Why manned turrets?

[Enoki]

Just an aside, why does Traveller require a gunner in essentially every turret on a ship? Couldn't most be unmanned and controlled remotely in a group / battery by a fire control operator / gunner?
Now, I can understand a missile turret needing someone to reload as it fires. A sandcaster...maybe... But, I can't see a need for a laser, plasma, fusion, or energy weapon turret needing someone in it controlling the fire.

Thoughts?

 

[HG_B]

Mongoose Trav has a more logical set up where they are remotely manned. As far as why CT has them? It sounds/looks cool? Or, the author didn't realize that they started to be eliminated in WW2...

 

[far-trader]

CT does in fact have them, with the introduction of weapon battery arrangement in High Guard. Basic combat with a small ship is manned turrets because they don't have the facilities of the bigger ships (larger bridges, implied fire control centers, etc.).

Being remotely manned vs locally manned is not more logical if the implication is (as I think it is in MgT) that each turret still requires a gunner for firing. It is essentially the same thing.

 

[HG_B]

Being remotely manned vs locally manned is not more logical if the implication is (as I think it is in MgT) that each turret still requires a gunner for firing. It is essentially the same thing.

That's the illogic. They wouldn't require a person to sit there and pull a trigger. If it could be done on TL5 B-29's. :rofl:

 

[Spinward Scout]

Just an aside, why does Traveller require a gunner in essentially every turret on a ship? Couldn't most be unmanned and controlled remotely in a group / battery by a fire control operator / gunner?
Now, I can understand a missile turret needing someone to reload as it fires. A sandcaster...maybe... But, I can't see a need for a laser, plasma, fusion, or energy weapon turret needing someone in it controlling the fire.

Thoughts?

It emulates the spacefight aboard the Millenium Falcon after the group escapes from the Death Star in Star Wars: A New Hope. As does having 2 turrets on a Free Trader/Space Freighter.

 

[madmike]

I have a gunners station on the bridge on most of my ship designs. The turrets can be operated from that station or manually if the bridge work station is inoperable. Missile and sandcaster turrets have autoload magazines built into them.

 

[far-trader]

Look, most (if not ALL) of the Book 2 rules concern small operators, merchants usually, with weaponry a secondary (or less) consideration. Turrets in this case are add-ons, drop in modules. There is no wasted space or expense "put aside" for remote operation of turrets or battery fire, just in case one wants to add (usually another expensive waste) weapons later for "adventures" instead of making money the sane, logical, way. They have to be simple, easy, all-in-one packages. That is what they are. So, no, in this case remote control turrets do not make sense, are not logical, and CT did not miss the boat (etc.) in not adopting them.

Further, as I understand it, the reason for the adoption of remote operation in the B-29 (and such) was a good one, a logical one, for one big reason. Gunners were freezing in the turrets, exposed to -50 during high altitude operations and not having the luxury of being able to move to keep warm. They did have heated suits to compensate, but the bulk made getting into, and more importantly out of, the turret difficult. As well as cramping actions needed to fire. Moving the gunners to remote stations inside a pressurized and heated cabin was the way to go.

Traveller doesn't face that issue. The manned turrets themselves are sealed, pressurized, heated (or cooled to be honest, staying warm is not an issue for Traveller ships ). Moving operations to a remote station gains nothing. It is not logical. It is not needed. It is if anything illogical for most Traveller ships as it would add expense and reduce available space. Unless you want to propose that turrets be shrunk and cheaper in the unmanned version. The remote version will still be a little more expensive and need a little more space if you want to be realistic.

EDIT: To part of Enoki's original question, CT (Book 2) even had entirely automated (NO gunner needed, entirely UN-mannend) turret operations, limited to Anti-Missile (the program) fire that allowed shooting down inbound missiles. THIS shows something of the underlying concepts. That OFFENSIVE fire requires a person in the loop, for whatever legal or moral reasons. While purely DEFENSIVE fire can be fully automated.

 

[Dragoner]

I never adhered to the gunner in the turret, even the old FASA Zhidits had funky turret/seat controls which it stated were counterproductive.

 

[far-trader]

...even so, like madmike, I've long had multiple tasked workstations (since MT?), pretty much any workstation (generally: Bridge, Computer, Engineering, and Turret) can be used to operate any other workstation system. So yes, remotely operated turrets have long been an option, but it is an option. The turret still has a local workstation, and there are some benefits for it.

I've also long had automated magazine loaders for turrets using expendables. They do mean more expense, and lost tonnage, so not everyone finds them worth it when they can just manually load from the cargo hold.

