Transporting vehicles in merchant ships

[Craig67]

Mods, not sure if this belongs here or not, feel free to move it.

I'm trying to figure out how to transport Striker designed vehicles in a merchant ship cargo hold.

Do I use the straight tonnage of the vehicle ?

Do I use the total volume of the vehicle ?

Do I use the vehicles ship displacement tons ? (The Striker spreadsheet calculates this)

I designed 2 vehicles to fit into a Broadsword class mercenary cruiser using the dimensions of the modular cutter spare module storage space. So the vehicle fits into this space. Yes, it weighs more than the module it displaces but can the ship haul it without changes in the ships performance ?

Lots of questions but I can't find a clear answer, any help would be appreciated.

Craig

 

[Cryton]

Use the vehicles displacement tons, as thats what the merchant ships cargo hold is rated in.

 

[rancke]

Use the carried craft rule. 1.05 times the tonnage of the craft if there is a special vehilce bay designed for it (which obviously won't be the case here); twice the tonnage otherwise.


Hans

 

[Craig67]

Use the carried craft rule. 1.05 times the tonnage of the craft if there is a special vehilce bay designed for it (which obviously won't be the case here); twice the tonnage otherwise.


Hans

Would I use the ship displacement tons or its actual tonnage ?

I'm thinking ship dT because a 50 ton modular cutter must weigh more than 50 tons. Sound right to you ?

Craig

 

[Craig67]

Use the vehicles displacement tons, as thats what the merchant ships cargo hold is rated in.

I was leaning this way but Rancke2 makes a good point too.

Thanks for the input and confirming what I thinking.

 

[Icosahedron]

I looked at the same problem many moons ago.

Ship tonnage is a measure of volume - use the overall dimensions of the vehicle to figure overall vehicle volume (you won't stack them closer than that, and you may want to use an extra 10 or 20% for handling space) and use 1dT = 14cu m (or 13.5 if you prefer) to see what fits.

However, if you're lifting the stuff into or out of atmo, or accelerating it in space, its mass in metric tonnes will be significant. To figure this, you need to figure the typical density of a starship so you can compare the ship's own mass/m^3 (what the drives are rated for) with that of the cargo.

Whatever you choose is your decision. I went with 1 tonne/m^3, giving a starship the same overall density as a submarine, but that's not popular around here, most prefer around 5 tonne/m^3 for their starships, making them sink literally like stones when they're fuel-dipping without power...

Going with 1t/m^3, each dT can haul 14 tonnes, but at 5t/m^3, each dT can haul 70 tonnes.

Once you've made your decision on starship density, take the worst case - does your vehicle take up more tonnage due to its volume or its mass? The vehicle will take up the maximum tonnage it can.

Hope that helps.

 

[BlackBat242]

However, if you're lifting the stuff into or out of atmo, or accelerating it in space, its mass in metric tonnes will be significant.

Not in Classic Traveller (original rules, pre-Mega-Traveller). And this thread is in the Classic Traveller section.

In the CT rule-set actual mass has absolutely no place in spaceship/starship design or operation... none whatsoever.

Displacement tons is the only measure used for ships.

A CT cargo ship with a cargo hold equal to 1/2 of its displacement tonnage accelerates at the same rate (and lifts from a planet at the same speed, etc) without regard to whether the hold is empty... or totally full of lead!

 

[aramis]

deployable in dedicated slot
1.05 * (total volume in m³)/14 (round up next 0.1 ton)

deployable in cargo bay or in empty weapons bay
2*total volume in m³)/14 (round up next 0.1 ton)

crated for shipping
(bounding box volume in m³)/14
BUT, if vehicle has cargo space internal sufficient for it's turret, demount turret and stow inside, reducing bounding box. (Example of vehicle which could: Bradley IFV or M113 APC)

 

[samuelvss]

The rules are the rules, as has been stated. There are exceptions to all rules, however. If the vehicles are puposely designed to fit well together, and you had a good cube diagram, you can reduce the cube (displacement) below the rules' 2x.

Sherman tanks were designed with vertical sides to fit more of them in a liberty ship.

The "footprint," and access are two good reasons for the rules. I had designed G-Carriers with a low sloping nose, high sloping/overhanging rear ramp, and only moderately sloped sides, specifically so that they would pack denser. The hatches were located such the the side slopes allowed (cramped) access even when they were packed side-to-side.

ANother reason for the rule is the weight-displacement problem. Like many things in CT, is is not part of play, but that is not to say it is ignored; it is rolled into other rules, so on the average, things were more playable but usually not ridiculously unrealisitic.

You might be able to haul your vehicles designed, Craig67, without modification, but if I were the CT ref, if we bend one rule then we would look at the others. Maybe you get lower maneuver? Again, that is not the rules, but rules are guidelines for referees....

BTW,

 

[Icosahedron]

Not in Classic Traveller (original rules, pre-Mega-Traveller). And this thread is in the Classic Traveller section.
<snip>

Well, the OP wasn't sure which section to put his query in. I'm guessing he plumped for CT because Striker is regarded as CT.
My response is pretty much edition-independent, if he gains something from it, who cares what the rules say?

 

[Craig67]

All, this is certainly turning out to be an interesting discussion.

I put this in CT because I was not sure if it should have went in The Fleet or Wargames ... plus I use CT in MTU.

The ships dT is where I'm leaning plus extra due to waste space for access, shape of vehicle,etc.

Thanks all for your input, its much appriciated.... but feel free to continue, its really interesting.

Craig