ATV Cutter Module

[Old_Dr_Skull]

The modular cutter's module is 30dtons. An ATV is 10dtons. An ATV module carries 1 ATV.

Seems like a big waste of space to me. I would have crammed 2 ATV"s and maybe a jeep or two in there.

What's up with that?

 

[Whipsnade]

What's up with that?

First, ATVs aren't corn flakes. You don't pour them into a volume until it's all filled up.

Second, the module itself takes up 30 dTons of volume in the cutter. That doesn't mean the module has 30 dTons of free packing space. Even if it were built out of saranwrap and spiderwebs, it's own structure is going to use some of that volume.

 

[Carlobrand]

I don't think there's 20 dTons of saranwrap and spiderwebs there, so his point remains valid. If that 30 dTon module has 2/3 of its space committed to structure and wastage, someone should fire the architect.

Broadsword offers us an example of a cutter with a cylindrical module 6 meters in diameter and 15 meters long, thus about 20 dTons of "deck space" and ~ 10 dTons of waste space. However, it also gives us a silhouette of the ATV nestled in a module - and that puppy's no 10-dTons. It's the wheeled ATV shown in Book 3, and it's a bit under 15 meters long, about 4 meters tall counting wheels, and I'm guessing 4 to 4.5 meters wide - filling most of that deck space. I'd have called it a 15 dTonner minimum, more like 22.5 if you consider the height. Nonetheless, it is what the game is describing as a 10-dTon ATV.

The tracked ATV image in Book 3 is more the size I'd expect for 10 dTons - odd that it's half the size of the wheeled version even though both are supposed to be 10 dTons. I could see two of those fitting in that cutter module.

 

[Major B]

There is probably only one ATV in the module because there isn't enough space for two. As Whipsnade pointed out, the volume available is less important than the dimensions of the object(s) you're trying to wedge inside. The dimensions of the door and space available to turn an object inside the cylinder also limit how efficiently the available volume can be used.

The cylindrical hull of a cutter is often wasteful with regard to the generally square-edged things you will carry inside. That said, there may be room for a jeep, equipment or spare fuel storage, and/or passenger seating in the module too. Smaller objects can be packed around the vehicle too but if you want to be able to drive it out immediately upon landing you will have to leave the space around, above, and below clear to include the turning radius given that the cutter module cannot be end-loaded.

 

[Dragoner]

Given the supply issues, the extra space will most likely be filled with fuel, food and ammo to create a mini dump at the LZ.

 

[BytePro]

Easy - as originally defined in Classic Traveller...

Vehicle tonnage is mass in metric tons - not mass displacement (dTons). ​

The ship section is the only section that used a different meaning for 'tons'. Just like in real life, where nautical ship tonnage traditionally referred to displacement below water line - as weighing them was a real PITA.

And also, as in real life, tonnage pulls double duty referring to cargo capacity. Hence, a 4 ton air/raft has a 4 ton cargo capacity - again mass, not mass displacement. Any other interpretation makes no sense and leave the vehicle section 'broken'.

But, but, but... how is that useful for space ships you ask?

Simple - it is not. The definitions left the actual sizes to the reader. The deckplan dTons will vary significantly not only based on the actual dimensions of craft, but also deckplan heights and any clearance required. So, one could snugly tuck in a vehicle, or one could park it with plenty of head room, maintenance and access clearances. These details are not absolute - any more than the design sequences allowed for hallways, toilets, water and food storage and preparation, laundry, waste handling, etc., etc.​

 

[samuelvss]

The ATV module always seemed so badly concieved that I ignored it completely IMTU.

I had an ATV that was based upon 2 4dton containers, that was assembled dirtside; thus 3 could fit in Ballard 30 d-ton cutter module (rectangluar cross-section), along with another 4 dton container for logistics, and 2 dtons of stowage for smaller items.

That said, an ATV was kind of a waste on a battlefield, and really only made sense as being dumped with some poor sots on some backwater, who were not important enough to rate a G-Carrier, saddled with a task that was likewise not important enough. Adventures are indeed made of such stuff, but any naval architect who designs a 800 dton ship around being able to land 30 troops and 2 ATV's...well, I have nothing charitable to say about that idea.

 

[rancke]

That said, an ATV was kind of a waste on a battlefield, and really only made sense as being dumped with some poor sots on some backwater, who were not important enough to rate a G-Carrier, saddled with a task that was likewise not important enough. Adventures are indeed made of such stuff, but any naval architect who designs a 800 dton ship around being able to land 30 troops and 2 ATV's...well, I have nothing charitable to say about that idea.

