Traveller Equivalent of Carrier Battlegroup?
- Thread starter Jame
- Start date
Let's see...a CVBG equivalent....I really can only answer with how I work that in MTU.
A large interstellar government would separate its BGs into three main types: Patrol Group, Strike Group, and Assault Group.
The strike group would most likely be the closest equivalent to a CVBG. A carrier or battleship (85-100 kTd) would lead the BG, with 4-5 heavy strike ships (heavy cruisers/battle cruisers...40-60 kTd range) as the primary strike component. You would probably need 5-10 heavily armored destroyers (15-30 kTd) as the primary fleet protector (defending the larger capital ships from smaller harassing vessels...like light cruisers and escorts), and would also probably use a number (again 5-10) of light cruisers (20-30 kTd) as secondary strike ships designed to take out enemy destroyers and assault opposing capital ships. Then you would probably need to add a dozen or so escort vessels (frigates, destroyer escorts, etc.) and a few support ships (hospital ship, if deemed necessary, and 1-2 supply/reflueling ships) to round the BG out. So, I'd say a total of 30-35 ships all together.
For an assault group, I'd probably replace 3-4 of the heavy strike ships with a like number large troop transports (what we call "Gator Freighters" in the US Navy), capable of dumping several thousand troops planetside (the 65+ kTd ship I use has over 3,600 troops, mostly BattleDress troops [I use a 250kg TL 14 variant BD, called the "Hoplite"] and mechanized infantry). One of the transports would probably house the assault group commander, and the need for planetside close air support would dictate that the main capital ship would be a carrier (instead of a battleship). A hospital ship would probably be absolutely necessary to support an assault, and you'd still have about 30-35 ships.
A patrol group, however, would be much smaller. One or two heavy strike ships would lead the group, supported by 3-5 destroyers and an additional 3-5 light cruisers. Another 10-12 escort ships and (maybe) one supply ship would round out the patrol group. 20-22 ships, all told.
A large interstellar government would separate its BGs into three main types: Patrol Group, Strike Group, and Assault Group.
The strike group would most likely be the closest equivalent to a CVBG. A carrier or battleship (85-100 kTd) would lead the BG, with 4-5 heavy strike ships (heavy cruisers/battle cruisers...40-60 kTd range) as the primary strike component. You would probably need 5-10 heavily armored destroyers (15-30 kTd) as the primary fleet protector (defending the larger capital ships from smaller harassing vessels...like light cruisers and escorts), and would also probably use a number (again 5-10) of light cruisers (20-30 kTd) as secondary strike ships designed to take out enemy destroyers and assault opposing capital ships. Then you would probably need to add a dozen or so escort vessels (frigates, destroyer escorts, etc.) and a few support ships (hospital ship, if deemed necessary, and 1-2 supply/reflueling ships) to round the BG out. So, I'd say a total of 30-35 ships all together.
For an assault group, I'd probably replace 3-4 of the heavy strike ships with a like number large troop transports (what we call "Gator Freighters" in the US Navy), capable of dumping several thousand troops planetside (the 65+ kTd ship I use has over 3,600 troops, mostly BattleDress troops [I use a 250kg TL 14 variant BD, called the "Hoplite"] and mechanized infantry). One of the transports would probably house the assault group commander, and the need for planetside close air support would dictate that the main capital ship would be a carrier (instead of a battleship). A hospital ship would probably be absolutely necessary to support an assault, and you'd still have about 30-35 ships.
A patrol group, however, would be much smaller. One or two heavy strike ships would lead the group, supported by 3-5 destroyers and an additional 3-5 light cruisers. Another 10-12 escort ships and (maybe) one supply ship would round out the patrol group. 20-22 ships, all told.
DaveShayne
SOC-12
The MT book Fighting Ships... has some squadron organizations that include Cruron (Carrier)
Which consists of 1 Carrier, 1 Transport, 1 Tanker, 4 Scouts, and Fighters.
DaveShayne
SOC-12
A word of warning. FSotSI is not the greatest book on the whole. It has about 4 pages of usefull information and the rest is MT ship designs. Badly broken MT ship designs at that. If you can get it cheap it may be worthwhile but I wouldn't go bidding it up on e-bay or anything.
Wouldn't the analog of a carrier battlegroup be more based around battle riders and their tenders? The current carrier battlegroup is centered around a ship whose firepower (through its fighters) is the primary instrument of power for that group.
