mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
True, but it is then difficult to rate them in HG USP form
Fleets, IN organization, and general TO&E.
- Thread starter BetterThanLife
- Start date
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Pilot availability is a very important consideration. It always has been in the US Military and it is likely to always be a problem.
You are correct that we trained during WWII pilots in the tens of thousands. However when the average life expectancy of a Bomber Crew (requiring 2 pilots) was less than 12 missions and the 8th Airforce routinely flew raids with in excess of 500 bombers you burn through trained pilots in a hurry.
IN the Battle of Britain the biggest problem facing both the RAF and the Luftwaffe was the lack of a large enough body of trained experienced pilots. One of the big advantages that the British had, aside from the obvious Radar and centralized Ground controlled interception, was the fact that British pilots that bailed out, bailed out over friendly terrain and were likely to be able to return to duty, the German crews that were forced to bail out ended up in either the Channel or in an English POW camp. Pilots were still thrown into combat with less than 20 hours in type. Towards the end of WWII the Luftwaffe was reduced to having pilots trained at age 15 and their first flight in the aircraft they were supposed to take into combat was in some cases a live mission.
In the later part of the 20th Century the US Army had to reduce the number of Helicopters in units and down scale sizes giving senior officers command of smaller formations. Speciffically because they lacked the number of pilots required to fly the number of helicopters originally envisioned.
You will find that a large portion of Transports and Tankers in the US Airforce are actually crewed by reservists. Especially since the drawdown of SAC you will find that many of the tankers that used to be crewed by active duty have been transferred to the reserves. Again due to lack of pilots.
We trained that many pilots during WWII because we had to simply to keep up with OPTempo and to crew all the aircraft we were building. THe US built almost 13,000 B-17s alone. Each of those aircraft required 2 pilots. (And the Bombadier also had to have pilot training.) Of course we trained 10s of thousands of pilots. We did have one major advantage that the British, the Germans and the Japanese didn't have. Nobody was attacking our training facilities. SInce we had to send the pilots to the action we had time to train them before their combat operations but even then...
Pilots have always been the choke point in the Aircraft pipeline, I see no reason for that to change in the future. Now granted in a system with a population in the Billions you can find pilots. Probably lots of pilots.
And after rereading TCS you are also correct that only the Tournament rules specified the number of pilots available.
But that doesn't change the fact that pilots are and probably always will be at a premium. After all even looking at merchant rules in Traveller, where the trip between worlds is the most important aspect and making sure the ship keeps functioning is definitely high on the priority list (Especially given the profit margins that a mortgage forces on a transport.) The Astrogator and the Engineer are still paid less than the pilot. (And the Pilot's job appears to be to get the ship to and from 100 Diameters, or basically working 4 days a month.) If the Astrogator messes up you lose the ship just as badly as if the pilot messes up and the Engineer appears to be even more important making sure you don't suffer a catostropic loss in any number of ways. Yet the pilot gets the larger paycheck.
As far as the comment on losses due to hostile action, I already admited that my facts weren't entirely in order however the lists provided had some interesting inconsistencies.
Oh and all warfare is not attritional. (Though I guess that would depend on both your definition of Attritional and your definition of Warfare.
)
Trench Warfare is attritional. US action in WWII was attritional. The German Blitzkreig (obviously before the Eastern front bogged down), the US Strokes in Iraq, (both in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom), Grenada, and Panama are not examples of Attritional warfare. They are examples of wars being fought and won by fast strikes destroying the capacity of the enemy to wage war. More of a positional warfare.
Actually the BB I designed is a Kokirriak refitted to TL12. While it takes a whole lot of fighters to swamp it it still gets swamped. However it is just as effective in the wall of battle. Granted I sacrificed some armor for speed but I personally rather have maneuverable ships to armored ships that get shot up. And the Perisher Drednaught in TA7 has no Armor at all. Make me harder to hit instead of try to accept hits. After all what Hunter said about Pulsers in the HH forum applies to Starship combat as well. The best defense to modern weapons is to not get hit.
I definitely learned alot about fighters looking at it in this new way. I have found a few truths though. My original comment that TL has no bearing on the outcome is correct. Provided that the TL is equal and the computers are equal the results are the same. Fighters are definitely not an offensive weapon and two fighters that are equal can't hit each other. WHile you can usually build enough fighters to swamp a DN for the price of a DN you can't get them to the DN. You can only let the DN come to you and hope he doesn't come in overwhelming force. Carriers are still relagated to the Auxilary role because adding a typical carrier to the mix means you lose half the fighters for the same cost as the DN. And half the fighters don't give you half the hits. Half the fighters give little or no hits.
Canon Carriers carry between 60 and 450 fighters. The typical Canon Cruiser can handle 200-300 fighters the typical DN 800+ In those cases where fighters are kept down to those levels the Fighter wing tends to get vaporized with no effect. Against 500 fighthers a Cruiser tends to get overwhelmed without total loss among the fighters.
Weird!
Rule 1 for effective fighters at your techlevel, you must take the best available computer and install a bridge.
