One hardpoint per 75 dT

[rancke]

The original Gazelle Class close escort mentioned in JTAS #4 was said to have a 400 T hull and, consequently, four hardpoints and four weapons. Fighting Ships amended that to a 300 T hull with two 50 T drop tanks, but kept the four hardpoints. This showed up again in Traders and Gunboats. I haven't checked my sources for later versions, but IIRC, the class has never been reduced to three hardpoints in any version. And indeed, a Gazelle with only three turrets just wouldn't feel right.

But that leaves us with one big problem: If it's possible for one 300 T hull to mount four turrets, why don't they all do it? A 33% increase in firepower is not to be sneezed at.

There are a couple of possible solutions to the conundrum, none of them very satisfactory:

1. Retcon the Gazelle class down to three turrets. (Pro: Maximum self-consistency. Con: Invalidates deck plans).

2. Allow all hull to mount one more hardpoint than one per 100 T hull size allows. (Pro: Fits with small hulls (less than 100 T) and the Gazelle Class. Con: Makes every other ship design inefficient (But doesn't actually invalidate them; a X00 T ship with only X hardpoints would still be legal).

3. As 2, but figure out a reason why "overgunning" a ship is a bad enough idea that navies usually don't do it, but not so bad that they wouldn't make an exception for the Gazelle.

Note that there's an Aslan transport in GT:AR2 (The Khtukhao Class) that is supposedly a 600 T hull, but is effectively a 240 T ship with 6 turrets capable of carrying six 60 T modules. It would be nice if the explanation also explained a 240 T hull with six hardpoints, but that might not be possible.

One idea I had was that firing all weapons on an overgunned ship would strain the hull enough to damage it, but neither missiles nor energy weapons have any recoil, I believe.

It would be nice, if overgunning a ship did cause problems, if the addition of drop tanks or cargo modules alliviated the problem. Provide extra bracing the hull or something.

Anyone have any useful idea? The explanation doesn't have to influence combat resolution, but it does have to be sufficiently serious (in "reality" if not in a game) to outweight the benefit of increased firepower. A "one in a hundred" risk of spontaneous destruction of the ship might do the trick .

Maybe overgunned ships are extra vulerable to enemy fire? (Why would they be?)


Hans

 

[far-trader]

Just ignore the rule (idea) that drop tanks don't add to ship hulls for calculation of hardpoints. But require that the ship has to be designed in all (most?) other ways at that full tonnage. It's the way I've done it.

With the Gazelle as an example you pay for a 400ton hull (drop tanks are too cheap otherwise and couldn't withstand jump or maneuvering), you pay (in tons and cost) for a bridge as if 400tons of hull, you pay for drives as if for a 400ton hull (you already do to carry the drop tanks).

But you don't pay for armor for drop tanks (TCS has rules for drop tank exposure that suggest they are very vulnerable) so that's calculated for the hull without the drop tanks. Which kind of mirrors your overgunned ships being vulnerable to fire (at least the drop tanks that allow the overgunning are more vulnerable).

Now, extend the idea to drop cargo and you've got LASH ships with vulnerable cargo that will be destroyed if the merchie doesn't drop it when the pirates holler heave to! And the merchie gets to run away with the performance boost from dropping the cargo. And the Q-ships are deadlier for the extra hardpoints in the bargain.

That's about how I'd have corrected the rules. Keep the Gazelle. But explain how it works. It's too interesting a little bit of design, even if it was originally a mistake.

 

[Easterner9504]

Hardpoints

The most likely way to add an extra turret is a trade-off. The lower gun is fixed, the upper turret does not appear to rotate as it conforms to hull curve probably limiting to a 3-5 degree turn ala a Stug. So my off-the-cuff idea is the extra hardpoint was added at the cost of a rotating single turret. Giving two fixed (semi-fixed?) PA guns instead of 1 turreted PA.

Ships not comparable as overgunned ships had fire control (too many splashes) and hull warp from recoil. Both non-factors in space. However in WW2 overgunned aircraft were made for special circumstances. This would cause trade-off of ceiling or speed YB-40 perfect example, their devestating firepower caused them to be too slow to maintain formation after the B-17's dropped their bombs and speeded up. Ground attack aircraft with heavy canons: Hs129B-3, Me410A1-U4, B-25H lost altitude and speed.

In other words 2 fixed turrets replace one 360 degree turret.

 

[ThunderChilde]

OT, Mmm brings back fond memories of playing Actung! Panzer and Jadgpanzer. I loved my StuG III's and IV's. I fielded the PanzerLehr in 1 to 5 in 1/285, some parts of it in 1 to 1, and Panzer Bakke in 1 to 1. Lots of fun, built a couple Henchel Hs 129's and Stuka's and FW-190's for air support in different phases of the war.

