CT Only: HG 2e Flight Section Launch Tube Crew

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

I am fairly sure I asked for clarification the launch tube crew requirements some time ago, unfortunately my efforts have failed to dig up the information. Since I can not seem to find the information I am asking again. This time I am adding the information in my LBB 5 book.

HG 2e p. 33: Launch tubes should have a crew of at least 10, which include a flight supervision and a preponderance of petty officers.

What percentage of the 9 remaining launch tube crew would be considered a preponderance of petty officers?

Would 60% be a preponderance of Petty Officers?

 

[pendragonman]

Hello all,

I am fairly sure I asked for clarification the launch tube crew requirements some time ago, unfortunately my efforts have failed to dig up the information. Since I can not seem to find the information I am asking again. This time I am adding the information in my LBB 5 book.

HG 2e p. 33: Launch tubes should have a crew of at least 10, which include a flight supervision and a preponderance of petty officers.

What percentage of the 9 remaining launch tube crew would be considered a preponderance of petty officers?

Would 60% be a preponderance of Petty Officers?

Referring to page 6, petty officers are enlisted personnel, e-4 and above. A preponderance means that the vast majority of the enlisted personnel will NOT be brand new recruits or even 2nd year spacers.

Barring that, a preponderance is up to the individual situation. In some cases a launch tube team will be 1 officer and 9 petties, in another it could be 3 officers 5 petties and a couple of junior spacers. The senior supervisor could just as easily by a master chief and have no officers at all.

Bottom line, "prepondurance", as long as the majority of the enlisted are e-4 and above, you are covered.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello pendragonman,

Referring to page 6, petty officers are enlisted personnel, e-4 and above. A preponderance means that the vast majority of the enlisted personnel will NOT be brand new recruits or even 2nd year spacers.

Barring that, a preponderance is up to the individual situation. In some cases a launch tube team will be 1 officer and 9 petties, in another it could be 3 officers 5 petties and a couple of junior spacers. The senior supervisor could just as easily by a master chief and have no officers at all.

Bottom line, "prepondurance", as long as the majority of the enlisted are e-4 and above, you are covered.

Thank you for the feedback and what you wrote is vaguely familiar and thinking about the Air Wings on carriers a majority of the crew are Petty Officers, POs for short, with low numbers of E2 or E3 mainly strikers. On the four submarines I served on I can only recall one E3.

 

[pendragonman]

Hello pendragonman,



Thank you for the feedback and what you wrote is vaguely familiar and thinking about the Air Wings on carriers a majority of the crew are Petty Officers, POs for short, with low numbers of E2 or E3 mainly strikers. On the four submarines I served on I can only recall one E3.

Exactly. The training regimen pre-deployment to a specific ship is likely to make most e-4 and above. It could be the few e-3 and below are either on their virgin cruise or hard cases that have been subject to discipline and lost a few stripes.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello pendragonman,

Exactly. The training regimen pre-deployment to a specific ship is likely to make most e-4 and above. It could be the few e-3 and below are either on their virgin cruise or hard cases that have been subject to discipline and lost a few stripes.

The one person I know of came to the boat and eventually struck for Sonar. I also know of one E3 Sonarman, but that person had been busted but was not a hardcase, the guy had done something dumb in school just before transferring to the boat.

 

[flykiller]

What percentage of the 9 remaining launch tube crew would be considered a preponderance of petty officers? Would 60% be a preponderance of Petty Officers?

strictly speaking, yes.

you may want to consider your social model. in the american model they would all be petty officers, with one or two chiefs. in the soviet model they might all be junior officers.

 

[aramis]

Hello pendragonman,



The one person I know of came to the boat and eventually struck for Sonar. I also know of one E3 Sonarman, but that person had been busted but was not a hardcase, the guy had done something dumb in school just before transferring to the boat.

