Starships Versus Tanks

[Fritz_Brown]

Spot on, Ran!

I could see some classes of weapons being illegal on civilian vessesl, but not ones that are "tuned down". Especially because all those ex-Navy/Marine/Army types would take 'em back up to milspec PDQ!

 

[Ptah]

Ran Targas

^ You see, that's my confusion over this topic; why would civilian space lasers (that take up valuable space and weight) be more powerful than those available to armored vehicles.

To me the key is energy. Assuming equal TL: equal energy means equal fire power. Sigg's shows that the tank is equivalent to a ship laser in energy I assume 1EP for weapons and 0.3 EP for drives. And as said before at this TL the concept of tank, ship etc. is blurred.

My comments:

That makes sense. I think alot in terms of orders of magnitude, and would think a military-grade starship laser is two orders of magnitude "more powerful" than that of a heavy ground vehicle, and a civilian laser one order of magnitude.

were moving off topic and not meant to apply to the original question but to express a general design view on ships vs. vehicles. I should be more precise it appears.
The 10T tank is getting into the realm of ships. I'm agreeing that if IYTU the weapons made available to a 100T civilian vessle are comparable to a 10T military vessle/ship; this makes sense to me from a design point of view. It's not what I do IMTU, and it's not how I view the Trepedia.

What my view on tanks vs. starships in general is that a 100T interstellar ship should be able to mount superior weapons and armor, if desired, compared to a 10T ship. Whether such a ship does or does not is a design choice. Whether this is reflected in HG, Striker or the interface between the two is another topic.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Hm, IMHO a space laser (at least any other weapon system) always is a "military" component, even if installed on a civilian ship. So I would not make differences in types of lasers here (well, there are things like mining lasers..).

In Traveller the borderline between "civilian" and "military" is quite blurred anyway. That seems to be valid for persons as well as for equipment or space ships.
If government allows and circumstances force civilian ships to carry weapons, those are probably not interested in carrying toys ?

So, in my view the tank vs. starship conflict is at least a small tank vs. big tank conflict and if the starship is equipped with a standard laser its just bad luck for the small tank

As Ptah stated...its just a matter how the GM designed the weights in his TU....

Regards,

Mert

 

[parmasson]

Don’t forget about the Grey Market ™. I am sure all sorts of goodies are available there for a modest fee. Illegal to sell on most worlds but ok on a few.

 

[Ptah]

TheEngineer

So, in my view the tank vs. starship conflict is at least a small tank vs. big tank conflict and if the starship is equipped with a standard laser its just bad luck for the small tank

Nicely said. My TL8 limited mind has me thinking of a M1 tank as a heavy ground vehicle, but its dimensions (grossly) are about 15' x 10' x (at most) 10' high, or roughly 3T, and that's one of the world's heaviest tanks. A 10T vehicle would be something like 25' long x 20' wide by 10' high. That's something like two buses (single decker

)side by side.

On civilian vs. military lasers, IMTU there is no distinction. It's the same laser/weapon. One may just be better built (I've added on an equipment quality factor IMTU). But I can see where in some TUs the Imperium, or what have you, may want to restrict the firepower civilians have access to. Whether they can, well that's a question for your patrol ship captain.

 

[jappel]

You know, I hadn't considered the actual size of a 10dT vehicle until Ptah mentioned it. I've got to say, from the standpoint of a former treadhead, that's an awfully big target for the air/land battlefield. Yes, grav technology makes things like fitting on a bridge a moot point, but that's also big enough to a) present a nice target for things like a SLOSAT (look down the thread for some quick & dirty Striker stats I whipped up and deeper yet for a real-world version in development), and b) it will cause problems in tight terrain like urban settings, or many kinds of forest. Of course sometimes you can just blast the problematic terrain away, but not always.

Circling back to the original topic, note the Striker penetration on my SLOSAT is 39 with a "12cm" warhead. Meaning you can probably build a heavy but man-portable anti-ship weapon! Probably not a ship-killer in one hit, but enough to breach vacumm integrity. So maybe it's not the tanks the type S has to worry about, it's the guy kneeling 100m away with the big tube while they're grounding for pick-up.

In a similar vein, I believe the bigger recoiless rifles listed in Striker can penetrate an normal starship hull.

