Why manned turrets?

[BytePro]

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

Does it? Where?

Under ship crews mine states 'One gunner (gunnery skill-1 or better required) may be hired per turret' (emphasis mine).

Immediately following the Gunner position rule it covers one person filling multiple crew positions.

In the crew table it simply says 'As required.'

Gunnery skill means 'trained and competent' and 'qualifies' one for operating weaponry - note, it actually doesn't state required! (Though I didn't realize this till reading it just now - I mean it really goes of the way not making it 'required'...)

 

[sabredog]

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?

The fact that a computer is required to use them doesn't mean they are remote, either. The ships require a computer to fly but a pilot is required for it - where does he sit? The jump drives require the Jump program to operate but ships of a certain size and larger require a navigator. And they require an engineer to do something in the drive room even though the computer seems to do everything else.

So I think it is just nit-picking and semantics to argue that a gunner, or any other position, doesn't have to be manned just because a computer is also used to operate it. Even the gun turrets in battleships used analog computers to aim the things. Target program is nothing more than a fire control program to help the gunner aim for a tiny dot bouncing around out in space. And fancier versions allow for some "leading the target". The really fancy ones can replace the gunner's skill, but someone still needs to man the position.

Per page 16, LBB2: "one gunner is required per turret". If they were all just sitting on the bridge why need one for each turret?

Yes, yes,...HG says they don't have to be that way. But LBB2 rules do. Which ones do you use and which make more sense in the situation and are fun?

 

[BytePro]

Per page 16, LBB2: "one gunner is required per turret".

My copy (Classic Reprint) does not state this.

Posts are crossing -

Under ship crews mine states 'One gunner (gunnery skill-1 or better required) may be hired per turret' (emphasis mine).

The computer and combat rules have turrets performing anti-missile fire without a gunner, IIRC.

Target does not help the gunner - because gunner skill does not apply without Gunner Interact.

 

[sabredog]

OK, I see the problem here. For the quibbling rules lawyer types among us (including myself) there are three different words used in the same line about gunners depending on if you are reading the original 77 LBB2 (what I'm holding here), the 81 reprint, or The Traveller Book.

The 77 version: "is required" ("...per turret")
The 81 version: "may"
Traveller Book: "one per turret if considered necessary"

I haven't looked at Mayday yet.

 

[sabredog]

Ah-ha!

Page 27, LBB2 (1981 ed.) (making out the ship data card)...."After the letters for the
weapons, indicate the expertise of the gunner manning the turret."

In the '77 ed it says the same thing except that it says "in the turret", not "manning the turret".

 

[madmike]

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

This is true.

But LBB2, also has cassette tape programs being loaded into a computer. This seems akin to the old 70's mainframes computers, early desktops and commodore 64's I used when I was a hell of a lot younger and not a TL12 starship capable of traversing multiple light years of space.

One of my group asked me last Friday night as we got into that evenings session, why Traveller computers seemed stuck at around TL8. My answer was that at the time it was extremely hard to conceive of the massive changes to computer technology even ten years in the future, let alone what we have now, thirty plus years on.

So, even though I use and love CT, I made changes to how things worked and were, simply because they needed to be.

Returning back to manned turrets. I decided long ago, back in the 80's that turrets, could be manned but equally, could be controlled by a gunnery position on the bridge of the ship in question, by a gunner or gunners who use their experience and skill to use those systems. Merchant vessels with multiple turrets generally prefer to employ one gunner rather than many.

I also use auto-loaders. Missiles and sandcaster canisters are loaded via a six round magazine. Reloads can be stored within the cargo bay of a merchant vessel or a battery magazine on a warship.

One of the greatest book series about starship combat, the Lost Fleet by Jack Campbell, have gunners manning hell-lance and missile batteries. However due to high speeds and extremely short engagement times, firing of the weapons are computer controlled, slaved to the bridge gunnery station.

Someone mentioned Star Wars (1977). George Lucas deliberately used the movie Battle of Britain as a basic for the space combat. The manned turrets on the Falcon reflected that inspiration as well, just B17 style.

 

[sabredog]

The Gunner Interact program also specifies that (in all editions of CT) it allows for the use of the skill of the gunner "in that particular turret to be applied..."


I win. Send my prizes care of RPGLawyers.com "We are the smartest Munchkins around!"

 

[sabredog]

This is true.

But LBB2, also has cassette tape programs being loaded into a computer. This seems akin to the old 70's mainframes computers, early desktops and commodore 64's I used when I was a hell of a lot younger and not a TL12 starship capable of traversing multiple light years of space.

Maybe, but the rules are the rules, and the question was about the rules, not house rules.

So, even though I use and love CT, I made changes to how things worked and were, simply because they needed to be.

