Unconventional Naval Warfare

[Andrew Moreton]

Another tactic that comes to mind is to have a way to have robots that attach themselves to skimming vessels and do the following:
1) use antipersonnel weapons against anyone trying to remove them,
2) self destruct if tampered with, and
3) release when the vessel is about to jump in order to increase the chance of a misjump (T20 handbook, pg 267, "Drop Tanks").

If your Robot attaches itself to the hull , why not just give it a nuclear warhead so it can blow the ship it is attached to into small pieces

 

[BetterThanLife]

Considering that a Missile Launcher can strike a target (depending on which rule set you are using) at 150,000+ KM (Most rule sets allow targeting with missiles at twice that range.) The only reason you need lots of them is to saturate the targets. Now to actually deny Gas Giant refueling against a determined foe, that requires more than mines. And no amount of mines will keep an enemy at bay for an extended period of time. Mines are fixed targets. Once you know they are there then you can pick them off at your leisure. Jam their sensors. (Though depending on the triggers jamming could prove dangerous. The Harm or Alarm missiles are good today examples.) Mines combined with deepsite meson platforms, combined with Monitors and SDBs can add a nasty dimension. If all you have are mines, you are wasting resources. The Soviet Army had an interesting philosophy on minefields. Attack across them as if they weren't there. Because you won't incur as many casualties as if the enemy actually defended the area.

Originally posted by Ron Vutpakdi:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
Mines, depending on the mines, could actually be very effective.

Sorry, I still don't buy the argument that enough mines could be deployed in/around a gas giant to make them effective against a significant invading force.

How many mines (range weapon or missile) would be required to effectively prevent someone from skimming the atmosphere of the Earth? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

Okay, now let's assume that our gas giant is Saturn sized. Saturn is 10x the diameter of Earth. If my fuzzy math skills are right, you'd need about 100x more mines than you'd need for the Earth. That's a lot of mines to build and deploy. And, a determined enemy could just sit then and whack at the mines in a relatively localized area until enough were cleared to allow refueling.

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[BetterThanLife]

Why are you fascinated with robots? If they are already in your system then it is too late anyway.

Robots are expensive not all that stealthy and of limited use, unless you are at the TL16+ level. If you are at TL16+ then there are other more interesting options. (Anti-matter weapons and Disentegrators, Teleporters, etc.) Most robots, to give them a drive system that allows maneuver in space, sensors to find and attack a target, would have to be a minimum of 10-20 tons. Why not gowith fighters at that size, they are certainly more effective and more survivable. (And to get a decent brain in the hull cheaper, especially for one shot systems.)

Originally posted by belter:
The only inexpensive option appears to be some kind of weapons platform that can seek out GG skimmers and attack them. This would not prevent an enemy refueling but hopefully draw resources away from other operations and slow their advance.

Another tactic that comes to mind is to have a way to have robots that attach themselves to skimming vessels and do the following:
1) use antipersonnel weapons against anyone trying to remove them,
2) self destruct if tampered with, and
3) release when the vessel is about to jump in order to increase the chance of a misjump (T20 handbook, pg 267, "Drop Tanks").

A carrier would be needed to deploy and recover these robots that is quick and able to withstand punishment while getting close enough to release a small swarm that could attach to enemy ships. It may be cost prohibitive to build large numbers of these ships that can withstand repeated encounters with warships.

 

[belter]

Re: If your Robot attaches itself to the hull , why not just give it a nuclear warhead so it can blow the ship it is attached to into small pieces?

I haven't gone through a design sequence to see the cost of such robots but I'm thinking that reusability would be a factor for a defender on a tight budget. I imagine that several robots will be lost each attack because they will miss their target and the tender vessel will be too busy evading while the robots disappear into the GG.

Using robots with nukes against smaller vessels might be the way to go and trying to cause misjumps on larger ships could be another approach. In this scenario the robots would need to be cheap to mass produce and able to cause lots of headaches for an enemy using GG's to refuel. A detailed review of costs and capabilities would need to be conducted to determine the feasability of such a strategy.

