Cruisers in Traveller

[Thunderbolt]

How do alternative combat systems such as Power Projection affect designs of ships?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

The RN's experience off the Falklands only "proved" that a lack of true air cover - instead of a handful of subsonic jump jets operating from laughably sized "carriers" sparring with an equally small handful of supersonic jets operating at the bleeding edge of their bingo limit - can potentially prevent a naval force from operating at all.

A handful of SSNs *did* prevent the Argentinian navy from operating at all.

 

[atpollard]

AT,

That occurs because you can bring more "weapons" to the "party" on a given budget. Whether the "weapon of decision" is missile bays or meson spinals, there'll be an upper tonnage limit for the ships that carry them. Observe that upper limit and you'll have more hulls carrying more copies of the Most Effective Weapon at Tech Level X.

I know, but I still have a small tug of disapointment that for any given pile of money, a swarm of missile armed ships will usually defeat a 'queen of battle' with her shiny spinal mount. Imagine if the Death Star (from Star Wars) had been pounded into rubble by a cloud of missiles fired by a swarm of fighters - so much for 'the most powerful ship in the universe'. [**sigh**]

 

[Thunderbolt]

I know, but I still have a small tug of disapointment that for any given pile of money, a swarm of missile armed ships will usually defeat a 'queen of battle' with her shiny spinal mount. Imagine if the Death Star (from Star Wars) had been pounded into rubble by a cloud of missiles fired by a swarm of fighters - so much for 'the most powerful ship in the universe'. [**sigh**]

Taking the wet navy analogy, we have seen something like that happen already, with demise of the battleship during WWII to aircraft, submarines and anti-ship missiles. Although frigates these days are quite large compared to their WWII counterparts, it seems that big heavy ships are thing of the past.

I would contend that weapons lethality is bound to bring ship sizes down. Quite how a ship in Traveller can survive a hit by a nuclear warhead is beyond me. Presumably such a weapon would employ a tungsten penetrator and delayed fuse much like bunker buster so that the nuke detonated in the middle of the ship. I defy any metal structure and the people working in it to survive a small sun going off inside it.

 

[Uncle Bob]

In Traveller we do have nuclear dampers.

The exaxct size depends on the tech level, but I tend to be a bit eclectic on my terminology

Battleship: max armor/defenses, biggest spine mount perrnited at tech level.

Battle Cruiser- about the same size as a battle ship, same jump, max speed, biggest spine mount, less armor. Designed to fight battleships of lower tech level and pursue fleeing ships. Usually several supporting a squadron of battleships.

Frontier Cruiser- Same size, Medium spine mount, lots of ship's troops, small craft. Max speed, less armor/defenses, max jump. Designed to patrol the frontier, reach trouble spots fast and deal with whatever problem they find. A lone commission- think Star Trek's Enterprise.

Cruiser (or Frigate) Smaller, medium spine mount, medium armor/defenses, max maneuver and jump. Used for scouting, raiding, and escort.

Corvette: Too small for a spine mount, modest jump, max maneuver. Too tough for a pirate or commerce raider, used for escort and patrol.

 

[Whipsnade]

A handful of SSNs *did* prevent the Argentinian navy from operating at all.

Andrew,

That's true, but my post was referring to the only real and active threat the RN faced during the campaign. That threat came from the Argentine's air force.

The Belgrano's movements prior to her sinking were part of a three-pronged Argentine naval operation that included missile boats and a small carrier. When the heavy cruiser was sunk - and her escorts ran away instead of picking up the survivors - the other two Argentine forces withdrew quite rapidly and never left port again(1).

Against a real carrier with real aircraft neither the Argentine air force or navy would haven't even bothered to sortie. A CVBG and amphib group could have retaken the islands hours after they arrived in the theater. As it was, the RN, RAF, and RA won by the skin of their logistical teeth.


Have fun,
Bill

1 - Unbelievably, many Argentinians believe it was somehow "unfair" that the Belgrano was sunk at all!

 

[Major B]

Bob, I was tracking with you all the way until the end of your list. I still like to maintain naming distinctions among the smaller ships just as I do with the larger vessels IMTU.

For me there is a significant size difference between the cruiser and frigate. Cruisers are as you described, followed in size by destroyers, destroyer escorts, frigates, and then corvettes (or close escorts). Cruisers are the smallest vessels mounting spinal weapons so in game terms there is little difference between all of the smaller ships, but their relative firepower does vary along with their expense and the types of missions they are assigned.