 

[BlackBat242]

I've always found the "1 hardpoint per 100 T hull size" rule to be problematic.

As ships get larger, their surface area grows more slowly than their displacement... meaning that their skin starts to get crowded.

A better rule should relate number of hardpoints to a required minimum of both surface area and tonnage.

Also, create a "semi-fixed hardpoint" mount type*... make it require half the minimum tonnage (but the same area) as a turret, due to the lack of turret training machinery and the lower complexity of reloading equipment.

This would allow 2 semi-fixed mounts and 1 turret on a 200 ton ship, for example.

Semi-fixed mounts would be of reduced effectiveness, reducing the USP rating of any weapon mounted by 1 for for ships under 1,000 tons, 2 for those 1,000 - <10,000 tons, and 3 for ships 10ktons and above.



*similar to the "ball&socket" mount for a machine gun in a tank's hull. Note the limited range of movement in this mount:

Also relatable to the barbettes on wet-navy battleships. USS Texas 5" gun barbette from the inside & out:

 

[Theophilus]

Of course, this depends on rule set.

TNE allows as many turrets as you have surface area
CT/MT allow one per hundred tons.

 

[Gray Lensman]

Alien Module 6: Solomani

The most likely way to add an extra turret is a trade-off. The lower gun is fixed, the upper turret does not appear to rotate as it conforms to hull curve probably limiting to a 3-5 degree turn ala a Stug. So my off-the-cuff idea is the extra hardpoint was added at the cost of a rotating single turret. Giving two fixed (semi-fixed?) PA guns instead of 1 turreted PA.

In other words 2 fixed turrets replace one 360 degree turret.

Page 42 Fixed mount weapons. trade 2 fixed mount weapons for 1 hard point <grin>

 

[Easterner9504]

Fixed Weapons Mounts: Solomani ships may have fixed
weapons mounts (as opposed to turret mounted weapons).
Fixed weapons mounts allow up to two weapons to be attached
per each hardpoint on the ship and do not require fire control
tonnage or a turret. Weapons in fixed weapons mounts are
operated by a gunner on the bridge and are subject to an attacker's
DM - 2 in space combat. A ship is allowed fixed
weapons mounts equal to the model number of the computer
installed on the ship (Model/2 computer allows two hardpoints
to have fixed weapons mounts).


Not quite what the Gazelle does, but close; CE has Model/6 Comp too. Mighty good find GL!!!

 

[Merxiless]

*wave of hands*

I like the 1 mount per 100 tons rule.

Exceptions exist.

It's a non issue to me.

 

[Gray Lensman]

Why Not

If the Solomani can do it so can everybody else IMHO.

 

[far-trader]

Just to be clear (I'm not sure but get the feeling some are interpreting the fixed mounts as extra weapons) fixed weapon mounts still require hardpoints and do not increase the available hardpoints for a ship. In fact they reduce the overall weapons available (two per hardpoint instead of three). What they do is allow (at a penalty to hit) to avoid having to include a gunner and waste space for the turret (the part that normally allows the weapon to traverse, gives the gunner a place to sit, and includes targeting gear. Replacing all that by the computer being double tasked and the Pilot pointing the ship at what he shoots.

 

[Easterner9504]

Fixed

The Soli rule is referring to fixed i.e. as guns on fighter planes: Me109, P51, Spitfire, MiG etc. Basically the give up 3 mobile (triple turret) for 4 fixed with one gunner instead of 2.

The Gazelle has two gunners* with a lower gun with little or no sideways and 80 degree-ish up/down movement with an upper turret that in JTAS clearly has little traverse and about 90 degree-ish up/down. Later drawings though show more mobility but an awkward look to turret.

So my guess and Gray Lensman finding of rule is probably a good foundation for plausible way around 100d-ton rule. Which was Rancke's original question a plausible way around 100d-ton rule.



*Of course I've never understood why 99% of TRAV turrets are manned. US/Ger, both introduced remote control turrets on WW2 aircraft.

 

[Whipsnade]

Of course I've never understood why 99% of TRAV turrets are manned. US/Ger, both introduced remote control turrets on WW2 aircraft.

Easterner,

It was a roleplaying decision. Player has Gunnery skill, player sits where Gunnery skill is used, player rolls dice, target goes boom.

And, yes, you and I and ex-military types and military buffs all know about remotely controlled turrets. The average RPG player may not.

You'll also remember that when Traveller ship combat shifts from LLB:2/Mayday player-scale to HG2 grand tactical scale, the gunner requirement drops from one per turret to one per battery. So remotely controlled turrets have been part of the game since 1979.


Regards,
Bill

P.S. I've an article at Freelance called "Flexible Batteries". Please read it and tell me where I went wrong.

 

[far-trader]

This is an example of what has me wondering if we're all on the same page re fixed weapon mount rules.

