Traveller Turret Terminology vs Historical Terminology

[Keep On Travellin']

Yeah, that's what i thought too. In my game, Sol Missiles are .5 meters long, and loaded into a hopper like on an AC-130s cannon, and the missile comes out of an RC Thruster looking hole or a port in the turret dome, I guess Gamilon style. Sols are farther on in deployed missile tech, so the drive in a missile can be smaller, so the end up bein almost like artillery shells.

Imperials have a hard alloy spar that "cocks" back into the turret to be reloaded with a meter long missile on the top, and one on each side. I rule bend and say if you set aside tonnage for a missile mag, i throw in a free autoloader. They are more sidewinderish, and just like a tube with pop-out fins on launch.

External racks on a smallcraft are a no brainer, but i want to mess with development of a new 40 ton bomber/missile boat.

 

[gendo666]

Manning a Turret

This is one of those seemingly self evident things that lead to internet pissing fights, rules lawyering and all that stuff without word from on high.

Now it seems pretty self apparent that in Traveller during combat a lot of characters will strap themselves into gunnery chairs power up weapons system and prepare to fight.
Funny thing is the only place that it actually pretty much suggests that characters are inside the Turrets/ gunnery stations of the Turrets is one line in the High Guard book and in the GURPS books. Allocation of "one gunner per turret" shows up in the Mongoose book but without actually saying they are inside.


Now it's understandable that in larger craft gunnery control is probably handled remotely but in a Free Trader or a Scout it would get kind of cramped on the Bridge. Also, why would you actually have manual firing areas in the blueprints if no one was going to sit there.
You could argue that "seats are provided in the case of fire control failure" but none of this EVER shows up in any rulebooks.
HALP!

 

[BytePro]

Its a point the rules shouldn't cover... at least not to the exclusion of one or the other.

Don't use RAW myself, but don't recall crew injury being specifically part of turret damage in the space combat mechanics - so that would support the idea that they actually aren't physically manned... (mine, however, do, when the turret is manned )

More notably, ship's computer programs definitely support turrets being controlled by the computer.

Logically, it makes sense not to be in a turret - which would be a high profile target and make gunners very vulnerable. Though, the mechanics typically don't support this idea, especially as there are no selective location options in the RAW (at least in CT and MgT, haven't played the rest).

Always used both designs - and all weaps controlled by the ships computer (which means anywhere the computer can be controlled with sufficient access - and PCs can rig remotes if they like) has always been an option in my games.

 

[aramis]

The CT missile rules pretty much make it clear that gunners are in the turrets. Even tho' the gunners don't get gakked when the turret does.

 

[gendo666]

Its a point the rules shouldn't cover... at least not to the exclusion of one or the other.

Always used both designs - and all weaps controlled by the ships computer (which means anywhere the computer can be controlled with sufficient access - and PCs can rig remotes if they like) has always been an option in my games.

Oh I agree.. but I do think there should be *some* clarification.
I mean if you look here

both of these show cozy little chairs behind an airtight iris.

And MegaTraveller put the fire control next to and in the same sealed block as the turret.

In G.U.R.P.S. it mentioned how if you use the turret for smuggling or to squeeze out that extra bit of cargo space your are blocked from using it.
(I think the phrase compared cramming stuff into a hatchback behind the seat)
As well as High Guard mentioning the two times of Fire control for the "Gunner" role.

One of the books also states that in combat although the guns can be fired remotely or via computer control the use of the Mark #1 Eyeball is also advantageous. This is for Bay weapons and mass computer-controlled firing on a warship but I think it could be extrapolated down to smaller crewed vessels and civilian ships.

 

[gendo666]

The CT missile rules pretty much make it clear that gunners are in the turrets. Even tho' the gunners don't get gakked when the turret does.

Although it *seems* pretty obvious
with statements like this :

I have been having problems because it does not actually say
"in the turret"

And yes, despite the chairs, sealed bulkheads, fact that the books say "manned the turret" etc I have still come up with opposition.
I can see in the following where it could be possible that larger merchant ships have fire control allocated somewhere other than the turret but on very small craft it seems to indicate someone is in there pushing buttons.