In the Traveller universe, I see fighters as being important and powerful, but not as much so, particularly against capital ships.
I'd suggest that SeaTyger's organization would stand, but the central ship(s) would be a group of battle tenders and their riders or a group of battleships (as SeaTyger does note). Seems quite reasonable that the battle group would still have a carrier or two as part of the escort but not be the central ship(s). Rather parallels the late 30's organization that theorized that carriers supported battleships and not the other way around.
Ron
In the Traveller universe, I see fighters as being important and powerful, but not as much so, particularly against capital ships.
I'd suggest that SeaTyger's organization would stand, but the central ship(s) would be a group of battle tenders and their riders or a group of battleships (as SeaTyger does note). Seems quite reasonable that the battle group would still have a carrier or two as part of the escort but not be the central ship(s). Rather parallels the late 30's organization that theorized that carriers supported battleships and not the other way around.
Ron
Liam Devlin
SOC-14 5K
Liam Devlin
SOC-14 5K
Another thing absent from this discussion, are we talking an Imperial Carrier group, or a lesser polity? Tech and size of the Navy in question will also dictate the size and strength of the CVBG.
Gentlemen, The designs in Fighting Ships for MT are not broken 
they represent the finest fighting ships the Imperium has to offer.
BUT let us not forget, that even in the Imperium, Military hardeware of all kinds and at all tech levels is designed and manufactured by the lowest bidder...
And as you find hundreds of tons of empty space or badly configured weapons, it it the local admiralty's respnsibility to make appropriate corrections and upgrades.
Besides do you think the office of information would allow 'accurate' ship information tofall into Zhodani hands?
(Intended as tongue in cheek humor, do not take me seriously, as I never do..
)
they represent the finest fighting ships the Imperium has to offer. BUT let us not forget, that even in the Imperium, Military hardeware of all kinds and at all tech levels is designed and manufactured by the lowest bidder...
And as you find hundreds of tons of empty space or badly configured weapons, it it the local admiralty's respnsibility to make appropriate corrections and upgrades.
Besides do you think the office of information would allow 'accurate' ship information tofall into Zhodani hands?
(Intended as tongue in cheek humor, do not take me seriously, as I never do..
I smell another Fighters in Traveller debate coming.
Jame writes:
Jame writes:
I think it would be more like WW1 era ships. WW2 era ships had to contend with airpower. A few fighters could destroy a battleship or an aircraft carrier. Fighters in traveller canon simply can't do that [unless the referee fudges it]. Look at Jutland. Here you got a whole bunch of ships, lined up in formation, charging in and blasting the bejesus out of each other. If that isn't reminiscent of what one does in High Guard, I don't know what is.
That's why I clarified it with MTU.
) For one, I don't have Battle Rider/Battle Tender combinations in my fleets. I'm still tweaking the system, as I haven't finished building all of my fleets. I'm still building the first one
However, you are probably right, given what I've seen of the way ships are put together. But I want to see CVW's in squadron action before I pronounce sentence on the importance of carriers to MTU fleet tactics.
At the risk of starting the fighters debate
... the existing rules in T20 do not cover capital ship combat very well, or at least not capital fleet combat. An expansion to the rules could easily make fighters more useful.I would imagine that like the authors of the Rogue Squadron Star Wars books, most admirals would be getting their fighter squadrons to fire together as batteries, rather than as individual ships. This makes the firepower of the squadron a much greater problem for capital ships.
The difference between a squadron of fighters and a small capital ship would be:
Having said all that, I don't think that every fleet needs to be built around a carrier, or even include one. It will depend a lot on what they are doing. Anti-corsair fleets will want carriers, because the average corsair vessel is susceptible to even a lone fighter. Line of battle fleets expected to deal with other capital ships might not have fighters, or at least a much smaller number.
Richard Saunders
SOC-12
Hello.
Just a question for the military people out there are all officers still called sir.
This is not a sexist comment just a question.
NOW.
I asked elswhere in this great site if two ships could enter and leave jump together, the answer i got was NO.
So if a battle group was built what would you send through first, The really big ship or the small escorts (there can be no suprise if your ships exit over a day (max spread).
Why would you have small ships in a task force except as damage soaks (anything that dosnt have a spinal mount isnt realy going to hurt a big ship and is going to get vaped realy quickly.
Yes missile armed small ships can hurt big ships but what do you do after you run out of missiles and it only takes one hit to kill you from a spinal mount.
Any warship with a spinal mount should not be hurt by missiles (it should have an AR high enough to stop all damage).
