform for some kind of devastating superweapon or doomsday weapon that can destroy a fixed emplacement or enemy stronghold in a single shot. It literally is for the purposes of "displaying power and superiority." IE Space Penis. Imagine the Death Star but withOUT its super laser. It's been said by several naval analysts that if it wasn't for the superweapon, the death star would be a waste and it would be better to spend that money on a bunch of aircraft carriers and troop transports because, from a practical military standpoint, that would be money better spent.

[@apotato6278]

In many ways it's an equivalent to our world's nuclear bombers and arsenals. "We have something that will utterly obliterate you. Stop fighting or we will use it". When that massive space penis is gearing up to fire its hot load you know you're in trouble.

[@501ststormtrooper9]

I feel mildly threatened now.

[@DFX2KX]

That sums it up pretty well. I've tried to implement them, but with the exception of one (where the Captain recognized the sheer excess, and tried to make the ship more useful then she'd otherwise be) they came out poorly. The only other use aside from 'space phallus' would be 'mobile theater operations command'. I gave the Vanquish the ability to service smaller vessels and make fuel in a pinch. The idea being that, even with FTL, communication takes time, so having command for a theater on a dedicated vessel that could repair it's escorts seemed less silly justification. But it could be a space phallus if need be. Still ridiculous, though. The Death Star didn't seem silly to me until I realized the Vanquish was a small fraction of it's mass...

[@paulmahoney7619]

Something I'd like to add is the possibility of boarding actions. When most nations have mutually intelligible tech bases, then capturing a capital ship might be worth the effort, to recommission it, study it, or maybe even sell it for scrap. While tanks and similar ground vehicles don't make sense, having maybe one or two platoons of marines for every few hundred sailors might make sense just to defend from enemy boarders, alongside the vehicles to board other ships if you want to go on the offensive. While not very popular now, depending on the naval tactics and technology boarding actions could range from a high-risk high-reward strategy to a good way to kill hundreds of marines and lose dozens of dropships.

[@edur97]

Agreed also marine compartments are not dead weight by necessity in a ship to ship engagememt. They could simply be trained to operate some of the secondary or tertiary weaponry and thus lowering the required amout of naval personell while still allowing for effective boarding actions or defence against them.

[@Xazamas]

In Warhammer 40 000, Imperial Navy often sends boarders just to deal damage to the enemy ship. Not sure how much sense this makes, but lore claims that Imperial Ships house large amounts of "excess" population on them where to draw manpower.

[@MrJH101]

It should also be noted that in the example of the _UNSC Pillar of Autumn_ he mentioned, the ground vehicles were on board the ship because they were preparing for a mission to capture a High Prophet.

[@coreymicallef365]

I'd like to add to your point. Take a look at the size of most of these sci-fi ships, they're often into the many hundreds of thousands or millions of tons, then compare that to the carrying capacity of a real life assault ship. A Wasp class ship can carry around 1687 marines, 12 amphibious assault craft, and a notably sized flight group (it differs in size depending on the its mission) in a 45,000 ton vessel and a Canberra class LHD can carry 1046 troops, 110 vehicles, at least 8 helicopters and 4 amphibious assault craft in a 27,000 ton vessel. When you're generally thinking of an on board marine element aboard most space navy ships they're generally a lot smaller than either of these examples in as noted above much larger ships, so adding an extra maybe 0.2-1% of the mass in the ship to be able to carry them in return for the extra flexibility in operations you brought up.

[@Mortlupo]

In fact the whole formation of Marines was for defense against boarding actions and carry out boarding actions on other vessels. You didn't use sailors, they are needed to man YOUR ship, you used Marines or Navel Infantry.

[@kmr_tl4509]

19:08 In Starsector, there are dedicated carrier classes that can hold 2-5 fighter wings, but everything bigger than a frigate can convert their cargo holds to hold a single fighter wing, at a small penalty to fighter effectiveness. 25:35 Their equivalent to submarines are phase ships, which can phase to avoid enemy fire, but are still detectable and cannot be attacked. I think that's a great analogue.

