All Warships Should Have Drop Tanks
- Thread starter Theophilus
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
You would treat the ship with tanks fitted as the new size code for batteries bearing.
About preplanned drop tanks availability (I assume you've readed my entry on dec 8th I cited on my last entry), I assume they are deployed on most naval bases, more so if they are suposed to be in fleet transit routes. We must assume that, with the lagging time for messages to go on, preplanning is the key of naval operations, and most of messages are a variation of 'activate contingency plan 3B42'.
About interchangable drop tanks, I assume that they are (for Navy at least) an element so important as to be IDP (Imperial Design Product), so at least partialy standarized or modular, so they can be adapted for most Imperial Navy ships.
About using them on X-boats, my assumption here is that the lack of maneover drive precludes X-boats to make independent jumps, relling on tugs or tenders to put on the exact space point needed to make the jump, so their use will not help unless they have some way to maneover.
So said, remember I'm not partidary of indiscriminate use of drop tanks, just I see some uses for them, mostly on friendly space and for preplanned moves.
Last edited:
Depending on the ship, some weapons wouldn't be available at all. This is where actual designs are critical.
Which is why retrofitting ships that were not designed to use drop tanks to use them is different from designing them to use drop tanks from the start.
The Imperial Navy is still evaluating the usefulness of drop tanks. Come back in 1200 and it may be completely converted to drop tanks. Or might have been if it hadn't been for that pesky Rebellion/Hard Times/Aftermath thing.
Hans
Check in with GT. They didn't have that part of history and continued with the 3I as is.
Weapons blocked by drop tanks don't matter.
They're drop tanks. They're dropped before jump. In most of the scenarios mentioned, the ships always arrive at the new system without them, so who cares what weapons they might block. If the intent is to keep them on through the jump, then if they actually end up in combat not only is it a) a major intelligence failure, but b) the ships (in theory) have fuel, so they can simply jump away and avoid combat, or they can drop the tanks and engage.
Staging drop tanks is the messiest part of the deal. The best vehicle for moving the tanks are the ships themselves, especially with the larger ships. Drop tanks are best built on site by the staging starport. Ideally creating a drop tank is simpler than creating a star ship, but they will still consume shipyard space (only so many places you can build a 10,000 DTon box).
The example of increased response times, to me, point to the suggestion that fleets should be drop capable, but the logistics make it simply not practical for their use to be routine and a significant point of doctrine.
They can be used, and should be used when appropriate, but there's a lot of strategic maneuvering to get all of the assets in one place to suggest that their use be part of a larger, master plan, versus something more reactionary. In that sense, they're deployment is likely better in a reserve capacity. That week saved in transit may cost several weeks in setup and pre-deployment. And whatever fast route they took to the target, they're taking the slow route home.
This is in contrast to the use of external fuel tanks in WWII, used every day, by design, since the bombers flew their long missions -- every day. But WWII fighters are not star ships, they operate differently and the drop tanks are similar in name only.
They're drop tanks. They're dropped before jump. In most of the scenarios mentioned, the ships always arrive at the new system without them, so who cares what weapons they might block. If the intent is to keep them on through the jump, then if they actually end up in combat not only is it a) a major intelligence failure, but b) the ships (in theory) have fuel, so they can simply jump away and avoid combat, or they can drop the tanks and engage.
Staging drop tanks is the messiest part of the deal. The best vehicle for moving the tanks are the ships themselves, especially with the larger ships. Drop tanks are best built on site by the staging starport. Ideally creating a drop tank is simpler than creating a star ship, but they will still consume shipyard space (only so many places you can build a 10,000 DTon box).
The example of increased response times, to me, point to the suggestion that fleets should be drop capable, but the logistics make it simply not practical for their use to be routine and a significant point of doctrine.