 

[BytePro]

...
I have been having problems because it does not actually say
"in the turret" ...

Uh, why is this a problem?

That is exactly what I was talking about - there is no reason for the rules to have to explicitly qualify where a gunner's station is. If they did, they would be needlessly limiting options (or require more detail to handle multiple cases).

Note that many deckplans do have manned turrets - or at least the option visually depicted. Conversely, the MgT rules support the computer firing turrets (meaning the turret doesn't have to be manned) and don't cover injury to turret occupants on turret hits. Doesn't mean the turrets can't be manned. [Of course, different versions have different terminology - CT is explicit only about lasers, IIRC]

In the RW both types exist - even since circa WWII there were remotely manned turrets. Pick whatever works best for you and make it so.

BTW: Modern U.S. tanks can be fired remotely (from clear across the world, in fact), and, irregardless, the tank crew's role during engagement is often limited to vocalizing 'fire, fire, fire...' while the computer handles aiming and munition loading, etc. with targets designated from aerial support and command support as well as onboard automated FOF systems.

Modern naval CIWS are totally automated, yet can also be controlled from remote locations and 'manually' targeted (probably not very effective, but even so).

 

[gendo666]

Uh, why is this a problem?

That is exactly what I was talking about - there is no reason for the rules to have to explicitly qualify where a gunner's station is. If they did, they would be needlessly limiting options (or require more detail to handle multiple cases).

Note that many deckplans do have manned turrets - or at least the option visually depicted. Conversely, the MgT rules support the computer firing turrets (meaning the turret doesn't have to be manned) and don't cover injury to turret occupants on turret hits. Doesn't mean the turrets can't be manned. [Of course, different versions have different terminology - CT is explicit only about lasers, IIRC]

I guess what set me looking was for actual pictures of manned turrets in Traveller. More like the following I'm posting here than the fire control pic I posted. - Also more Top Turrets.
- but obviously looking more high tech.

This makes a good Belly Gun. - Scouts don't usually have these despite the possibility. I could see them having one that was (obviously) clear of the ground due to landing struts.

And obviously a starship Turret would be roomier than *this* one.

And here's an automated Turret for those that like those.

Do any pics like these exist for starships in Traveller?

 

[aramis]

I have been having problems because it does not actually say
"in the turret"

You're looking in the wrong place. As I said, strongly implies....

Reloading: Each launcher (sand or missile) has an inherent capacity for three missiles or canisters. This means that a triple turret with three missile launchers has a total of 9 missiles in ready position.

When a launcher's missiles or canisters are exhausted, it may be reloaded by the turret's gunner in one turn. Reloading three launchers would take three turns. A gunner engaged in reloading is unable to fire other weaponry in the turret.

 

[gendo666]

I've finally come across a statement about Turret occupancy.

I also found some stuff in both the classic Traveller as well about missile and sandcaster re-arming in a small ship that again indicate heavily that there is someone inside the Turret.
I will also say it's personal preference to a large degree.
- I still just want to see pics

I didn't feel the need to highlight the IN here.

 

[BytePro]

You're looking in the wrong place. As I said, strongly implies....

All that strongly implies to me, is one gunner per weapon.

I do seem to recall one or two places where 'in' the turret is used, but generally all the rules do is imply one skilled character/program level per weapon. The physical location of the 'skill' is a variable and irrelevant in the rule mechanics.

As it should be - different designs and differing methodologies dictating where the 'gunner' can be physically located - just as in the RW.

As a referee, my preference varies by the adventure and the ship. I've always given a deal of thought to this. Generally I prefer to support PCs being close together on a ship - so more distant turrets may be unmanned, while those adjacent to the bridge are generally manned. Enclosed workstations that spin all around simulate the physical weapon with a full field of view, and allow full use of skills. All can be controlled by the computer - and physically at any terminal allowed (at reduced effectiveness, IMTU). Non-player ships I give less thought about - its only important if killing someone on the other ship has consequences (i.e. players may not want to target turrets for this reason).