Rule 2 Numbers only count if you are no more than one point below the target's computer against a 50KTon Vessel.
Rule 3 Numbers only count if you are no more than two points below the target's computer against a larger ship.
Rule 4 Fighters are useless against a ship of less than 1000 tons with an agility of 6 and an equal computer.
Rule 5 There is no rule 5.
Rule 6 Equal fighters with an agility of 5 or better (And I still refuse to build fighters with an agility of less than 6.
can't hit each other.
Rule 7 Given those restrictions fighters can generate one hit that causes damage for every 12 or 36 fighters above 36x or 12x the number of active defenses that make penetration impossible and 36x or 12 x the number of active defenses that have to be penetrated. (And will generally run out of active defenses before more than 1 or 2 hits are generated in that number)
Man I hate to see how many fighters it takes to take down a Perisher or Tigress.
You are correct that we trained during WWII pilots in the tens of thousands. However when the average life expectancy of a Bomber Crew (requiring 2 pilots) was less than 12 missions and the 8th Airforce routinely flew raids with in excess of 500 bombers you burn through trained pilots in a hurry.
IN the Battle of Britain the biggest problem facing both the RAF and the Luftwaffe was the lack of a large enough body of trained experienced pilots. One of the big advantages that the British had, aside from the obvious Radar and centralized Ground controlled interception, was the fact that British pilots that bailed out, bailed out over friendly terrain and were likely to be able to return to duty, the German crews that were forced to bail out ended up in either the Channel or in an English POW camp. Pilots were still thrown into combat with less than 20 hours in type. Towards the end of WWII the Luftwaffe was reduced to having pilots trained at age 15 and their first flight in the aircraft they were supposed to take into combat was in some cases a live mission.
In the later part of the 20th Century the US Army had to reduce the number of Helicopters in units and down scale sizes giving senior officers command of smaller formations. Speciffically because they lacked the number of pilots required to fly the number of helicopters originally envisioned.
You will find that a large portion of Transports and Tankers in the US Airforce are actually crewed by reservists. Especially since the drawdown of SAC you will find that many of the tankers that used to be crewed by active duty have been transferred to the reserves. Again due to lack of pilots.
We trained that many pilots during WWII because we had to simply to keep up with OPTempo and to crew all the aircraft we were building. THe US built almost 13,000 B-17s alone. Each of those aircraft required 2 pilots. (And the Bombadier also had to have pilot training.) Of course we trained 10s of thousands of pilots. We did have one major advantage that the British, the Germans and the Japanese didn't have. Nobody was attacking our training facilities. SInce we had to send the pilots to the action we had time to train them before their combat operations but even then...
Pilots have always been the choke point in the Aircraft pipeline, I see no reason for that to change in the future. Now granted in a system with a population in the Billions you can find pilots. Probably lots of pilots.
And after rereading TCS you are also correct that only the Tournament rules specified the number of pilots available.
But that doesn't change the fact that pilots are and probably always will be at a premium. After all even looking at merchant rules in Traveller, where the trip between worlds is the most important aspect and making sure the ship keeps functioning is definitely high on the priority list (Especially given the profit margins that a mortgage forces on a transport.) The Astrogator and the Engineer are still paid less than the pilot. (And the Pilot's job appears to be to get the ship to and from 100 Diameters, or basically working 4 days a month.) If the Astrogator messes up you lose the ship just as badly as if the pilot messes up and the Engineer appears to be even more important making sure you don't suffer a catostropic loss in any number of ways. Yet the pilot gets the larger paycheck.
As far as the comment on losses due to hostile action, I already admited that my facts weren't entirely in order however the lists provided had some interesting inconsistencies.
Oh and all warfare is not attritional. (Though I guess that would depend on both your definition of Attritional and your definition of Warfare.
Trench Warfare is attritional. US action in WWII was attritional. The German Blitzkreig (obviously before the Eastern front bogged down), the US Strokes in Iraq, (both in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom), Grenada, and Panama are not examples of Attritional warfare. They are examples of wars being fought and won by fast strikes destroying the capacity of the enemy to wage war. More of a positional warfare.
Actually the BB I designed is a Kokirriak refitted to TL12. While it takes a whole lot of fighters to swamp it it still gets swamped. However it is just as effective in the wall of battle. Granted I sacrificed some armor for speed but I personally rather have maneuverable ships to armored ships that get shot up. And the Perisher Drednaught in TA7 has no Armor at all. Make me harder to hit instead of try to accept hits. After all what Hunter said about Pulsers in the HH forum applies to Starship combat as well. The best defense to modern weapons is to not get hit.
I definitely learned alot about fighters looking at it in this new way. I have found a few truths though. My original comment that TL has no bearing on the outcome is correct. Provided that the TL is equal and the computers are equal the results are the same. Fighters are definitely not an offensive weapon and two fighters that are equal can't hit each other. WHile you can usually build enough fighters to swamp a DN for the price of a DN you can't get them to the DN. You can only let the DN come to you and hope he doesn't come in overwhelming force. Carriers are still relagated to the Auxilary role because adding a typical carrier to the mix means you lose half the fighters for the same cost as the DN. And half the fighters don't give you half the hits. Half the fighters give little or no hits.