I like the idea of a little robot causing a 20,000 ton ship to misjump and disappear forever. That's serious guerilla warfare.

 

[belter]

Re: Why are you fascinated with robots? If they are already in your system then it is too late anyway.

Two reasons: 1) I'm curious to explore unconventional methods of naval warfare and 2) I like the thought of a little robot wreaking havoc on an expensive warship (if possible!).

The robots I have in mind would be "thrown" at the enemy ship by the deploying vessel (no drives needed). Some would grab on, some would miss. If they simply grab on and drop off right before the ship jumps the cost should be minimal. Causing misjumps would create lots of headaches (and hopefully MIAs

) for the enemy.

I also want to challenge the basics of naval warfare. For example, imagine a strategy centered around attaching devices to enemy ships that do things like cause misjumps, etc. and you had a big naval budget to implement it, what kinds of ships would you design, tactics, etc. Your ships would just shoot swarms of devices at the enemy and scoot. The devices would begin their attacks on the enemy ships once you're gone . . .

Maybe robots are feasable, maybe they're not. I want to see how far the rules can be pushed to win in naval conflict.

 

[Andrew Moreton]

Originally posted by belter:
Re: If your Robot attaches itself to the hull , why not just give it a nuclear warhead so it can blow the ship it is attached to into small pieces?

I haven't gone through a design sequence to see the cost of such robots but I'm thinking that reusability would be a factor for a defender on a tight budget. I imagine that several robots will be lost each attack because they will miss their target and the tender vessel will be too busy evading while the robots disappear into the GG.

Using robots with nukes against smaller vessels might be the way to go and trying to cause misjumps on larger ships could be another approach. In this scenario the robots would need to be cheap to mass produce and able to cause lots of headaches for an enemy using GG's to refuel. A detailed review of costs and capabilities would need to be conducted to determine the feasability of such a strategy.

I like the idea of a little robot causing a 20,000 ton ship to misjump and disappear forever. That's serious guerilla warfare.

I doubt you are going to recover many of your units , most are going to get lasered to death by the warships as they close. Secondly as soon as a robot attaches itself to the hull of my warship I am going to have it removed by either sending out Marines or fighters to remove it precisely becasue I want to save the starship.
With the difficulties of matching velocities very fairly closely I don't see robot boarding units.

For a gas giant minefield I would use Nuclear Bomb pumped lasers hidden in the debris of the rings (most gas giants seem to have at least minor rings or at least the ones available for viewing do) From there they can cover most of the gas giant and it should take very few hits to do something unpleasent to a warship which is involved in gas giant skimming.
I would not expect such a minefield to inflict much damage as the counter to it is to clear all the mines or use expendable fuel shuttles . But both such options will slow refueling throwing off enemy plans and hopefully giving you time to do something else.
For a thorough Gas giant defense you would want mines, SDB's and Deep site Meson guns in the moons. However such an exoensive defense will only occure around high population or strategically critical star systems.

 

[belter]

I agree, mines alone would be defeated pretty easily and adding SDBs & Meson guns turns the whole excercise into an expensive, resource demanding strategy.

Does anyone know what T20 or CT rules would be involved if one ship wanted to hurl or throw robots at another ship? This would be done at close range with a shotgun approach - some hit and grab on and some miss. The robots would not have propulsion, just inertia.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by belter:
Does anyone know what T20 or CT rules would be involved if one ship wanted to hurl or throw robots at another ship? This would be done at close range with a shotgun approach - some hit and grab on and some miss. The robots would not have propulsion, just inertia.

Not sure about the rules (should be a simple vector calculation) but unless you also employ some pretty powerful sensor jamming, or stealth, it will be a pretty easy tactic to negate.

"Sir, sensors have detected several small bogeys separating from the enemy ships. They appear to be on a collision course."

"Helm, alter course to take us out of the path of the new bogeys. Sensors, keep an eye on them and advise if they alter course to intercept."

