Why manned turrets?

[madmike]

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...

That is a good point.

I use the term datacore or memory node for software modules. Seems to work and contemporary enough.

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?

"Captain to X turrent....

How long is that frakkin' reload gonna take? I need that bird NOW!!"

"Sorry skipper...huff...huff...pant...The hold is a bit across the ways and getting that bird up the hatch ladder with you jinking old "Emerald" around like you are..."

 

[madmike]

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.

Very true. Nowadays most warships have autoloaders for 4.5" or 5" deck guns.

 

[Enoki]

Very true. Nowadays most warships have autoloaders for 4.5" or 5" deck guns.

Even in WW 2 medium naval guns had loading trays and power rammers on them so that the loader could dump the next round into the tray out of the way of the breech while the last round was fired. The tray was either pushed or power operated into position and the round rammed home by mechanical means.

Even the US M2 90mm gun and later marks of the British 3.7" AA guns had powered loading systems by 1944 with on mount generators.

If you look at 1950's and 60's ships the missiles on these were loaded up to the point the actual launcher took them by hand and even assembled to a degree right before loading. I could see a missile turret having some sort of loading tray and assist outside the turret to allow the operator / gunner to load missiles into the turret magazine more or less continiously from the bigger magazine as in MT or later.

 

[madmike]

Very much so. Soviet armour started using autoloaders to cut turret crews with the introduction of the T-62, though Western designs never adopted the use.

I look at missile and sandcaster turrets having a replenishable rotary magazine integrated into the turret itself and thus part of the turret dTonnage. Reloads can be done via an adjacent battery magazine or from a hold manually during or after a battle.

Military grade turrets would have a bigger ready use integral magazine than a civilian turret.

 

[sabredog]

Very much so. Soviet armour started using autoloaders to cut turret crews with the introduction of the T-62, though Western designs never adopted the use.

I look at missile and sandcaster turrets having a replenishable rotary magazine integrated into the turret itself and thus part of the turret dTonnage. Reloads can be done via an adjacent battery magazine or from a hold manually during or after a battle.

Military grade turrets would have a bigger ready use integral magazine than a civilian turret.

The T-64 was the first design with the autoloading system. It had the unfortunate habit of often feeding the gunner's arm into the breech if he wasn't careful. But then the T-64 had a lot of problems.

Military grade turrets probably are different and HG reflects some of this with it's missile and sand non-management and remote operation. The weapons seem to have a unending supply of disposable ordnance, though the original rules at least had a magazine requirement for a ship to be capable of planetary bombardment.

 

[BytePro]

I recall an M1 prototype autoloader (and the canceled MBT-70 that preceeded the Abrams had an autoloader) - it was never put into production and was actually quite a bit slower than a well trained crew... though if we had gone with 140mm and two part rounds being discussed at the time, autoloaders might have been a must. The Soviet autoloaders of the day were rather dangerous looking, but the ripping off limbs stuff was a bit exaggerated (dangers of cooking off in the turret however was not... the rounds were right there with the crew). Doubt ship manuevers would see any more bouncing around than inside of a tank.

Always presumed Traveller sandcasters and missile launchers used an autoloader system akin to naval guns.

 

[madmike]

Always presumed Traveller sandcasters and missile launchers used an autoloader system akin to naval guns.

Yep

 

[SanDragon]

Traveller reprint, book 2, in the space combat chapter, game turn sequence section, page 32, 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 9 missiles in ready position.

When a launcher's missiles or canisters were exhausted, it may be reloaded by the turret's gunner in one turn. Reloading three launchers would take three turns."

Which was important to me when I was designing ships and wanted to know how many battery rounds I wanted between the turret and reload munitions space.

 

[Enoki]

Very much so. Soviet armour started using autoloaders to cut turret crews with the introduction of the T-62, though Western designs never adopted the use.

Sweden is and was a leader in this sort of thing. The S Tank has a completely automatic magazine and Bofors corporation developed self propelled artillery that had mechanically reloaded magazines.
Both Italian OTO Melaria and Bofors also developed automatic naval artillery starting in the 50's.
The French had auto loaders on some tanks like the AMX 13 from the 60's.

