Talk:Royal Manticoran Navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Royal Manticoran Navy article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

[edit] POV?

Corustar, which part did you deem needed a POV check? --Edward Sandstig 01:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The things about tactics seems very non npov.Corustar 06:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean the part discussing there being two major schools of thought? Couldn't see anything there that could be misconstrued as being NPOV. --Edward Sandstig 08:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Consistent with the napoleonic-era theme, there are a number of modern technologies and inovations which are not present. Given the military setting, missile staging (allowing terminal guidance), missile buses (allowing one missile to cary many warheads), and cruise missiles (optimised for system wide range at low speed) are especially notable in their absence. On at least one occasion readers are asked to believe the RMN build ships with only one radio, or at least only radio room. Computer technology also seems antiquated, as on many occasions the only link between Control A and Equipment B is severed; indicating the RMN is unfamiliar with packet-switching technology. Judging from how easily they are damaged, the radar sets fitted to RMN ships do not appear to be phased-array sets, which could be spread out over the entire hull and hence relatively invaulnerable. The author states that 'fighters are impractical in the antiwarship role' but does not explain they are impractical in all the other roles they are used in today. Official diagrams show that while anti-ship missiles are very large, the warheads are roughly man-sized, and hence could be carried and deployed by non capital ships. Hence pinance sized craft should in theory be capable of acting in the strategic-bomber role (against large fixed targets; like planets) or a very limited anti-shipping role (by dropping warheads in a ships path if nothing else). RMN task forces do not appear to routinely include fleet-tender vessels, which is common practice today.

There seems a substantial gap between what the characters say is possible, and what technology would imply is possible. An analogy could be made with pre-tank trench warfare, or pre-Perl Harbour naval warfare. There were no fumdimental rules that prevented the existance of the tank, or shallow water torpedo, but no one had built one yet. The author seems aware of this gap, and has on at least one occcasion exploited it as a plot device."

The writer of this is bringing there own point of view into this and there own opinions. Stating what they would do in this environment.Corustar 10:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) maybe its not POV but i dont think it needs to mention about fighters and pinnace bombers, plus the spelling in the articles terrible.

Second paragraph could probably be maintained as is, but how would you suggest rectifying the first paragraph? I'm currently only at my second book in the series, so my experience with the Honorverse may be limited. --Edward Sandstig 10:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

start talking to people on the bar(baens bar) dont go in snerkers only it will ruin the story but stick to honorverse and ask questions about the novels there. ive read the entire series so far. i could explain but it ruins the surprises in later books with different technology being developed and implemented exactly as it would be during a war. historical eg ships need to find subs so sonar was developed in honorverse ships need better control of missles so FTL was developed and so on. if youve only read a few books i cant really explain. oh yeah there are fleet tenders and hospital ships there just not mentioned till later books where they being to be seen a little more.Corustar 11:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Only advice I can offer is be bold and edit the article to fix what you feel needs correcting. :) --Edward Sandstig 11:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As the author of the orrigonal paragraph, I was drawing attention to the fact that these technologies had been somehow 'forgotten' between our world and the time of the first Honourverse book. Given the obsessive study of military history that (apparently) takes place in the books this seems distictly odd. As to PoV, the ideas mentioned are not 'what I would do' but what MULTIPLE millitaries have ALREADY done, and boils down to common sense engineering. While authors can fiddle their local science, it's harder for them to fiddle "If A=B & B=C then A=C" logic.ANTIcarrot 01:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Alsadius: I took out most of the comments in the above section, since it seems obvious that the person who wrote them originally is rather unfamiliar with some of the obvious problems with his ideas(most notably, existing missile-drive technology precludes virtually all of his idewas for improved missiles). I've deleted the complaints I personally believe to be groundless, and left others that I believe make some sense in. Edit if you will, I've already put in my two cents worth.

I think there is mention of a fleet train in ashes of victory because commander montoya(SP?) is promoted to captain which means he would either serve in one of the hospitals in the manticore system or in the fleet train that is following the fleet during operation buttercup.Corustar 20:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)