"Aye sir, course altered."

"No change in trajectory sir, they appear to be on a simple low velocity launch with no independent maneuvering."

"Very good, proceed to target."

Unless I'm missing something in your vision of the tactic (which is entirely possible ).

As to the whole Robotics question, for me it comes down to a definition of the term. My suggested "smart mines", more properly independent weapons platforms, would count in my view as Robots though a lot of people would disagree.

I'm getting a foggy recollection of something like your idea from some Anime (I think) but that's all it is, a foggy image in my mind of a massive swarm of little 'bots attacking a ship and taking it apart. Hmm, maybe its the spider things from SG1 I'm recalling. Or it might be some idea I had to use a bit from a (Niven?) story?

Anyway, on to another idea or two...

I don't think the idea of a little robot (just how big are you thinking?) affecting the jump of a large ship (somebody said 20KT iirc) by detaching should work. The problem with drop tanks is they are a significant percentage of the ship (istr some official guidelines on jump interference based on relative size somewhere, might be in one of the jump masking discussions). And even with drop tanks it only adds a little to the chance of misjump.

A perhaps better idea (depending on the stretch of your belief suspenders) would be for the robots to disable or mess with a significant fraction of the hull grid (if its part of ytu) to cause the misjump. Or if they are stealthily applied have them just hunker down till the ship enters jump and then start taking it apart.

Going way back to when this started my first and most unconventional idea (though it might not be considered "warfare" by some) was to suggest suing for peace. Approach the Imperium with a projected cost to them for the coming campaign and suggest that you would be amenable to a peaceful occupation for a one time payment of that amount

and certain considerations

Hey if the negotiations fail the worst you've done is wasted some diplomats time while you still prepare for the whole guerilla campaign.

Another option, presuming enough lead time and the right conditions, sabotage. Either send people in or buy the right people and mess with the enemy ships before the battle. They will probably be in port for a quick pre-war tune up. You could maybe slip a few surprises aboard, material or persons. Even a tailored virus (people not computer) could cause all kinds of problems and be relatively cheap.

This is all based on the 6 months of warning of course. Things change big time if the fleet just pops into the systems and announces that you have x-time to surrender.

 

[belter]

Re: Not sure about the rules (should be a simple vector calculation) but unless you also employ some pretty powerful sensor jamming, or stealth, it will be a pretty easy tactic to negate.

Maybe the rules don't cover this but I'm envisioning a ship faster/more manueuverable than the other passing a few meters over it with a cluster of robots that have just been released attaching themselves. This would be a dangerously close pass. Collision or no collision, some of the 'bots would have the opportunity to connect.

I'm focused on the mechanics of gaming this event.

Thanks for the input!

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by belter:
Re: Not sure about the rules (should be a simple vector calculation) but unless you also employ some pretty powerful sensor jamming, or stealth, it will be a pretty easy tactic to negate.

Maybe the rules don't cover this but I'm envisioning a ship faster/more manueuverable than the other passing a few meters over it with a cluster of robots that have just been released attaching themselves. This would be a dangerously close pass. Collision or no collision, some of the 'bots would have the opportunity to connect.

I'm focused on the mechanics of gaming this event.

Thanks for the input!

Ah, I think I see now. Yeah the rules probably don't quite have something to model this. You might use the T20 rules for ramming attacks to simulate the very close pass required, probably by a heavy fighter with armor and 6g agility 6 to have a chance.

Then I see it as a simple matter to "drop" your payload of 'bots (using a delivery launcher to cancel their vector relative to the target) and they can quickly deploy some kind of grapple and reel in to the hull.

Should be pretty stealthy if the enemy has never survived an encounter of the kind, they would have next to no chance to notice if the bots are small enough and not to numerous and they should all make it to the hull (to perhaps be lost to friendly fire, better tag them so your fighters and fleet avoid them, that'll get the enemy wondering "Sir they stopped firing after that last pass and seem to be retreating."

