Imperial Army Craft

[Kaeto]

What ships, miscellaneous platforms, and landing craft does the Imperial Army operate?

I know that the GURPS book for Traveller, Ground Forces, strongly hinted that the Army operates huge landing craft.

I also know a little bit about the United States Army in real life, and less about their watercraft operations. The US Army operates everything from small landing craft, hardly twice as large as the ones used during World War II, that can ground up on the beach, to large seagoing ships which theoretically could ground on a beach, but more commonly attached to piers. The US Army also operates everything from tugboats, machine shops, floating piers, and offshore petroleum pumping stations– through the latest ultra high-speed transports which are capable of sprinting within a theater of operations while carrying an entire battalion.

The US Army is also very interesting, in that its ships are officered and captained by career warrant officers who remain in the watercraft operations area for their entire career. Due to recent changes in the pay scale, a potential advancement for such an officer is to the five level, approximately equivalent to a major’s pay and benefits.

Actually the U.S. Army does not own or operate the landing craft. The U.S. Navy does. The Army vehicles are simply carried by the Navy.

 

[aramis]

Actually the U.S. Army does not own or operate the landing craft. The U.S. Navy does. The Army vehicles are simply carried by the Navy.

The US Army actually DOES have more watercraft than the Navy... while it doesn't own the LSD nor LST ships, the Army Boat Service owns more total vessels afloat than the USN has. Including some LCU ships.

https://www.army.mil/article/72469/Army_s__best_kept_secret__floats/
http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-j...rtation-and-aviation/watercraft-operator.html

 

[Garyius2003]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lsv-a.htm

LSV characteristics and capabilities include:

Length (overall): 273 feet.
Beam (molded): 60 feet.
Displacement (weight): 4,199 LTONs.
Deck area: 10,500 square feet (21 to 24 M1 main battle tanks or 25 [50 double-stacked] 20-foot ISO containers).
Bow ramp opening: 26 feet wide.
Payload: 2,000 STONs (86 C-141 loads).
Range: 8,200 nautical miles at 12.5 knots (light); 6,500 nautical miles at 11.5 knots (loaded).
Draft: 6 feet (light); 12 feet (loaded).
Drive-through capability (bow and stem ramps).
Self-delivery range: 6,500 nautical miles.
Sustains crew of 6 officers and 23 enlisted per-sonnel for up to 30 days.
Transports heavy, outsized cargo including rolling stock, general cargo, and ISO containers.

 

[pendragonman]

The US Army actually DOES have more watercraft than the Navy... while it doesn't own the LSD nor LST ships, the Army Boat Service owns more total vessels afloat than the USN has. Including some LCU ships.

https://www.army.mil/article/72469/Army_s__best_kept_secret__floats/
http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-j...rtation-and-aviation/watercraft-operator.html

LSD ships...interesting

I know it doesn't mean lysergic acid, but it is fun to think about!

 

[aramis]

LSD ships...interesting

I know it doesn't mean lysergic acid, but it is fun to think about!

LSD Landing Ship - Dock - designed for operating LCAC's, and deploying marines.
LST Landing Ship - Tank - RO/RO tank capability. US has none left in service.
LSU Landing Ship, Utility - RO/RO capability, typically under 200' (65m)

An LSU is typically a thru-well cargo deck with ramps fore & aft.
An early LST is a thru-well deck, too
Later LST's, the post Korean generation, had fixed bows, with a gantry & ramp for beach crashing, but also had the rear drop ramp.

The Traveller space equivalents... from my own theory...

RT - Liner, Troop. Dedicated troop transport. Infantry 2 tons/man.
QT - Auxilary Troop (Type R with demountable staterooms, Double occupancy, for about 100 troops, Type TI with demountable SR's, for about 700 troops - a light regiment)
CVT, LVT - Carrier, Troop (carries troops and landers, doesn't itself land)
CVTA, LVA - Carrier, Armored Vehicles. Carries troops and armor. At TL12+, it doesn't even enter atmosphere... as the grav tanks are deployed during a strafing run.
LAT - Lander, Armored - Essentially, a mobile field fortification.
LT - Lander, Troop - A "dropship" - designed to enter atmosphere under ground fire...
LGT - Lander, Gunned, Troop - A firebase with troops and drives...
LTD - Lander, Drop Troops - dedicated Drop Troop ship, taking about 3 tons payload space per trooper. (1/2 for the BD, 1/2 for the drop capsule, 2 for the meat)

 

[talos402000]

Can Battle Riders land on worlds?

