Mercenary Starships and Spacecraft

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Doesn't this all go into designing a Mercenary Cruiser? You have to know how the unit is equipped and what kind of missions it is likely to have to design a ship to carry it. We have been good about splitting off discussions that get far off base. But this is still about Mercenary Cruisers.

Noted: the thread has been good about splitting off separate topics when so encountered.

However: Whether or the unit is grav-belted troops or not I find however an issue not of Merc cruisers, but of Unit make-up and technology supplied by patron, or unit, or client--and thus, not about the ship itself.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Doesn't this all go into designing a Mercenary Cruiser? You have to know how the unit is equipped and what kind of missions it is likely to have to design a ship to carry it. We have been good about splitting off discussions that get far off base. But this is still about Mercenary Cruisers.

Noted: the thread has been good about splitting off separate topics when so encountered.

However: Whether or the unit is grav-belted troops or not I find however an issue not of Merc cruisers, but of Unit make-up and technology supplied by patron, or unit, or client--and thus, not about the ship itself. </font>[/QUOTE]Understood. However, not to argue, but if you are going to build a general purpose Mercenary Cruiser, for carrying a Company, shouldn't you work out the design parameters based on what a Mercenary Cruiser is likely to carry? If the standard is Lift Infantry then more space is needed. If the standard is Light Infantry then less cargo space is needed but other factors come into play. If the standard is to just carry equipment, as mentioned in one of the spin off threads and not have a standing unit, then that is a whole different design parameter.

So while they may not be building ships, they are still about determining parameters for such a ship.

Further this thread has the least topic drift I have seen in a 10 page thread so far on these forums.

However if you would prefer we just let this thread die, I am sure that can be arranged.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Understood. However, not to argue, but if you are going to build a general purpose Mercenary Cruiser, for carrying a Company, shouldn't you work out the design parameters based on what a Mercenary Cruiser is likely to carry? If the standard is Lift Infantry then more space is needed. If the standard is Light Infantry then less cargo space is needed but other factors come into play. If the standard is to just carry equipment, as mentioned in one of the spin off threads and not have a standing unit, then that is a whole different design parameter.

Oh I Understood, but if you are going to do that, perhaps a thread designing said unit, for said ship might be in order?

So while they may not be building ships, they are still about determining parameters for such a ship.

Further this thread has the least topic drift I have seen in a 10 page thread so far on these forums.

So noted..

However if you would prefer we just let this thread die, I am sure that can be arranged.

Let the thread die? Do not attempt to read my mind beyond the words I placed here, BTL. This thread has produced constructive ideas, and several interesting designs.

My words to you are simply about putting cart before the horse.

Design the unit & then fit it to the ship. tactically and logistically you and I will not see eye on this issue. No fault of either us actually in that.

What works in YTU works there, what works in mine works there. The challenge your missing in my advice is making something that works for everyone--Not just for yourself.

Try approaching it from that direction.

 

[BetterThanLife]

I didn't mean to put words into your mouth. I have started a new thread. http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000460#000001

 

[martletsquire]

M-113 vunerability and tanks taking out starships

Argh, rebuilding my old ship database and came across this thread, so here's my 2 centi-creds..

M-113 vunerability. Yeah, the original M-113 was vunerable to small arms fire. But...

Thanks to BAE and the Israelis and such, the 1960's M-113 can now kick a Bradley's butt. Check out the MTVL series and also all the upgrades available. Wikipedia M113 and MTVL and you'll find out the modern M-113 can now carry protection up to 30mm+ cannon fire, has an upgraded 400hp engine, a variety of either turrets or remote weapon stations, v-hull bottoms and so forth. There's also an amphibeous version -ARISGATOR - and a hybrid electric drive version.


Ship Vunerability to "small arms fire"

As to tanks taking out ships, when I read the biography of Erwin Rommel, there was a section about the last days of the initial French campaign, where Rommel's troops came up to the shore and started plinking escaping ships with 75mm and 88mm cannon fire.

And during the Pacific island hopping campaign, many small tank cannon could damage a transport or even a destroyer.

Also, a friend of mine in the Navy said that back in the '40s and '50s, an M1 or an M1aa was the standard issue for punching holes in a ship at the waterline to sink it.

And, of course, the WWI and WWII submarine (what?). Deck mounted 3", 4" and 5" cannon, (equivalent to 75mm, 100mm and 125mm guns) were used to save valuable torpedos when sinking unescorted and un-armed or under-armed merchants. So, at the time that the 75mm, 88mm and 128mm German, 76mm US, 76.2mm 18pndr Great Britain, or the 85mm, 100mm, 128mm Soviet guns were being mounted on tanks, the equivalent guns were mounted on naval vessels and sinking ships, shooting down planes and providing fire support.