Canon Carriers carry between 60 and 450 fighters. The typical Canon Cruiser can handle 200-300 fighters the typical DN 800+ In those cases where fighters are kept down to those levels the Fighter wing tends to get vaporized with no effect. Against 500 fighthers a Cruiser tends to get overwhelmed without total loss among the fighters.
Weird!
Rule 1 for effective fighters at your techlevel, you must take the best available computer and install a bridge.
Rule 2 Numbers only count if you are no more than one point below the target's computer against a 50KTon Vessel.
Rule 3 Numbers only count if you are no more than two points below the target's computer against a larger ship.
Rule 4 Fighters are useless against a ship of less than 1000 tons with an agility of 6 and an equal computer.
Rule 5 There is no rule 5.
Rule 6 Equal fighters with an agility of 5 or better (And I still refuse to build fighters with an agility of less than 6.
Rule 7 Given those restrictions fighters can generate one hit that causes damage for every 12 or 36 fighters above 36x or 12x the number of active defenses that make penetration impossible and 36x or 12 x the number of active defenses that have to be penetrated. (And will generally run out of active defenses before more than 1 or 2 hits are generated in that number)
Man I hate to see how many fighters it takes to take down a Perisher or Tigress.
No solution should be te be-all end-all of ship design.
HG meson guns, however, come {expletive deleted} close to making that true.
Looking at it another way; HG doesnt reflect the nature of Meson Guns that other components of the TTA do; Striker and MT make it clear that everything within the target spheroid is destroyed. Turned to 'ash'; intermolecular bonds broken.
A factor A meson is a 50+meter radius sphere of disruption. The question becomes how accurately is that placed, and how much premature decay does a Meson Screen cause.
Based upon the textual effects description in striker, a BB should be far less vulnerable to massive crits from mesons than HG makes them in relationship to smaller platforms.
In any case, we know that there are large ships, and that HG doesn not reflect this reality well.
IMTU, I've made the use of parallel mounts a viable option for years. (I limit parallels to 1% of tonnage, taking 1 hardpoint per 100 tons of weapon.)
I've also been using the MT vehicle rules for years... ( figured DP/to, then multiply volume in Td of annihilation, then divide by 8 to determine "Standard" damage rating.) To reflect the much smaller line-of-fire length of a meson vs other beams, I use +1 diff to hit. But I still need to figure how to work meson screens. (I think it will be multiply by 1/(1+MSF).
HG meson guns, however, come {expletive deleted} close to making that true.
Looking at it another way; HG doesnt reflect the nature of Meson Guns that other components of the TTA do; Striker and MT make it clear that everything within the target spheroid is destroyed. Turned to 'ash'; intermolecular bonds broken.
A factor A meson is a 50+meter radius sphere of disruption. The question becomes how accurately is that placed, and how much premature decay does a Meson Screen cause.
Based upon the textual effects description in striker, a BB should be far less vulnerable to massive crits from mesons than HG makes them in relationship to smaller platforms.
In any case, we know that there are large ships, and that HG doesn not reflect this reality well.
IMTU, I've made the use of parallel mounts a viable option for years. (I limit parallels to 1% of tonnage, taking 1 hardpoint per 100 tons of weapon.)
I've also been using the MT vehicle rules for years... ( figured DP/to, then multiply volume in Td of annihilation, then divide by 8 to determine "Standard" damage rating.) To reflect the much smaller line-of-fire length of a meson vs other beams, I use +1 diff to hit. But I still need to figure how to work meson screens. (I think it will be multiply by 1/(1+MSF).
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Aramis: I don't read meson guns as being molecular bond disruptors. I've always thought that the volume affected had a gazillion relatively small explosions very close together: sort of like having a stick of dynamite in every cubic centimeter and setting them all off at once (including, of course, =inside= everything in the damage sphere).
Oz: Striker says they leave a crater of fine rubble.
If the desity is high enough to leave impassable rubble (which striker says it is), then the resultant effect is fairly close to disrupting bonds between molecules.
But you're right; it doesn't directly debond molecules from each other... it just forcibly fractures the lattice of solids, and excites the vast majority of the mateerial in area of effect.
Net effect: A hot partial-sphereoid of fine dust, mud, and/or loose molecules and/or atoms, plus any residual plasmas, and some vaporized formerly liquids and/or solids.
On ships or fusion powered craft, this is likely to result in explosive combinations of plasma and vaporized hydrogen.
the only given is that the pulse has a dration of under six seconds, as that's the maximum rate of fire.
Ugly.
{adjectival-expletive deleted} ugly.
If the desity is high enough to leave impassable rubble (which striker says it is), then the resultant effect is fairly close to disrupting bonds between molecules.
But you're right; it doesn't directly debond molecules from each other... it just forcibly fractures the lattice of solids, and excites the vast majority of the mateerial in area of effect.
Net effect: A hot partial-sphereoid of fine dust, mud, and/or loose molecules and/or atoms, plus any residual plasmas, and some vaporized formerly liquids and/or solids.