- John

 

[far-trader]

That would be a "fun" development for the PCs in question. They ground, grab the guy they want to save and blast for orbit, just as that infantryman with the bazooka fires.

<tiny thump whump>

And no worries until they hit vacuum and start to hear atmo breach alarms

Time to play find the hole. One easy hull breach patch will do it but oh oh...

...it seems the warhead was a tactical nuke that didn't go boom, yet

 

[Bob Weaver]

Originally posted by Ran Targas:
^ You see, that's my confusion over this topic; why would civilian space lasers (that take up valuable space and weight) be more powerful than those available to armored vehicles.

Because the people building the starship aren't thinking in terms of combatting a grav tank squad. Starships are built to fight other starships. And a 50MW beam laser isn't going to scratch that lightly-armed privateer trying to separate you from your cargo. The issue is one of scale. Grav tanks= tiny starships= huge!

Don't you think the same guys who build civilian laser build the military ones?!?

Now that, I'll give you. Doesn't Boeing/Lockheed build civilian aircraft as well as military?

Would you buy a tank that could be knocked out by a lousy ship's boat pilot joy riding over the battlefield? Would you buy a tank that couldn't knock said joy rider out of the sky?

A ship's boat 'joy-riding' over a hot battlefield deserves to get shot down, yes. But that's because he has no business being there. Particularly when you consider that space craft are used to targetting small objects at distances of 100,000's of kilometers, and hitting them. Why would a starship, wishing to participate in an armor battle, ever allow itself to be in-range of the tanks? This would only happen in circumstances well outside the intended operation of said space craft. Like the ambush at take-off mentioned here.

 

[Ran Targas]

*** RANT ALERT ***

You have been warned ...

Originally posted by Bob Weaver:
[QB] Because the people building the starship aren't thinking in terms of combatting a grav tank squad. Starships are built to fight other starships. And a 50MW beam laser isn't going to scratch that lightly-armed privateer trying to separate you from your cargo. The issue is one of scale. Grav tanks= tiny starships= huge!

Thanks Bob, you made my arguement for me; you are exactly correct to say starships (particularly merchies) would not be geared (sensors, fire control, etc.) to engage grav tanks from orbit or nap of the earth. And being that grav tanks are small and would be equipped with numerous counters to simple civilian grade sensors (read: intentially stealthy), the starship should have to be well within the effective range of the tank to detect it at all.

Now that, I'll give you. Doesn't Boeing/Lockheed build civilian aircraft as well as military?

Sure they do (they also build warships) but that doesn't mean a Boeing jet liner has the same capabilities of a Lockheed jet fighter, even though the B-747 has a whole lot more room for said capabilities. Even a C-130 gunship wouldn't stand much of a chance against a jet fighter. The civilian platform is not designed to perform the task you are asking it to; a formula for failure, yes?

A ship's boat 'joy-riding' over a hot battlefield deserves to get shot down, yes. But that's because he has no business being there. Particularly when you consider that space craft are used to targetting small objects at distances of 100,000's of kilometers, and hitting them. Why would a starship, wishing to participate in an armor battle, ever allow itself to be in-range of the tanks? This would only happen in circumstances well outside the intended operation of said space craft. Like the ambush at take-off mentioned here.

Bob, you're contradicting yourself here; civilian starship weapons are designed to engage other starships which, by your own arguement, are huge! Which is it Bob? Grav tanks on the other hand are designed to engage small, fast moving targets (other grav tanks); a big civilian starship should be no problem to a grav tank gunner. Also, starship gunners (i.e. your PC's) are not pro's nor are they used to targetting fast moving armored vehicles on the ground (particularly when the armored vehicles should know they are being targetted); they are used to targets in space where there is no terrain or other clutter to contend with. Remember how effective lowly sand casters are supposed to be?

For arguements sake, does a retired Type S, stripped of its special scout sensor package (as it most probably would be prior to turning over to a retiree; like old police cars), have anymore capability to detect objects on the ground, than say a standard Far Trader would?

And why would a standard Far Trader be equipped with sensors capable of seeing through the fog of spurious signals, active jamming, chaff, and other countermeasures on an active battlefield effectively enough to detect and lock on to a maneuvering grav tank (again, likely very aware of the sensor scans painting it)?