 

[HG_B]

Look, most (if not ALL) of the Book 2 rules concern small operators, merchants usually, with weaponry a secondary (or less) consideration.

Haven't used CT Bk 2 for years. But, if in construction you designate hardpoints, the work station space is also going to be allocated in the ship control area. If it is after the fact and not designed at time of build, I can see having to stick a workstation elsewhere & most likely near the weapon if there is space.

(p.s.) B-29's were pressurized and heated. Using remote turrets had nothing to do with that the crew being cold as only the bomb bay wasn't pressurized. My uncle was a gunner on a B-29 in the Pacific. It was a safety and space saving consideration by Boeing.

 

[sabredog]

I concur with Far-trader.

And I also like them that way because IMTU it is one place in the ship during combat where you may actually get killed so, A) it adds tension and excitement, and B) that makes those dice rolls something more than just a stat check.

Besides, pushing a button on the bridge doesn't, IMHO, qualify for adding your stat into the roll. No chance for that little bit of hip-swing body-english to make the shot count. Or to spit on the missile for luck.

The 'killed' part comes from my ruling that if the turret is hit means that if you miss your saving roll for avoiding damage you may end up unconscious. That means if nobody can get you out before the turret gets hit again (which per LBB2 means it is completely destroyed) then you are dead. Trying to save the gunner also adds tension and excitement. And if the game doesn't have enough tension to require we hand around the bottle of ibuprofen then how much fun can it be?

Those high tech Navy guys in the big Boredomstar Galaxitve sooper-croozers all die, too. The all have one swabbie gunner in each turret. The whole battery of ten triple turrets - bango! Even the ones that don't get hit blow up so all those swabbies pay a little more attention next time they are in training.

 

[sabredog]

Haven't used CT Bk 2 for years. But, if in construction you designate hardpoints, the work station space is also going to be allocated in the ship control area. If it is after the fact and not designed at time of build, I can see having to stick a workstation elsewhere & most likely near the weapon if there is space.

There is no requirement for workstation space, nor any rules involving them in CT. That was a MT innovation. The rules actually say, though, that the turrets are 'manned", not 'remote'.

(p.s.) B-29's were pressurized and heated. Using remote turrets had nothing to do with that the crew being cold as only the bomb bay wasn't pressurized. My uncle was a gunner on a B-29 in the Pacific. It was a safety and space saving consideration by Boeing.

The '20's gunners were in the same compartment as their gun turrets. They just didn't have to touch the guns or stick their head in the turrets to aim them. The guns used remote controlled guns aimed by a remote aiming system that allowed for more accurate firing as well as provide for a more streamlined (and less drag-inducing) turret. If some Tony shot up the guns with it's 20mm cannons I wouldn't want to be the crew that was stationed in the compartment.

 

[BytePro]

Just an aside, why does Traveller require a gunner in essentially every turret on a ship?

Huh?

It does?

Must have missed that, LOL, where is that actually written in CT (not other editions)?

CT requires the Target program for firing other than anti-missile, which, 'controls all turrets on board ship.' Gunner interact is an option which 'interfaces the expertise of the gunner'. This, in combination with the other programs tends to indicate to me that the computer is required for turrets to work and can actually do the firing - gunners are an option that can provide added DMs under certain situations and gunnery skill is required of someone operating the computer (although that really isn't explicit either).

Gunnery skill is required to operate the guns and to be called a gunner - but that doesn't say anything about a separate individual nor manning a turret.

HG crew speaks of manning weaponry and gunnery section states at least one crew per battery, but Bk 2 didn't have such, IIRC - and HG uses the word crew, so not necessarily a dedicated gunner, and obviously not physically manning a battery of more than one turret.

Of course, the main reason to do so is player engagement. Being with the actual weapon system means increased ability to deal with failures, etc. - an advantage that is lost if a gunner is remote from his guns - so I tend to design plans where the gunner is 'manning' the turret.

So is this just a presumption - or did the CT rules actually state this somewhere?

 

[sabredog]

Do the little seats they show in the deckplans from Traders and Gunboats count?

 

[HG_B]

The '20's gunners were in the same compartment as their gun turrets. They just didn't have to touch the guns or stick their head in the turrets to aim them. The guns used remote controlled guns aimed by a remote aiming system that allowed for more accurate firing as well as provide for a more streamlined (and less drag-inducing) turret.

On the B-29, one gunner could control more than one gun turret at a time. Did you ever get to climb inside? Amazing machines.