On ships or fusion powered craft, this is likely to result in explosive combinations of plasma and vaporized hydrogen.
the only given is that the pulse has a dration of under six seconds, as that's the maximum rate of fire.
Ugly.
{adjectival-expletive deleted} ugly.
Mr. Bhoins,
We are drifting away from the topic at hand; design choice in HG2, but the fault is primarily mine. Citing historical examples during discussions of a make-believe game setting is always fraught with danger. The discussion usually bogs down into a game of mutual genitalia sizing in which each side tries to trot out the greatest amount of minutiae. That being said, let's address a few of your latest statements:
Luftwaffe aircrew losses during the Battle of Britain - You facts are both correct and sadly spurious to your argument. Yes, the Luftwaffe did lose living pilots over hostile territory during those four months in 1940. However that was not the reason they found themselves short of pilots in 1945.
Unlike the Western Allies, the Reich never developed a coherent, well supported pilot training program. (Neither did the Japanese) During the war, the RAF and USAAF lost tens of thousands of aircrew either as prisoners or KIAs over occupied Europe. You'd have us believe that four months of losses crippled the Luftwaffe while years of similar losses did not cripple the Western Allies. The real reason those losses did not cripple the Western Allies' air forces is because they kept the training pipeline in operation. Indeed, unlike the Reich, they ensured they actually had a training pipeline.
On warfare being attritional - I wasn't stating that warfare is mutually attritional, just that losses in men and materials will occur despite the best of plans. The examples you cite were non-attritional for ONE SIDE ONLY. The losing side lost heavily either in men, equipment, or both. Red Army losses during the opening months of Barbarossa were in the millions. Iraqi losses during the 1St Gulf War were substantial also. As someone who was in Kuwait one month after the cease-fire and visited the Highway of Death (the Kuwaitis were leaving it untouched as a memorial of sorts), I can safely assert that Desert Storm was most certainly attritional for the Iraqis. FWIW, I wouldn't want to see fighters take on a Tigress either!
You are an intelligent and inquisitive person. Depending on shallow, 22 minutes plus commercials, History Channel programs and glossed-over, shake-n-bake, history paperbacks does not do your intellect justice. Read the good stuff, explore primary sources, and learn the real reasons behind things. Quoting from a grab bag of received wisdom goodies does you no favors.
Now back to Traveller!
Can I assume that your posting of Rules for Effective Fighters means you've accepted the idea that fighters can be useful at lower tech levels?
Sincerely,
Larsen
We are drifting away from the topic at hand; design choice in HG2, but the fault is primarily mine. Citing historical examples during discussions of a make-believe game setting is always fraught with danger. The discussion usually bogs down into a game of mutual genitalia sizing in which each side tries to trot out the greatest amount of minutiae. That being said, let's address a few of your latest statements:
Luftwaffe aircrew losses during the Battle of Britain - You facts are both correct and sadly spurious to your argument. Yes, the Luftwaffe did lose living pilots over hostile territory during those four months in 1940. However that was not the reason they found themselves short of pilots in 1945.
Unlike the Western Allies, the Reich never developed a coherent, well supported pilot training program. (Neither did the Japanese) During the war, the RAF and USAAF lost tens of thousands of aircrew either as prisoners or KIAs over occupied Europe. You'd have us believe that four months of losses crippled the Luftwaffe while years of similar losses did not cripple the Western Allies. The real reason those losses did not cripple the Western Allies' air forces is because they kept the training pipeline in operation. Indeed, unlike the Reich, they ensured they actually had a training pipeline.
On warfare being attritional - I wasn't stating that warfare is mutually attritional, just that losses in men and materials will occur despite the best of plans. The examples you cite were non-attritional for ONE SIDE ONLY. The losing side lost heavily either in men, equipment, or both. Red Army losses during the opening months of Barbarossa were in the millions. Iraqi losses during the 1St Gulf War were substantial also. As someone who was in Kuwait one month after the cease-fire and visited the Highway of Death (the Kuwaitis were leaving it untouched as a memorial of sorts), I can safely assert that Desert Storm was most certainly attritional for the Iraqis. FWIW, I wouldn't want to see fighters take on a Tigress either!
You are an intelligent and inquisitive person. Depending on shallow, 22 minutes plus commercials, History Channel programs and glossed-over, shake-n-bake, history paperbacks does not do your intellect justice. Read the good stuff, explore primary sources, and learn the real reasons behind things. Quoting from a grab bag of received wisdom goodies does you no favors.
Now back to Traveller!
Can I assume that your posting of Rules for Effective Fighters means you've accepted the idea that fighters can be useful at lower tech levels?
Sincerely,
Larsen
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Oh, yes, being on the receiving end of meson guns is not for the weak of stomach. I imagine all living things in the sphere of destruction are reduced to a fine red mist that gets evenly distributed throughout the sphere. Very messy.
This is why the standard Marine Combat Vehicle IMTU mounts a battlefield meson accelerator (and a battlefield meson screen, from TNE, as well).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Oz,
where's the battlefield meson screen mentioned in TNE? I've been looking for evidence that meson screens can be used on planets...