Don't you think that is a little much to expect any shipping company to outfit their ships with when sensors of the capability/quality would be entirely unnecessary (to say the least prohibitively expensive) for the Far Trader to perform its intended function?

Another thing; it's amazing to me how in one breath we have people saying it's impossible for a 20-30yr old ship like a Type S to make money (see the feasibility studies by hull size), but then state emphatically that every retired scout out there can afford to purchase or maintain a bunch of relatively useless sensor equipment just so he can detect the occassional neutrino source or some other fart in the dark. Do today's merchants carry anything other than the bare minimums required by their insurer? A smart owner would sell the equipment to the earliest para-military group he came across and use the money to make payments or get that much needed alluvial damper flush he put off last maintenance cycle.

This rant is over, move along, move along, there's nothing here to see ...

 

[parmasson]

I like this fight.

Three things.
1. PCs don’t tend to have old clunky sensor packages for long.
The black market provides many things to those who can pay.
2. Scout ships can make gobs of money.
It really depends on what you sell and who you work for. 1 ton of wheat or 1 ton of opium.
3. In Traveller the line between civilian and military is blurred.
A pulse laser is a pulse laser is a pulse laser.

 

[Scott Martin]

I think that perhaps one of the communications issues is folks trying to fit the Traveller universe into the current world, where most of the useful parallels are with the 18th century "Age of Empire". A number of the rest are due to not grasping just how accurate (and powerful) weapons with light second engagement ranges are

So on to the 18th century parallel: the scout is the equavalent of a small packet ship, carrying a couple of 9 pound cannon. The grav tanks can be represented by a company or two of infantry. The packet ship (if there are no other naval forces in support) can handily shell the infantry into oblivion: if the packet is overly foolhardy the infantry can strip its decks of crew. If the packet spends too long shelling the infantry, there is probably some horse-drawn artillery that will blow nice holes in said packet ship if it notices the noise. I found the actual result of the engagement to be satisfyingly appropriate: the packet ship tried to run a blockade to the port, and got shredded for its trouble (eliminating the tanks on the way). The command crew escaped and are trying to infiltrate their way into the port to await rescue by their (less foolhardy) friends.

So shifting the viewpoint here from discussions of "DC-10 vs tank" to the age of sail. "detection equipment" and "defensive armament" of an east indiaman were *identical* to those used by ships of the line, and often manufactured in the same foundries. Why? because piracy and privateers were a common problem at the time, and east indiamen often had BETTER crew, since they could afford to pay them significantly better. Thus the difference between a "civilian" design and a "military" one boils down to a comparison of cargo/gun ratio, not more or less capable systems. If the modern world had a severe piracy problem then merchants would be packing a LOT more sensors and firepower, since NOT doing so would impact their profits a LOT more than the cost of outfitting their ships. Remember that this is the game where several AHL class *Cruisers* were sold to merchant cartels a surplus while the rest of the class remained in service.

Before getting huffy about the fact that there are "pirates" today remember that the US navy was basically formed to deal with the Barbary pirates. This is where the USMC gets "the shores of Tripoli" from, and the barbary pirates were not dealt with by Britain, France, Germany or any of the other "first tier" empires of that era, since the cost of "solving" the problem wasw percieved as being more than the cost of bearing it. The "pirates" we have now are pretty anemic in comparison.

Next up: why does that scout still have its excellent sensor suite.

1) Because no-one is ever going to buy a scout for shipping cargo. (Aren't these used for prospecting, where a top-notch sensor suite is more important than how much cargo you can haul?)
2) Because it's in use by a scout *on detached duty* remember that old book 1 stuff where the scout doesn't actually own the scout, but it is "on loan" from the Imperial Scout service? Maintenance and fuel is provided for free in exchange for Imperial access to logs?

Why the hell would the imperium degrade the intelligence it gathers by "downgrading" the sensors, especially when said sensors are available on the common market?