[@icyknightmare4592]

23:45 In Stellaris, these roles are clearly defined and very distinct from each other. Just pointing it out since you used Stellaris art for that section. Titan: A kind of super heavy capital ship built around a massive ultra long range energy projector (the Perdition Beam or Titan Lance). It's more like a giant weapon with a ship built around it. Strictly an anti capital ship, anti station vessel. They also provide some fleet support through "auras", which are things like swarms of repair nanos, electronic warfare, fleetwide targeting AI, etc. Typically a flagship, late game fleets usually have 1-2 titans. Juggernaut: Juggernauts are mobile support bases. They have enough weapons to be threatening, but their primary role is as a forward staging point for sustaining fleet operations far from friendly bases. Juggernauts can repair and reinforce deployed fleets with their built in shipyards, and provide even stronger support to nearby fleets than a Titan. They are the be all and end all of support vessels in the Stellaris universe. They're tough, but vulnerable in direct combat. Colossus: The Colossus is a mobile planet destroyer with no means of self defense. They have one weapon, which depending on what you equip it with, will crack a planet, sterilize the surface, encase it in an impenetrable shield, or other effects. Colossi are completely useless in a fleet engagement, and are mostly terror weapons whose only really legitimate use is against worlds so heavily fortified it would take years to invade. Their main benefit in gameplay is opening up the Total War CB, which allows you to simply bypass territorial claims and just take anything you can capture. It's basically a license to conquer the galaxy.

[@hesseldekraai]

It is kinda sad that these special types of classes weren't really discussed. Like space is a very different medium compared to water and you should expect the ship classes to reflect that.

[@squashiejoshie200000]

The thing that isn't being accounted for here is what can be termed and early space "battleship", which would likely be an asteroid that is shaped, armed, armored, and given engines (especially if interstellar travel is unreliable and generation ships are required). In that case, a battleship would measure kilometers in both length and width, containing everything required to sustain a population of thousands, and just 1 would be enough to sweep entire navies made of smaller ships. The next step from this would be your titan class, but those would be ships simply designed to put a dent into a multi-kilometer armored vessel. A cruiser or destroyer (but I call it a destroyer because that's what it does). "But destroyers shouldn't be that big. Destroyers are small. Titan class ships the size that you are proposing require massive amounts of investment." Yes, on a planetary scale, that is true. However, even our own stellar system contains enough raw materials to make a small fleet of ships that size. This would of course only follow on after ftl engines become viable. The next stage is to start building smaller ships that are still viable in an environment of converted asteroids. The minimum size for a frigate would be about the size of a current generation aircraft carrier, while any interplanetary fighter craft would need to be about the size of a modern frigate at least. The most dangerous weapons in this environment would be anti-matter missiles as radiological attack would have been rendered next to useless by technological advances in shields and material radiation proofing. Any weapon that can utilize gravitons would be effective after any kind of shield that may be raised against them is removed (the ability to utilize them as weapons would also necessarily give the capability to control and defend against them). As for carrier craft, there is no need, as the destroyers could carry a few wings of fighter craft. There would need to be a troop carrier/cargo carrier vessels that have no lower limits on their space and in fact get more efficient the larger they are (allowing for power requirements). Troop carriers, if standardized, would measure in excess of 10km long and 2km wide and be at least 1km deep, with massively more space allowed as these dimensions increase. This is necessary because the number of soldiers required to conquer an established planet would be a minimum of 1 million (accounting for increased efficiency in land based engagements, and orbital support. Bear in mind the armies leveraged in WW2 and the size of the population at the time. If we were to talk a modern military, we would need at least 10x that). Restrictions about this kind of thing in games and movies come from "lets design a space navy" not "how might a space navy evolve?", that being a far more reliable question. Certainly, parts of the design would change. The destroyers may shrink if the power systems required to operate their titan cannon grow more efficient, or they may remain the same size, but be converted to launch more fighter wings. Frigates wouldn't shrink, but would become more well armed and armored, the same with fighter aircraft which may even get larger as drive systems improve. Bear in mind the minimum effort space craft is a converted asteroid that may be 10+kmx10+kmx10+km, armed with every kind of weapon conceivable with them literally sunk kilometers into the surface, and armored with up to a kilometer of rock, metals and other armoring technologies like heat resistant aerogels or superconducting power grids that power lasers that would literally be shooting your own energy weapons back at you.