They would likely think it just near suicidal fighter pilots (hauntings of the x-wing attack on the first death star ), followed by a retreat typical of an inferior foe hitting and running.

Actually getting that close to your target should allow bounses for your fighter's attack while penalizing the enemy (can't bring all weapons to bear and other ships in his fleet can't attack you either for fear of hitting their own ships, hmm more SW?

) All you have to do is survive the approach

 

[Andrew Moreton]

Originally posted by belter:
Re: Not sure about the rules (should be a simple vector calculation) but unless you also employ some pretty powerful sensor jamming, or stealth, it will be a pretty easy tactic to negate.

Maybe the rules don't cover this but I'm envisioning a ship faster/more manueuverable than the other passing a few meters over it with a cluster of robots that have just been released attaching themselves. This would be a dangerously close pass. Collision or no collision, some of the 'bots would have the opportunity to connect.

I'm focused on the mechanics of gaming this event.

Thanks for the input!

The Problem with this IMTU is that I interpret battles takes ing place at a minimum of thousands of kilometres with ranges of a few hundred km being considered suicidally close range as lasers have trouble actually missing at that sort of range . The result of close range passes as you suggest would be one ship being shredded by beam weapon fire before they reach close approach.

And if you are deploying boarding units it would probably be cheaper and as effective to use marines , or Nuclear weapons rather than robots.

Or alternatively build fast ships with no weapons robot control systems and have them ram people , about as easy as a close range pass at low relative velocity .(If the velocities are high relative to each other the boarding units become high cost KE Weapons and explode)

 

[Bolan]

Sounds like the 'bots aren't very survivable in this role.

Suicide planetoids might be the cheap guerilla approach I'm looking for.

 

[Andrew Moreton]

Another possibility for unconventional warfare. Many large powers in the Traveller universe tend to take merchant ships as prizes , if you have a few volunteers for Kamikaze tactics you could try placing nuclear weapons on a few merchant ships and hope that a warship goes close alongside to board her.
Even if it doen't work at least it means the enemy won't make any money from capturing your merchant ships as they won't want to risk boarding any after a few scuttle themselves with nuclear weapons.

 

[savage]

Warship scans should be able to pick up closing nuclear materials other than power plants at close range....assuming they have decent sensors.

Savage

 

[Andrew Moreton]

Originally posted by Savage:
Warship scans should be able to pick up closing nuclear materials other than power plants at close range....assuming they have decent sensors.

Savage

I am not sure , most Nuclear weapon materials are fairly low radiation emitters as they need to remain stable as the right isotope or the bomb decays too fast. The hull of a starship is designed to prevent radiation getting through to protect the crew , and you could hide the bomb in engineering.
Assuming you don't have star trek magic sensors you are not going to spot a nuke with Electromagnetic radiation , or alpha/Beta emission. That leaves the densitometer as the only possibility which may well be able to spot heavy fissionables but you could use a laser triggered Tritium/Deuterium device and that won't show up at all.

 

[Badbru]

Most warships carry nuclear damper barbettes or if high enough tech turrets? Do these need to know and focus on the bomb or will they just negate it anyway as that's what they do. In opperation a nuclear damper defends against nuclear pumped x ray laser warhead missiles, so how do they work and would they or would they not stop this tactic of hiding nuclear weapons on merchants?

 

[mike wightman]

ND turrets and barbettes are a feature of TNE and T4. The other versions have ND screens which produce a protective field around the ship to prevent damage from proximity or contact detonation nukes.

Some warheads will get through.

Unfortunately, IMHO, every version of Traveller since High Gurd has short-changed the effect of a contact detonation nuke.

In the Missiles Special Supplement a contact nuke costing 8-10MCr could cause 200 damage rolls and 40 radiation damage rolls, enough to kill any book 2 ship. Even the cheapest at 0.8-1 MCr would inflict 20 damage and 4 radiation.

And it still seems odd that in T20 a fusion gun does more damage than a nuclear missile?

Anyway, hitting a ship with a few nuclear missiles just as it starts entering the GG atmosphere should spoil its day.