(I always thought they could but canon evidence would be nice
)
where's the battlefield meson screen mentioned in TNE? I've been looking for evidence that meson screens can be used on planets...
(I always thought they could but canon evidence would be nice
)
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
I know of one piece of CT evidence for planetside use of meson screens: in STRIKER Book 2, under Rule 76: Planetary Defenses, the last paragraph states that passive defenses over cities include nuclear dampers and "large (city-sized) meson screens."
FFS allows you to build meson screens at any power level you want. I reverse-engineered the STRIKER battlefield meson gun in FFS, and then designed an FFS meson screen that could stop it and declared that to be (IMTU) the "battlefield meson screen." Since FFS rates meson screens by the size of ship they can protect, I made my "battlefield meson screen" able to protect the biggest size ship mentioned (Gigantic) so I could say it covered the biggest area possible. IMTU I allow it protect a one-kilometer radius. That's just a guess, and it's possible to argue that it might only protect a smaller radius.
FFS allows you to build meson screens at any power level you want. I reverse-engineered the STRIKER battlefield meson gun in FFS, and then designed an FFS meson screen that could stop it and declared that to be (IMTU) the "battlefield meson screen." Since FFS rates meson screens by the size of ship they can protect, I made my "battlefield meson screen" able to protect the biggest size ship mentioned (Gigantic) so I could say it covered the biggest area possible. IMTU I allow it protect a one-kilometer radius. That's just a guess, and it's possible to argue that it might only protect a smaller radius.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Actually, it shows I have accepted that fighters, given those rules, can damage and even mission kill capital ships regardless of Tech Level.
But I have also accepted that it is going to take much greater numbers of fighters to accomplish that than most Traveller sources will have you believe are being built. Further given the rules posted it shows that all canon fighters are still useless against most canon front line combat space vessels.
With T20 space combat is radically different on how to score a hit giving an entire different set of rules but still requiring more than a canon carrier worth of fighters to kill a typical canon front line cruiser.
But I have also accepted that it is going to take much greater numbers of fighters to accomplish that than most Traveller sources will have you believe are being built. Further given the rules posted it shows that all canon fighters are still useless against most canon front line combat space vessels.
With T20 space combat is radically different on how to score a hit giving an entire different set of rules but still requiring more than a canon carrier worth of fighters to kill a typical canon front line cruiser.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
BTW the comments on pilot losses during the Battle of Britain came from Dowdy's book on the subject and were not meant to imply that the Battle of Britain caused the Luftwaffe's later problems with lack of pilots.
A war of Attrition implies both sides are accepting losses to cause losses on the other side hopefully in a marginally larger number. Attriting the enemy is related but a different concept, it is a nicer term than killing the enemy's soldiers and destroying his equipment. Kind of like servicing a target.
As far as pilot training programs in Japan and Germany during WWII. They did have a much smaller population base to draw from. While they started with excellent pilots mounting losses among their experienced pilots and a lack of time to train pilots without pressure caused by Allied Air Offenses brought the Germans to the state I described. Coral Sea, Midway and the Marianas Turkey Shoot did even more damage to Japanese Naval aviation in a shorter period of time. (That bit on the Pacific came from Nimitz's and Boyington's books on the subject.) Though Boyington's book was a bit slanted and he didn't have the perspective of the overall picture it does give a good first hand impression of part of the air campaign in the Pacific.
I don't currently have the books handy and it hads been a while since I read them but that doesn't invalidate the information presented. (ANd yes I have been known to occasionally watch the History Channel and "The Battle of Britain" was surprisingly like the accounts in both Churchill's and Dowdy's books.
A war of Attrition implies both sides are accepting losses to cause losses on the other side hopefully in a marginally larger number. Attriting the enemy is related but a different concept, it is a nicer term than killing the enemy's soldiers and destroying his equipment. Kind of like servicing a target.
As far as pilot training programs in Japan and Germany during WWII. They did have a much smaller population base to draw from. While they started with excellent pilots mounting losses among their experienced pilots and a lack of time to train pilots without pressure caused by Allied Air Offenses brought the Germans to the state I described. Coral Sea, Midway and the Marianas Turkey Shoot did even more damage to Japanese Naval aviation in a shorter period of time. (That bit on the Pacific came from Nimitz's and Boyington's books on the subject.) Though Boyington's book was a bit slanted and he didn't have the perspective of the overall picture it does give a good first hand impression of part of the air campaign in the Pacific.
I don't currently have the books handy and it hads been a while since I read them but that doesn't invalidate the information presented. (ANd yes I have been known to occasionally watch the History Channel and "The Battle of Britain" was surprisingly like the accounts in both Churchill's and Dowdy's books.
jchurchill
SOC-12
Larsen and Bhoins,
You both make excellent points regarding pilot replacement -- both in history and in game terms -- I wanted to throw in a few more thoughts:
Historical
The insidious nature of the History Channel is that it does repeat half digested truisms. Further, I don't think that Bhoins observation about losses in the Battle of Britain was directly related to later shortages as he noted but to some extent you are both correct -- the losses in 1940 of skilled pilots who learned exp. in the Spanish Civil War did help to disrupt later Luftwaffe training programs as exp. pilots were in fairly short supply as time went on -- so loss of pilots and poorly organized training program contributed to shortages it appears.
