• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Some Interesting Military Data

When you are out of ammo and close enough/fast enough, the enemy isn't necessarily out of ammo when you are, or when you are on a ship and don't want to damage all those sensitive electronics, I could see using mêlée weapons including a bayonet. There have been plenty of bayonet charges and incidents of hand-to-hand combat even in the modern day. Case in point the French troops in Mali just had an incident a few months back where they decisively engaged the enemy in hand-to-hand combat. It is the exception, but it happens again and again.

I can readily see using melee weapons onboard a star ship rather than projectile or beam weapons, from the standpoint of inflicting excessive collateral damage to your own ship or causing a "friendly fire" casualty by a projectile or beam penetrating a ship partition.
 
Yeah, surely spades and e-tools are pretty nasty. I'm sure they have a boarding ax or something too for on ships. I wonder what the equivalent of the belaying pin is? Maybe a J-drive coil wrench or something?
 
I can see an Imperial Crew going ashore on a planet and seeing a belaying pin. Then they decide wood can be replaced by metal. Make an interesting boarding tool to throw in starship passageway combat.
 
Paradigm shift: High tech Traveller combat armor makes it next to impossible to kill the wearer with melee weapons, at least in the CT/Striker universe.

CT combat armor behaves like the TL11 Striker variety - a bit more powerful than cloth (a lot more against spear thrusts), but not overpowering: base roll 8, modified by anything from a -4 for the broadsword to a -8 for the foil (no great surprise, that), with the bayonet coming in at -6. You get a boost at proper range that helps, another boost if you're strong enough. Difficult, but still quite possible.

Striker delivers that TL11 variety - and a TL12 variety that offers 2 points more defense, and a TL14 variety that's 8 points stronger than that. Striker gives us a 2d6 roll against a table, plus penetration, minus armor, with the effect that your best roll becomes a no-effect if his armor beats your weapon by 9 or more. Well, that Zho/Imperial stuff beats anything you can swing with one or two hands. As near as I can tell, the only way to kill him hand-to-hand is to swarm him, pin him, and hope you and a buddy can drive a stake through his eyeslit with a sledgehammer, railroad style. (And if he's quick and clever, he can forestall that attack by dropping a grenade at his own feet before you get him pinned.) Watching two TL14+ combat-armored foes in melee must be an exercise in ultimate frustration.

Occurs to me that if the far future can deliver a suit of armor capable of stopping a battleaxe, then it can deliver a bayonet with needle-point sharpness that isn't going to snap when you use it. Something 14 times stronger than steel, you ought to be able to make it pretty narrow and give it a mighty fine point.
 
Occurs to me that if the far future can deliver a suit of armor capable of stopping a battleaxe, then it can deliver a bayonet with needle-point sharpness that isn't going to snap when you use it. Something 14 times stronger than steel, you ought to be able to make it pretty narrow and give it a mighty fine point.
Sort of an "immovable object meets an irresistible force" concept? "Infinite sharpness meets ultimate density"?
 
Two words... Force Blade.
Andre Norton - Storm over Warlock - page 31
Also on page 81 of THE LAST PLANET, Andre Norton, Ace, 1953 as well as in several other of her novels.

Mentioned in a discussion here: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?463618-Andre-Norton-SF&p=10645982#post10645982 and in following posts (including a MT chargen which uses many of her concepts, especially her form of psionics).


Uses a small highly-focused force-field to create a cutting edge... comes in knives of various sizes as well as hand axes and other cutting weapons/tools.
 
That's why I made my monofilament bayonet, it's a high tech can opener.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Gallery/index.php?n=1245

It'd kinda require a special technique, I think. A bit of a slash or pivot after a thrust, to open up a wound. Otherwise it's like trying to poke him to death with a hypodermic - he'd die way too slowly to do you any good, if at all. There are some tricks with the slash that you could pull that aren't available to other blade weapons, like striking for the opponent's weapon instead of the opponent. And, the user'd have to remember that trying to block with it could have unexpected effects - you'd cleave the sword that was swung at you and the blade end would still hit you, though not with the usual power.
 
The mutiny on the British frigate HMS Hermione was one of the nastier ship mutinies in naval history. The following account is taken from the Project Gutenberg ebook, Deeds that Won the Empire. The British later recaptured the Hermione, and tracked down most of the mutineers.

The story of how the Hermione was lost is one of the scandals and the tragedies of British naval history; the tale of how it was re-won is one of its glories. The Hermione was a 32-gun frigate, cruising off Porto Rico, in the West Indies. On the evening of September 21, 1797, the men were on drill, reefing topsails. The captain, Pigot, was a rough and daring sailor, a type of the brutal school of naval officer long extinct. The traditions of the navy were harsh; the despotic power over the lives and fortunes of his crew which the captain of a man-of-war carried in the palm of his hand, when made the servant of a ferocious temper, easily turned a ship into a floating hell. The terrible mutinies which broke out in British fleets a hundred years ago had some justification, at least, in the cruelties, as well as the hardships, to which the sailors of that period were exposed.

