System Defense Fleets
- Thread starter Murph
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Or are used to obfuscate procurement due to the ignorance of those in charge of the purse strings...
or to avoid treaty obligations.
or to avoid treaty obligations.
Xerxeskingofking
SOC-13
or are mis applied by writers with only a passing familiarity with the reasoning behind the terminology.
or all of the above.
or all of the above.
Sure it has, but in their main times (the Battleship times, in first half XX Century), they were mostly rated due to main weaponry.
As today, the Ticonderoga is rated as a Cruiser, ehile the Arleigh Burke as a destroyer, being fairly close in size and main (missile) weaponry...
While Real World Navy terms may be missleading, and are not always extrapolable, they keep being the best reference we have.
So, I'll ask you, if a Yamato class hull were armed with multitude of 6" turrets instead of with the 18" ones (or flight deck in the Shinano conversion), should it be rated as a Battleship, despite being the same hull?
I guess not.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
The Zumwalts would qualify more like light battlecruisers, and the Russians define their carriers as rocket aviation cruisers.
Role and capabilities war with perception and propaganda.
Role and capabilities war with perception and propaganda.
Xerxeskingofking
SOC-13
by the terms of the naval limitation treaties, no, she would still be a battleship, as they specified that any ship with guns over 8" and/or a standard displacement tonnage over 10,000 tons counted as a capital ship for the purposes of the treaties.
these treaties, by the way, are the source of the 6" light/8" heavy cruiser idea, and lead to some remarkably heavy "light" crusiers as a result.
The real reason the Arleigh Burke is a Frigate is PURELY political. US Congress said "No" to new Light Cruisers. So the NDB dubbed it a "Frigate" changing nothing else about the plans, and got it funded. Functionally, the Burke class is a light cruiser.
And lead to some interesting innovations and redefinitions... No fleet ever truly matched the limits.
The WNT & LNT combined provide the following definitions
| Category | Tonnage | Max Gun | Limits |
| Capital Ship | 10,001–35,000 | (6.11"-16") | |
| Carrier, heavy | 10,000-35,000 | 10x(5.11"–8") | limit 2 |
| Carrier | 10,000-35,000 | 8x(5.11"–6.1") | |
| Cruiser, Heavy | 1850-10,000 | 8x(6.11"–8") | |
| Cruiser, Light | 1850-10,000 | 8x(5.11"–6.1") | |
| Destroyer | 601–1850 | 5.1 | |
| Submarine | ≤2000 | 5.1 | |
| Exempt A | ≤600 | 4x6.1", no torps, max 2 launch catapults | |
| Exempt B | 601-2000 | 4x(3.11"-6.1")no torps, max 2 launch catapults |
Most CL's stayed under 5,000 Tons... but it wasn't required...
Ob Trav...
Spinals = Capitals (BB, BC)
100 Td bays = 8"
50 Td bays = 6"
25 Td Bays = 5"
5 Td Barbettes = 4"
seems to be a good .
References
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/road_to_war/london_treaty.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html
Last edited:
It might be a capital ship (due to size), but I guess no one would call it a battleship...
I disagree, as it defies the classical definition of Cruiser in Traveller.
Traveller derfines cruiser as the smallest ships to be equiped with spinal weapons, while in this equivalency table they should be armed only with bays (as the Wet Navy cruisers use to be armed wiht 6-8" guns, as you showed yourself in the table).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The XXth century is the age of the aircraft carrier and submarine, the BB was obsolete by the 1930s they just didn't realise it, The term cruiser was coined in the 18th century, if not earlier, which was the true age of the line of battle ship.
The Arleigh Burkes are cruisers in all but name, the flight three being larger than the Ticonderoga (which itself was built on a destroyer hull).
Not when they keep changing them.
Under the treaties of the time yes, it would still be a BB due to its hull size.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
There's a reason they tend to be disparaged as Treaty Cruisers, you can't find a satisfactory balance that will fit into ten kay tonnes, and even when the Japanese were heavily cheating, they still cut corners.
Modern cruisers tend to emphasize the air defence role, but that's now passed on to destroyers, while frigates get to chase submarines, but they seem to evolve back into general purpose as destroyers become more expensive, as ship numbers drop.
Modern cruisers tend to emphasize the air defence role, but that's now passed on to destroyers, while frigates get to chase submarines, but they seem to evolve back into general purpose as destroyers become more expensive, as ship numbers drop.
it's not the size of the ship or the guns that matters. it's the effects.
if the six-inch shells are (say) rocket-assisted and radar-tracking and can achieve .50 hits at 30 miles and the ship is intended to stand "in the line of battle" then it most certainly is a battleship.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Missiles and bombs are cannon shells delivered by other means.