Returning back to manned turrets. I decided long ago, back in the 80's that turrets, could be manned but equally, could be controlled by a gunnery position on the bridge of the ship in question, by a gunner or gunners who use their experience and skill to use those systems. Merchant vessels with multiple turrets generally prefer to employ one gunner rather than many.[/QUOTES]

Fine, but again - those are house rules and everyone does them. That wasn't the question, though.

I also use auto-loaders. Missiles and sandcaster canisters are loaded via a six round magazine. Reloads can be stored within the cargo bay of a merchant vessel or a battery magazine on a warship.

That has nothing to do with whether or not the rules required that a turret be manned. As it is the rules do say that (per LBB2) that the reloads are stored in the turret, and that the reloads are made manually by the gunner, though extras beyond that can be stored elsewhere and transported to the turret. Again, pointing out that a gunner must be in the turret if only to manage ammo.

One of the greatest book series about starship combat, the Lost Fleet by Jack Campbell, have gunners manning hell-lance and missile batteries. However due to high speeds and extremely short engagement times, firing of the weapons are computer controlled, slaved to the bridge gunnery station.

Someone mentioned Star Wars (1977). George Lucas deliberately used the movie Battle of Britain as a basic for the space combat. The manned turrets on the Falcon reflected that inspiration as well, just B17 style.

Yes, but none of that is Traveller or in the Traveller rules. Don't mean to be pedantic here but that is how these things get derailed.

 

[BytePro]

OK, I see the problem here. For the quibbling rules lawyer types among us (including myself) there are three different words used in the same line about gunners depending on if you are reading the original 77 LBB2 (what I'm holding here), the 81 reprint, or The Traveller Book.

Yeah - figured such could be the case.

Or that I just missed some explicit rule somewhere in CT.

Ah-ha!

Page 27, LBB2 (1981 ed.) (making out the ship data card)...."After the letters for the
weapons, indicate the expertise of the gunner manning the turret."

Sorry - no prize there. Doesn't state a gunner is required.

The Gunner Interact program also specifies that (in all editions of CT) it allows for the use of the skill of the gunner "in that particular turret to be applied..."

Nope - no prize there either. Just states an advantage to being in the turret - not an explicit requirement that a turret be manned. :devil:

The fact that there are these changes between the '77 and '81 printings with words like 'may' being added and phrases like 'required' being removed seems to imply that these rules were in fact changed to make them more flexible.

Not surprising as the OP's question is an obvious one.

 

[sabredog]

Oh well, if we are going to argue the definition of 'manning' and 'in' then I have less important things to do.

Particularly since you want to bolster your argument against implying anything from the rules by arguing why it can be implied that the designers changed the words in such a way.

 

[BytePro]

One of the greatest book series about starship combat, the Lost Fleet by Jack Campbell, have gunners manning hell-lance and missile batteries. However due to high speeds and extremely short engagement times, firing of the weapons are computer controlled, slaved to the bridge gunnery station.

The harder sci-fi approach to starship combat in the Lost Fleet series is pretty good.

Would probably make for lousy RPG though. I prefer the space opera manned turrets myself, only using remote turret operations when it was best suited to the size of a party, so PCs could fully man their ship without me doing the NPC thing, or at least limiting my NPCing to a starship AI.

BTW: C.J.Cherryh's wrote some pretty good space ship operation stuff if you like the more believable sci-fi style.

 

[madmike]

Yes, but none of that is Traveller or in the Traveller rules. Don't mean to be pedantic here but that is how these things get derailed.

I used those as examples and possible reasons why turrets could be manned...

I am not a rules lawyer. So I am not going to argue about symantics.

I always wondered how a sole gunner could find the room and the strength to load in a single missle every time one was fired.

 

[far-trader]

...
But LBB2, also has cassette tape...

No. Not "tape" as in little boxes with a ribbon of magentic media on two spools. It says simply "cassette" without the tape. This is a common misconception that started who knows how so many years ago

When I read cassette my first thought was the huge solid state hot swappable (iirc) plug-in rack modules. They were later/currently called blades iirc, can't recall what they were called at the time but I think they were called cassettes. Talking mainframes here, not piddly little hobby desktop computers

One of my group asked me last Friday night as we got into that evenings session, why Traveller computers seemed stuck at around TL8.

Are they? Do your laptops, netbooks, iPads and such do one percent what a far future huge mainframe is capable of for safely navigating a course through jump space? While and after being shot by nuclear missiles and megawatt lasers? I mean being hit and damaged but still running. And I don't mean running as in the pile of melted plastics that would be running on the floor.

How about smart and AI systems? We have that yet? Traveller did then.

...but yeah, I'm not sure this "discussion" is at all productive. The whole is another one of those endless debates that never convinces anyone they're even marginally wrong or that anyone disagreeing might have a valid point... but carry on I'm off to blow up aliens for a bit.