 

[sabredog]

But more seriously, LBB2 says that it is required that each turret have a gunner to use its weapons.

 

[HG_B]

The rules actually say, though, that the turrets are 'manned", not 'remote'.

Yes, that is the inane rule we are discussing.

 

[sabredog]

On the B-29, one gunner could control more than one gun turret at a time. Did you ever get to climb inside? Amazing machines.

The only one I saw was FiFi in the mid-90's in an airshow in Eugene. I understand they don't fly her around that much anymore and so I have to make do with Aluminum Overcast when they fly the B-17 into Hillsboro every other year or so.

They didn't give rides at the show but you could at least climb inside. They were big for their day. Actually, my favorite part was watching her take off and fly around the field.

 

[BytePro]

Do the little seats they show in the deckplans from Traders and Gunboats count?

Nope - that is not an explicitly written rule.

Besides, deckplans very commonly don't match dtons either - so I certainly wouldn't try to reverse engineer rules from them.

I'm not saying I didn't commonly do the same - but don't recall any rules explicitly stating that individual turrets are manned nor any that they were never remote. The fact that a computer is required, and with the right software, does mean they are not stand alone systems and the computer certainly can be remote.

Suspect this 'rule' is largely just assumption?

 

[Enoki]

Look, most (if not ALL) of the Book 2 rules concern small operators, merchants usually, with weaponry a secondary (or less) consideration. Turrets in this case are add-ons, drop in modules. There is no wasted space or expense "put aside" for remote operation of turrets or battery fire, just in case one wants to add (usually another expensive waste) weapons later for "adventures" instead of making money the sane, logical, way. They have to be simple, easy, all-in-one packages. That is what they are. So, no, in this case remote control turrets do not make sense, are not logical, and CT did not miss the boat (etc.) in not adopting them.

Further, as I understand it, the reason for the adoption of remote operation in the B-29 (and such) was a good one, a logical one, for one big reason. Gunners were freezing in the turrets, exposed to -50 during high altitude operations and not having the luxury of being able to move to keep warm. They did have heated suits to compensate, but the bulk made getting into, and more importantly out of, the turret difficult. As well as cramping actions needed to fire. Moving the gunners to remote stations inside a pressurized and heated cabin was the way to go.

Traveller doesn't face that issue. The manned turrets themselves are sealed, pressurized, heated (or cooled to be honest, staying warm is not an issue for Traveller ships ). Moving operations to a remote station gains nothing. It is not logical. It is not needed. It is if anything illogical for most Traveller ships as it would add expense and reduce available space. Unless you want to propose that turrets be shrunk and cheaper in the unmanned version. The remote version will still be a little more expensive and need a little more space if you want to be realistic.

EDIT: To part of Enoki's original question, CT (Book 2) even had entirely automated (NO gunner needed, entirely UN-mannend) turret operations, limited to Anti-Missile (the program) fire that allowed shooting down inbound missiles. THIS shows something of the underlying concepts. That OFFENSIVE fire requires a person in the loop, for whatever legal or moral reasons. While purely DEFENSIVE fire can be fully automated.

Actually, the reason the B-29 went to remote turrets was primarily that the aircraft was pressurized. All the moving parts in a turret were hard to seal and vibration from firing the guns made things worse so the best solution was putting them outside the pressure envelope. As a bonus, it also eliminated about a ton of manpower, oxygen equipment, seating, etc., on the aircraft that now needed fewer dedicated gunners.

Better yet, a single gunner could control mulitple turrets bringing them to bear on a single target and, with the fire controls added in make the fire more accurate. This meant that even if a gunner was taken out another could still use the same weapons with equal effectiveness.

I would think in Traveller the same thing is present. One fire control system for several turrets saves weight and volume over putting one at each station. It would also allow for more accurate fire and, better yet, cut down on crew requirements. It also means that it is possible to have the gunner(s) co-located in something like a combat information center with command crew who can supervise them and direct their actions in person.
Even on a small merchant with say, two turrets, by reducing the gunnery need to a single crewman you have more crew to do other things like damage control, operate other systems, etc. So, that leaves a person in the loop but eliminates the need for numerous crew aboard to man turrets.
I would think on even a merchant of say 5,000 tons with let's say 6 turrets having one or two crew operating them versus 6 is a huge savings in manpower particularly on a ship that is likely minimally manned in any case for cost saving reasons. Fewer crew means less food consumed, fewer staterooms, less recreational space, and potentially more cargo. That alone would be a huge motivator to move to remote systems