Striker Book 3 DS 1 Installement 1 Chassis and turret base weight

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

I'm getting back to DS 1 after putting together the design sequences that allow customizing weapons and associated sub-systems.

One of the first questions that I have concerns DS 1 Step A Chassis Dimensions and Step D Turret Dimensions.

An empty chassis and/or empty turret has a volume equal to the Height x Width x Length.

What is the weight and price for an empty chassis and/or empty turret?

My guess at least for weight should be similar to Step B Suspension which states that weight of all suspension systems is equal to 1 ton per cubic meter of volume.

The price I have no clue on what value to assign as a price modifier x the volume of the empty chassis and/or empty turret.

Of course I may be trying to add a little more complexity to the design process.

 

[Carlobrand]

Hello all,

I'm getting back to DS 1 after putting together the design sequences that allow customizing weapons and associated sub-systems.

One of the first questions that I have concerns DS 1 Step A Chassis Dimensions and Step D Turret Dimensions.

An empty chassis and/or empty turret has a volume equal to the Height x Width x Length.

What is the weight and price for an empty chassis and/or empty turret?

My guess at least for weight should be similar to Step B Suspension which states that weight of all suspension systems is equal to 1 ton per cubic meter of volume.

The price I have no clue on what value to assign as a price modifier x the volume of the empty chassis and/or empty turret.

Of course I may be trying to add a little more complexity to the design process.

There is no weight or price until you slap on the armor - in essence, the walls of the box you're making. That occurs at step N, after you've decided what all's going to be in the box - which in my mind is a bit backward since the volume of that armor also comes out of your usable volume. Can't tell you how many times I've been driven back to the drawing board after finding that all the goodies inside the box had left me with too little room for decent armor, or that the added armor overpowered my engine and left me with a static pillbox.

The weight per cubic meter varies with tech level and the effectiveness of the armor. See the armor type table on Page 3 of the Design Sequence Tables. The best stuff is high tech - and incredibly dense, heavier than lead.

(Your suspension system on the other hand, is mostly empty space. Think of the suspension of a tank: wide tracks looping around a series of big ol', and heavy, toothed gears and metal wheels. Everything inside the track - and a bit of other stuff intended to transfer power to the gears/wheels and to act as shock absorbers and such - is the "volume" of the suspension system. Most of that is empty space intended to allow the wheels and shocks and whatever to have room to do their jobs.)

Also keep in mind that the slope of your armor at steps C and E (before you determine your armor weight or thickness, oddly enough) can have a major impact on your usable space.

 

[snrdg082102]

Afternoon Carlobrand,

Step A and Step D creates a frame for an empty box that everything gets attached to resulting in a vehicle like the tank in the example. The frame has a certain amount of weight and a price.

I'll just have to live with the system as is, but I don't have to agree.

Thanks Carlobrand

There is no weight or price until you slap on the armor - in essence, the walls of the box you're making. That occurs at step N, after you've decided what all's going to be in the box - which in my mind is a bit backward since the volume of that armor also comes out of your usable volume. Can't tell you how many times I've been driven back to the drawing board after finding that all the goodies inside the box had left me with too little room for decent armor, or that the added armor overpowered my engine and left me with a static pillbox.

The weight per cubic meter varies with tech level and the effectiveness of the armor. See the armor type table on Page 3 of the Design Sequence Tables. The best stuff is high tech - and incredibly dense, heavier than lead.

(Your suspension system on the other hand, is mostly empty space. Think of the suspension of a tank: wide tracks looping around a series of big ol', and heavy, toothed gears and metal wheels. Everything inside the track - and a bit of other stuff intended to transfer power to the gears/wheels and to act as shock absorbers and such - is the "volume" of the suspension system. Most of that is empty space intended to allow the wheels and shocks and whatever to have room to do their jobs.)

Also keep in mind that the slope of your armor at steps C and E (before you determine your armor weight or thickness, oddly enough) can have a major impact on your usable space.

 

[Carlobrand]

Afternoon Carlobrand,

Step A and Step D creates a frame for an empty box that everything gets attached to resulting in a vehicle like the tank in the example. The frame has a certain amount of weight and a price. ...

Step A and Step D create a hypothetical volume of space, not a frame. I'm not aware that an M-60 tank turret, for example, has a frame - it's just cast steel.

The rules are an abstraction. Trying to use it to make a jeep, for example, results in something with no frame - where there should be a frame - and a much thicker "skin" than any vehicle would need (the minimum 0.25 cm is roughly equivalent to 12-gauge steel, where most of the older vehicles were using 18 to 20 gauge). However, the resulting weight is in the right ballpark, and the thicker panels don't have much of a combat effect, so one just imagines that it's frame and sheet-metal instead of 12-gauge plates. On the other hand, if you look closely at the rules on sloping, you quickly see that those can create big problems since the hypothetical volumes removed are overlapping, which isn't factored in.