[/quote]I look at missile and sandcaster turrets having a replenishable rotary magazine integrated into the turret itself and thus part of the turret dTonnage. Reloads can be done via an adjacent battery magazine or from a hold manually during or after a battle.[/quote]

If the rotating magazine is below the turret and accessable to the crew it could be reloaded from a magazine that essentially surrounds it just as is done in a naval turret on a ship.

Military grade turrets would have a bigger ready use integral magazine than a civilian turret.

Most likely there is some sort of standardized design(s) and the magazine size can be specified. That way the missiles could be to a standard design with military grade ones getting better guidance componets, maybe a better engine and warhead, that sort of thing on what is the same basic airframe to lower costs.

 

[BillDowns]

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...

A couple of points to add here:
Remember on Star Trek TOS, they always referred to those little 2" plastic squares as "tapes"? Could it be that is just a traditional term?

Also, in the late 1970's, I worked with the computer system designed for Aegis - the AN/UYK-7. It specifically had magnetic core memory, so that in the event of power loss and restoration, the system would not require a reboot. Mag Core is significantly larger than semiconductor memory. I tell my players that the Traveller computers have write-through semiconductor cache with mag core or holographic backing memory. Hence the larger size, but no reboot is needed when power comes back.

'Course, I also tell them "it ain't Windows O/S" either. LOL

 

[BytePro]

Hehe... reminds me of the first laptop I ever say (and probably some of the first anyway) - GRiD laptops.

They used magnetic bubble memory, developed based a magnetic tape memory called 'twister' (sp?), IIRC. The tape was not in a cassette - it was little pieces coiled around wire...

Which derived from magnetic core memory.

Of course, today we have flash storage which achieves the same results in much higher density - though the packaging for SSDs is based on HDs and basically a 'cartridge'. Noting that those prior magnetic memories, I believe, would not have the write limitations, nor be as susceptible to EM/radiation damage...

 

[pendragonman]

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).

Yep, I'm an old M-60A3 tanker myself. ~45 lb rounds. However, in combat you are only lifting 'em up and ramming 'em home. Not loading them into the ready rack.

As to your (I suspect) salt for your water purifier, are you moving those 4 bags in combat conditions? Really? Shouldn't you relocate from a live fire zone?

I move several bags of about the same weight every month in dog food (I have 4 hounds), but not under combat conditions. Further, a bag of something can be safely dropped without more than spillage. What happens if you drop a 50kg missile, even without the detonator on board? At very least you have to repair it before use.

 

[robject]

[...] CT does in fact have [grouped turrets and remote FC operators], 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.).

[...] 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'm with Dan, here, on both of his points copied above.

Grouping turrets would have been nice to see in Book 2, but the combat model is nice and simple as is, and I like it that way. Not that I had a say, and not that Traveller could survive on Book 2 (yes, HG was needed). But for what it's worth B2 did what it needed to do, and left improvements for a later version.

It would also have been nice if Book 2 had rules for workstations -- for one thing, it would make clear the reasons for large bridges, as well as allow options for smaller ones -- but again, the rules are simple, and they work, and only do what they need to and no more. Again, not that I had a say, and Traveller needed more, but Book 2 was timely and had just enough to hook us.

 

[HG_B]

In keeping with Trav's pre-20th century ships gun tech I have detailed the Gunner's tools.

I had to add "powder boy" to the crew compliments. But, where else to you get future "Travellers"

 

[pendragonman]

And I just hate being the guy to put in the tompions on the lasers after combat. Having to hold my breath for that long sucks.

 

[BytePro]

...
As to your (I suspect) salt for your water purifier, are you moving those 4 bags in combat conditions? Really? Shouldn't you relocate from a live fire zone?

If the inside of your starship is a live fire zone, I don't think firing missiles is your prime concern...

Not saying there wouldn't be added stress, but Traveller starship combat is rather drawn out and, unless the gravitics aren't working, the conditions would be even better than being aboard an aircraft carrier in peacetime. Certainly nothing like being in a tank under combat conditions (or even just manuevers).

What happens if you drop a 50kg missile, even without the detonator on board? At very least you have to repair it before use.

Obviously neither situation is desirable - in the case of the hounds you might feel like you're in a combat zone ... but that doesn't change the fact that the missile has to be racked and loaded. If there is some manual interaction involved then that is what is done. As you can see with aircraft missiles in the linked sources.