One issue that's relevant is that smaller volume ships aren't inherently faster than Tigresses.
One issue that's relevant is that smaller volume ships aren't inherently faster than Tigresses.
Two basic differences between spaceship combat and 20th century wet navy combat (and therefore challenging attempts at using wet qualifiers in void environment) is the fact that wet navy involve air, undersea, surface environment, with mobility and stealth consideration that differs. Add the abscense of a small ship "killer" package.
The Terran period equivalent to TI canon would be 1880 - 1900, before the airplane, the submarine and while the torpedo was still a unproven "Jeune École" proposition.
Without a small package ship killer weapon, 6g Space "Fighter" are Fast patrol gunboat fitted with a 3 -6 pounder, the aircraft carrier as the main capital ship do not exist and so called carrier are "battle tender for gunboat". Gazelle are Colonial Gunboat with a pair of QF 75-102 mm main guns to handle pirates. (If a Tigress is a Yamato, Scout or Freetrader converted to pirate are the equiv of chinese Junk fitted with a couple of Bbonze muzzle loader). There is not even a submarine near equivalent.
The now obsolete classification of protected (light, heavy)cruiser, armoured cruiser, Scout (introduced RN 1905) based on size/armour/main gun/speed and ocean going sea wortiness (I guess Jump?) to differenciate from coastal forces (SDB?) such as Torpedo boat, TB Destroyer (Before RN E class of 1905, the first really ocean going destroyer) Monitor or "coast defense" battleships seems to match TI better.
have fun
Selandia
The Terran period equivalent to TI canon would be 1880 - 1900, before the airplane, the submarine and while the torpedo was still a unproven "Jeune École" proposition.
Without a small package ship killer weapon, 6g Space "Fighter" are Fast patrol gunboat fitted with a 3 -6 pounder, the aircraft carrier as the main capital ship do not exist and so called carrier are "battle tender for gunboat". Gazelle are Colonial Gunboat with a pair of QF 75-102 mm main guns to handle pirates. (If a Tigress is a Yamato, Scout or Freetrader converted to pirate are the equiv of chinese Junk fitted with a couple of Bbonze muzzle loader). There is not even a submarine near equivalent.
The now obsolete classification of protected (light, heavy)cruiser, armoured cruiser, Scout (introduced RN 1905) based on size/armour/main gun/speed and ocean going sea wortiness (I guess Jump?) to differenciate from coastal forces (SDB?) such as Torpedo boat, TB Destroyer (Before RN E class of 1905, the first really ocean going destroyer) Monitor or "coast defense" battleships seems to match TI better.
have fun
Selandia
Some time made itself available
The Trav equiv to a WWII Torpedo Bomber would be 60 G (10 time more than a 6g capital ship) with a 100t missile bay but about 5 hours of range.
The sub will require the design of a whole new understanding of stealth in space combat (intra system jump to within short range of target?)
In the Russo-Japanise war, the mine was a major ship killer (two japanese and one russian BB sunk and one Rus damaged, as opposed to 1 sunk 1 damaged by japanese torpedo boats) I do not believe that Trav have an equiv in orbital Fortification to underwater mine field.
Needless to says, as often pointed, the strategic equiv to WT (comunicating between system) is absent.
Unless you want to redesign the whole combat ans ship building system, the wet reference is late XIX century
have fun
Selandia
The Trav equiv to a WWII Torpedo Bomber would be 60 G (10 time more than a 6g capital ship) with a 100t missile bay but about 5 hours of range.
The sub will require the design of a whole new understanding of stealth in space combat (intra system jump to within short range of target?)
In the Russo-Japanise war, the mine was a major ship killer (two japanese and one russian BB sunk and one Rus damaged, as opposed to 1 sunk 1 damaged by japanese torpedo boats) I do not believe that Trav have an equiv in orbital Fortification to underwater mine field.
Needless to says, as often pointed, the strategic equiv to WT (comunicating between system) is absent.
Unless you want to redesign the whole combat ans ship building system, the wet reference is late XIX century
have fun
Selandia
Black Globe.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Transporting shallow draft heavy gunned vessels to the battlezone and dropping them off is new.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
But black globe also makes you blind...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
In CT HG2 it says:
MT Ref's book also says this:
There is a MT reference to this tactic in a Challenge article - Project Blackheart or something like that (this is from memory - my Challenge magazines are in the loft at the moment).