As for the "stealthiness" of a grav tank, you do know that it's running a fusion power plant right? One of the major issues with the Abrams is that when it is running it can be picked up by a blind man using IR imaging, and its IR signature is *at least* a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than that of a grav tanks plant. You can wave your hands and mumble magic ju-ju about dumping waste energy into a gravitic field or some other technobabble, but I bet if you have the technology to dump it there, I have the technology to notice the (multi-megawatt) signature. By the way, a megawatt signature is detectable (with existing technology) waaaaaay past a light second. For intellectual violence "By a passive sensor. The Space Shuttle main engines could be detected past the orbit of Pluto. The Space Shuttle's manoeuvering thrusters could be seen as far as the asteroid belt." you may want to check out http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html for "real world" detection. Even giving the tank the benefit of hiding in ground clutter, lookinng for the (several hundered degree above ambiant) exhaust will have it stick out like a sore thumb. And yes, you could power it down, but then it doesn't get to maneuver or shoot, which I'm sure would make the scout crew even happier than picking it off from the orbit of the moon.
If you want to pretend you can engage me at that range, check out the sme site for why plasma weapons suck in space (and note that TNE dumped space plasma weapons for a reason...)

And before we get into "The Trepidia isn't really a tank, it's a theater superiority weapon" discussion, I think that enough folks have already pointed out that by calling it a "tank" and defining its role (and design) in several versions of Traveller, it is *not* intended to engage space capable targets unsupported.

I won't even get into the issues with targetting a "huge" target from a light second out, or what teeny-tiny fraction of an arcsecond this target represents compared to (as an example) a human-sized target on the horizon at 100 naval miles . And no, I don't care about laser attenuation through the atmosphere: with 150 Mj or so I'll just deal with losing half my delivery energy in the form of atmospheric ionization: the remainder will probably result in a mission kill of one kind or another.

Ran is correct however in postulating that a hit from the grav tanks gun will punch a hole through the (relatively) unarmoured scout.


Scott Martin

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Pretty good notes, Scott, and the projectrho link is quite cool, even if some topics are scientifically outdated.
E.g. long distance plasma beams in space could work if a self stabilizing dynamic could be created in an efficient way. At least computer simulations show, that a special inner dynamic of a plasma creates an encapsulating magnetohydrodynamic effect, which stabilizes the system in a kind of plasma bolt (You might have a look at the MagBeam NASA project).

Regarding the tank vs. scout ship effect, the result is pretty obvious, at least if You use MT ruleset.
A plasma bolt with penetration, let say 70, and damage of 30 will inflict 7 up to 56 point of damage to a scout ship with a 40F armor. With 90/225 hull structural hit capacity the poor scout will be torn apart quite quickly .)
Essentially same would be true for a 440 dton patrol cruiser target, too....

Regards,

Mert

 

[Ptah]

Scott, nice link. I'm a sucker for some good equations.

To go OT a bit with regard to future technology. If one postulates working fusion reactors it is not so hard (or preposterous) to imagine that the same technology that can hold the fusion plasma can create encapsulating magnetohydrodynamic plasma. If one postulates working G drives and anti-gravity, these are far, far more unrealistic than plasma weapons. We don't even have a working theory (analogies to particle physics and string theory rumblings yes) or single experiment that can begin to help us decide if gravity can be explained like other forces let alone explain G drives.

In postulating future technology there is the line beween what now appears technically impossible but theoretically possible and that which is impossible. This is the realm of "hard" science fiction IMHO, using known theories and not violating any current theories but postulating technological advances that overcome practical problems. There is also that which is currently theoretically impossible, but theory doesn't explain all observations.

One of my favorite examples about technical impraticality but theoretical possibility is early steam power, before the Carnot cycle explained how you could get things to work, steam power was considered a poor technology.

On the currently theoretically impossible, but theory doesn't explain all observations, front quatum mechanics is the classic example (no pun intended). High temperaure superconducters are another. Only 150 years ago (about 2 TLs ago) all "reasonable" scientists were convinced that classical mechanics explained everything. Even Maxwell and Boltzman (about 25 years later) were not believed and derided for their work in electromagnetism and the theory of gases, respectively. A long way of saying, there are theories and discoveries that a TLn society make and considered well settled that a TL(n-2) society may not even be able to conceive of.

Sorry for the lecture, history is just too full of examples of society incorrectly saying something is impossible or "there is nothing new to discover" that I'd hate to see such limit our conceptions of TLs 2, 3 or 6 higher than our own.

