• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

How many tankers and tenders per fleet?

robject

SOC-14 10K
Admin Award
Marquis
Consider one of the fleets in the Spinward Marches. What do their logistics look like?

Or just consider the Tigress squadron. How many tankers do they need to support all those ships?
 
Most ships, including the Tigress-class, can refuel themselves, so no tankers needed.

Just a few ammo tenders, but they probably are not all that large.
 
What do their logistics look like?

imtu I assume a given ship is able to sustain itself in ordinary circumstances for two months. for each 1% of non-fuel non-armor volume devoted to cargo space, an additional two months. I design each ship to be self-supporting for 10 months, as there is little need for longer endurance since they have to come in for yearly maintenance anyway.

for combat/other damage response repair tenders are needed. if one assumes that 10% of a component's volume is needed for each major hit (or 1%, or 5%, whatever), that informs as to the amount of equipment stores that should be available on local tenders. there will also be a need for a mobile shipyard and it's associated personnel - one tender for that should be sufficient.

use and numbers of missile/sand replenishment tenders should be obvious. what may not be obvious is the volume of any particular salvo - I just say 1 dton for each factor 9 salvo.

How many tankers do they need to support all those ships?

jump fuel lighter support is impossible. power plant fuel lighter support, allowing a combat element to remain on-station despite no immediately available fuel, is achieveable to a limited extent.
 
Most ships, including the Tigress-class, can refuel themselves, so no tankers needed.

Just a few ammo tenders, but they probably are not all that large.

Just because they can does NOT mean they should...

the TankRons seem to be more about the refining rather than the refuel proper.

The use of large craft rather than capital ships in a risky activity, as well.

I've always assumed at least a full TankRon of 8-12 heavy cruiser-sized tankers, intended to be divvied, each capapble of refining its maximum tankage in 2-3 hours... Note that most of the actual tankage isn't on the tanker - it's in the fuel shuttles it carries - but the massive processing plants...

The cruisers and battleships with it take send their dry fuel shuttles down, and get full ones from the tankers, and the tankers accept the now full ones from the cruisers, swap the fuel for refined, and repeat. This way, no capital ships are doing the dangerous skim themselves, but all their fuel shuttle tankage is in use for refuelling ops, and all the ships jump on refined fuel.
 
Logistic tails tend to be rather larger than the fangs.

In regards to fleet tankers, the relation to capacity becomes a question of how long you intend that task force to remain in each system, while presumably busy bee drones extract hydrogen nectar from the most conveniently placed gas giant.

You could be more Napoleonic and live off the land, and have the warships forage for themselves, speeding up the process.
 
The boardgame Fifth Frontier War and Trillion Credit Squadron are the best sources for this.
FFW has this to say.
Tanker squadrons are able to refuel a limited number of other squadrons. A tanker squadron may refuel a number of non-tanker squadrons equal to the tanker's defense factor; thus, a 0-0-6 tanker could refuel six squadrons.
Note that this means a tanker squadron can refuel up to six Tigress squadrons.

Tenders are components of the BatRon they carry.
 
Yup, combat tanker squadrons are a rarity. Which is just as well since there are some pretty interesting tactics the Zhodani could use if they had a few more tanker squadrons.
But remember that the four squadrons means refueling up to thirty two Tigress class BBs.
 
the TankRons seem to be more about the refining rather than the refuel proper.

The use of large craft rather than capital ships in a risky activity, as well.

I've always assumed at least a full TankRon of 8-12 heavy cruiser-sized tankers, intended to be divvied, each capapble of refining its maximum tankage in 2-3 hours... Note that most of the actual tankage isn't on the tanker - it's in the fuel shuttles it carries - but the massive processing plants...

Very few ships carry fuel shuttles because they are very inefficient. Warships (or Traders) certainly cannot afford such luxuries. It is vastly cheaper to make the warships streamlined, than to rely on external tankers or fuel shuttles.

Most warships are at least partially streamlined and have purifiers, so can and will skim themselves. Being immobilised by the lack of vulnerable tankers is completely unacceptable.

Tankers are not necessary for normal operations, but an extra capability to pass otherwise impassable gaps.
 
Last edited:
Ammo tender = supply ship ≠ tender as in carrier of large vessels.
Never claimed it did. An ammo tender and a fleet tender are very different vessels.

Tender in the OTU has grown to have a specific meaning - it is a ship that carries battle riders.

There is no term for an ammo ship since ships manufacture their own ammo from waste heat.
 