Unless the bigger missiles also named in this site but not the rule book are real.
Well that will do for now.
BYE.
Just a question for the military people out there are all officers still called sir.
This is not a sexist comment just a question.
NOW.
I asked elswhere in this great site if two ships could enter and leave jump together, the answer i got was NO.
So if a battle group was built what would you send through first, The really big ship or the small escorts (there can be no suprise if your ships exit over a day (max spread).
Why would you have small ships in a task force except as damage soaks (anything that dosnt have a spinal mount isnt realy going to hurt a big ship and is going to get vaped realy quickly.
Yes missile armed small ships can hurt big ships but what do you do after you run out of missiles and it only takes one hit to kill you from a spinal mount.
Any warship with a spinal mount should not be hurt by missiles (it should have an AR high enough to stop all damage).
Unless the bigger missiles also named in this site but not the rule book are real.
Well that will do for now.
BYE.
Liam Devlin
SOC-14 5K
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The missile debates are elsewheres in these pages Lionel.
ANd IMTU, we have two sizes of missiles. Turret sized; and bay missile sized (1d6 x 1d6 hits).
So yes, a big ship could be hurt by big missiles!
The meson spinal mount can be outrun; it dereases in damage effectiveness over range bands..the N-Paw however does not.
The smaller ship has pluses in its favor as being smaller/ harder to hit, and any agility it can add to the mix.
RAts can bring down a lion. if there are enough of them. A lowertech navy will overwhelm targets with missiles (a higher tech Navy). Meson screens do not prevent missile X-ray damage.
YMMV.
as ever was,
Falkayn writes:
The only way I can see fighters being usefull is to build them small and arm them with nuclear missiles, like I think the Zhodani do. IIRC, the Zhos used 8.5 dt missile armed fighters. Using 100 dt as a limit, you can have 11 such fighters. Thats 11 turrets to a 100dt scout ship armed with 1 turret. That does give light fighters a quantitative advantage. The only way your going to be able to turn that into a qualitative advantage is by using nuclear missiles with them. And thats only if your hiting lightly armored ships. Against heavily armored ships, all they do is knock turrets off and kill some fuel, if that.
Liam writes:
Having said that, I am all in favor of fudging for fighters. The poor undergunned fighter challenging the huge capital ship is a constant theme in Sci Fi, after all.
Embrace the horror...At the risk of starting the fighters debate
The only way I can see fighters being usefull is to build them small and arm them with nuclear missiles, like I think the Zhodani do. IIRC, the Zhos used 8.5 dt missile armed fighters. Using 100 dt as a limit, you can have 11 such fighters. Thats 11 turrets to a 100dt scout ship armed with 1 turret. That does give light fighters a quantitative advantage. The only way your going to be able to turn that into a qualitative advantage is by using nuclear missiles with them. And thats only if your hiting lightly armored ships. Against heavily armored ships, all they do is knock turrets off and kill some fuel, if that.
Liam writes:
Your proving my point. In canon, fighters cannot significantly harm a well armored big ship unless the referee fudges it.
Having said that, I am all in favor of fudging for fighters. The poor undergunned fighter challenging the huge capital ship is a constant theme in Sci Fi, after all.
The fighters vs. big ships debate probably also depends a bit on the rule system used. If I recall correctly under High Guard, the big ships were pretty much immune to smaller ships (except for losing some turrets), but under T20 and GURPS, things may be quite a bit different.
Ron
Ron
In the T20 rules, like ships can be grouped together as squadrons, and their weapons are treated like batteries. So, a squadron of 10 TL14 fighters, each with a triple pulse laser turret, would have a combined USD of 7. A squadron 10 TL14 fighters with twin fusion gun turrets has a USD of 9.
Now, imagine a carrier with 20 squadrons of the former and 5 squadrons of the latter, and you can make a dent in a fight. (Of course, this is just looking at numbers, I still haven't put this to the test in battle.)
Also, I still think the carrier would be the command ship in a battlegroup, precisely because it can stay relatively out of the skirmish (since its fighters are doing the harassing for it).
Now, imagine a carrier with 20 squadrons of the former and 5 squadrons of the latter, and you can make a dent in a fight. (Of course, this is just looking at numbers, I still haven't put this to the test in battle.)
Also, I still think the carrier would be the command ship in a battlegroup, precisely because it can stay relatively out of the skirmish (since its fighters are doing the harassing for it).