 

[Scott Martin]

Hello again

Ptah:
No Problem, I thought that this was a discussion forum, AKA a multi-sided lecture

It's important to realize what pieces of your game are abstracted in a certain way because "that's what the rules say" and what pieces are based on Real World(tm) science. Most of the previous discussion was based on "how do we represent this based on Classic Traveller" muddied with "CT doesn't represent detection or space to ground combat very well"

"later" versions of Traveller (MT and on) agree that a tanks main plasma gun will punch through a scout like wet kleenex. The main point that I was trying to make (in both of my posts?) was that a plasma tank is not a good platform to try and use as a space superiority weapon. As soon as the engagement closes within the tanks performance envelope then it's likely to be game over (for the scout anyway).

Project Rho is nice because it has an "understandable by mere mortals" write up of what you can detect in space, and why the "hide and seek with bazookas" concept is just not realistic. I note that the alternate sensor rules for TNE (I believe that they are still available on CCJoe's site, AKA the missouri archives) are a lot closer to what project Rho postulates.

The down side to pretending you're a rock is that a non-maneuvering target is really easy to hit once you have a fire control lock. (auto hit using alt sensor rules)

I was not trying to say that plasma weapons could not be effective, just that they would not be effective in a long range space combat environment. All postulations of a space combat environment suggest you would need a LOT of armour to survive to get to a short range space combat environment, which would make maneuvering to close to that range problematic. Even if you solve the plasma containment issue, I think (from a damage / mass ratio anyway) that you'd be a lot better off using that new technology to improve your powerplant output and dumping more power into your laser emitter. Even if you get "perfect" containment of your plasma beam you get the same beam dispersion issues (based on focusing) that your laser has, with the additional "loss" of the energy keeping your plasma packet together. If you're going for a cohesive "slug" of energy perhaps you should try a linear accellerator or KKM: Ball Bearings don't have dispersion problems in space.

Plasma weapons *might* be good as point defence platforms, but standoff platforms make this problematic, and I'd still be more worried about a KKW dumping several mega-ricks of energy into me.

(Still working on usable KKW rules for TNE)

Scott Martin

 

[Ptah]

Scott,
Cool. Tone does not convey well in short forum posts.

Project Rho is nice because it has an "understandable by mere mortals" write up of what you can detect in space, and why the "hide and seek with bazookas" concept is just not realistic. I note that the alternate sensor rules for TNE (I believe that they are still available on CCJoe's site, AKA the missouri archives) are a lot closer to what project Rho postulates.

Completely agree with this. Have Joe's rules somewhere, at least as they were circa 1996. I don't know much about TNE except for what I've seen posted. From the ship designs I've seen the ranges of sensors and communication seem unrealistically short. But this may be more of not knowing how they interact with the rules.

I was not trying to say that plasma weapons could not be effective, just that they would not be effective in a long range space combat environment.

I agree with this as well. One can debate how long the field can contain the plasma but at some point the time to target will make it near impossible to hit. Steerable light speed weapons (e.g., lasers) have the targeting capability.

Even if you solve the plasma containment issue, I think (from a damage / mass ratio anyway) that you'd be a lot better off using that new technology to improve your powerplant output and dumping more power into your laser emitter. Even if you get "perfect" containment of your plasma beam you get the same beam dispersion issues (based on focusing) that your laser has, with the additional "loss" of the energy keeping your plasma packet together.

Good point about pumping that energy into a laser.

If you're going for a cohesive "slug" of energy perhaps you should try a linear accellerator or KKM: Ball Bearings don't have dispersion problems in space.

But the Kinetic Kill weapon doesn't leave a pretty light streak. I think the high velocity high density projectile (you can even skip the projectiles own velocity since relative velocity can do the trick) could be a fearsom weapon if employed correctly. A plasma bolt could be easily detected, "ball bearings" probably not until its too late.

It's important to realize what pieces of your game are abstracted in a certain way because "that's what the rules say" and what pieces are based on Real World(tm) science. Most of the previous discussion was based on "how do we represent this based on Classic Traveller" muddied with "CT doesn't represent detection or space to ground combat very well"

Agreed. I've gone pretty far off topic here, but would be interested in pursueing the discussions on KKW, lasers and plasmas in another thread.

 

[Scott Martin]

a KKW *does* leave a pretty light streak in the atmosphere, same as a laser.

In space they're both pretty boring until they meet something to interact with (hopefully their target...)

