| UP (discussion topics) | TOP (Cherryh-homepage) |
message 0139

Parts of this message can be found in the following threads:
>Date: Mon, 17 May 93 11:25:04 +0200
>From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
>Subject: Re:  C. J. Cherryh List

>From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl.cacs.usl.edu>

>All through _DS_ Union seems to be saturating the fleet with numbers.
>_And_ there's one point where the fleet could have struck back and
>taken out a lot of Union ships, except for the messages from the
>company people calling off the attack.

I agree, _Downbelow Station_ makes it look as if the Fleet problem is
not technology or capability, but supply and replacements.

>4. Noone mentions riderships on Union vessels. Multi-ship operations
>seem to be inherently harder than large single vessels. 

I always considered the fact that Union had "carriers" as proof that they
would have something resembling rider ships (after all, that's why the Fleet
ships bear that designation).  The purpose-built Alliance warships (as
mentioned in Serpent's Reach) are never called carriers.  Of course, that's 
an older book, so she might not have had the terminology established
at the time.

Still, the relationship "carrier <==> rider" seems to me pretty valid.  Note
that this still fits your argument - if the Union has riders, and possibly
more of them, then the fact that they are still tactically inferior shows
that they have neither the same crew quality *nor* the distinct technological 
edge which might make up for that lack of quality.

	Markus