Human Torpedoes and Midget Submarines.

[Selandia]

Indeed, the key word is Difficult, not Impossible.

It required a fairly large ammount of R&D and training to put in action midget subs or "human" torpedos against anchored ships (leave alone for a moment action against fleet at sea). The ammount of tries in wwII as oppose to the ammount of success is quite large. As such, WWII special ops may be one of the reference whenever, as in OTU, there should be adventuring option that are not easily reproductible magic bullet (otherwise, it would be a mundane rather than exeptionnal endeavour or would unbalance the game as Magic bullets tend to do).

If some custom fictionnal tech (see Bytepro post) is not your cup of tea, and your players do not swallow TL differential, just go with sensor sabotage on new year evening when operator are offen Limited Effectiveness Services and will not wonder why the readings seems to be in an endless loop. The whole point of the game is to have fun and to allow your players to enjoy their "Luigi de la Penne" moment. As Ref, you merely need an excuse they are ready to swallow (God, it must be hard to Ref a game with Aramis in it ).

BTW, for those that insist on gaming their players into a raid scenario, the MTM that got HMS York were not invisible, they were too small and came too fast to be detected in time to be effectively countered. Also, in the TL differential explanation, "Stealth" may result from shaffs that merely make accurate targeting near impossible for the relevant period of time. In my gaming mind, I wonder if background radiation was such an unbeatable mean of detection starting TL 9, why even bother with ECM?

Have fun
Selandia

 

[BytePro]

Yeah - had edited it out, but social engineering and systems hacking (trojan virus incl) would probably be the best way of defeating detection tech.

Other than Star Trek style ship remote control overrides, can't see this being applicable to the midget sub concept. Why waste a ship - or stealth tech costs. Just disable detection and hit them with a heavy missile(s).

 

[Selandia]

Other than Star Trek style ship remote control overrides, can't see this being applicable to the midget sub concept. Why waste a ship - or stealth tech costs. Just disable detection and hit them with a heavy missile(s).

Actually, X-craft and midget subs where not suicide weapons (although the japanese used them as such), they just allowed a weapon platform to position itself at the right place to drop charge, launch torpedo or insert frogmen. So your proposition could be read as: Just disable detection, use the players' craft to position some heavy nastiness, and try to have them out of there and recovered (historically a huge chalenge).

Of course, if you have a major fleet capable to defeat a fleet at high anchor, or a fleet capable to inflict massive damage given surprise attack, go for a Pearl harbor/Taranto, don't waste your ECM trick on a U-47 against Scapa Flow type of lone kick. Midget would be more like X-craft against Tirpitz scenario unless they are a side show in a Pearl Harbor scenario.

have fun

Selandia

 

[BytePro]

Suicide weapon? Oh, hehe, didn't mean 'waste of ship' in that sense!

Just meant a beefed up missile could be used and no 'extra' launch platform, especially, manned, is needed.

Was actually referring to the OPs original ship plans - non-jump, 7 and 1 day duration, cramped, 8 MCr ships. Which are nice plans in and of themselves - and do match the accommodation, costs and offensive only weapon concepts of midget subs. They would just be quite wasteful in the above posted scenario.

 

[Selandia]

I see your point from an Admirality's perspective. I am just trying to figure a RPG option to entertain the players

Selandia

 

[Rigel Stardin]

This is a quick comment to something that was said in this post a few pages back. A sucide mission couldn't take place in a system with a very active high port? Wasn't the US Cole in a busy port when a sucide attack occured? Because of the damage caused by the explosion, it cost the US taxpayers x number of millions of dollars to rent a ship to haul it back to the US for Repair?

I can't remember all the details but I think the rules of enguagements hindered the crew of the Cole from enguaging the "rubber raft" or it was blame on the chain of command? Such thing play apart in attacks like this.

Finally, no one has thought about the CSA Hunley and it's attack on the Blockade? Another scenario where the second midget sub attack in history took place...

 

[aramis]

Rigel,

The Cole was an attack from within the port, not a "sneak into port with an invisible ship." The equivalent woud a ship at the port being rammed by a small craft parked in the next pad/slip. Detection loses out to reaction time.

The Hunley, however, was of the "invisible ship" mode - and sank three tmes. She can't have a physics-compliant space analogue.

 

[Rigel Stardin]

If I remember correctly the British x-crafts were towed across the north sea to norway. They were released just outside the fjord to make their attack. What is the different in either one of my ships being placed inside a frieghter and transported to a highport location before being released? Of course their transponders would make it appear as if they were a launch.

The point here is there are ways of getting around sensor grids and other security measures...

I have a doctor's appointment or I'd respond to the blockade issue.

 

[BytePro]

Sure there are ways of getting around sensor grids and other security measures - just none analogous to midget subs or manned torps.

As to fjords and blockades - the geometry is fundamentally different. Submersibles are fighting against a dimensionally restricted target along with the advantage of naturally provided detection protection.

In the example above, sure one could launch a smaller ship (or fighter) - that's a pretty standard combat doctrine and doesn't really seem directly related to the midget sub or manned torp idea. Though one would likely arm said ships with some defensive weaponry. More to the point, why not just launch torps or missiles directly?

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Run this scenario in an asteriod feild or belt.

Simple military reason behind placing a military base in an asteriod filled area: Cover and concealment. You wouldn't want your depot acceptable to long range bombardment by missiles or attacks by fast attack craft.

With a base located in an asteriod feild, lanes for the larger ship would have to be clear and these would be heavily monitored. They would also limit access to the depot. Therefore a small ship would be necessary to navigate the field or belt.