So, yeah, a tank can take out a starship. Especially if it fires a round into the engineering space and takes out a drive or a power plant.

 

[SpaceBadger]

*snip lots of interesting stuff*

So, yeah, a tank can take out a starship. Especially if it fires a round into the engineering space and takes out a drive or a power plant.

All good and interesting info, but I think that your final conclusion relies on equating starship hull material w the steel plates and armor used on ocean-going ships. There is quite a bit of canon to show that starship hulls are made of much tougher stuff, even before military armors are added.

 

[Matt123]

Striker does a good job of quantifying starship armour (both civilian "unarmoured" ships and military armour) and kinetic weaponry from WW1 onwards. I never worked out WW2 Shermans (75mm medium cannon) vs a Free Trader. Might be interesting?

 

[JimMarn]

The 75mm Sherman really couldn't hit thick armor and expect to puncture it. Frontal armor on the Panther would stop it. Even the 76mm Firefly tank wasn't a problem, according to a documentary where they talked to a Panther unit commander.

The M-8 tank destroyer had a much bigger gun, but only one inch of frontal armor.

I think a T-34/85mm or a 88mm Flak gun would do much greater damage.

Of course, there was the 8 inch howitzer US Army artillery had.

 

[atpollard]

This calls for the really big guns ... USS Missouri ... 16 inch main guns ... vs Starship Armor.

 

[Carlobrand]

As it happens, Striker offers a build example of a WW-II Panther with a 75mm gun. Penetration 28 with a TL6 KEAP round - equivalent to 11.9cm of steel. A 90mm would have a penetration of 31 - 15.4 cm of steel; a 90 hypervelocity would be 34.

Current errata's saying your Free Trader's got a hull armor rating of 40 in Striker, equivalent to 33.6 cm - a bit over a foot and an inch - of steel. At TL6, that needs a KEAP round from a 150mm hypervelocity gun in Striker.

That's wow factor, but given that ships can hit peak velocities in the hundreds of kilometers per second while heading for a jump point, that even modern tank gun rounds hit velocity of only 1/100 of that, and that the power of an impactor increases by the square of the velocity - it's probably needed. At Traveller ship speeds, a little pebble of a few grams can hit with the energy of an M1's Abrams' tank gun.

 

[JimMarn]

This calls for the really big guns ... USS Missouri ... 16 inch main guns ... vs Starship Armor.

Yup, I watched 'Battleship' movie on cable. Interesting methods of dealing with a space faring people.

 

[Carlobrand]

I never saw the movie, but I couldn't help thinking how kind it was of them to put themselves in range of the main guns of a 60-some-year-old relic, rather than zapping everything from orbit. Did they ever explain that in the movie, or was it just one of those "aliens are dumb" movies?

 

[JimMarn]

I never saw the movie, but I couldn't help thinking how kind it was of them to put themselves in range of the main guns of a 60-some-year-old relic, rather than zapping everything from orbit. Did they ever explain that in the movie, or was it just one of those "aliens are dumb" movies?

Could be 'aliens are dumb' or 'didn't think the locals would put up much of a fight due to alien arrogance'. Wouldn't be the first time for either.

Of course, the movie skipped over the fact that museum ships don't have projectiles and gunpowder aboard, and likely the engines don't work at all. No breachblocks in any of the guns either.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

Along a similar vien, I kind of always liked on Stargate SG-1 that the one alien race that Thor was from (I think they were called the Asgard, or something like that) had trouble against the Replicators, in part because the Replicators could handle an/or counter the Asgard's technology and such, but the Replicators had some trouble against the Humans because they weren't really prepared for an adversary using something as primitive as slug throwing weapons (if I am recalling correctly).

 

[Patron Zero]

I never saw the movie, but I couldn't help thinking how kind it was of them to put themselves in range of the main guns of a 60-some-year-old relic, rather than zapping everything from orbit. Did they ever explain that in the movie, or was it just one of those "aliens are dumb" movies?

That was better explained in the book-movie tie in that published when said film was released. The aliens had 'sequestered' the military forces in an exercise to evaluate if any further reinforcements, bigger guns-more troops etc, would be needed to pacify their intended target world.

In the film the destruction of the up-link prevented any request for further assistance or sit-rep from being sent. That said, if a fleet is inbound or relief standing by was never fully addressed.

 

[JimMarn]

That was better explained in the book-movie tie in that published when said film was released. The aliens had 'sequestered' the military forces in an exercise to evaluate if any further reinforcements, bigger guns-more troops etc, would be needed to pacify their intended target world.

In the film the destruction of the up-link prevented any request for further assistance or sit-rep from being sent. That said, if a fleet is inbound or relief standing by was never fully addressed.

And the medals for saving Earth from invasion, given to the surviving ship Captains, should have been further up the medal level.