Think of the design system more as developing design specs that you then put out for bids, rather than as a step-by-step engineering process. The resulting vehicle isn't quite going to match the design specs, (try building a Model-T with them: you end up having to declare the top portion to be a "turret") but for game purposes the specs are an adequate shorthand way of describing the vehicle and its combat performance.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Carlobrand,

The dimensions form a shell or a frame. The shell or frame is made of some material which without anything else added is going to have some weight based on the thickness and type of material used.

Add armor and the weight of the chassis increases by the weight of the armor. In DS 1 the weight of an empty chassis or turret is completely ignored, probably to help shorten an already complex and long design process.

I stand by my comment that the chassis and turret dimensions from and empty shell or frame on which to install the components the designer can fit into them.

A while back I watched a program where they rebuilt a M1A2 tank. Removing the components from the chassis and turret the M1A2 still had the same dimensions of the original tank the big change was in weight. Unfortunately, I don't recall how much of the 67.6 tons was just the empty chassis and turret.

I wonder if the JTAS article on civilian vehicles has some information, I'll have to dig out my FFE JTAS books and find out.

Again thanks for the reply.

Step A and Step D create a hypothetical volume of space, not a frame. I'm not aware that an M-60 tank turret, for example, has a frame - it's just cast steel.

The rules are an abstraction. Trying to use it to make a jeep, for example, results in something with no frame - where there should be a frame - and a much thicker "skin" than any vehicle would need (the minimum 0.25 cm is roughly equivalent to 12-gauge steel, where most of the older vehicles were using 18 to 20 gauge). However, the resulting weight is in the right ballpark, and the thicker panels don't have much of a combat effect, so one just imagines that it's frame and sheet-metal instead of 12-gauge plates. On the other hand, if you look closely at the rules on sloping, you quickly see that those can create big problems since the hypothetical volumes removed are overlapping, which isn't factored in.

Think of the design system more as developing design specs that you then put out for bids, rather than as a step-by-step engineering process. The resulting vehicle isn't quite going to match the design specs, (try building a Model-T with them: you end up having to declare the top portion to be a "turret") but for game purposes the specs are an adequate shorthand way of describing the vehicle and its combat performance.

 

[Icosahedron]

I would have to agree with Carlobrand. Although section A misleadingly refers to a 'chassis', giving the impression of a physical object, section D refers more properly to turret 'dimensions'. They are both hypothetical constructs in the manner of a 'wireframe' in a CAD drawing. There is no actual frame present.
The shell of the vehicle, to which everything is attached, is in fact formed by the armour.

That's the way the Striker rules work, as written. Of course, if you want to add in mass and cost for an underlying physical framework, you are free to do so as a houserule (Jtas may have added such a rule) but there is no mass and cost in the original rules, it's simply a dimensional analysis.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Icosahedron,

How does one attach the various parts of a car, aircraft, ship, or any other structure even the human body?

By using some sort of structure generally known as frame work or frame for short that has certain characteristics called height, width, and length.

In the human body that internal structure or frame is called the skeleton. Strip everything away from the skeleton or frame there is still weight that can be measured.


Aircraft have a basic structure called the air frame on which the components are attached to. Once the components and outer surface have been installed we have a vehicle that hopefully will do the design function of flying through the air. The airframe has a certain weight.

Cars have a structure called a chassis on which all components are attached to that make the vehicle a car. The chassis has weight, height, width, and length. Put the chassis on a scale and there is going to be a number called weight. Mount an engine, wheels, axles, and all the other components, not forgetting fuel or other similar items the scale will show that the car's weight increases. Add the weight of the operator, passengers, and anything carried as a load and the weight goes up yet again. Mount armor and the weight is increased by the weight of the armor added.

The chassis/frame regardless of being composed of many parts or cast as a single piece of metal have weight. Unfortunately, I haven't been successful in finding out what an empty turret or tank chassis weighs I'm still looking.

Ships have hull plating that provides a minimal amount of armor protection. If more protection armor is added to the hull usually externally over the hull plating. Armor can also be added internally, usually reducing the amount of storage space.

Striker overlooks the basic fact that the chassis dimensions have weight even when only adding the minimum of 0.25 cm of armor.