One problem with making up your own universe is that when someone comes up with a flawed design in the real world (and, believe me, it happens, reality has a way of smacking them on the head and make them pay attention. In an imaginary universe, these poor design choices (some of them, anyway) were made 10,000 years ago, so whan we become aware of them, one or five or ten or 30 years after they were proposed, we're supposed to believe that in the setting no one figured it out in the preceding 10,000 years?!? When it only took us 30 years to figure it out?

That's why I'm sometimes in favor of retcons. Not indiscriminate retcons, but when we realize that something is really unbelievable.

(I'd love to see X-boats redone with minimal maneuver drives. Sure, you have to reimagine the way X-boat tenders are used, but I don't see that as a big readjustment.)


Hans

 

[BytePro]

ATV module is quite reasonable in RW terms - i.e. a large personnel carrier inside an aircraft frame... fitting a square peg in a round hole with room to maneuver.

In CT, the description didn't preclude a lot of space for gear left over in the module - and implied ready deployment and pickup (implying wasted space to support such operation).

Even crammed in, smaller personnel carriers (jeeps) waste a lot of volume above and below the vehicle (and can require lots of time to maneuver out of the aircraft and usually a special vehicle to put them on the ground...).

Given the size of some RW ATV personnel carriers only one would fit in the classic 30 dTon cutter module.

 

[Dragoner]

I can see the ATV being used in cheap policing operations, where the G-Carrier becomes expensive overkill, esp for a merc company on the cheap. The Broadsword is a bit eh, though other designs often have all the troops in cold sleep, which isn't much better. Some designs I actually use a modified ship's boat as an assault carrier, which makes sense in battlefield conditions, esp for marines.

 

[samuelvss]

I can see the ATV being used in cheap policing operations, where the G-Carrier becomes expensive overkill, esp for a merc company on the cheap.

It's a fine vehicle for what it costs, especially in a technological overmatch situation, or against those who are essentially unarmed in any military situation.

The Broadsword is a bit eh, though other designs often have all the troops in cold sleep, which isn't much better. Some designs I actually use a modified ship's boat as an assault carrier, which makes sense in battlefield conditions, esp for marines.

My solution; use deck cargo to turn a (non-spherical) Type-C from a VERY expensive way to get a light infantry platoon around at J-3, to a moderately cost effective way to move a light battalion (or heavy company) around at J-2.

 

[Dragoner]

IMTU, depending on the situation, I make the Broadsword in a steamlined version, thus one can get rid of the cutters altogether. Though as it stands, it is the perfect definition of a multi-role craft, eg a ship that does no role particularly well.

For larger troop movements, I use large freighters, assault boats, smaller "mother" battlefield supply freighters, and my frog class ships in both attack and supply mode with various modules. Though these are invasion fleets in and of themselves.

 

[samuelvss]

ATV module is quite reasonable in RW terms - i.e. a large personnel carrier inside an aircraft frame... fitting a square peg in a round hole with room to maneuver.

I don't think that the design is spacially unworkable; it just makes no sense from a cost-benefit standpoint for a military ship, whose function is, apparently, power projection. The cost to get this bulky, fourth-rate piece of military hardware there is just grossly out of proportion to the benefit it gives you on the pointy-end.

In modern militaries, we end up with a lot of tail to support not so many teeth; this means that in a "stand-up fight," meaning against some sort of competent adversary, the teeth better be REALLY sharp.

One can conceive, of course, other scenarios; but my objection is having the standard load for a 450 MCr ship being two of these glorified Winnebagos, that I could have put a hurt on with my TL7 mech infantry platoon (yes, M113-equipped)....:file_28:

 

[Dragoner]

One can conceive, of course, other scenarios; but my objection is having the standard load for a 450 MCr ship being two of these glorified Winnebagos, that I could have put a hurt on with my TL7 mech infantry platoon (yes, M113-equipped)....:file_28:

One word: Ortillery. :devil:

I do agree that the ATV is subpar.

 

[BytePro]

I don't think that the design is spacially unworkable; it just makes no sense from a cost-benefit standpoint for a military ship, whose function is, apparently, power projection. ...

Quite agree. Why would one try to apply that nonsensical military version?

The original CT description was really adventurer based... later publications might have stretched the definition to cover military in the OTU, or folks just extrapolated? The ATV definition from LBB 3 - 'intended for world surface exploration, or for transport across undeveloped areas'. Basically its described as an 8 person RV that could be outfitted only for very light combat I can't see it for a true military vehicle, except maybe as a VIP transport.