[@danieldorn2927]

I havent played Stellaris since it came out Maybe I should take a look into it again

[@Troglodytarum]

@@danieldorn2927 You can crack planets and purge xenos. What isn't there to love?

[@masonwilliams1345]

So a titan is just a space boat A-10 with an AOE buff

[@The_Viscount]

Currently reading a book on the history of the London Naval Treaty of 1930. It goes into a lot of detail on ship classification and what drove name and design dictates of the interwar period. Highly recommend: At the Crossroads Between Peace and War by Maurer Bell. Hey, Templin, amateur military naval historian here. Something to keep in mind is that our perception and tropes for what roles ships take were mainly created artificially during the inter-war naval treaties. The idea of destroyer, light cruiser, heavy cruiser, capital ship, and aircraft carrier were solidified with the Washington Naval Treaty and later London Naval treaties. Sure, the basic concepts all make appearances before World War 1, but the actual roles themselves were all rather blurry in definition because ship types evolved from one class to another. Post World War 2, these treaties no longer apply and we see a return to the nebulous distinction between ship designation. The Arleigh Burke class destroyer is larger than the older Ticonderoga class cruiser and actually, arguably more capable. The Frigite, when originally conceived, was equivalent to the stereotypical cruiser, a middle weight ship capable of either supporting the battle fleet, or patrolling long range alone. Of course, over hundreds of years, the name changed meaning to mean what was once called a sloop in most navies, although the Royal Navy maintained the term sloop into the early 20th century and beyond. There's no reason that 400 years from now destroyer would be a term for what we would call a destroyer. Say the first space warship is a patrol shuttle. Then the development of ships to intercept those shuttles with hit and run tactics from long range. Say we call them interceptors. Perhaps you develop heavy patrol ships to counter these interceptors, and then even larger ships are developed to anchor a battle line. You'd clearly call the anchoring ships either flagships or battleships, but maybe you call the interceptors "heavy escort destroyers" and over time that becomes just "Destroyers." One of my favorite examples is the classifications is the old Freespace series. They use corvette, cruiser, destroyer, etc, but the sizes are not what you'd expect based on classical tropes, and again, with ship design and politics being an active evolution, why should it?

[@Shinzon23]

Interesting discussion; I see a lot of sci fi ships arbitrarily named like "destroyer", "Cruiser", etc... drives me nuts. Glad to see you discuss it.

[@krthecarguy5150]

Well, it's based on Naval ships, so Destroyer and Cruiser are just safe bets to still be recognizable. If you'd call a ship a "Commander" people wouldn't know what to imagine, but if you'd say "Destroyer" people know what to expect, as they know what the real life ships do.

[@Shinzon23]

@@krthecarguy5150 except that the term "destroyer" is arbitrarily used for ships that range from "Tiny", like 50 meters or so in length, all the way to "Oh my god!" kilometer plus ships. Even modern "Destroyers" don't fit the term "destroyer" very well, since up until about the '50's, destroyers were merely ships that normally carried torpedoes, had a decent turn of speed, equipment for detecting and destroying submarines, and fast firing guns suitable for destroying torpedo boats (Which is where the name for the class came from, "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" )

[@volodymyrboitchouk]

You know what would be cool, having naming conventions that are not based in our own history. For instance, immagine a sci fi or fantasy situation where ships are organized not according to size but according to use. So you could have cruisers be a term for ships intended for long range voyages regardless of size, destroyers are just main line warships that prioritize firepower regardless of size and frigates would be designed around femding off smaller vessels. So you could have massive destroyers equivalent to what we would call a battleship while there are cruisers as small as corvettes. Scifi and fantasy provide alot of potential for leaving behind the conventions of our world and making something truly alien.

[@srbrant5391]

I made new ship class names for mine. Vimana, Dromon, Leviathan, Grift, Kiffa and Heinleiner.