 

[far-trader]

I always wondered how a sole gunner could find the room and the strength to load in a single missle every time one was fired.

...pfft, they only weigh 50kg, and there's grav carts if that's too heavy or you want to move a few. No need to fetch and reload after every shot either, the turret holds a few at a time. Most battles shouldn't exhaust the turret magazine. Heck you could even fly them along to the turret if you really wanted to and set it up that way Of course you want to be sure it isn't armed in case you fly it into a closed hatch along the way and it decides "Hey, I made it to my target! <KABOOOOM!!>

 

[BytePro]

Oh well, if we are going to argue the definition of 'manning' and 'in' then I have less important things to do.

Particularly since you want to bolster your argument against implying anything from the rules by arguing why it can be implied that the designers changed the words in such a way.

Touche -I was not arguing against implying - just asking if an explicit rule existed that supported the OPs assertion...

You actually provided explicit rules, but for other printed editions of the rules than those I have. (Your prizes are in the mail... )

From your research it certainly appears that the rules were intentionally changed to address pretty much the OPs question. Adding 'may' and dropping 'required' sure do not sound like accidents nor stylistic edits. And, intended or not, the lack of changes to the definition of Gunner Interact gives a metagame and ingame reason for why turrets would typically support manning and why they would be manned by hired gunners.

So thanks for replying to my 'pendantic rules lawyering' - I meant no offense. It appears that the OPs question was wrong in Traveller requiring manned turrets with regards to the edition of CT that appeared in the Classic Reprint (and with regards to HG) - but it appears correct in the superseded '77 edition.

 

[BytePro]

When I read cassette my first thought was the huge solid state hot swappable (iirc) plug-in rack modules.

Yeah, me to.

Sadly, I think I recall (though hope I'm wrong) 'tape' being mentioned in the CT books somewhere, 'cause it irated the heck out of me.

However, I've never had a 'believability' issue with starship computers in CT - I mean the sci-fi of Traveller is deeply seated in Space Opera, so big arse computers fit right in anyway. Even if it uses 'tape' (cringe) who says its not holographic tape (with a data storage density far in excess of any of today's storage systems) - I surely don't think it ever mentions 'magnetic' tape...

 

[pendragonman]

...pfft, they only weigh 50kg, and there's grav carts if that's too heavy or you want to move a few. No need to fetch and reload after every shot either, the turret holds a few at a time. Most battles shouldn't exhaust the turret magazine. Heck you could even fly them along to the turret if you really wanted to and set it up that way Of course you want to be sure it isn't armed in case you fly it into a closed hatch along the way and it decides "Hey, I made it to my target! <KABOOOOM!!>

Ok, Far trader. I call. When was the last time you lifted/carried in your arms about a 110 pounds? With a grav cart, sure, but in combat are you going to trust a live round to a cart that may get smacked into the wall or ceiling do to evasive maneuvers?

 

[BytePro]

Hmmm...

Its not at all unusual for aerial ordinance to be hand carried and hand loaded aboard carriers (and there are carts for heavier stuffs) - the same in peace time as in war time...
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/nimitz8.html
http://www.defense.gov/Photos/newsphoto.aspx?newsphotoid=1180

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lavadog1_3/2216211348/

That last shows a soldier loading a 120 mm round (?) in an M1 A1 tank gun.

They typically mass ~50 lbs.

[I'm not Far Trader, but this 40 something hand carries four 80 lbs salt bags, two at a time, down stairs every few months... about my mass actually, and I'm not any kind of athlete nor trained soldier...]

I did R&D related to the transport of similar back in the early '90s. The primed (in prep for transport to live war zone) warheads sometimes fell off when being hand carried. People died. (Hence my project.) Nobody says combat is safe...

As to bumping things and missile warheads going boom... that is usually designed against I believe (tank rounds not generally being missiles, so they are a bit different)...

BTW: In Traveller, gravitics would negate the effects of evasive manuevers... otherwise folks would be wall jam anyway... (just say'n).

 

[Enoki]

Ok, Far trader. I call. When was the last time you lifted/carried in your arms about a 110 pounds? With a grav cart, sure, but in combat are you going to trust a live round to a cart that may get smacked into the wall or ceiling do to evasive maneuvers?

I'd assume that it is assisted loading like on most mid 20th Century and later naval vessels. That is the "gunner" or turret crew has only to move the missile a short distance into a magazine where it is automatically loaded up into the launcher.

The other possibility is that some sort of magazine is used and the gunner loads this with mechanical assistance. Either way, it could be easily figured out how one person could do this with mechanical assistance by some tech level equal to present day or in advance of it.

 

[Nightwind1]

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.

I actually have gone up in Aluminum Overcast.

One of the highlights of my life.