I've met over a dozen rated seamen... 4th class rating, rank worn Seaman with Specialty Mark above. Back when I was Navy JROTC cadet on training field trips to naval bases. A couple friends of mine were 4th class rates as well. the nomenclature of their rank/rate has varied over the years... I've seen SN(SK), SN(MS), SN(SM), and more recently, SMSN, SMSA, ETSN. Oh, and one BTEM (E3, 4th class rate Boiler Tech...)

I think the UK RN has a better system... rank is separated from rating much more clearly. Fewer ranks, too.
Recruit
Able Seaman (rope fret)
Leading Seaman (Anchor)
Petty Officer 2nd Class (crossed anchors)
Petty Officer 1st Class (crossed anchors and crown)
Chief Petty Officer (anchor inside Wreath with crown above
Warrant officer 2C (including ship and squadron SCPO);
Warrant officer 1C (including Fleet MCPO).


But ratings are worn on the other sleeve...
I like the 1975 era version, but the basic idea is
trained: specialty mark
rated: specialty mark with star above
experienced: Specialty mark with star above and below
Trainer/master: specialty mark with crown above

Taking this to Traveller...

Rating badges:
Able: skill 1 (Specialty Mark)
experienced: Skill 2 (Specialty Mark with star)
Senior: Skill 3 (Specialty Mark with Imperial Starburst)
Trainer or Chief: Skill 3 plus either instruction or administration. (Specialty Mark with Starburst; wreath surrounds specialty mark)
Best two worn.

Promotions: Make Able Spacehand when you have an able rating. Badge is a 5 point star
Make JPO when you get an Experienced rating or term 2 (later of). Badge is ring of starburst
Make SPO when you get an Advanced rating or term 3 (later of). Badge is starburst
Make CPO when you get a Chief Rating or term 4 (later of). Badge is starburst inside wreath
Make SCPO no less than 1 term after CPO. Badge is starburst in wreath with star between points of apex
Make MCPO no less than 1 term after SCPO. Badge is as SCPO with star centered in starburst

Given that I use MT, getting instruction isn't that hard... inborn cascade is on the education table...

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello flykiller,

strictly speaking, yes.

you may want to consider your social model. in the american model they would all be petty officers, with one or two chiefs. in the soviet model they might all be junior officers.

Thank you for the feedback the 60% of the 9 remaining launch tube crew would be a preponderance of Petty Officers. Technically speaking Chiefs are Petty Officers.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello aramis,

I began researching the equivalent ranks for US armed forces to other countries here is the list i have for USN and RN Enlisted ranks.

E1: USN Seaman Recruit (SR); RN no equivalent
E2: USN Seaman Apprentice (SA); RN Able Seaman 2 (AB2)
E3: USN Seaman (SN); RN Able Seaman 1 (AB1)
E4: USN Petty Officer 3rd Class (PO3); RN Leading Hand (LH)
E5: USN Petty Officer 2rd Class (PO2); RN Petty Officer (PO)
E6: USN Petty Officer 1st Class (PO1); RN Petty Officer (PO)
E7: USN Chief Petty Officer (CPO); RN Chief Petty Officer (CPO)
E8: USN Senior Chief Petty Officer (SCPO); RN no equivalent
E9: USN Master Chief Petty Officer (MCPO); RN Warrant Officer Class 1 (WO1)

USN Command MCPO (CMDCM), Fleet MCPO (FLTCM), Force MCPO (FORCM), and MCPO of the Navy (MCPON); RN Warrant Officer of the Naval Service (WONS)

Yes the RN has fewer ranks than the USN.

SR Rank Badge: 1 diagonal stripe
SA Rank Badge: 2 diagonal Stripes
SN Rank Badge: 3 diagonal Stripes

PO 3: Eagle (called a Crow) over Rating over 1 chevron
PO 2: Eagle over Rating over 2 chevrons
PO 1: Eagle over Rating over 3 chevron
CPO: Eagle over Rocker/Arch over Rating over 3 chevrons
SCPO:1 star centered over Eagle over Rocker/Arch over Rating over 3 chevrons
MCPO:1 star centered over each wing of the Eagle over Rocker/Arch over Rating over 3 chevrons
CMDCM, FLTCM, FORCM: 2 stars centered over each wing of the Eagle over Rocker/Arch over Star over 3 chevrons
MCPON: 3 stars two over each wing and one centered over the Eagle's head over Rocker/Arch over Star over 3 chevrons

On the news there was a sound bite that the USN will at some point change from Sonar Technician Submarines First Class Petty (STS1) to PO1 and that rating with gender specific titles are going to be changed. I'm happy to be retired I had enough fun with changes to my uniforms.