 

[coliver988]

Not a military person here...

I can see both: an atmosphere capable battle rider may be able to hold both space & planet systems. You can patrol the planet, not just space.

A non-atmospheric rider may be able to pack more punch per dTon as they don't have to worry about atmospheric configurations.

However, I'm not sure the rules differentiate enough or if that is even a consideration.

 

[Condottiere]

Outside of optics, intimidation and propaganda, with a meson spinal mount, there's really no military reason to approach closer than long range, though in Star Wars, it's mentioned that troops could be unloaded directly.

 

[Murph]

H. Beam Piper The Cosmic Computer addresses this issue quite well.

What ships, miscellaneous platforms, and landing craft does the Imperial Army operate?

I know that the GURPS book for Traveller, Ground Forces, strongly hinted that the Army operates huge landing craft.

I also know a little bit about the United States Army in real life, and less about their watercraft operations. The US Army operates everything from small landing craft, hardly twice as large as the ones used during World War II, that can ground up on the beach, to large seagoing ships which theoretically could ground on a beach, but more commonly attached to piers. The US Army also operates everything from tugboats, machine shops, floating piers, and offshore petroleum pumping stations– through the latest ultra high-speed transports which are capable of sprinting within a theater of operations while carrying an entire battalion.

The US Army is also very interesting, in that its ships are officered and captained by career warrant officers who remain in the watercraft operations area for their entire career. Due to recent changes in the pay scale, a potential advancement for such an officer is to the five level, approximately equivalent to a major’s pay and benefits.

Obviously a separate officer track is unlikely to occur in the Imperial Army, because the need for such craft is so huge in such a huge army that a separate branch probably exists. I do think it very likely, however, that the Army operates many of the same type of craft.

I think we can break down the Imperial Army need for ships and craft to approximately five (or perhaps six) types.

A high port equivalent. This would be modular, and assembled in orbit to allow everything from command and control, to basing the aerospace fighters and landing craft, to most importantly transshipping cargo from leased freighters to be landed to the planet’s surface. This platform, through modular additions, probably includes the capacity to engage in heavy maintenance, much as barges provide this service in the current armed forces.

An ammunition high port depot. In the current armed forces, there is usually some physical effort to separate ammo handling from other cargo and passengers. I would expect that to continue in a combat operations area.

Orbital artillery platforms. Either modular satellites, or heavily armed and armored craft equipped for fast flyby operations, or probably a combination of the two. I could see a 100 or 200 ton boat with light capacity being commanded by a staff noncommissioned officer, while a several thousand ton overpowered bombardment vessel is probably a highly sought after dashing assignment for a mid ranking officer.

Aerospace interception and defense, and ground attack. This would combine the current Air Force operations into the ground army. Given that the maximum size is probably 50 tons but the ships themselves are very dashing and cool, I would expect low ranking officers to operate them.

Landing craft proper. Everything from 20 ton gigs used as hacks, or to haul general officers around-- through 5000 ton heavily armed and armored Assault Landers. I can see the gig being operated by a corporal or sergeant, and the 5000 ton lander being commanded by a major or lieutenant colonel.

Troop transports and cargo vessels. I think there are two ways that the 3I can address the need for jump capable vessels. The first is to have the Navy operate them. The second is for the Army to do it. Given the wide range of sizes, anything from a 200 ton courier to a 1,000,000 ton corps level base ship, there’s a chance that the Army has a fleet as huge as the entire Zho Navy.

I welcome any comments or debate---and any better ideas.

 

[McPerth]

Can Battle Riders land on worlds?

Well, with RAW, as most BRs are stremlined (mostly they are config 1 as atni-meson defense), nothing forbids them to.

Personally (and for what I've read here I'm not alone in this), as referee, I've always limited landing on worlds by size too, so they could not, but that's (AFAIK) a house rule, not an official one.

And in any case. I doubt they would be used to land troops, as it is too risky. In atmosphere they lose their agility advantage (as they are not designed to fly on it), and nukes have nastier effects.