A house rule that probably should be in the books - if the turret is manned, a roll for crew injury each time the turret takes a hit, with greater DMs the more damage.

@gendo666 - there are actually very few internal illustrations of starships with crew, but I do seem to recall one pic of a turret with seating and an exterior view... will try to find it (though will probably get sidetracked).

 

[gendo666]

You're looking in the wrong place. As I said, strongly implies....

okay.. I actually found an "in the Turret"
(finally)

 

[whartung]

Sticking folks in the starship turret is very cinematic. I don't even have a problem with mounting the workstation to the turret (though I would have an issue with someone rotating with the turret, I think that would be annoying and disruptive).

However, any concept that the gunner is "looking out the window" and putting some [+] on a moving ship in space is, well, folly. They may point to the red blip on their console and hit the "kill this" button, but that's about as involved as it gets. And that red blip is as likely to simply be a list of targets than some relative target.

Mind, I question the value of "Gunner" skill above -1 and being trained and competent in knowing what buttons to push when. But as for being "better" at hitting something that is thousands of km away. No, sorry.

 

[dean]

Think we all have to recall that when these rules were written (on a typewriter), Computers capable of doing any significant calculations were the size of rooms.

The author (rightly, using the room sized computer assumption) decided that while computers could control the gunnery, it was a expensive, huge computer CPU sink. So if the computer was either not set up, not capable, or knocked out for some reason (or you just needed it to calc your jump), there'd have to be another way to fire the weapons. And, since you'd never know if the computer would be able to manage the task, you should always have that meat computer available in the turret - hence the gunner's station.

And, given the above suppositions are valid, do not "modern" tanks have their gunners rotate inside the turret? If there is ever a need to engage targets at magnified optical-visual tracking range (through a gun sight, whether direct optical or video), that's a very "instinctual" method of control; that's why it's done for all kinds of weapons today. And again, if you presume that the meat computer is doing the task, well, I'd rather have a Han Solo in my turrets that some farmboy from Tatooine..

That all said, if you want to update YTU so the gunners sit on a station at the bridge and supervise the computer control of engaging the enemy targets, go for it. But that sure sounds like a boring RPG to me! (GM: Ok, what do you do? Player: Push the button when the light turns green. GM: Hit! Yawn.)

 

[aramis]

Actually, Dean, while most "Modern" (as in post 1965) tanks do have crew in the turret, most modern (as in post 2000) tanks are crew-in-hull, with (marginally) crew accessible autoloader systems, according to the various shows.

And don't forget... the Atari 2600 was released in 1977.
IBM released its first "portable" computer that year, as well: the IBM 5100.

I suspect MWM, FC, TB and LKW really didn't know much about computing at the time, but it was obvious the Trek-style handheld coputer units were going to be outdone. By 1981, computers under 2L were available (excluding monitor): the ZX80 and 81...
And 1977 was also the year of the Apple II being released. The Apple I was 1976....

And given I've found nearly every price in the back of CT in 1976 and 1977 issues of popular science and popular mechanics, they were doing their homework, but guessed wrong. And I've seen adverts in those for the Apple 1 and IBM 5500...

 

[Matt123]

And given I've found nearly every price in the back of CT in 1976 and 1977 issues of popular science and popular mechanics...

lol, that is disturbing on several levels!

 

[whartung]

Think we all have to recall that when these rules were written (on a typewriter), Computers capable of doing any significant calculations were the size of rooms.

...

And again, if you presume that the meat computer is doing the task, well, I'd rather have a Han Solo in my turrets that some farmboy from Tatooine..

That all said, if you want to update YTU so the gunners sit on a station at the bridge and supervise the computer control of engaging the enemy targets, go for it. But that sure sounds like a boring RPG to me! (GM: Ok, what do you do? Player: Push the button when the light turns green. GM: Hit! Yawn.)