Pigot was rough in speech, vehement in temper, cursed with a semi-lunatic delight in cruelty, and he tormented his men to the verge of desperation. On this fatal night, Pigot, standing at the break of his quarter-deck, stormed at the men aloft, and swore with many oaths he would flog the last man off the mizzentop yard; and the men knew how well he would keep his word. The most active sailor, as the men lay out on the yard, naturally takes the earing, and is, of course, the last man off, as well as on, the yard. Pigot's method, that is, would punish not the worst sailors, but the best! The two outermost men on the mizzen-top yard of the Hermione that night, determined to escape the threatened flogging. They made a desperate spring to get over their comrades crowding into the ratlines, missed their foothold, fell on the quarter-deck beside their furious captain, and were instantly killed. The captain's epitaph on the unfortunate sailors was, "Throw the lubbers overboard!"

All the next day a sullen gloom lay on the ship. Mutiny was breeding. It began, as night fell, in a childish fashion, by the men throwing double-headed shot about the deck. The noise brought down the first lieutenant to restore order. He was knocked down. In the jostle of fierce tempers, murder awoke; knives gleamed. A sailor, as he bent over the fallen officer, saw the naked undefended throat, and thrust his knife into it. The sight kindled the men's passions to flame. The unfortunate lieutenant was killed with a dozen stabs, and his body thrown overboard. The men had now tasted blood. In the flame of murderous temper suddenly let loose, all the bonds of discipline were in a moment consumed. A wild rush was made for the officers' cabins. The captain tried to break his way out, was wounded, and driven back; the men swept in, and, to quote the realistic official account, "seated in his cabin the captain was stabbed by his own coxswain and three other mutineers, and, forced out of the cabin windows, was heard to speak as he went astern." With mutiny comes anarchy. The men made no distinction between their officers, cruel or gentle; not only the captain, but the three lieutenants, the purser, the surgeon, the lieutenant of marines, the boatswain, the captain's clerk were murdered, and even one of the two midshipmen on board was hunted like a rat through the ship, killed, and thrown overboard. The only officers spared were the master, the gunner, and one midshipman.

Also, since we seem to have returned to the question of bayonets and similar instruments, I have more to post on that.
 
...had some justification, at least, in the cruelties, as well as the hardships, to which the sailors of that period were exposed.

I guess after being kidnapped by a press gang, spending years at sea and not allowed off the ship even in port, mutiny could, and should, have been expected?
 
I guess after being kidnapped by a press gang, spending years at sea and not allowed off the ship even in port, mutiny could, and should, have been expected?

That most definitely was the case. Read about the Great Mutiny that occurred in 1797 at Spithead and the Nore anchorages of the Royal Navy, although the Spithead mutiny was more of a military strike. Pigot may have been the worst captain in the Royal Navy, which is saying a lot.
 
That most definitely was the case. Read about the Great Mutiny that occurred in 1797 at Spithead and the Nore anchorages of the Royal Navy, although the Spithead mutiny was more of a military strike. Pigot may have been the worst captain in the Royal Navy, which is saying a lot.

Have read it and was appalled all the way around. Have you by any chance talked about the origins of the phrase "Son of a gun? I think many people would enjoy it, but, maybe it would violate CotI rules for indecency.
 
Have read it and was appalled all the way around. Have you by any chance talked about the origins of the phrase "Son of a gun? I think many people would enjoy it, but, maybe it would violate CotI rules for indecency.

The one way I could explain it is to say that back then the RN allowed wives and girl frinds to go along on ocean voyages. Children were born between cannons, where curtans had been hung for privacy.

Is that okay ?
 
The one way I could explain it is to say that back then the RN allowed wives and girl frinds to go along on ocean voyages. Children were born between cannons, where curtans had been hung for privacy.

Is that okay ?

The wives and others could visit onboard the ship if it was in port, as the RN did not allow sailors off on shore if they could help it. The likelihood of them returning was not exactly high. C. S. Forester touches on this a little in some of the Horatio Hornblower series of books, and if I remember correctly, E. Van Wyck Mason's book, Manila Galleon, also depicts it.
 
Interesting. As several documentaries on pre-steam RN ship life I have watched mentions women on board. Probably none on the way to known major battles though, as far as I know.
 
Interesting. As several documentaries on pre-steam RN ship life I have watched mentions women on board. Probably none on the way to known major battles though, as far as I know.

The following is a brief account of the loss of the first-rate HMS Royal George by capsizing in harbor. It is taken from 52 Stories of the Royal Navy, published in 1896, downloaded from Project Gutenberg. Notice the number of women and children onboard.