[@aethertech]

The key to a good well-thought out universe is to understand a roll. And very few fictional universe authors truly understand that supersize. Now, overtime with changes in technology, and usage requirements - classifications can change. So a lot of works of fiction that feature space ships (usually) feel lacking due to that lack of research/work the author puts into fleshing out the military structures.

[@0megasight]

Something I feel compelled to add in defense of the Pillar of Autumn is that it was actually being loaded up as a long range strike cruiser to capture a covenant Prophet at the time Reach was attacked, then pressed into service as an evacuation ship at the last minute.

[@sircommander27]

15:28 I like how you used both variants of the Yamato battleships as an example, maybe next time you can make a video on the yamato class space battleship

[@markmulder9845]

to defend the UNSC's choice of marines and troops on every ship, before the war with the covenant, it was kinda needed as any ship in the vicinity of a human rebel force (which was usually on a planets surface as the insurrection had little access to space capable warships) would be able to deploy its ground troops as a rapid reaction force to rapidly and quickly suppress or delay the rebels while more forces could be rallied if needed. Also, the rebels loved to infiltrate the crews of or stow away on and then take over UNSC warships from within which caused several UNSC warships like the frigate Bellicose, to be captured. Both of these made the UNSC very much favor a bunch of infantry on their vessels. Also it is in fact confirmed that most ships, while capable of it, did not actually carry an actual ground force or large amounts of marines and vehicles, usualy only carrying a bare minimum for practical security measures. Like in the story, Night of Midlothian, the only real infantry/ground presence on board the destroyer was a couple of platoons of marines and some ODST's. The ship was disabled, then boarded, and the masters at arms were slaughtered trying to fight of the boarding party and prevent capture of nav data, which they did secure by Self destructing the ship. But marines on board, if successful in fighting of the boarders, could prevent the ship from having to self destruct, thus saving the navy, one more vessel with which to fight another day. When the covenant came, marines where needed even more as traditional transport ships were far too vulnerable to covenant attacks, and troops would need to be deployed rapidly on a moments notice meaning that any ship that could carry and deploy troops, would. One thing the covenant loved to do (outside of mass naval battles) was disable UNSC warships, board them, and then try and scavenge any useful data, usually nav data. The sailors were generally ill equipped and ill trained to repel boarders in infantry combat, so marines would usually fend off boarders, or die trying. Lastly, the Pillar of Autumn was a special case in terms of its loadout. Its was meant to find the Covenant homeworld (which at the time, the UNSC thought it to be a planet and not a giant half moon with rockets strapped to it), then support Spartans attack on it with reinforcements, armor and air support. The vessel itself was old and outdated, but near impossible to actually destroy conventionally. However, with the rapid invasion of reach, and the last minute scrapping of the plan, the load out was never changed. That and most ships leaving Reach were trying to haul off as much people and equipment as they could.

[@johnohara4788]

It would also be a good idea to note that by the later stages of the war the UNSC probably couldn’t afford to waste resources building dedicated troop carriers like Orions and Phoenixes not when they needed to keep replacing their massive warship losses. Why build one Orion just to ferry troops and fighters when you can build three Marathons and fit them with larger hanger bays?

[@markmulder9845]

@@johnohara4788 Agreed.

[@wildcatoutdoors]

To conquer the galaxy: Battleships with heavy rail guns and ballistic missile crusiers To occupy the galaxy afterwards: Carrier groups my man, carrier groups.

[@Llortnerof]

Nah, Frigates are the go-to (big surprise). Carriers are useless since space fighters wouldn't actually work in any useful manner, and Battleships are to expensive to handle the kind of distribution you need to keep order, but you need something capable of operating independently.

[@el_misto]

@@Llortnerof carriers would be useful in engaging in rebel bases, where they would probably have a primarily smaller starfighters that could be fought by the fleet wich the carrier operates. Frigates wouldn't be of much use against dozens of starfighters, as they would outnumber them. Also, carriers would be of some use when dealing with bigger rebellions. Considering that some of the time you wouldn't have a base of operation to operate a fleet of smaller starfighters to assist the frigates. As the rebels would probably have took your bases in the system, you'd need a new base for operating the support dogfighting fleet, in wich case, it would be a carrier.