The project I started of collecting the different pay grade, ranks, and insignia was based what CT had in LBB 4 and LBB 5.

I had not about translating them into MT thank you for the idea and providing an example.

 

[pendragonman]

Of course, we don't have to use a real world example as we have the rank structure right there in the chargen for High Guard.

The individual just has to decide what the defenition of preponderance is for their TU.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello pendragonman,

Of course, we don't have to use a real world example as we have the rank structure right there in the chargen for High Guard.

The individual just has to decide what the definition of preponderance is for their TU.

The Traveller rank/pay grade structures in CT LBB 5 HG are based on real world examples. The E1 rank of Spacehand Recruit appears to be modified from Seaman Recruit, E2 Spacehand Apprentice is Seaman Apprentice, and Able Spacehand is Able Seaman. The rest of the enlisted ranks appear to be based on the USN model. The Officer rank of Sublieutenant appears to be borrowed from the RN. The ranks associated with pay grades O1, O3 to O8 are based on just about any world Navy's structure. The ranks of Sector Admiral (O9) is modified to fit Traveller and Grand Admiral (O10) is an historical rank.

I would have liked CT LBB 5 HG 2e pp. 32-33 better had the authors applied to the Officer and PO/NCO requirements for Medical (reinstated per Errata), Engineering, and weapons in the Command, Flight, and Service Crew requirements. Those guidelines still can be modified, but at least one has a sense of an average number to use rather than guessing. Of course in the real world the actual requirements frequently fail to match the Table of Organization and Equipment.

 

[pendragonman]

Hello pendragonman,



The Traveller rank/pay grade structures in CT LBB 5 HG are based on real world examples. The E1 rank of Spacehand Recruit appears to be modified from Seaman Recruit, E2 Spacehand Apprentice is Seaman Apprentice, and Able Spacehand is Able Seaman. The rest of the enlisted ranks appear to be based on the USN model. The Officer rank of Sublieutenant appears to be borrowed from the RN. The ranks associated with pay grades O1, O3 to O8 are based on just about any world Navy's structure. The ranks of Sector Admiral (O9) is modified to fit Traveller and Grand Admiral (O10) is an historical rank.

I would have liked CT LBB 5 HG 2e pp. 32-33 better had the authors applied to the Officer and PO/NCO requirements for Medical (reinstated per Errata), Engineering, and weapons in the Command, Flight, and Service Crew requirements. Those guidelines still can be modified, but at least one has a sense of an average number to use rather than guessing. Of course in the real world the actual requirements frequently fail to match the Table of Organization and Equipment.

Of course they were based on US examples. That is what was easily available to the authors at the time.

That said, we have a large segment of the Traveller community that regularly flies completely off the handle at the concept of applying real world examples to a game system. They only want to compare the rules as written (RAW), so I continue to point out that we don't need the real world examples to support our logical conclusions.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello penfragonman,

Of course they were based on US examples. That is what was easily available to the authors at the time.

That said, we have a large segment of the Traveller community that regularly flies completely off the handle at the concept of applying real world examples to a game system. They only want to compare the rules as written (RAW), so I continue to point out that we don't need the real world examples to support our logical conclusions.

Technically Traveller has modeled and modified real world stuff to fit into the games frame work. A logical conclusion is a decision reached after studying or comparing bits of information.

How was the rule as written developed?

In Traveller many of the rules written are based on real world information which has been modified to fit the game's framework.