The Royal George, one hundred and eight guns, the flag ship of Admiral Kempenfeldt and one of the best ships in the navy, had just returned from a cruise in which she had sprung a leak which demanded attention. The carpenter and others, after a strict survey, finding that the leak was not more than two feet below the water-mark, and supposing it to be occasioned by the rubbing off the copper sheathing, it was resolved, in order to save time, instead of sending her into dock to give her a slight careen, or in the language of the seamen, "a parliament heel"—that is, to lay her to a certain degree upon her side while her defects were examined and repaired at Spithead. It was meanwhile discovered that the pipe, for the occasional admission of water to cleanse and sweeten the ship, was out of repair, and that it was necessary to replace it with a new one. As the ship required to be heeled very much for this purpose, the greater part of the guns were removed from one side to the other; but the vessel heeling more than was intended and the crew having neglected to stop the scuppers of the lower decks, the water came in and for some time she stole down imperceptibly. During this time many of the crew were at dinner; but as soon as they discovered their dangerous condition they beat to arms to right the ship. They were, however, too late, and all their efforts were in vain, for in a few minutes the Royal George fell flat on one side, filled with water, and the guns, shot, etc., falling to the under side, she went to the bottom, August 29th, 1782, before any signal of distress could be made.

At this fatal moment there were nearly twelve hundred persons on board, including about two hundred and fifty women and several children, chiefly belonging to the seamen, who had been permitted to go on board when the ship cast anchor at Spithead and to remain there until the order for sailing arrived. The people who were on watch upon deck, to the number of two hundred and thirty, were mostly saved by the boats, which were manned with the utmost expedition by the ships near the Royal George when they observed that the vessel was going down. Their assistance was, however, delayed for some time by the swell occasioned by the sinking of such a large body, which produced a temporary whirlpool in the water. About seventy others, who rose after the ship disappeared, were also picked up; among these were four lieutenants, eleven women, and the rest seamen.
 
The following is a brief account of the loss of the first-rate HMS Royal George by capsizing in harbor. It is taken from 52 Stories of the Royal Navy, published in 1896, downloaded from Project Gutenberg. Notice the number of women and children onboard.

This was caused primarily by the water coming in, though the gun transfer shares the blame. The water creates what is called "free Surface". This rapidly changes the righting moment of inertia. The further the ship heals, the quicker, and more severe the change. If you ever wonder what it's like, get 2 or so inches of water in your canoe.

Other than fire, it's the most feared cause of loss on a ship. Tankers have small longitudinal divided tanks and baffles for this reason. Bulk, and grain carriers, can experience this effect from the semi-fluid nature of their cargoes.

For a Traveller ship, "banking" would be used to overcome this inertial effect during a turn. Grav Plates would work fine, for what they do, but, as I understand them, would not be terribly effective to compensate for this lateral inertial shift. You would have a sudden, and increasing, Grav Plate compensation that would radically increase the "normal" G force to the detriment of humans aboard.

Overcoming the effects of inertia due to turning is a very good reason to "bank" on turns.

I know well the thoughts and arguments against this position. Even if the GRAV Plates function as intended, quite a bit of power would be saved by allowing the "banking" to absorb the inertia educed by the turn. I that way the resultant force vector would act normal to the deck structure, thus avoiding what otherwise would be a larger force vector due to the vector summation of "horizontal" & "vertical" vectors in relation to the deck.

As Grav plates are stated to be in the "floor" or deck, they must act normal to that surface. Without "banking" Grav plates would be required in the "walls" or bulkheads in addition as both force vectors, diagonal to each other, would have to be overcome.
 
The sailing grain ships had center boards and shifting boards to keep the grain cargo from moving too much under the "free surface effect". Find a copy of Farley Mowat's book, The Serpent's Coil, about the experience of a war-built Liberty cargo ship when its ballast load shifted in a hurricane. Quite interesting reading, as the ship was successfully salvaged.
 
The sailing grain ships had center boards and shifting boards to keep the grain cargo from moving too much under the "free surface effect". Find a copy of Farley Mowat's book, The Serpent's Coil, about the experience of a war-built Liberty cargo ship when its ballast load shifted in a hurricane. Quite interesting reading, as the ship was successfully salvaged.

Read it. Another major problem the sailing grain ships had was if/when the cargo got wet it would swell, and swell, and swell...

It would blow the deck right off the ship and open the seems. Few captains would sail with more than 50% volume of hold filled. To few people realize the perils sailors went, and still go, through.
 
Read it. Another major problem the sailing grain ships had was if/when the cargo got wet it would swell, and swell, and swell...

It would blow the deck right off the ship and open the seems. Few captains would sail with more than 50% volume of hold filled. To few people realize the perils sailors went, and still go, through.

There were a fair number of sailing schooners and steamers lost on the Great Lakes for precisely that reason of the grain cargo swelling. It still is an issue today. Same thing with lumber cargos shifting or ore or pig iron cargos shifting. Lumber was bad as normally a fair amount was carried on deck. Sailing the great waters is still a hazardous trade.
 
Back
Top