Why manned turrets?

[madmike]

Newton's Laws of motion state;

1. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

2. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

These are pretty much universal constants really.

Kinetic energy is energy of motion. When an object of sufficient velocity impacts against another object, heat and light and impact energy are released. Modern tank rounds are kinetic energy penetrators (APFSDS) and of course the projectile fired from a gun (chemical and gauss).

So if a missile detonates against a ships hull, the explosion may not penetrate the armour of that hull but the impact will most certainly affect the ship in some way. Inertial damping will negate much of that abrupt shaking, but not all.

 

[Carlobrand]

...So if a missile detonates against a ships hull, the explosion may not penetrate the armour of that hull but the impact will most certainly affect the ship in some way. Inertial damping will negate much of that abrupt shaking, but not all.

How much is entirely an IMTU decision. We have modern (not grav) systems capable of reacting to an external stimulus in tiny fractions of a second. However, we have absolutely no idea how quickly a compensating grav field emitter could emit a field to counter a given unexpected force, since we moderns have no compensating grav field emitters from which to draw conclusions. And, to the best of my knowledge, canon tells us only how effective the compensators are at compensating anticipated forces: the ship's thrust or turns. So, it could be anything from, "You're starting to feel a bit nauseous," to, "You're slammed into a bulkhead."

 

[BytePro]

Yeah, several different things are being brought up - the effects of combat maneuvers, missile strikes and missile explosions.

Only the first is explicitly directly compensated, the latter may or may not be - but if one is being struck by missiles enough to be 'shaken around' then that is the least of one's worries... its the penetrating missile and contact/medium explosion that will cause significant damage. For explosions, their primary effects are due to pressure changes (shockwave/blast/overpressure) and thermal expansion/transfer. These require a medium - typically air and water for non-contact explosions. In outer space, non-contact explosions lose those macroscopic effects and contact ones severely suffer from minimized area and Newtonian effects.

Either way, its boils down to 1/2 mass times velocity squared for a very finite time... and a 50 kg missile (i.e. assuming no mass used for 'thrust') is not a lot of mass against even a 100 dTon ship. Only at very, very high velocity, against only the smallest, lightest ships, and with phenomenal armor that neutralized impact without conversion of energy (i.e. preserved KE) could it be enough to have a chance of moving a ship enough to cause minor injuries and careless accidents for unbraced individuals.

This is all in relation to the question of whether man handling missiles during combat is 'unbelievable'. If one is moving munitions during combat, one would presume a certain degree of caution, plus a setup accommodating with padding, bracing partitions and buffers. And certainly some risk when being bombarded. Missiles have been manhandled on carrier decks during combat operations. It's hardly unbelievable.

Traveller being what it is - Hollywood style, earth like explosions and crew dancing back and forth across the deck are perfectly fine.

 

[pendragonman]

Traveller being what it is - Hollywood style, earth like explosions and crew dancing back and forth across the deck are perfectly fine.

Only if it's a drunk Irish jig...:rofl:

 

[BytePro]

Ack! How careless of me - many thanks for the correction!

One mustn't ever forget to factor in the carbon bound hydroxyl co-efficient of motion nor the Celtic pedesis modifier...

 

[McPerth]

Just one question:

If the turrets need to be locally manned, how does a single fighter fires its weaponry?

While most pictures show us the fighers as having fixed weapons, when you design one of them you put a turret on it, not a fixed weapon (unless using the rules in AM6:Solomani), who needs someone firing it (I envision them more or less as the RAF Defiant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant, only with more firing angles for its turret).

I guess the Pilot must double as gunner and fire them from the cockpit, and that means that central fire control must be a possibility.

As asides, see that in this case, following CT rules, the pilot will see his/her skills reduced by 1 each and his/her salary reduced (as he doubles as gunner) from 6000 Cr/month to 5250 Cr/month (75% of 6000 + 1000). See also that if this theory about how fighter weapons is true, the Flight section MOS in HG should have the skill of Gunnery, as most fighter pilots are taken from the Flight branch.

Sorry if this only adds to the mess :devil:.

 

[Amber Chancer]

IMTU inertial compensation can provide an exact compensation for planned acceleration. The ship's control systems know exactly how much acceleration they are going to apply, and exactly when they are going to apply it. So they can administer exactly the right antidote.

But concussion from incoming ordnance? That takes 'em by surprise, and so there will inevitably be a bit of a jolt.

As for the turrets and the manning ... well, I try not to over-rationalise these things. I'm happy to accept that weapons go in turrets and turrets are manned by gunners and leave it at that. I tend not to think of turrets in terms of plexiglass bubbles with weapons sticking out of them, though. I think more in terms of a laser turret being a laser beam which points out through a pinhole aperture in the ship's hull onto an external adjustable concave reflector which directs the beam onto the desired target, with a streamlined casing on streamlined ships. All very neat and precision-engineered.

 

[mike wightman]

Just one question:

If the turrets need to be locally manned, how does a single fighter fires its weaponry?

While most pictures show us the fighers as having fixed weapons, when you design one of them you put a turret on it, not a fixed weapon (unless using the rules in AM6:Solomani), who needs someone firing it (I envision them more or less as the RAF Defiant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant, only with more firing angles for its turret).

I guess the Pilot must double as gunner and fire them from the cockpit, and that means that central fire control must be a possibility.