They can be used, and should be used when appropriate, but there's a lot of strategic maneuvering to get all of the assets in one place to suggest that their use be part of a larger, master plan, versus something more reactionary. In that sense, they're deployment is likely better in a reserve capacity. That week saved in transit may cost several weeks in setup and pre-deployment. And whatever fast route they took to the target, they're taking the slow route home.
This is in contrast to the use of external fuel tanks in WWII, used every day, by design, since the bombers flew their long missions -- every day. But WWII fighters are not star ships, they operate differently and the drop tanks are similar in name only.
Yes, I know. I could tell from your post.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Snarky comments don't make either of you look good gentlemen. Just stop.
What are talking about? He said he didn't know the setting. I didn't think he was snarky. What's the problem?
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Honestly and seriously?
The whole exchange back there looked to me like sarcastic snark. I'm pretty sure you both know the GT story. And I thought you both knew the other knew it from reading each others posts here.
My apologies if I was wrong.
Yes. I hardly have met any Trav players who have played or, are familiar with GT. Maybe, I'm naive.
OK, I evidently made a mistake there. I was going for witty banter, not nasty snarkiness, but I did think you knew that I knew about GT and had overlooked it, giving me an opening for a gentle dig (not an unfriendly jab) at you.
But really, if neither of us took offense, where's the harm?
Hans
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Humour is hard to get right in a posting format. Smilies help but even they can be taken wrong.
That should be obvious from my post. Suppose one or both of you hadn't been so nice about it. And it escalated. It's not like it hasn't before (with others involved).
In a private conversation between just the two of you, if neither of you took offense, there would be no harm. In a public forum where others see your interaction and may interpret it quite differently, yes there is potential for harm. That's why I decided to nip it in the bud, where it appeared to still be minor snarking, before it escalated.
That one side thought it only a witty rejoinder to a minor dig, while the other thought they were only offering a friendly note on a new source, and a third party (me) saw both participants trading snark is proof of how poor simple posts can be in conveying the proper tone.
Carry on...
Last edited:
That kind of banter doesn't bother me as I'm sure we'd do it in person and I would get it by the look on your face. I was up all night with a toddler and am a bit slow today.
I sorely agree with you in your two first paragraphs. I think a starship capitain that doesn't jettison drop tanks before engaging can end in three ways: killed, enemy prisioner or facing a martial court, for he put at great risk his command by reducing its performace in several ways: by losing weaponry to bear, by reducing maneuver capacity and (most important) by reducing ship`s agility (the most important factor for avoiding being hit, and, as we've talked about before, once hit by a meson spinal, you're dead).
Even if, as someone said, the drop tanks allowed you to survive a 'sattered fuel tanks' hit, don't forget about crew hits. About 1 in 3 in radiation table (remember armor is not a factor against mesons) and 1 in 12 in internal explosion table are crew hits, so a J meson gun. is quite likely to do 4 crew hits, enought to leave most (if not all) ships uncrewed ( even while HG/MT don't explicity say it, I suppose a crew 0 ship is dead).
About the other paragraphs in your entry, I still assume most naval bases have drop tanks (most times constructed locally) for fleet and courrier strategic moves, due to the large amount of preplanning needed on star wars in Traveller universe (most of it is said on my earlier entry, so I won't repeat here).
True, however, the CT OTU does not give to naval interstellar operation the intelligence luxury of today's Navy neither the freedom of the sail (although free, I admit the wind is capricious). Think early steam navy, after the need for coaling station, but before WT revolutionned naval intelligence. Nobody like the fog, but your intel is at least a week old when you jump to a system, like it or not. If that is in enemy territory, some presumption that would apply when you jump into a friendly system do not apply.
You are right, I think the use of drop tank is for the jobs the Tankers cannot do, such as allowing a recon ship to arrive in system with its tanks full and ready for a jump out of system as soon as defense close in without having to care for refuelling.