Production of pilots during 2nd WW and after--
While the US was able to produce a plentiful supply of pilots in 2nd WW -- one has to factor in that training a pilot to operate a 400mph to 500mph fighter is different from training a pilot to operate a Mach 1.6 to Mach 2 fighter. My father was a Naval aviator and he told me about the gradual weeding of people who had trouble with prop planes and those who mastered prop planes then had to master the f9f Panther and a number of candidates were washed out after that and of course eventually those who had trouble making the jump from a Panther to a Phantom. The point? Far fewer people are suited to operate a Phantom at full speed than could learn to master a P-40, a Hellcat or a P-51. So as speed and complexity of the ship increases the numbe of people who can handle it appears to decrease.
Traveller application??
In Traveller, or at least CT, MT, and T4, Pilot and Ship's boat skills qualify one ot fly a fighter but Pilot skill is harder to obtain and usually restricted to smaller groups than the gang at large. As noted in the rules the handling characteristics are different and some one with ships boat can't operate as a pilot. In the same way that I am a good small boat sailor but would not be able to steer an oil tanker or the USS New Jersey to put it into real world terms.
In practical terms, most of the crew manning those fighters may not be fully qualified Pilots but perhaps NCOs and Marines with Ship's Boat skills which appears to be a good bit easier to acquire than Pilot skill. [if my unscientific review of character generation last night was correct]. Why lose crew that are Pilot qualified if you can train crew in Ship's Boat skill?
Perhaps that is where fighters make sense, esp in running the risks of losing crew as opposed to a fighter that can be replaced by manufacture?
You both make excellent points regarding pilot replacement -- both in history and in game terms -- I wanted to throw in a few more thoughts:
Historical
The insidious nature of the History Channel is that it does repeat half digested truisms. Further, I don't think that Bhoins observation about losses in the Battle of Britain was directly related to later shortages as he noted but to some extent you are both correct -- the losses in 1940 of skilled pilots who learned exp. in the Spanish Civil War did help to disrupt later Luftwaffe training programs as exp. pilots were in fairly short supply as time went on -- so loss of pilots and poorly organized training program contributed to shortages it appears.
Production of pilots during 2nd WW and after--
While the US was able to produce a plentiful supply of pilots in 2nd WW -- one has to factor in that training a pilot to operate a 400mph to 500mph fighter is different from training a pilot to operate a Mach 1.6 to Mach 2 fighter. My father was a Naval aviator and he told me about the gradual weeding of people who had trouble with prop planes and those who mastered prop planes then had to master the f9f Panther and a number of candidates were washed out after that and of course eventually those who had trouble making the jump from a Panther to a Phantom. The point? Far fewer people are suited to operate a Phantom at full speed than could learn to master a P-40, a Hellcat or a P-51. So as speed and complexity of the ship increases the numbe of people who can handle it appears to decrease.
Traveller application??
In Traveller, or at least CT, MT, and T4, Pilot and Ship's boat skills qualify one ot fly a fighter but Pilot skill is harder to obtain and usually restricted to smaller groups than the gang at large. As noted in the rules the handling characteristics are different and some one with ships boat can't operate as a pilot. In the same way that I am a good small boat sailor but would not be able to steer an oil tanker or the USS New Jersey to put it into real world terms.
In practical terms, most of the crew manning those fighters may not be fully qualified Pilots but perhaps NCOs and Marines with Ship's Boat skills which appears to be a good bit easier to acquire than Pilot skill. [if my unscientific review of character generation last night was correct]. Why lose crew that are Pilot qualified if you can train crew in Ship's Boat skill?
Perhaps that is where fighters make sense, esp in running the risks of losing crew as opposed to a fighter that can be replaced by manufacture?
Actually, History Channel has a lot of good (if tertiary) source matter; it is more accurate than most public school history texts, and in general, less political/propagandist than many of the more "serious" secondary source materials out there.
Remember, when historians are writing for each other (those "More serious" secondary and tertiary sources), they are writing in a style intended to prove their thesis right, rather than trying to present a body of evidence; in short, propaganda.
Bringing this back to topic: are the traveller setting materials propaganda or truth for the OTU? Modern games often present setting materials as nothing but propaganda; Older games tend to be more "factual" in presentation.
If, in fact, the purpose of the BatRons is to provide a large number of Navy Jobs and Show the Flag, rather than be better than Cruisers in the line of battle, it matters little if the rules make them better than cruisers or not. (Ton for ton, Batrons are less effective than CruRons; Credit for Credit as well; a batron is still (under HG) slightly better than a cruron, but not much.)
Remember, when historians are writing for each other (those "More serious" secondary and tertiary sources), they are writing in a style intended to prove their thesis right, rather than trying to present a body of evidence; in short, propaganda.