That's all fine as long as long as the weapons only have effective ranges of 1-2km, and engagement ranges on the 10's of meters where the human eye can track the target and use their coarse movements to aim the guns. Of course at these range they should start bringing back auto-cannon instead of high tech lasers.

But seems to me most ship to ship combat takes place at ranges measured in fractions of a light second. 10s of thousands of km.

Starship combat has always been boring. Naked men at 100 paces in a bull ring with high powered rifles pretty much sums up the entire experience.

 

[aramis]

lol, that is disturbing on several levels!

The housing costs appear to be about the only area where it's not... for TL 6-8 stuff not involving fusion nor gravitics, at least.

Even the new in 1977 Apple II, IBM PC, Radio Shack TRS-80, and Atari 2600 were advertized. As was the Altair 8800. There was really an explosion of personal computing in 1975-1977.

The grond car is a Ford sport coupe.

It's no surprise they got it wrong, but they had the clues. It's easy to see in retrospect. But who'd have thunk that the newton would lead to cell phones instead of tablet computers, and only from there into tablets.

Or that Star Trek had the form factors right for the first eInk large screen eBook devices (iRex Illiad), floppy disks (3.5" square, 3/16" thick), cell phones (flip-grid communicators), and videocall camera aim (typical is bottom of ribcage up, with a hand's width clear above the head... IME... just like all those TOS admirals).

So, with Turrets, it's best to look at what they had available... which would be mostly WW II through Korean War... and Turrets had 1-3 guns, crew in turret... and remember that they were gropos, not swab-jocks, and so would think tank turret for mapping and size purposes. The M60's turret is about 4'x8'x14' - right about 1 Td... (rough measures from http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m60.htm)... if you ignore the 3' deep 6' across extension into the hull...

But tank turrets give a pretty good idea of what's out there. The missile "tanks" of the era were typically double box, with 3, 4, or 6 per box. Reloads manually loadable if it was offline, often from inside.

They seem to have gone with what they knew, rather than what was out there... a real 1970's naval style turret is considerably bigger... starting at about 10x10x10+10x8 - close to 3 Td, through 30x30x20+40x20, about 35 Td... and what they knew matched up well with what was seen on the movies. And the Naval missile turrets were typically 2 ready missiles, plus a reload rack...

It's easy to see where they came up with the numbers... even as it is to see that MWM got it wrong now.

When they did the later research for Striker they got it more right. Still wrong, but closer.
it's actually quite a solid job... they only really blew it on fuel rates for fusion and for turrets. ONE of which they could have gotten better...

 

[gendo666]

@gendo666 - there are actually very few internal illustrations of starships with crew, but I do seem to recall one pic of a turret with seating and an exterior view... will try to find it (though will probably get sidetracked).

I found this in the High Guard book..

but it's pretty 'meh" for definition and looks more like this.

and I'm guessing should look more like this... but not so crowded.

 

[gendo666]

Think we all have to recall that when these rules were written (on a typewriter), Computers capable of doing any significant calculations were the size of rooms.

And, given the above suppositions are valid, do not "modern" tanks have their gunners rotate inside the turret? If there is ever a need to engage targets at magnified optical-visual tracking range (through a gun sight, whether direct optical or video), that's a very "instinctual" method of control; that's why it's done for all kinds of weapons today. And again, if you presume that the meat computer is doing the task, well, I'd rather have a Han Solo in my turrets that some farmboy from Tatooine..

That all said, if you want to update YTU so the gunners sit on a station at the bridge and supervise the computer control of engaging the enemy targets, go for it. But that sure sounds like a boring RPG to me! (GM: Ok, what do you do? Player: Push the button when the light turns green. GM: Hit! Yawn.)

I don't think the time the rules were written has anything to do with the use of automated guns or not. I mean the pic I posted a while back was of an automated b29 turret from 1944.
Traveller was written (I agree) with a certain picture in mind.
I think that automation is fine and dandy for capital ships but for smaller ships I'll stick with the meatbags