[@Llortnerof]

​@@el_misto Spacefighters don't work. For a spacefighter to be useful, it needs to accelerate _very_ fast. Like hundreds or thousands of gs or more. For a pilot to be able to survive piloting one, it must avoid accelerating at any rate that would be considered "fast" in space. Tens of gs is pushing it already. This combination of mutually exclusive requirements makes building them unfeasible, unless you're looking to just get your pilots killed. You're assuming scifi rules that ignore a significant part of physics. A drone carrier may work, but you might as well just carry a bunch of drones on every ship, especially larger ones that necessarily have more interior space to use. Guided missiles are effectively just single use drones anyway. As for dogfighting... that hasn't been done in decades. Most aerial combat nowadays is beyond visual range. If you can see your enemy, you're probably about to turn into aerial debris from a missile you didn't notice. Space combat will always be beyond visual range, with all actual shooting done by computers.

[@machaiping]

@@Llortnerof It also depends on weapon capability of the setting too. Like Legend of the Galactic Heroes; that series fought primarily with fleets of capital ships lining up in wall formation and spam beam cannons at each other from *10 - 20 light seconds* distance. Good luck getting your fighters to cross that distance to the enemy fleet *in time to make a difference* without turning your pilots into minced meat. Drone fighters also out because ECM in that setting is so strong that ship to ship communication during combat in that series is done by messenger shuttles or Morse code flashlight from their capital ships!

[@imperiousrex128]

@@Llortnerof Depends on the fighter tech level. Halo? Stick with smaller ships, enough MACs can kill anything. Star Wars? With FTL capable super-versatile fighters? To the point that a few can decide the outcome of a battle? You'll want carriers. Small, strike carriers as a quick reactionary force, with chokepoints and vital areas protected by big ones.

[@Yoda_16358]

24:49 The Mega-class literally was supposed to be a mobile city, according to the novel. It was supposed to be like the mobile capital of the First Order, after the destruction of Starkiller Base.

[@TheRezro]

It is. We could say it is a Mothership.

[@ItsButterBean1020]

Yeah it’s use is weird but it’s basically a mobile capital/weapons factory It’s a pretty cool idea for a ship class imo, one of a handful of motherships used by warlords to support and influence whole armadas, building weapons and equipment in a mobile basis

[@toxicmute6379]

I would like to point out part of Titans/Juggernauts is despite the inefficiency of their fire power it brings a couple of things to the table; 1. Menace, there isn’t much more of a terrifying thought then “we are going up against a ship that’s basically a full fleet in one”, 2. While it’s fire power is usually inefficient from covering large areas it does mean that it would be far more difficult to brute force your way past it’s defenses, forcing people to try and spread out to try and lessen the volume of fire and giving other ships better shots/more time to close in on them in the meantime

[@TheRezro]

That work only in Galactic Empire.

[@icareusspeedovsky505]

You have a point admiral. This is the same idea that brought up tanks to our world. But we dont know how countermeasures would look like. We only managed to send bunch of guys with fish bowls to space.

[@TheRezro]

@@icareusspeedovsky505 Initial use of tanks was a disaster. In most cases such ships work as flying shipyards, not actual combatants.

[@inventor121]

I can actually think of a use for titans but it relies on efficiencies of volume. Basically it goes like this: Bigger reactor is more efficient than multiple smaller reactor because larger volumes = less structural material mass per unit area. Slap big reactor and equally large cannon (again big cannon does more damage than multiple smaller cannons) onto spaceframe. You now have the equivalent of a planetary railgun/particle beam weapon on a spaceship. This ship uses it's giant superweapon basically as a sniper or space artillery, if it's big enough the weapon could fire continuously rather than having a cooldown. Titans would have to be dedicated towards a specific role (say siegebreaking) and do that ONE THING really well. highly specialized behemoths that are used when other options just take too many damn resources per unit of destructive power. Take the Bagger 288, it's job could be done by thousands of smaller excavators, or maybe a million backhoes. but it's existence proves that it's actually worth the cost to build such a monstrosity for that specific situation. I would imagine titans to be very specialized ships for when a bunch of other ships is just too much resources to justify.