It's a joke to highlight two gapping holes in the rules - ammo and other consumables, and waste heat.
Waste heat I can completely agree with, but ammo and other consumables are just details that we normally gloss over. The fleet train is there, it's just not detailed and specified.

MT contains ammo rules that are completely compatible with CT, if you care. E.g. a Tigress would launch 10750 missiles per round, or about 80 Dt worth. An entire battle wouldn't take more than ~1 kDt or so, a mere minor detail...
 
E.g. a Tigress would launch 10750 missiles per round, or about 80 Dt worth. An entire battle wouldn't take more than ~1 kDt or so, a mere minor detail...

Maybe a minor deail in volumen, not in cost ,at KCr 150 per nuclear missile...
 
Maybe a minor deail in volumen, not in cost ,at KCr 150 per nuclear missile...
GCr 1.6 is a minor detail for a GCr 360 ship.

A single Jump drive hit costs GCr ~6 to repair. It will cost many GCr to repair the superficial damage sustained in every battle, that is also a small detail.


Alternatively, that GCr 1.6 salvo reduces the spinal mount of an opposing well defended BB by about 3 factors, so about 6 such salvoes puts a BB out of action for the rest of the battle. Well worth GCr 10.
 
Consider the tanker function in the game Imperium- it helped bridge the gap with specialized equipment for refueling from stars when water or gas giant sources were unavailable.


Independent of that, the self-refueling streamlined hull function is a logical build choice especially for the Imperium with deep pockets and surrounded by potential foes.


However I can think of three circumstances where a semi-independent tanker formation would be an invaluable asset.


Fleet Strategy #1, the tankers could tag along with an extra refuel load, the battle fleet could load up and take another jump into a rear raiding area 6-8 parsecs deep from 'the lines', allowing the raiding fleet to get behind blockers without tipping their hand or be blocked by going to a refueling point and be detected/interdicted.


Fleet Strategy #2, in a related strategy a tanker fleet could be jumped ahead and again refuel 'off the sensor grid' and allow a less then 24 hour refuel/leave system turnaround time to gain 'strategic speed' advantage and clear through a system without interference or possibly detection.


Fleet Strategy #3 would be discretely creating a fuel dump to allow surprises like the above or a strategic size surprise refueling a much bigger fleet in less time or in no refuel source systems then expected.


I would say such a fleet would need tankers that are something like 85% fuel and enough of those to fuel the passing fleet in one shot.
 
However I can think of three circumstances where a semi-independent tanker formation would be an invaluable asset.

while the imperium has deep pockets, in practice there is only so much shipyard space (both for construction and maintenance), especially tech 13+ space. building tankers impinges on that availability.

the tankers could tag along with an extra refuel load, the battle fleet could load up and take another jump into a rear raiding area 6-8 parsecs deep from 'the lines'

the tankers themselves would need to return. a battle-fleet jump extension of 2 parsecs seems the max.
 
Independent of that, the self-refueling streamlined hull function is a logical build choice especially for the Imperium with deep pockets and surrounded by potential foes.
while the imperium has deep pockets, in practice there is only so much shipyard space (both for construction and maintenance), especially tech 13+ space. building tankers impinges on that availability.
Building streamlined warships is far cheaper than building unstreamlined warships and streamlined tankers.
 
while the imperium has deep pockets, in practice there is only so much shipyard space (both for construction and maintenance), especially tech 13+ space. building tankers impinges on that availability.



the tankers themselves would need to return. a battle-fleet jump extension of 2 parsecs seems the max.


You misunderstand me apparently- of course the fleets would default to self-refueling streamlining, and my reference to the money is just the higher cost of that option- doesn't cost extra time per ton to my knowledge of any ruleset. What I am talking about is a strategic option package.



I'm presuming the tanker fleets have at least cruiser divisions protecting them, enough to break through scout/light anti-raider forces, so I am presuming 4 parsecs out 4 parsecs back.



Got to be that for multiplying the effect of either breaching the line defenses and/or forcing split defense efforts making more conventional distance operations more likely to succeed.


Consider two outstanding examples of logistical tanker operations, WWII USN and modern USAF. I would postulate that yes in both cases we could have built more 'fighting' craft for the dollar, but that the extensive tanker capabilities were built to enable effective use of these assets to extend strike and strategic operations.


Same principle here- not infinite tanker capability, but enough to create many more problems for an opponent with less loss then what is entailed with direct assaults on prepared defensive fleets.
 
Back
Top