Bringing this back to topic: are the traveller setting materials propaganda or truth for the OTU? Modern games often present setting materials as nothing but propaganda; Older games tend to be more "factual" in presentation.
If, in fact, the purpose of the BatRons is to provide a large number of Navy Jobs and Show the Flag, rather than be better than Cruisers in the line of battle, it matters little if the rules make them better than cruisers or not. (Ton for ton, Batrons are less effective than CruRons; Credit for Credit as well; a batron is still (under HG) slightly better than a cruron, but not much.)
jchurchill
SOC-12
Actually, History Channel has a lot of good (if tertiary) source matter; it is more accurate than most public school history texts,
=================================================
The History Channel is not the root of all evil but it is a good source for some "condensed versions" that tend to obscure the more complex aspects of a given situation. As for being more accurate than most US public school history texts, that is a sadly low standard to meet.
"and in general, less political/propagandist than many of the more "serious" secondary source materials out there."
Although the HC does tend to spew out facts and figures about hardware like tanks and planes there is in fact a political leaning at the HC. Whether one agrees with it or not is a different matter but HC does have one.
"Remember, when historians are writing for each other (those "More serious" secondary and tertiary sources), they are writing in a style intended to prove their thesis right, rather than trying to present a body of evidence; in short, propaganda."
Good historians and bad historians are trying to prove a thesis. Otherwise you are just parading cold dead facts to numb the brain. The difference I think [having been a historian and worked with many of them in 2 different museums] is that good historians present their evidence and address those facts that tend to undermine their thesis in an honest way. Bad historians tend to ignore inconvienent facts altogether.
So is history "bunk?" [Henry Ford] or "the lie we all agree upon?" [Voltaire]. Sometimes. Depends on the skill of the historian.
"Bringing this back to topic: are the traveller setting materials propaganda or truth for the OTU?"
I would say there are 2 different voices in Traveller materials. One voice is ironic and we are given hints and winks that what we are being told is for the benefit of the rubes and hicks in the backwater planets [the flyover or red planets if you will.] Other material is clearly written as factual and meant to be taken is true.
"Modern games often present setting materials as nothing but propaganda; Older games tend to be more "factual" in presentation."
Maybe it's a sign of a more cynical time and place.
=================================================
The History Channel is not the root of all evil but it is a good source for some "condensed versions" that tend to obscure the more complex aspects of a given situation. As for being more accurate than most US public school history texts, that is a sadly low standard to meet.
"and in general, less political/propagandist than many of the more "serious" secondary source materials out there."
Although the HC does tend to spew out facts and figures about hardware like tanks and planes there is in fact a political leaning at the HC. Whether one agrees with it or not is a different matter but HC does have one.
"Remember, when historians are writing for each other (those "More serious" secondary and tertiary sources), they are writing in a style intended to prove their thesis right, rather than trying to present a body of evidence; in short, propaganda."
Good historians and bad historians are trying to prove a thesis. Otherwise you are just parading cold dead facts to numb the brain. The difference I think [having been a historian and worked with many of them in 2 different museums] is that good historians present their evidence and address those facts that tend to undermine their thesis in an honest way. Bad historians tend to ignore inconvienent facts altogether.
So is history "bunk?" [Henry Ford] or "the lie we all agree upon?" [Voltaire]. Sometimes. Depends on the skill of the historian.
"Bringing this back to topic: are the traveller setting materials propaganda or truth for the OTU?"
I would say there are 2 different voices in Traveller materials. One voice is ironic and we are given hints and winks that what we are being told is for the benefit of the rubes and hicks in the backwater planets [the flyover or red planets if you will.]
Other material is clearly written as factual and meant to be taken is true."Modern games often present setting materials as nothing but propaganda; Older games tend to be more "factual" in presentation."
Maybe it's a sign of a more cynical time and place.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
OK, so back to IN TO&E. How many Batrons how many Cru-rons would a Sector Navy likely have?
I know what Gateway Domain says but it definitely seems to be well short of a plausible number to accomplish any kind of defensive operations, it obviously doesn't envision Offensive operations. 1 BatRon or CruRon per Subsector. Giving the Sector Navy 16 Capital ship squadrons. (And they further define a typical Squadron as 3-4 Capital ships with some squadrons having as many as 8 capital ships.) SO according to Gateway Domain there are approximately 64 capital ships in a Sector Navy.
The Spinward Marches has 11 Subsectors that are Imperial Territory. That would imply 44 capital ships. There are 20, in Imperial territory, interdicted worlds. There are also 53 Imperium Naval Bases. 53 bases to support 44 ships? Seems a bit off.
I might be willing to settle for a minimum of one Capital ship Squadron per naval base. Key Nodal Naval Bases having 2 or 3 and Depots having 4-5 Squadrons. Not that they would always be there more like that is their home port. That makes more sense to me. It also gives enough capital ships to perform at least defensive operations with limited offensive capability. Even if you split up the squadrons into 2 ship divisions that is still alot of space to defend with 106 divisions.
I would also think that Cruisers would be your primary force but BatRons is your primary striking force. They are your Offensive capability, and as such should probably be kept concentrated.