 

[BytePro]

In a space opera field you mean.

(Which is fine - IMO Traveller and the OTU is definitely a space opera setting and I play it as such myself.)

Practically, a fighter or smaller weapon launched from even outside the region would have a much better chance (smaller) with much lower cost. Either way, the real problem all along being that you can't 'sink' a ship in space, so the weapon itself has to be sufficient to get a kill.

The midget sub/human torp concept relies on the ability to magnify the damage from a single or handful of weapons using the nature of water and gravity. It also relies on the lack of CIWS capable of dealing with the weapons without prior warning. Additionally, it relies water to obtain this stealth advantage. None of these have direct correlations in space combat and the Traveller RAW lack much in the way of support for any of them. So, to do this one needs to add exotic stealth and weapons tech along with rules to accommodate them.

I like the ships - just don't see the concept as directly applicable because space is not the sea, nor anything truly like it.

In point of fact, almost every physical aspect is not only different, but in many cases the exact opposite. In water things risk implosion from pressure - in space, explosion from lack of it. In water, most optical and electrical signals are absorbed or deflected - in space they are not. Sound and kinetic energy (waves) travels in water - it does not in space. In water, things slow down without thrust - in space they just keep going. Water has a surface - space does not. Water retains and conducts heat very well (both ways) - space does not. Water is a solvent and can even be corrosive - space is not. Etc., etc.

 

[nyrath]

Run this scenario in an asteriod field or belt.

A science-fiction asteroid belt, you mean.

In our own asteroid belt in the Solar System, the average separation between asteroids is about sixteen times the distance between the Earth and the Moon. So while your raiding ship could theoretically get within four million miles of the orbital base by hiding behind an asteroid, for the remaining distance there is no cover at all.

 

[Selandia]

In a space opera field you mean.

(Which is fine - IMO Traveller and the OTU is definitely a space opera setting and I play it as such myself.)

the real problem all along being that you can't 'sink' a ship in space, so the weapon itself has to be sufficient to get a kill.

The midget sub/human torp concept relies on the ability to magnify the damage from a single or handful of weapons using the nature of water and gravity. It also relies on the lack of CIWS capable of dealing with the weapons without prior warning. Additionally, it relies water to obtain this stealth advantage. None of these have direct correlations in space combat and the Traveller RAW lack much in the way of support for any of them.

Ok, I buy it...but kicking that can gaves me fun ideas (well, my idea of fun anyways),

It is canon that SDB could be hidding underwater on a world, or in the high athm of a gaz giant. Specially (but not exclusively) on waterworld, Planetary Defense Missile or other System defenses assets could be on mobile maritime platform. There is a whole world of underwater terrorist opportunities that may be related to Space Fleets action if you really want to involve your players relive X-craft adventure. Just one idea: the merchant ship that simulate a problem to close the water and drop a 20 t "vehicule",- and let the players figure that "beast", don't ask me how that it is done, that is their fun- they start from that point.

Have fun

Selandia

 

[BytePro]

Ah, didn't mean to come across too negative - can kicking is good!

Tried to be explicit about referencing only space combat, taking as given that on water or other liquid ocean worlds where spaceships could submerge below, approach or land on the liquid surface the concept is perfectly valid. Spaceships could definitely sink if holed, probably better than most modern ocean going vessels - at least the spaceships without interior high-pressure hatches specifically designed for liquid pressures.

A house rule or ref fiat would still be required to accommodate this (i.e. sinking) - well, assuming other versions than CT & MgT also don't do so in RAW.

 

[Enoki]

Definitely. A space vehicle operating under water would not likely have lots of watertight bulkheads capable of taking liquid pressure on them so, once holed it is likely that the internal bulkheads would collapse under the pressure. As the vehicle sank the problem would just get worse and worse.

The other problem would be even if it were just partially flooded the additional weight might make it heavy enough that the propuslion system couldn't raise it to the surface. So, the crew might find themselves trapped in the remaining air space inside unable to escape.

 

[BytePro]

Yep - though to sink, the propulsion system, if traditional gravitic, would need to be inactive, as the game mechanics ignore mass (CT and MgT, at least).

So ships could take on water after being holed, but only sink if a gravitic drive was not active.

 

[aramis]

Yep - though to sink, the propulsion system, if traditional gravitic, would need to be inactive, as the game mechanics ignore mass (CT and MgT, at least).

So ships could take on water after being holed, but only sink if a gravitic drive was not active.

Not really - the gravitics could be used to push and hold the ship under.

Much the same way as certain new personal subs work by hydrodynamic "lift" in a downward direction, while using displacement for buoyancy.

 

[BytePro]

Yep, same thing I posted read in its full context.

Gravitics allows one to sink, raise and manuever under normal circumstances regardless of mass - hence it must be compromised to allow a ship to unintentionally sink due to being holed and taking on the added mass of water.

 

[MCEvans]

Just an idea -
If you have fleet it is going to be near the GG, IF that GG has a ring system or two, you could have some small and med planetoid ships running missiles, if you have an asteroid belt or two, some med and large planetoid and buffered again loaded with missiles to get them coming and going and if that belt's orbit is near the GG ...

or the ever famous SDB in the GG or ocean waiting for refuling

Other than in "dry dock" for repairs these are the closest you are going to get to a 'harbor' situation in space combat scenario.

This is defensive for offensive jump to a far system point and 'drift in' this operation may take a couple of months and may be effective.

These are the closest I can think of to any submarine equivalent type engagement in space combat.