Start a new thread and I'll move the discussion there: you should probably warn folks that it is more likely to be "Science Technical" than "high Handwavium".

and I'm pretty sure that the TNE ranges are set up so that it is possible to play "Bazookas Hide and Seek" so this is a constraint for play balance, not realism. I use the ranges as "lock" ranges, instead of "detection" ranges. For "Detection" (something is out there, and it's about this big) multiply the range by 2-3 orders of magnitude.

Using this correction a "1 hex" passive sensor will pick up a 1 MW source in space at 10-100 light seconds, and military sensor platforms will know the rough positions all "starship sized" power sources within the orbit of Jupiter. If YTU uses "Drive Flare" emergence rules then large passive sensor arrays will handily detect scout sized emergence well into the Oort belt. Doing anything about it is another question entirely, but you will know that *something* is out there.

Scott Martin

 

[mike wightman]

KKW in TNE.
1. calculate v^2 for each velocity from 1 hex per turn up to 20 hexes per turn
2. halve each number in your table - you now have the velocity component of the KE formula.
3. multiply by the warhead penetrator mass to get total KE for each velocity
4. convert KE to tamped explosive demolition damage
5. convert to penetration/damage format.

Oh, and number 6. post it here when you've finished please

 

[Ptah]

Start a new thread and I'll move the discussion there: you should probably warn folks that it is more likely to be "Science Technical" than "high Handwavium".

Scott,
Good idea. I'm thinking of the Imperial Research Station. I won't be able to get an inital post going until later (about 6 hours from now). If you want to start I'll jump in when I get home. Handwavium, a superb name for element 126

 

[Scott Martin]

Hi Sigg

Steps 1-5 are the "easy" part. In point of fact, at any velocity above about 5 hexes/turn a 10 kg projectile is efectively a "mission kill" on any TNE ship under 10 Ktons or so (this is a 7 GJ penetrator, AKA a really bad day) I'd planned to treat this as a PAW hit (less the secondary effects) so this would be a "mere" 931 damage points in FF&S (it was an insane amount more using the CPR tables, and had a nasty penetration value as well)

For those of you not FF&S literate, this wil penetrate and do significant damage through over 3 meters of steel armour (or about 6x what a WW2 battleship carries as belt armour) and that's *without* calculating penetration by munition type (my WAG is that this would increase penetration by another order of magnitude) so I'll have to see what the tamped explosion penetration is (I suspect that this will be more effective than a tamped explosion, since it's effects will be more like a shaped charge...) EK for this 10kg slug is 34.7 GJ if anyone wants to work it out.

the more complicated issue isn't figuring out what the effects of a hit will be, the issue is really how to integrate this into the existing game framework:

-What is the "to hit" for these weapons
-Are they significantly easier to defend against (they should be, since they need to come in *contact* with the target to cause damage)
-How many KKM's can a single gunner control
-(Related) do you use the same factor as the missile MFD to increase this for MFD control instead of gunner workstation (local) control
-Rules for Evading KKM's
-KKM Submunitions (at orbital velocities a ball bearing is a significant threat to a heavily armoured starship: I'd rather have a swath of ball bearings on final approach than a single large slug)
-How do you handle "seeding" missile barrages with a mix of Nuke pumped "standoff" warheads as well as KKM munitions (What does point defence shoot at, and what range(s) does it have to engage at?)
-Rules for killing KKM's with other KKM's

Remember that if you are a non-evading target, then even if you "mission kill" a KKM with a laser, will itstill hit you (lasers don't tend to impart a lot of delta-V on their targets) or is the plume of vaporized casing sufficient to "push" it off target (remember that if this is a "direct" hit then it's still on the same course, and you're at the bulls-eye!)

Anyway, this soo should have its own thread: I'll see about moving this to the research station as well, and may get stuff up on my website over the holidays (Including my FTL constraints, rules for "Shoal" systems and more system infrastructure goodies)

Scott Martin

 

[Scott Martin]

Hmm: note to self: make sure to spell-check the end of my posts.

Sigg: all you really need is the first entry in that table (1 Kg at 1 hex/turn) since all of the TNE damage formulaes are sqrt(E) so the damage will increase in a linear fashion with velocity, and a sqrt relationship with mass...

Scott (20-20 hindsight after posting) Martin