A Traveller's ship's Bridge has the same function as the bridge of a ship, a submarines control room, and the cockpit of aircraft. The RAW CT Bridge requirement is based on the author's or designer's idea of a real world bridge.

Getting back to the original goal of the topic which was to figure out what the RAW met by the criteria of a [FONT=arial,helvetica]"preponderance of Petty Officers" [/FONT]which appears to be anything between 60 and 100%.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Getting back to the original goal of the topic which was to figure out what the RAW met by the criteria of a [FONT=arial,helvetica]"preponderance of Petty Officers" [/FONT]which appears to be anything between 60 and 100%.

The standard definition of preponderance is "more than any other" ≈ majority, so a preponderance of POs would be 50.1%?

 

[aramis]

The standard definition of preponderance is "more than any other" ≈ majority, so a preponderance of POs would be 50.1%?

Preponderance ≠ Majority.
Preponderance = plurality

Given that there are 3 or 4 possible groups...
If it's Hands, Petty Officers, Officers, it could be anything more than 33.33%.
If it's Hands, petty's, Chiefs, and Officers, it could be anything higher than 25%
If it's hands, petty's, chiefs, warrants, and officers, it could be anything over 20%...

Given that it's likely to be 1 officer 9 non, those 9 non are likely to be 5 PO and 4 hands.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

The standard definition of preponderance is "more than any other" ≈ majority, so a preponderance of POs would be 50.1%?

Using rounding and multiplying 9 by 50% or 50.1% the number is 5. As has been indicated preponderance is a license for the designer to use a percentage of 50% or more. In three of the sections crew composition is has a base number instead of a vaguely worded number.

With the above information I will revise my numbers as 50% to 100% POs.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Preponderance ≠ Majority.
Preponderance = plurality

That is highly dialectal. In English "majority" very roughly means "most", and "plurality" means "many".

Preponderance does not have to mean greater number, it can be greater importance.

I have interpreted the requirement as: "At least one officer, and most of the enlisted are petty officers", but I have to agree it might mean "mostly petty officers and at least one officer".

 

[AnotherDilbert]

With the above information I will revise my numbers as 50% to 100% POs.

That I think we can all agree with.

I would keep the possibility of using more than one officer, e.g if we have three launch tubes I would allocate 30 crew, of which 1 senior officer and 3 junior officers (one for each launch tube).

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello aramis,

Preponderance ≠ Majority.
Preponderance = plurality

Given that there are 3 or 4 possible groups...
If it's Hands, Petty Officers, Officers, it could be anything more than 33.33%.
If it's Hands, petty's, Chiefs, and Officers, it could be anything higher than 25%
If it's hands, petty's, chiefs, warrants, and officers, it could be anything over 20%...

Given that it's likely to be 1 officer 9 non, those 9 non are likely to be 5 PO and 4 hands.

The launch tube crew should be at least 10 which will include 1 flight supervision officer and a preponderance of POs.

Using only the CT HG 2e p. 6 Table of Ranks
A launch tube has 1 officer, a preponderance of E4 through E9, and possibly E1-E3.

The 33.33% of 9 = rounds to 3 if the number represents E1 to E3 personnel I agree. However since the details are for a preponderance I would have used 66%.

The 25% option with Chiefs is in my opinion covered by POs

The option with Warrant Officers would not have occurred to me since I would be using CT HG.

To recap the minimum percentage number for a preponderance of POs on a launch tube appears to be 50% and the maximum is 100%.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

That I think we can all agree with.

I would keep the possibility of using more than one officer, e.g if we have three launch tubes I would allocate 30 crew, of which 1 senior officer and 3 junior officers (one for each launch tube).

In this case I think that one could have four officers for three launch tubes instead of three which is a possibility that I would not have thought of including one.

Update:

After some pondering I am wondering if the senior officer may be an addition if the ship has more than one launch tube since each launch tube, I believe, requires 1 [FONT=arial,helvetica]flight supervision officer. On the other hand the senior flight officer could do double duty.
[/FONT]