 

[Major B]

Forgot to add part of my last post...

The reason why I'm a stickler for the distinctions between ship types isn't combat related. It is because the smaller ships are those most likely to be encountered by the players. The distinction adds detail to the backstory because the distinction will be important to the players and the NPCs they meet.

Maybe dirtside they run in to a newly-promoted lieutenant, celebrating his promotion AND his elevation to command of a Corvette. His last assignment was as weapons watch officer on a frontier cruiser, an assignment he hated because he was always standing watch and nothing ever happened except regular ass-chewings from his ship's paranoid executive officer. Then again, maybe he wasn't so bad, after all it was the efficiency report he wrote that was responsible for the NPC being promoted into this command.

You all see what I mean. Understanding the roles, functions, and relative abilities of the different ship types helps make the environment more real. Hope I didn't go off on too much of a tangent but I wanted to capture the thought while I had it in my mind.

 

[Renaissance Man]

You all see what I mean. Understanding the roles, functions, and relative abilities of the different ship types helps make the environment more real. Hope I didn't go off on too much of a tangent but I wanted to capture the thought while I had it in my mind.

Ah, that's what I'm loving about Traveller - the details. With enough forethought and study, you can really paint a complete picture for the players in little tiny brushstrokes of detail. It encourages better character backgrounds too.

 

[rancke]

AT,
Why do navies in the OTU build vessels that are larger than those weapon-derived upper limits? As with many Traveller questions there's an in-game and a meta-game reason for it.

First, in-game: We tend to forget that the fictional naval architects of the fictional OTU do not have copies of LBB:5 High Guard sitting on their desks from which to design near-perfect ships. We can parse the numbers from weapons, screens, and drives tables they have no inkling of. We can also analyze the to-hit, to-penetrate, and damage matrices they also have no knowledge of.

[...]

Second, meta-game: Huge ships are "kewl" and "scary". Players want to see a Death Star every now and then, so the rules need to provide one.

Third, maybe the combat rules in HG does not accurately reflect the "truth" of space combat in the OTU. After all, how many Age of Sail RPGs do you know of where the combat rules accurately reflect the intricacies of AoS fighting?


Hans

 

[robject]

Bob, I was tracking with you all the way until the end of your list. I still like to maintain naming distinctions among the smaller ships just as I do with the larger vessels IMTU.

For me there is a significant size difference between the cruiser and frigate. Cruisers are as you described, followed in size by destroyers, destroyer escorts, frigates, and then corvettes (or close escorts). Cruisers are the smallest vessels mounting spinal weapons so in game terms there is little difference between all of the smaller ships, but their relative firepower does vary along with their expense and the types of missions they are assigned.

I pretty much like your classification. Marc took a stab at defining what these terms mean to T5. He defines small-ship Cruisers as "equal guns and armor", and small-ship Frigates as "more guns than armor". So the Mercenary Cruiser and Kinunir are both "Cruisers" in that sense, whereas a patrol ship is probably more like a Frigate. In the large-ship world, ships appear to be named according to size (Battleship, Cruiser, Destroyer, Escort) or function (Flagship, Monitor, Carrier, Intelligence, Support) with typical modifiers (Attack, Battle, Chase, Defense, Fast, Heavy).

I'd like to see Corvette defined for T5, probably as a small-ship, but not sure how to differentiate it. More speed and agility than firepower and armor? And, what sets a small-ship Escort (Gazelle) apart from a Cruiser? Size only?

 

[Major B]

Tough question. The Cruiser classification for the Kinunir always threw me off beacuse in 'Fighting Ships' the destroyers were around 1000 Td while the Kinunir was 1200 Td (if memory serves - thats close if not exact). Now that you've pointed out the logic behind the 'cruiser' appelation I understand it, but I still don't like it.

Guess that means I was using size (or more exactly hull displacement) to classify the types even though in my mind it was (and is) function that is more important.

Trying to dredge up some nautical history here and I think that destroyers were first introduced as 'submarine destroyers' and the name was later shortened. If true, that reinforces my belief that function is the key to classification. Notwithstanding the changes various technological advances will bring, any ship designed to fulfill the same function will usually end up being close in size to others designed for the same purpose. That means to me that size, while not the descriminating factor, will still be a somewhat reliable measure of ship class.

But that is IMTU where the Kinunir is called a 'Frontier Destroyer' - Destroyer because it is not a capital ship (major combatant meaning (at that TL) that is does not have a spinal mount); Frontier indicating that is is a patrol vessel, more able to operate independently, usually along the frontier, with no or at most a small escort.