The Soli rule is referring to fixed i.e. as guns on fighter planes: Me109, P51, Spitfire, MiG etc. Basically the give up 3 mobile (triple turret) for 4 fixed with one gunner instead of 2.

If I parse that correctly, you're mistaken. The fixed mount rule does not trade 4 fixed weapons for one turret. You may mount 2 fixed weapons on one hardpoint so to get 4 fixed weapons you would trade two turrets. And you would need a model/2 computer.

The fixed weapon mount rule does not fix the hardpoint issue of the Gazelle. It would only make it worse by reducing the overall firepower.

The Gazelle has two gunners* with a lower gun with little or no sideways and 80 degree-ish up/down movement with an upper turret that in JTAS clearly has little traverse and about 90 degree-ish up/down. Later drawings though show more mobility but an awkward look to turret.

Artwork is a poor place to draw rule explanations from It is almost always wrong, often very badly wrong. There is nothing in the rules or Gazelle notes suggesting any fire limitations on the turrets. Unlike the notes for the tracked and pop turrets on the X-Boat Tender for example.

So my guess and Gray Lensman finding of rule is probably a good foundation for plausible way around 100d-ton rule. Which was Rancke's original question a plausible way around 100d-ton rule.

Sorry, nope, it isn't. It's still 300tons and just 3 hardpoints. All the fixed mount rule saves you is some tonnage and a gunner, at the cost of fewer actual weapons and poorer to hit.

*Of course I've never understood why 99% of TRAV turrets are manned. US/Ger, both introduced remote control turrets on WW2 aircraft.

Because it's cheaper

Personally, while turrets imtu are capable of being manned as individual batteries they may also be remotely controlled from any bridge workstation on the ship, as long as the computer is operating. And as long as the computer is operating any battery may be fired from any one of the turrets in that battery or any bridge workstation on the ship. Bigger ships tend to have all the gun battery control from bridge workstations (big enough ships have a separate area of the bridge for it) but small ships tend to have individual gunners in the turrets. Especially if it's a launcher and reloading is anticipated as part of the gunner's job. Barring (the expense) of an autoloader.

 

[far-trader]

P.S. I've an article at Freelance called "Flexible Batteries". Please read it and tell me where I went wrong.

Hmmm, I'll have to look that up and compare notes. Maybe I stole my own flexible batteries rule from you and forgot where I came up with, imagining it was all my own all these years

 

[Easterner9504]

They have indeed, Kinunir has remote control batteries. But why most military ones don't, is my head scratcher. Civilians I can rationalize as manneed is cheaper than hooking up remote system as merchants need cut costs to maximize profits.

But I'm easily mystified. I don't see the appeal of FRP games. Just watched Taras Bulba the other night. Who'd want to live there! Rats, lepers, plague, disease, whippings, a public burning all in 1500's Boy 1232 must have been even better, 523 best!

i think my MAYDAY is still unpunched.

 

[Gray Lensman]

The fixed mount rule does not trade 4 fixed weapons for one turret. You may mount 2 fixed weapons on one hardpoint so to get 4 fixed weapons you would trade two turrets. And you would need a model/2 computer.

The fixed weapon mount rule does not fix the hardpoint issue of the Gazelle. It would only make it worse by reducing the overall firepower.

Right, Thats why I posted where it was at AND a simple sentence like trade 2 fixed mounts for one hard point. And I agree with Far Trader, it does not fix the Gazelle at all. Just wanted to put the source out there.

 

[drnuncheon]

*Of course I've never understood why 99% of TRAV turrets are manned.

Because it was cool in Star Wars?

 

[Easterner9504]

Having re-read rule I see what you mean on turret. Not two for 1.

On Gazelle it does not have dorsal and ventral turrets but BARBETTES. Both JTAS & GDW T&G say so.

The 5" mounts on Texas are also barbettes.

 

[far-trader]

Having re-read rule I see what you mean on turret. Not two for 1.

On Gazelle it does not have dorsal and ventral turrets but BARBETTES. Both JTAS & GDW T&G say so.

True, it's the same term used in High Guard for the small Particle Accelerator Weapons too, but they are not treated any differently (reduced angles of fire, reduced hardpoint requirement, or anything) than turrets. In fact "A barbette is similar to a turret, but larger." According to High Guard. I'm sure it influenced the illustrations to a degree but in the rules there is no difference.

It might not be a bad way to go, saying barbettes only take half a hardpoint, but then you have a lot of other designs that need fixing, instead of just the one. And you need a rule saying what the trade off is.

Simpler in my opinion to just take it that the Gazelle is a 400ton hull with 100tons of drop tanks. I'm all but certain that was the original design call. I do think one should have to pay the cost for the full 400ton hull and bridge though. So one has something to attach the tanks to and the means to use them.