I know someone who built a vehicle that has the bear bones of components. Basically the guy has an open chassis composed of the frame on which he mounted the motor, radiator, wheels, axles, transmission, the fire wall, no wind shield, a plate of steel for the floor one or two seats, steering system, and other components allowing the driver to operate the beast. The last time I saw him he still didn't have even a roll cage installed just exposed to the elements.

The contraption doesn't have "armor" in my book but still has weight.

Apparently I am in the minority since I have always interpreted Steps A and D as being a structure that established both the base weight and how much the interior could hold in volume.

I'm not going to attempt to change the system since obviously a majority of the users of the Striker design system have established the concept of an empty chassis and turret as only defining volume.

I think the topic can be safely dropped and I do appreciate the point of view expressed by both you and Carlobrand.

Thank you for the help.

I would have to agree with Carlobrand. Although section A misleadingly refers to a 'chassis', giving the impression of a physical object, section D refers more properly to turret 'dimensions'. They are both hypothetical constructs in the manner of a 'wireframe' in a CAD drawing. There is no actual frame present.
The shell of the vehicle, to which everything is attached, is in fact formed by the armour.

That's the way the Striker rules work, as written. Of course, if you want to add in mass and cost for an underlying physical framework, you are free to do so as a houserule (Jtas may have added such a rule) but there is no mass and cost in the original rules, it's simply a dimensional analysis.

 

[Carlobrand]

...I know someone who built a vehicle that has the bear bones of components. Basically the guy has an open chassis composed of the frame on which he mounted the motor, radiator, wheels, axles, transmission, the fire wall, no wind shield, a plate of steel for the floor one or two seats, steering system, and other components allowing the driver to operate the beast. The last time I saw him he still didn't have even a roll cage installed just exposed to the elements. ...

In deference to your wish to retire the issue, I will limit myself to pointing out a flaw in your friend's bare-bones design:

Striker Book-3, Design Sequence 1, Step N: "Each of the six faces of the chassis must be armored with at least .25 cm of armor (except that a vehicle may have a completely unarmored deck; if so, it is open-topped). The two side faces must have the same amount of armor."

His design is clever - and real world analogs exist - but it is non-canon. It's a definite weakness in the design system (and not the only one), but then it was intended for combat vehicles, not dune buggies.

I've debated doing up an IMTU rule variant to address some of the system flaws, (the one that bugs me most has to do with the volume lost in sloping the armor) but I never saw much point in it as my players wouldn't really care about such details and another game master would have his own ideas about how best to fix things and would likely reject my variant.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Carlobrand,

I was talking about a real world example, sorry I wasn't clear.

The "must have" requirement, in the case Striker is armor, has been one of my issues with the design systems used in Classic Traveller.

Thanks for the reply and have a good day.

In deference to your wish to retire the issue, I will limit myself to pointing out a flaw in your friend's bare-bones design:

Striker Book-3, Design Sequence 1, Step N: "Each of the six faces of the chassis must be armored with at least .25 cm of armor (except that a vehicle may have a completely unarmored deck; if so, it is open-topped). The two side faces must have the same amount of armor."

His design is clever - and real world analogs exist - but it is non-canon. It's a definite weakness in the design system (and not the only one), but then it was intended for combat vehicles, not dune buggies.

I've debated doing up an IMTU rule variant to address some of the system flaws, (the one that bugs me most has to do with the volume lost in sloping the armor) but I never saw much point in it as my players wouldn't really care about such details and another game master would have his own ideas about how best to fix things and would likely reject my variant.

 

[Ishmael]

There are other RW examples...
Many farm tractors , such as a Massey-Ferguson, have height, length, and width dimensions, but ithey may not have a frame/chassis at all.
The engine, transmission, ect. simply bolt to each other. All the other bits bolt to the engine block or transmission case.

With Striker, the armor becomes the 'frame' much as a monocoque body.
Most AFV's use monocoque construction.

 

[Carlobrand]

I wonder if we'd have any success advocating for a Striker supplement that provided for frame-and-sheetmetal vehicles, cabs with windows and that - what would you call it? - tractor construction.

 

[Icosahedron]

Great minds, Ishmael - I was going to suggest exactly those two examples, an old tractor and a monocoque.

Having said that, I have an old pencil note on my Striker LBBs that queries mass and cost of frame, so that too crossed my mind at some point.

 

[snrdg082102]

In theory the MT construction sequence from the Referee's Manual, COACC, and two articles in Challenge magazines and TNE/T4 FF&S were designed to improve on Striker LBB 3.

Great minds, Ishmael - I was going to suggest exactly those two examples, an old tractor and a monocoque.

Having said that, I have an old pencil note on my Striker LBBs that queries mass and cost of frame, so that too crossed my mind at some point.