I also think that there should be 2-4 CruRons per BatRon. (Probably 4 CruRons per BatRon.) That would give you at 1 per base 11 BatRons and 42 CruRons. If you have 2 DesRons per Capital Ship Squadron and 4 Squadrons of Destroyer escorts/Close escorts/Frigates/Corvettes per Capital ship Squadron, that would give you the light forces you might want for things like escorts for Capital ships, Combat Couriers, scouting, Combat Trains security, convoy security, Anti-Piracy patrols, etc. (And you will of course like most navies, in fact and fiction be chronically short of escorts.
)
I know what Gateway Domain says but it definitely seems to be well short of a plausible number to accomplish any kind of defensive operations, it obviously doesn't envision Offensive operations. 1 BatRon or CruRon per Subsector. Giving the Sector Navy 16 Capital ship squadrons. (And they further define a typical Squadron as 3-4 Capital ships with some squadrons having as many as 8 capital ships.) SO according to Gateway Domain there are approximately 64 capital ships in a Sector Navy.
The Spinward Marches has 11 Subsectors that are Imperial Territory. That would imply 44 capital ships. There are 20, in Imperial territory, interdicted worlds. There are also 53 Imperium Naval Bases. 53 bases to support 44 ships? Seems a bit off.
I might be willing to settle for a minimum of one Capital ship Squadron per naval base. Key Nodal Naval Bases having 2 or 3 and Depots having 4-5 Squadrons. Not that they would always be there more like that is their home port. That makes more sense to me. It also gives enough capital ships to perform at least defensive operations with limited offensive capability. Even if you split up the squadrons into 2 ship divisions that is still alot of space to defend with 106 divisions.
I would also think that Cruisers would be your primary force but BatRons is your primary striking force. They are your Offensive capability, and as such should probably be kept concentrated.
I also think that there should be 2-4 CruRons per BatRon. (Probably 4 CruRons per BatRon.) That would give you at 1 per base 11 BatRons and 42 CruRons. If you have 2 DesRons per Capital Ship Squadron and 4 Squadrons of Destroyer escorts/Close escorts/Frigates/Corvettes per Capital ship Squadron, that would give you the light forces you might want for things like escorts for Capital ships, Combat Couriers, scouting, Combat Trains security, convoy security, Anti-Piracy patrols, etc. (And you will of course like most navies, in fact and fiction be chronically short of escorts.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Back to Gateway Domain, Ley Sector and the small section of Glimerdrift Sector that belongs to the Domain of Gateway has a total of 12 Naval bases and one Depot. Perhaps then Ley Sector only has 16 Capital ship Squadrons. (3-4 BatRons, 12-13 CruRons.)
In the Solomani Rim I counted 39 Naval Bases and a Depot. 43 Squadrons, 8-9 BatRons, 34-35 CruRons?
Thinking about it this makes more sense than one per Subsector. Gateway Domain has no borders with a coherent hostile power where both The Spinward Marches and the Solomani Rim do. However with the few Naval Bases in Ley Sector it would give the impression that there are only 16 Squadrons in a Sector Navy.(Provided that you were actually in Ley Sector.)
In the Solomani Rim I counted 39 Naval Bases and a Depot. 43 Squadrons, 8-9 BatRons, 34-35 CruRons?
Thinking about it this makes more sense than one per Subsector. Gateway Domain has no borders with a coherent hostile power where both The Spinward Marches and the Solomani Rim do. However with the few Naval Bases in Ley Sector it would give the impression that there are only 16 Squadrons in a Sector Navy.(Provided that you were actually in Ley Sector.)
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I'd missed that one in Striker.
Thanks Oz
All naval bases are not created equal. Some may a battleron based there, some may not. Just because a base exists does not mean any ships are assigned there. It could have a Cruron based there, or just a couple of couriers or is a base used only in hostilities/training with just a caretaker looking after it in which case your "naval" base is normally something like a D/E class starport. But when the bulk carrier arrives with supplies, prefab building etc. Then your base becomes a base indeed.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
FFW gives the limited bit of the Spinward Marches that is covered:
4 Colonial BatRons
11 Colonial CruRons
1 Colonial Assault Squadron
plus
2 Regular BatRons
6 Regular CruRons
1 Regular Assault Squadron
all at start up.
The bulk of the Navy defending the Spinward Marches is off board:
6 Colonial BatRons
8 Colonial CruRons
30 Regular BatRons
20 Regular CruRons
Note that the reinforcements include a Corridor Fleet counter, but there is no Marches or Deneb named fleet counter.
4 Colonial BatRons
11 Colonial CruRons
1 Colonial Assault Squadron
plus
2 Regular BatRons
6 Regular CruRons
1 Regular Assault Squadron
all at start up.
The bulk of the Navy defending the Spinward Marches is off board:
6 Colonial BatRons
8 Colonial CruRons
30 Regular BatRons
20 Regular CruRons
Note that the reinforcements include a Corridor Fleet counter, but there is no Marches or Deneb named fleet counter.