[@TheRezro]

@@inventor121 I don't see you point here? Generally problem with oversized Battleships is that they can't be oversized as bigger is usually better. If ship is for some reason considered as oversized, it need actual reason for that.

[@zachelkins1229]

@8:20 Requisitions office: "what kind of ship type is this?" Engineering corp: "I'm not really sure, ah frig it..(I'll figure it out later)" RO: "Ah yes, of course, it's a frigate, thank you for your cooperation" EC: "I.. no... yeah, ok then"

[@VandalAudi]

One of the most powerful factions in Sci Fi’s naming convention : Of Course I Still Love You and Funny, It Worked Last Time...

[@armorhide406]

I see you're a fan of Culture as well

[@ZeroNumerous]

Or the Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath.

[@timberwolf1575]

Just imagine being the poor admiral trying to deploy a fleet of ships with names like that... Everyone would forget what you were ordering them to do by the time you named two of the ships you were giving the order to.

[@VandalAudi]

@@timberwolf1575 fortunately those capable of naming those ships that way are way smarter than a baseline human,... like exponentially smarter by magnitudes.

[@TlalocTemporal]

@@timberwolf1575 -- Just call it Josh for short

[@destructer7759]

As a Stellaris player, I can confirm that the Juggernaut or Colossus type vessels are very ineffective. The colossus is meant to be a designated planet killer, and while it can blow up a planet or bask it in radiation, it takes two whole weeks to charge and fire, and unless it was already in the system of it's target, your going to be waiting a very long time for it to arrive. And considering that it has no anti-ship weapons, it's rarely going to be in enemy territory where it's target is located unless said territory has been occupied by a fleet, in which case it's probably more efficient to just orbit the planet with that fleet and have them bombard the surface to eliminate all pops on it. Even waiting for an army to arrive from one of your own planets would be more effective considering that most of the time transport ships will arrive in the system before your combat fleet. The Juggernaut is meant to be a super heavy carrier and artillery vessel, but considering that it has incredibly slow sublight speed and it's FTL drive takes longer to charge, it's often not even used in combat. The problem with Juggernauts is that if you assign another fleet to escort it, that fleet is probably going to end up in front of the Juggernaut and therefore arrive in enemy territory first, and henceforth enter combat before the Juggernaut arrives. Usually this results in the system being captured before the Juggernaut has even opened fire, either because it was out of range or was still traversing the Hyperlane. It would be more effective to just fit your battleships with hangar sections and a bow mount and have a hybrid carrier-artillery ship that can be mass produced. Titans are also a little problematic. Now they aren't all that slow, usually they have the same or a little bit faster sublight speed than a battleship, but they prove ineffective in combat scenarios. This is because the primary weapon of the Titan is an energy beam that takes 22 days to recharge, and while it's incredibly powerful, it often targets the wrong thing. The perdition beam has a range of 250, so if your fleet is entering a system with an enemy fleet orbiting the local star or starbase, the Titan will enter combat immediately. The problem here is that you want the beam to hit a ship like a battleship or enemy Titan if there is one, but it instead shoots the closest thing to it in most situations, which usually means it wastes it's charge on a corvette or destroyer, ships that should be countered by your own destroyers and cruisers. In conclusion, if you want a strong navy that's capable of anything, slap some interceptor type corvettes and artillery-carrier hybrid battleships in a fleet, duplicate that fleet a few times, and now you've got a battle-group that is both manoeuvrable and capable of dishing out immense damage from range, leaving the smaller ships to swarm the survivors that get close.

[@leeleavelle716]

My justification for huge titan warships is they are the only thing large enough for a specific type of technology that allows the transfer of fleets instantaneously through a “wormhole drive”

[@careydaniels310]

A fair justification, my justification is that theyre cool but seriously, so what if it's not the most efficient use of resources, not everything a galactic empire has to be, its more interesting if it isn't. Make the fact that its the interstellar equivalent of putting all your eggs in one heavily armored but still somewhat vulnerable basket a plot point!