 

[sablewyvern]

Trying to dredge up some nautical history here and I think that destroyers were first introduced as 'submarine destroyers' and the name was later shortened.

Actually, I believe they were torpedo boat destroyers, torpedo boats being light craft causing excessive problems for larger vessels at the time. Your point still stands, however.

And aramis may be along shortly to correct me. I'm a little nervous making naval statements-of-fact with him around.

 

[Major B]

Sablewyvern, I think you are right. My IIRC indicator was blinking amber when I wrote that, but I couldn't remember the right designation so I went with it. I was sure someone would correct me.

Thanks.

 

[R_Chance]

Actually, I believe they were torpedo boat destroyers, torpedo boats being light craft causing excessive problems for larger vessels at the time. Your point still stands, however.

And aramis may be along shortly to correct me. I'm a little nervous making naval statements-of-fact with him around.

You are right on the mark. Torpedo boats carried torpedos (of course). They were more along the lines of a modern destroyer than a modern MTB / PT boat. Torpedo boat destroyers were larger and better armed than TBs and were suppose to screen the larger ships from torpedo attack. Destroyers began to carry torpedos themselves and eventually took over both the torpedo attack and screening roles with the "torpedo boat" appelation fading out untiul the later advent of the motor torpedo boat / PT boat type small craft.

 

[aramis]

I don't recall "Submarine Destroyers" from my coursework being a US nor UK designation.

I do recall Torpedo Boat Destroyers, and some Torpedo Boats being Submersibles, tho'!

The ASW role was pretty standard by the end of WW II

 

[Major B]

So maybe the development process will illustrate the 'form vs size' distinction:

Torpedo Boats are developed to launch torpedos at the capital ships - optimal size for these given power plant and fuel storage requirements and ability to carry enough ammo to be effective leaves them slightly smaller than the soon-to-be developed destroyer so equivalent to a later destroyer escort or more modern frigate and bigger than a corvette.

The Torpedo Boats are a problem, so ships are designed to destroy them - destroyers. To pack the firepower to fulfill their function, they end up slightly larger than the TBs.

Next comes the submarine (not exactly but to illustrate the point go with it). The Torpedo Boat is superseded by a craft that can use the surface of the water for cover. To maintain mobility underwater their size is reduced greatly from a TB to something roughly equivalent to a corvette.

In response, the destroyer takes on the function of submarine 'destroyer.' Size stays the same but ASW weapons are installed.
Destroyers also, however, take on fleet auxiliary functions - scouting, screening, excort, and showing the flag over wider areas are all part of their intended function, reducing the number available for ASW tasks. Someone then realizes that not such a big ship is needed to perform just escort and ASW missions so the cheaper, slightly smaller, and more specialized destroyer escort is born.

Now there is some wiggling here as technology develops new systems and new counter-systems but the mix of ship types stay pretty much the same, except when airplanes show up and some of the cruisers get flight decks slapped on top.

Later, airplanes get better as do submarines as do ASW weapons. There aren't enough of the big carriers to go around so escort carriers (smaller and cheaper) come around to do ASW support and fleet support roles.

As missiles come around (and the inevitable anti-missile missiles) we see further changes in roles and sizes. DDs become DDGs and add anti-missile defense to their roles, but destroyers are now combatants, just not quite capital ships. More (and cheaper) ships are needed to fill the gaps in the missile defenses around the big ships so destroyer escorts (DEs) are supplanted by the missile frigate (FFG).

The point I'm belaboring here is that as TL varies, the functions and capabilities of the ship types will vary but their size in relation to one another will stay in the same range. So while function is the real distinction between types, relative size can be a fairly reliable indicator of function.

The analogy isn't perfect but I think this illustrates the kinds of ship distinctions I want to make IMTU.

 

[aramis]

Actually, the modern DDG is really a CLG. (US Navy BuShips, 2007)

The term "Destroyer" is used to get funding from Congress.

 

[Major B]

Do you mean the US Navy would change a vessel's designation to secure funding? I'm shocked.

I guess that is another illustration of how the role of that platform has evolved - the modern destroyer is closer to a capital ship than it was previously. That fits in with the elevation of the Cruiser and Carrier to capital ships replacing a function of the older Battleships.

 

[deniable]

Wikipedia has an article on the 1975 ship reclassification
and how they ended the "Cruiser gap." They redefined several classes of ship to keep congress off their back.