CT Only: Quick and Dirty Classic Traveller vehicle combat

[Golan2072]

Eleven months ago, I posted simple Classic Traveller vehicle combat rules on my blog. Following feedback and playtesting, especially by Robert Weaver of Ancient Faith in the Far Future fame, I revised the rules and added a few clarifications. Enjoy!

I have written these rules with the typical Books 1-3 Proto-Traveller spirit in mind. That is, for the purpose of including vehicles in the various adventures and mishaps of interstellar travellers, traders, scouts, and misfits, as well as small-scale mercenaries. I did not aim in any way to simulate large-scale armored warfare but rather to provide some basic rules for what happens when your Scout empties his Submachinegun at a hovering Air/Raft or, at most when a mercenary shoots a RAM grenade at an AFV.

One of my design goals was to create "plug and play" rules for the Three Little Books and Book 4. You can simply take Book 3 vehicles and Book 1/Book 4 guns and have a battle without redesigning any vehicle or assigning any complicated stat.

I drew inspiration for these rules from the Book 2 ship damage rules, the ATV rules in Double Adventure 2: Mission to Mithril/Across the Bright Face, and for a much lesser degree, the Striker wargame.

Grab the rules HERE!

 

[Timerover51]

what happens when your Scout empties his Submachinegun at a hovering Air/Raft

Unless the Air/Raft is pretty low, all he does is waste ammunition. The standard submachinegun is 9mm, which is borderline to shoot through a current automobile door. Now, he probably will discourage the Air/Raft operator from sticking around or landing.

or, at most when a mercenary shoots a RAM grenade at an AFV.

I would treat that as an RPG being fired at an APC, unless you state that the Armored Fighting Vehicle is a tank. In that case, does the tank have any stand-off armor, which could be anything from plywood or chicken wire fencing (quite useful in Vietnam for messing up the fuzing of the RPG round) to high-hardness armor plate, or possibly some form of reactive armor?

Aside from the energy guns, a basic set of miniatures rules for modern infantry-armor combat should work.

 

[infojunky]

The standard submachinegun is 9mm, which is borderline to shoot through a current automobile door. Now, he probably will discourage the Air/Raft operator from sticking around or landing.

Not sure borderline is such a apt description, as the only reliable bullet resistant part of a current automobile is the engine block. And as such a burst from a SMG through the door would trip a roll to hit on the position being aimed at and fragmentation attacks vs other people in the passenger compartment.

 

[infojunky]

Rereading that rules set, You under value smallarms. In that they should do surface damage to light armored vehicles.

 

[kilemall]

Not sure borderline is such a apt description, as the only reliable bullet resistant part of a current automobile is the engine block. And as such a burst from a SMG through the door would trip a roll to hit on the position being aimed at and fragmentation attacks vs other people in the passenger compartment.

Spall

Is not small

When the wall

Creates wounds to gall

The short and the tall

In vehicles that haul

 

[Timerover51]

Rereading that rules set, You under value smallarms. In that they should do surface damage to light armored vehicles.

I probably pay more attention to the Real World when it comes to weapons data than the average gamer. The following comes from the Intelligence Bulletin Vol. III No. 11 July 1945 by the Military Intelligence Division War Department Washington, D. C. This is a public domain document, free from any copyright. I consider it a highly credible source. The tank the weapons were tested on was the Japanese Type 97 (improved) Medium Tank with the 47mm high velocity gun. The thickest armor was on the turret front at 33 millimeters, with the remainder of the armor ranging from 26 millimeters on the turret sides and rear to 25 to 6 millimeters on the hull. I would view that as light armor. The tank was captured on the island of Luzon in the Philippine Islands

A field test has been conducted by a U. S. antitank company to determine the penetration capabilities of U. S. infantry antitank weapons attacking the Type 97 medium tank (improved). U. S. weapons used in the test were the caliber .50 machine gun, the rifle grenade, the 2.36-inch rocket, and the 37-mm antitank gun.