Don't get me wrong, I really don't see the whole manually loading thing for Traveller missiles myself. IMTU, the missiles are moved by automation that is under manual, or automatic computer program control. But, contrary to what I would have believed in the RW, there is a lot of manual moving of missiles, so I can't say Far Trader's approach is all that unbelievable...

P.S. - Thanks for your service you old M-60A3 (Patton?) tanker!

 

[BytePro]

In keeping with Trav's pre-20th century ships gun tech I have detailed the Gunner's tools.

LMAO :rofl:

And I just hate being the guy to put in the tompions on the lasers after combat. Having to hold my breath for that long sucks.

But I'm telling you - the view is spectacular.

(Join the Navy and see the stars they said...)

 

[pendragonman]

If the inside of your starship is a live fire zone, I don't think firing missiles is your prime concern...

Not saying there wouldn't be added stress, but Traveller starship combat is rather drawn out and, unless the gravitics aren't working, the conditions would be even better than being aboard an aircraft carrier in peacetime. Certainly nothing like being in a tank under combat conditions (or even just manuevers).


Obviously neither situation is desirable - in the case of the hounds you might feel like you're in a combat zone ... but that doesn't change the fact that the missile has to be racked and loaded. If there is some manual interaction involved then that is what is done. As you can see with aircraft missiles in the linked sources.

Don't get me wrong, I really don't see the whole manually loading thing for Traveller missiles myself. IMTU, the missiles are moved by automation that is under manual, or automatic computer program control. But, contrary to what I would have believed in the RW, there is a lot of manual moving of missiles, so I can't say Far Trader's approach is all that unbelievable...

P.S. - Thanks for your service you old M-60A3 (Patton?) tanker!

I guess in YTU, gravatics keep the entire interior of the ship stable at all times (a "stabe" system for all interior spaces). I know of no canon source that alleges this. If you know one, please advise.

Taking my queues from Star Trek, New Galactica (as opposed to Battlestar Ponderosa), B-5, etc. I imagine the interiors being shaken about quite a bit under combat conditions. There is no canon source to support this position either that I know of.

As to automation for the loading sequences, there certainly are on military vessels, but since we are discussing book 2 the majority of the ships under discussion are civilian vessels that have been armed. Can't say I see any merchant paying for more than the Ready Rack (the three missiles each launcher comes with) and perhaps manual storage of spares in the cargo hold. How do the missiles get from the cargo hold to the Ready Rack on such a vessel? Some deck ape has to put them there, certainly not an automated system.


Thanks. Yes, the M-60 is the Patton. When I was in, the M-1 had not been deployed completely, so in gunnery exercises we routinely out performed our brothers in those Cadillacs. But that didn't last very long.

 

[mike wightman]

The acceleration compensators - which are written up in just about every CT adventure or supplement that details starships - states that they cancel all movement affects and that crew and passengers get no sense of acceleration at all.

 

[sabredog]

As to automation for the loading sequences, there certainly are on military vessels, but since we are discussing book 2 the majority of the ships under discussion are civilian vessels that have been armed. Can't say I see any merchant paying for more than the Ready Rack (the three missiles each launcher comes with) and perhaps manual storage of spares in the cargo hold. How do the missiles get from the cargo hold to the Ready Rack on such a vessel? Some deck ape has to put them there, certainly not an automated system.

Which brings up the question of whether or not a merchant would even have something like missile racks with 5kCr missiles on it. IMTU missiles are considered a more offensive weapon than lasers, which fall under defensive in both the military and in civilian law. Naturally they can be used offensively, but since they are dual use technology the lawyers prevailed on their primarily defensive use being established. Missiles just blow stuff up, but lasers can protect you. It isn't that missiles are illegal, it is just that they are so aggressive seeming. It is like having an AR in your truck's window rack instead of a scoped hunting rifle; it makes the locals nervous even though it isn't unlawful to have.

So IMTU, for example, the average merchie doesn't have missile racks. Too expensive, may get unwanted attention form the authorities, may not even hit anything, and expensive to use. Lasers are reliable and cost only pennies to fire all day long.