 

[talos402000]

Well, with RAW, as most BRs are stremlined (mostly they are config 1 as atni-meson defense), nothing forbits them to. QUOTE]

If so, then you could have riders configured for planetary assault carried onboard a jumpcarrier configured for planetary assault (carrying fighters, gunships, medevac craft, large cargo bays, the list goes on). It seems to me to be an excellent way of getting troops from orbit to ground.

 

[flykiller]

It seems to me to be an excellent way of getting troops from orbit to ground.

opposed or unopposed?

 

[kilemall]

Outside of optics, intimidation and propaganda, with a meson spinal mount, there's really no military reason to approach closer than long range, though in Star Wars, it's mentioned that troops could be unloaded directly.

In LoGH, the Galactic Empire ships in all have embarked troop and population control capacity and in Traveller terms are all streamlined.

Presumably this is because most planets are 'owned' by one noble or more and the imperial navy has to put down revolts from time to time.

https://gineipaedia.com/wiki/Imperial_vessels

The FPA, their democrat opposite, all use small craft for interface and are less organically capable of planet control.

https://gineipaedia.com/wiki/Alliance_vessels

 

[Condottiere]

I should mention I really dislike LoGH on a really basic level despite being a great anime fan and it being consistently high on any popularity list, and I watched the entire series in a three week binge to try and understand it and it's appeal.

I think the term is a series of convenient plot devices, that disregards a lot of military realities.

 

[McPerth]

If so, then you could have riders configured for planetary assault carried onboard a jumpcarrier configured for planetary assault (carrying fighters, gunships, medevac craft, large cargo bays, the list goes on). It seems to me to be an excellent way of getting troops from orbit to ground.

I don't believe it would be a good idea. BRs are quite specialized ships built for space combat, and their performance in atmosphere is likely to be severely downgraded. They are neither built to carry many troops, as they need heir tonnage for other uses.

Also remember that what is a crippling hit in space (but leaving the BR recoverable and reparable) would be a catastrohic one in atmosphere, probably crashing them against the ground, and making it a total loss.

They would be nice to support the landings, as heavy ortillery, though...

opposed or unopposed?

As I said in my former posts (and above in this same one), use BRs to download troops in an opposed landing would be too risky for them (without agility, and with the nastier effect of nukes in atmosphere, the risk for those too large (and expensive) ships would (IMHO) be unacceptable.

And if the landing is unopposed, then no such powerful ship is needed.

As for an example (if you forgive me this shamelessly advertising of my own designs) of which kind of ships could be used, I showed in this thread an example of what could they be (MGT designs). Though mostly thought for Marines (as being for the first landings), I guess they wouldb also be usable for Army units, if we asume they could also make this first assault (after all, In Normandy no USMC units were involved, at least not major ones, just US Army ones).

 

[kilemall]

I should mention I really dislike LoGH on a really basic level despite being a great anime fan and it being consistently high on any popularity list, and I watched the entire series in a three week binge to try and understand it and it's appeal.

I think the term is a series of convenient plot devices, that disregards a lot of military realities.

Hence, the term Space Opera rather then military science fiction.

Although on a strategic sense it does quite a lot with logistics and financing moreso then many theoretically more hardcore MilSF.

My point in bringing it up is that differing goals and needs/uses for The Fleet might orient choices possibly towards large direct landing ships, or not.

 

[flykiller]

opposed or unopposed?

use BRs to download troops in an opposed landing would (IMHO) be unacceptable. And if the landing is unopposed, then no such powerful ship is needed.

agree. can't see any landing being attempted until any naval battle is decided, and all opposing meson guns are eliminated, in which case normal troop transports are sufficient (if any ground forces are needed at all).

and if an opposed landing is to be attempted then can't see using anything other than swarms of small craft.

shamelessly advertising of my own designs

permit me to join you. note the small craft in this thread.

 

[whartung]

Arguably, all landing craft are "riders" of some sort, then it's just a matter of size (i.e. lots of small craft vs fewer larger craft).

When landing, more is better (if for nothing else than to draw fire, and not put all of your eggs in one basket). Plus you also get the value of distributing the troops over a wider geographical area.

The key discriminator for a Battle Rider vs a Battleship is the danger to the riders should the mother ship be disabled. But this is less of an issue with a landing ship. These are not front line ships designed to engage a formal battle line. They arrive when you have reasonable space and orbital superiority.

So, there's no reason to not use some kind of "rider" concept, it's just a matter of how big you want the landers to be.