As to hiding nukes on merchants, during operational conditions I don't think a Warship would get close enough to a merchant for this to work. A Ship's boat/gig would be used for inspections and the like. Once you've blown a few of those up the Warships will probably just start treating all merchant shipping as hostile.

 

[Straybow]

Maybe the rules don't cover this but I'm envisioning a ship faster/more manueuverable than the other passing a few meters over it with a cluster of robots that have just been released attaching themselves. This would be a dangerously close pass. Collision or no collision, some of the 'bots would have the opportunity to connect.

In space nobody would get that close. Even attempting to get that close would be interpreted as a hostile act, and the ship would be blown to bits.

 

[TheDS]

A couple things:

"Mines" are actually going to be autonomous defense platforms. They will run on batteries to prevent being detected by neutrino sensors. Their armaments will be missiles and CPR guns. These don't require much power, so you put a big enough battery on the platform and some sensors and a comm-receiver and the thing will be able to do IFF and can shoot at anything that comes too close. It can also be command-activated. Guns are cheap and come in very handy if the unit gets lucky and a target gets too close for missiles. A 120mm slug will ruin ANY ship's day.

Considering that a ship must spend HOURS to refuel (generally increments of 6 hours), that is a LOT of atmosphere to travel through, and so a paltry 100 of these platforms would be enough to cause theenemy to piss his pants. The platforms need to be very well stealthed against other detection methods, because you KNOW they are going to be looking very carefully for them.

While they are looking, the planetary ring will have planetoid-hull battlestations/SDBs peppered among the debris. Chances are pretty good that they can get a few shots off without being locked on. But these units are going to be battery-powered as well... at least until trouble comes along, and then they can fire up their reactors to power the meson guns and drives.

I like the idea of breaking up a planetoid in orbit of your mainworlds, as this will give you plenty of places to hide more of these hidden battlestation/SDBs, and make invasion a little more hazardous. The downside is that you've given the invader a convenient source of rocks to throw at your world, so in the end, this might be a bad idea.

Going guerilla is always a sure-fire way to annoy your enemy. The mere presence of your armed forces requires that the enemy station a much larger force to counter it. These units hardly ever have to fight a battle; their mere presence is the threat. The enemy will try rooting them out, and is likely to oppress the populace and make themselves even more unwanted, driving more volunteers into the arms of the guerillas. And if you can get some one else to attack your enemy while you're tying up all his troops on garrison duty, that means you've cost your enemy that much more, and maybe he will decide it's better to abandon the conquests.

An alternate idea is the diplomatic one. Send pirates to the opposite side of your enemy, where he has anothe enemy, and start raising trouble there. Were you to do this near YOU, it just brings the enemy ships to you that much sooner, whereas this way, the ships are moving away from you.

Getting help from others is not a bad idea. heck, getting on the news channels and screaming about how you're about to be invaded could at least draw some unwanted notice toward your enemy.

But if none of this is likely to work, it's better to go ahead and welcome them with open arms, let them take over, and when they relax their guard, blow up all their installations at one time. Or you could do what China has always done: absorb your conquerors. Chinese culture has been so powerful that anytime anyone invades and conquers them, they let them and eventually the force of that huge, cultured population just crushes the enemy until he is absorbed, and then you go on about your business.

 

[Badbru]

I aggree with you TheDS.
For TNE I've designed a nine displacement tonne orbital defense platform. This has dif mods for size (hard to see or hit) dif mods for stealth EM masking, and is powered by a combination of solar array/solar cells and a battery (Target considered in "cold mode"). Has a laser turret a passive senor and a computer to run it all.(higher tech versions have space for a missile too) You need to succeed on an impossible task difficulty at short range using Active sensors just to see the damned thing meanwhile if you do not acknowledge its IFF call with a correct code it's putting holes in your ship. The right type of mine can work well atleast in the TNE environment I don't know about CT or MT or Gurps T or T4 or T20
(Crap there's a few out now isn't there , do we really need another system?)