The caliber .50. machine gun fired on the Japanese tank at three different ranges—35 yards, 50 yards, and 100 yards. In firing on the front of the tank at a range of 35 yards, penetrations were registered on the ball-mounted machine gun only; no penetrations were made on the vision aperture, turret, or curved or sloping surfaces. At 50 yards, 35 percent penetrations were made in the plate behind the suspension system (on the side of the tank), the ball mount of the rear machine gun, and the under surface of the rear of the tank. At 100 yards, no penetrations were made on any part of the tank.

The rifle grenade was fired at a range of approximately 50 yards. When the grenade was fired at a normal angle to 45 degrees from normal, penetration was made on all parts of the tank, with the exception of the gun shield. The diameter of the penetrations was approximately 1/2 inch.

The 2.36-inch rocket was fired against the tank at a range of approximately 50 yards. Penetrations were made in all parts of the tank when the rocket struck at angles from normal to 45 degrees from normal. The diameter of the penetrations was approximately 3/4 inch.

The 37-mm antitank gun was fired at ranges of 100 and 350 yards. Only armor-piercing shells were used. At 100 yards, the 37-mm registered penetrations on all parts of the tank when fired at angles from normal to 45 degrees from normal. At 350 yards, penetration of the tank armor could be made only when the antitank gun was fired at normal angle. The diameter
of penetration was approximately 1 1/2 inches.

As a result of this test, the ranges listed below were recommended as the most favorable for employment against this tank:

Caliber .50 machine gun Ranges up to 50 yards
Rifle grenade Ranges up to 75 yards
2.36-inch rocket Ranges up to 100 yards
37-mm antitank gun Ranges up to 350 yards

The .50 Armor-piercing round weighed 710 grains or 46 grams and the muzzle velocity was 2,935 feet per second or 894 meters per second. The Submachine gun in Traveller fires the 9mm automatic pistol cartridge weighing 10 grams or 154 grams at a velocity given as between 400 and 500 meters per second. Assuming the higher velocity for the submachine gun, that would be 1,640 feet per second. The submachine gun appears to be significantly less powerful. If fired at the tank, the tank crew might notice some banging on the hull, and that is all. Note, the 9mm Parabellum round used in a large number of submachine guns of today uses a 115 grain or 7.45 gram full metal jacketed round at circa 390 meters per second or 1,280 feet per second. The muzzle velocity may vary to a degree.

The rifle grenade mentions and the 2.36 inch Bazooka round both used shaped charges for penetration. More modern shaped charges, with greater stand-off distances and improved charge shaping, would do considerably better. but still have problems with say penetrating an M1 Abrams.

I also have the penetration of the .30-06 full-power rifle round, both ball and armor-piercing, in a variety of medium if you are interested. If anyone wishes I will be more than happy to email to them the pertinent Intelligence Bulletin. It is an 8.1 Megabyte file.

 

[infojunky]

The tank the weapons were tested on was the Japanese Type 97 (improved) Medium Tank with the 47mm high velocity gun.

Note, I stated Surface damage.

Also note you jumped straight to a light tank for light armor, whereas when I hear light armored vehicle is go to things like Armored Cars, APCs and the like including armored Automobiles. All of which have small arms resistant hulls but whose surface equipment is vulnerable to smallarms fire.

 

[Timerover51]

Note, I stated Surface damage.

Also note you jumped straight to a light tank for light armor, whereas when I hear light armored vehicle is go to things like Armored Cars, APCs and the like including armored Automobiles. All of which have small arms resistant hulls but whose surface equipment is vulnerable to smallarms fire.

When I think armored cars, I think of the World War 2 variety, and it would be hard to find any of those with less than 12.7mm (half-inch) to 15mm thickness, and APCs have about the same or more, especially recent ones designed to withstand the 14.5mm AP round. Armored automobiles are a different category entirely. However, as I have said repeatedly, it is your universe, and you decide how to run it.