Selandia
Yes, and IMO that's the point where it should be stopped. When (and if) it escalates. "Don't be offensive" is a good rule, but "don't take offense at something that might not have been meant that way" is a good one too. Personally, I prefer to regard other roleplayers as kindred spirits until the opposite is proven, and if someone wrote something that I might potentially take amiss (you understand, I'm not talking about blatant trolling or accusations of moral turpitude or anything like that), I'd either give the poster the benefit of the doubt and ignore it or ask him nicely if he really meant it the way it sounded.
Currently the policy seems to be that if something can by any stretch of the imagination be construed as offensive, it's taboo. I think it would be so much nicer if, whenever something can reasonably be taken to be a pleasantry, the rule is to refrain from taking offense over it, and the red letters and sanctions and stuff is reserved for people who escalate.
Hans
PS. If you think this is a subject worth discussing, please move it to a thread of it's own. Otherwise, just regard it as me venting something that has bothered me for a LOOOONG time now.
Hi
Hi,
Although it would seem to make sense that a ship would likely be arriving in system without the drop tanks attached, I'd suspect that this won't always be the case.
For instance if your fleet is moving out from its normal base to some forward staging post (with only a D class starport or less) it may arrive with tanks attached if it is intending to then use them to make a long distance jump from this new staging point.
Other examples could be if an enemy jumps into your current system. In such a case you could immediately drop your tanks, and then operate normally, but loose any benefits that having such tanks would have otherwise given, and run the risk of letting the enemy capture them (and their entrained fuel) if you are driven out of system. (A little bit similar to how in Malaysia during the opening part of WWII in that area of the world, some Allied air bases and outposts fell too quickly for the defenders to destroy the supplies, and some of those bombs, fuel and munitions are said to have then been use by the Japanese aginst the retreating allies).
More or less I'd kind of assume that if its possible that a certain event could happen, at some point in time it wouldn't be surprising if it does in fact happen. As such, the masking of batteries by drop tanks would seem to me to be a potential issue.
And, since the size of some drop tanks could be on the order of 40-50% of the size of the rest of the ship and externally mounted, it may well be likely that any reduction in batteris that can fire may well be greater than just the reduction that you would assume from the rules for the ship being 40-50% bigger.
Aditionally, its still hard for me to fully accept that the tanks for a Kinunir (fo example) may also be used for a Fer de Lance (and vice versa).
It woud really be nice to see a sketch of how such tanks might look for several typical type ships. So far I havn't had any lluck trying to visualize them.
Regards
PF
Hi,
Although it would seem to make sense that a ship would likely be arriving in system without the drop tanks attached, I'd suspect that this won't always be the case.
For instance if your fleet is moving out from its normal base to some forward staging post (with only a D class starport or less) it may arrive with tanks attached if it is intending to then use them to make a long distance jump from this new staging point.
Other examples could be if an enemy jumps into your current system. In such a case you could immediately drop your tanks, and then operate normally, but loose any benefits that having such tanks would have otherwise given, and run the risk of letting the enemy capture them (and their entrained fuel) if you are driven out of system. (A little bit similar to how in Malaysia during the opening part of WWII in that area of the world, some Allied air bases and outposts fell too quickly for the defenders to destroy the supplies, and some of those bombs, fuel and munitions are said to have then been use by the Japanese aginst the retreating allies).
More or less I'd kind of assume that if its possible that a certain event could happen, at some point in time it wouldn't be surprising if it does in fact happen. As such, the masking of batteries by drop tanks would seem to me to be a potential issue.
And, since the size of some drop tanks could be on the order of 40-50% of the size of the rest of the ship and externally mounted, it may well be likely that any reduction in batteris that can fire may well be greater than just the reduction that you would assume from the rules for the ship being 40-50% bigger.
Aditionally, its still hard for me to fully accept that the tanks for a Kinunir (fo example) may also be used for a Fer de Lance (and vice versa).
It woud really be nice to see a sketch of how such tanks might look for several typical type ships. So far I havn't had any lluck trying to visualize them.
Regards
PF
Similar threads