A good military design would be custom built for its objectives. In the case of the modular cutter - can't see that as a distinctly military design - an inefficient retro fit at most (maybe for mercs or quasi-military).

Another nonsensical extrapolation from the original vehicles - the original books didn't include any freight haulers. Cargo is mentioned, but to the tune of how much mass - nothing related to spaceship sized cargos.

 

[rancke]

So who's going to stat and do deckplans for an effective Type C cruiser?

I might take a stab at the stats, but the only deck plans I ever made took forever to finish and was slammed for being too primitive (and they were; they were essentially CT standard).

Nah, I've got too much else on my copious back burners as it is.


Hans

 

[samuelvss]

So who's going to stat and do deckplans for an effective Type C cruiser?

Hans

Well,

I would stat it Essentially as is, but different deck plans. I've got them done in pencil (around here somewhere....:file_28: ) with the flexibility to carry another 13 modules as deck cargo at J-2.

The thing IS streamlined, and has delta wings which are flat toward the rear; the rectangular modules attach above and below, allowing cross-access for personnel. Modules break streamlining, but can be left in orbit.

If one wanted to get out there, this basic configuration will work with a lot more (39 ish?) for J-1.

The Type C thus becomes Logistics asset, ortillery platform, and can be pressed into service as a small auxillery naval vessel. But if'n it hauls ATV's, I up'n quit!

 

[Omnivore]

One thing that's always bothered me about power projection in Traveller in regards to ground forces: Armored vehicles mass *far* too much to justify their shipping cost - if you take mass into account.

Consider (Striker Bk 3 references):
TL9 G-Carrier 112m^3, 167 tons
TL9 Laser Grav Tank 113.4m^3, 326 tons

I've seen three different methods used for determining DT given volume and mass, either strictly by volume, or by mass at 10 or 15 metric tons per DT.

The G-Carrier with crew of 2 and 14 passengers isn't too bad, depending on how you calculate DT from volume and mass, it's either 8DT, 11.2DT, or 16.7DT.

The Laser Grav Tank, on the other hand, being heavily armored, takes either 8.1DT, 21.8DT, or 32.6DT.

In the case of the grav tank, I'd rather have a space capable fighter (using either of the latter two DT results). Given my experiences with Striker vehicle design, that stock TL9 Grav Tank is lightweight for a main battle tank. Heavy armor just doesn't seem worth the mass to ship.

 

[samuelvss]

So who's going to stat ... effective Type C cruiser?

Hans

This is a design that attempts to compete with the original Type C.

Ship: Chrystal Buckler Class: Type CB, TLD
Type: Mercenary Cruiser Architect: Ballard Designs

USP
CB-8633353-000000-50004-0 MCr 488.228 800 Tons
Bat Bear 2 2 Crew: 50
Bat 2 2 TL: 13

Cargo: 1 Passengers: 1 Fuel: 312 EP: 24 Agility: 1 Marines: 34
Craft: 2 x 50T Modular Cutters, 3 x 30T Modules,
1 x 8T G-Carrier
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Architects Fee: MCr 4.522 Cost in Quantity: MCr 397.782

Detailed Description (High Guard Design)
HULL
800.000 tons standard, 11,200.000 cubic meters, Flattened Sphere Configuration
CREW
Pilot, Navigator, 5 Engineers, Medic, 4 Gunners, 34 Marines, 2 Other Crew
ENGINEERING
Jump-3, 3G Maneuver, Power plant-3, 24.000 EP, Agility 1
AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/5 Computer

HARDPOINTS: 8 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
4 Triple Missile Turrets organized into 2 Batteries (Factor-4), 4 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organized into 2 Batteries (Factor-5)

DEFENSES: None

CRAFT
2 50.000 ton Modular Cutters (Crew of 0, Cost of MCr 14.500), 3 30.000 ton Modules (Crew of 0, Cost of MCr 2.000), 1 8.000 ton G-Carrier (Crew of 0, Cost of MCr 1.000)

FUEL
312 Tons Fuel (3 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance,
plus 48 tons of additional fuel)
On Board Fuel Scoops, On Board Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
26 Staterooms, 1 Middle Passenger, 1 Ton Cargo

 

[Old_Dr_Skull]

I think that the 50ton troop transport from fighting ships would be a good replacement for one of the modular cutters. It's tough, has a missle launcher and sandcaster, and can carry down 50 troops.

Perhaps squeezing in 50 low berths to up the troop capacity, you could have a more useful punch.