[@BattleUnit3]

Me: Mass makes Glass!!! Enemy: what the hell are you talking?!? Me: Prepare for Orbital Bombardment!!! Enemy: Ohhh...oh no.

[@Pink_Invader]

Praise the GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND

[@shadowguardian3612]

Your world will burn until it surfaces is but glass and even your emperor will live to creep, blackend from the mar reflection of our passage. The culmanation of our journey for your destruction is the will of the gods.

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

Stand by ion control.

[@brianisaacs5457]

Why do orbital bombardment when the death star can just reduce a rebellious planet to an asteroid field.

[@shadowguardian3612]

@@brianisaacs5457 why destroy a planet wich has valuableb resources?

[@jesseberg3271]

Pre-modern warships did routinely carry Marines, from the golden age of sail, all the way back to antiquity. The argument for doing so in space is that any situation that might lead to face to face combat (from customs inspection to boarding a prize, to assualting a space station) is better left to Marines than to Seamen. The real issue is that space Marines are not generally suited for assualting a planet, and therefore should not be bringing tanks with them. Space Marines fight in space.

[@jimmyseaver3647]

I don't disagree with you, but those marines also make for nice heavily-armed backup should a landing party need to be sent planetside. However, a ship's marine security force shouldn't be tasked with regular planetary assaults unless they're the Adeptus Astartes.

[@8vantor8]

As one of the Emperah's Space Marines i'm telling you i will fight where I Dam well please , and if you got a problem with it i'd like to see you try and stop me.

[@jesseberg3271]

@@8vantor8 you are one of the Adeptus Astartes, a transhuman killing machine, and thus not relevant to this conversation about human forces. You are not a Marine, whatever the Low Gothic speaking popupations calls you: you are a Super Soldier, capable of fulfilling all battlefield roles at once.

[@米空軍パイロット]

Modern warships also carry marines. They act in the role of police officers and guards for weapons. The only shows I can recall that showed marines in this capacity are Battlestar and Yamato 2199

[@the_corvid97]

A big thing is that modern conceptions of a Marine is "tainted" by how the US Marine Corps is used, we tend to forget that typically Marines aren't used the same way, especially in history.

[@qrangejuice8225]

On the UNSC putting troops on every ship: I'm sure that wasn't standard before the Covenant-Human War. However, in the lore, the Covenant won almost all the time in space, but on the ground the fights were more even - even often UNSC-favored when they weren't outnumbered. Also, the Covenant were attacking planets - there weren't many deep-space engagements since the war was a defensive posture from the UNSC. In these contexts, troops on spacecraft makes sense: they can be deployed from orbit to reinforce key defensive positions on the planet or repel boarders (which the Covenant were fond of using)

[@TheRezro]

As explained in later video about this topic. This was explained in the game. But otherwise trope is overused.

[@cracklingvoice]

It bugs me that so many sci-fi space settings ignore how critical sustainment is for long-range operations. Even the largest ships can only carry so many supplies for its crew, ammunition for its weapons, and spare parts for mechanical systems on board. As boring as it may seem, support ships are extremely important. The US Navy built an unbelievable number of support and logistics ships for the Pacific theater of WW2, and that's just for crossing one ocean. Throw in the vastness of space, even with faster-than-light travel accounted for, and any long-term deployment will need forward supply. Even with space stations acting as giant warehouses, they will be well back from the main combat areas and so will need ships to move between the station and the fleet to bring up supplies. Ships like the Lewis and Clark-class fast combat supply ships were built for exactly that purpose: keeping the fleet supplied. It's the greatest strength of the USN: the ability to stay at sea almost indefinitely. Crew can be swapped out, major end items brought up, spare parts and food kept stocked, and the fleet keeps it strength together.

[@cracklingvoice]

@Nathan Zhang Star Trek waves it off with replicators, but nobody else has anything to explain how they are surviving for months (if not years) without taking supplies. At least human waste can be simply shunted out of the plumbing system into the void of space. That kind of system exists right now on various ship classes. The trick about recycling human waste is twofold: First, making it even remotely palatable (especially since the crew will eventually figure out where it comes from). Concealing the function of a system that effects the entire crew is functionally impossible after a few weeks out of port. Some guy in the a-gang is going to chat with someone from operations, then the operations guy is gonna talk to his bunk-mate that works on the flight deck, and on from there. Second, even that will eventually run out. All those nutrients are going to be used up eventually, especially on a combat vessel with a crew that needs a lot of nutrition to stay effective.

[@noppornwongrassamee8941]

@@cracklingvoice Or maybe ships are on taking regular supplies on a regular basis and we just don't see it happen precisely because it's a boring, routine operation where nothing exciting ever happens. The most you'll usually ever get out of a story about supply ships (or supply anything) are adventures where the warship has to protect or attack them. Transferring supplies and even replacement personnel almost always happen "off screen" as it were.

[@littlekong7685]

I actually considered this in making my own ships. In routine operations you just have a supply ship hop to a meeting point and transfer supplies/crew/etc. In extended engagements, I have "Shock" resupply system, the ship in need calls out to the resupply ships/depot. They load a specialized vessel that heads into the outer zone of combat, it is well armed and has an extremely fast resupply system into specialized loading ports that do not need atmo cycling (that can be done after loading), so transfer takes seconds, then the crew can cycle the airlock and distribute parts/fuel/ammo where necessary as they head back into the fight. The resupply ship is small, fast, and well armoured enough to take the odd hit. It can then retreat the long way back to depot thus keeping warships in the fight without risking slow transports.

[@ObiwanNekody]

I cannot find it now, but in around 2008 there was a very nice website which went into maths about ship size, endurance, and logistical considerations. What I was looking into at the time was the tipping points between having food recycling and production facilities vs just having a whole ton of MRE's.(for my question the answer seemed to be hydroponics were not mass effective untill about a year of unsupported operation). It had way more information than just that and I wish I could find it quickly again to reference here.

[@ObiwanNekody]

@Nathan Zhang yes, project rho. Ty, I couldn't find it earlier, couldn't recall a name. Tyvm.

[@Denarank1]

The fact that you dont cover the doctrine of the british empire confuses me as an empire of that size would be a good template for large stellar empires due to the area they had to cover

[@RenegadePaladin]

@ARTHUR TROY Yeah, but they also didn't cover the Royal Navy's ship naming conventions, and they're the BEST ONES! :P

[@nickcher7071]

@@RenegadePaladin you're goddamn right! Always thought, that the names such as "Dreadnought", "Colossus", "Orion", "Revenge", "Vanguard", "Invincible" and so on - all these sound damn much more powerful and menacing, than current practice of slapping another random person's surname with the whole initials on the board and call it a day.

[@RenegadePaladin]

@@nickcher7071 Yeah, and how can you not like the HMS Warspite? =D

[@alganhar1]

@@RenegadePaladin I am fairly sure that not liking Warspite in the UK is immoral, illegal, probably heretical and outright ungentlemanly!

[@jamham69]

for the "marines aren't useful in space" thing, the Expanse seems pretty invested in keeping things realistic and boarding actions are a common occurrence.

[@TheRezro]

That put in question realism of this show, what has own share of mistakes. Sending battleships on they own is why Galactic Empire lost the war.

[@jamham69]

@@TheRezro you referring to the loss of the Donager? because they didn't expect resistance and they were acting in peacetime.

[@TheRezro]

@@jamham69 Carrier Battle Groups also work during peacetime. Missions like that are the exact purpose of Frigates and to some degree Cruisers.

[@todeszeichen00]

I don't see boarding being a realistic way of disabling a hostile ship, as it's either going to be a suicide mission or it's going to take a long time to fight through the entire hostile crew in close quarters combat. In case you can start the boarding action near a vital target, why wouldn't you just drop a payload? From my perspective, it seems like boarding a space ship would cause unnecessary casualties on your end, while being a slow way of disabling a ship.

[@ergonamix9977]

@@TheRezro The Donnager-class battleship in the Expanse has an interior hanger capable of holding up to 6 corvettes or 2 destroyers. It was basically an all-in-one patrol fleet in and of itself.