As asides, see that in this case, following CT rules, the pilot will see his/her skills reduced by 1 each and his/her salary reduced (as he doubles as gunner) from 6000 Cr/month to 5250 Cr/month (75% of 6000 + 1000). See also that if this theory about how fighter weapons is true, the Flight section MOS in HG should have the skill of Gunnery, as most fighter pilots are taken from the Flight branch.

Sorry if this only adds to the mess :devil:.

Smallcraft weapons are not mounted in a turret - the CT LBB2 rules make no mention of a turret being required just that there is a limit to mounting no more than three weapons.

HG clarifies this by stating that the smallcraft weapons are fixed mounts.

 

[McPerth]

Smallcraft weapons are not mounted in a turret - the CT LBB2 rules make no mention of a turret being required just that there is a limit to mounting no more than three weapons.

HG clarifies this by stating that the smallcraft weapons are fixed mounts.

HG states that weapons are probably rigid and fired (if only one weapon) by the pilot, but, what skill is required?

 

[mike wightman]

The LBB2 rules are pretty clear that smallcraft weapons are not turret mounted since there is no mention of buying a turret for a small craft. You buy the weapons but no turret. No single turret, no double turret, no triple turret. Just a maximum of three weapons.

Gunnery is required to fire the weapon.

 

[HG_B]

HG states that weapons are probably rigid and fired (if only one weapon) by the pilot, but, what skill is required?

Based US fighters firing fixed weapons in WW2 combat & the fighter pilots (in general) that were the best shot, I'd say Hunting 1 at least...

 

[pendragonman]

Based US fighters firing fixed weapons in WW2 combat & the fighter pilots (in general) that were the best shot, I'd say Hunting 1 at least...

"It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters."

 

[BillDowns]

The LBB2 rules are pretty clear that smallcraft weapons are not turret mounted since there is no mention of buying a turret for a small craft. You buy the weapons but no turret. No single turret, no double turret, no triple turret. Just a maximum of three weapons.

In HG2, it's 3 weapons, but in LBB2, it depends on the smallcraft, and I think the maximum is 2.

 

[BillDowns]

Mis-read the book. PP 17-18. At most 2 lasers, but most smallcraft can have 3 weapons installed.

 

[far-trader]

The real kicker as I recall... ah, you know what the book is right here, let's not trust to memory

Ah, right (my notes in brackets) CT LBB2 pg 17 Small Craft - Fittings...

"Each small craft allocates 1ton to weaponry (nothing about it NOT being a turret) and install up to three weapons (sounds like a turret to me). The individual listings indicate specific weapons which are available on the craft." (which is where the confusion is arising I think)

...and other notes in the section. I see nothing about "fixed mounts" nor anything about not requiring a turret to be purchased. The "specific weapons" bit may be confusing some as they introduce limits.

Such as only a single type of weapon for the Fighter (suggests fixed mount and Pilot fired, at the -1 of course). A two seat fighter could well have (imo) a standard turret and gunner configuration.

The limitations on lasers and computers by the way are the first hint at energy point allocation to come in High Guard. So that tells you the EP the small craft have available. The Fighter for example can only mount 1 laser (or a model/3 computer if it had the room ) since it has 1EP (actually 1.8EP iirc but 0.8EP isn't enough to power anything). A purpose built design (not possible with CT LBB2 raw) could have enough power for 3 lasers.

 

[pendragonman]

Now now, Far Trader. That .8 EP powers the fridge and the coffeemaker. Or the microwave. Can't run the coffemaker and the microwave at the same time. Shorts out the whole craft and the breaker box is outside...

 

[HG_B]

Now now, Far Trader. That .8 EP powers the fridge and the coffeemaker.

Naw, it powers the refrigeration system for vacuum tube super computer...

 

[mike wightman]

The real kicker as I recall... ah, you know what the book is right here, let's not trust to memory

Ah, right (my notes in brackets) CT LBB2 pg 17 Small Craft - Fittings...

"Each small craft allocates 1ton to weaponry (nothing about it NOT being a turret) and install up to three weapons (sounds like a turret to me). The individual listings indicate specific weapons which are available on the craft." (which is where the confusion is arising I think)

...and other notes in the section. I see nothing about "fixed mounts" nor anything about not requiring a turret to be purchased. The "specific weapons" bit may be confusing some as they introduce limits.

There's nothing about paying for the cost of the turret. Turrets cost money in LBB2 ship design, so you are saying you get the turret for free? :devil:

Such as only a single type of weapon for the Fighter (suggests fixed mount and Pilot fired, at the -1 of course). A two seat fighter could well have (imo) a standard turret and gunner configuration.

A two seat fighter is required if you have laser(s) and a missile rack. If you just mount three missile racks or three lasers you don't need a gunner.

The limitations on lasers and computers by the way are the first hint at energy point allocation to come in High Guard. So that tells you the EP the small craft have available. The Fighter for example can only mount 1 laser (or a model/3 computer if it had the room ) since it has 1EP (actually 1.8EP iirc but 0.8EP isn't enough to power anything). A purpose built design (not possible with CT LBB2 raw) could have enough power for 3 lasers.

The 0.8EP does power something - it grants agility therefore it is powering the maneuver drive

 

[Amber Chancer]

The limitations on lasers and computers by the way are the first hint at energy point allocation to come in High Guard.

Lasers, yes.

But I am not seeing how the inability to mount fib and bis computers can possibly have anything to do with energy usage ...



As for "turrets or no turrets" on small craft, HG page 34: "A small craft may mount the equivalent of one turret. In actuality, the mountings are probably rigid, and no actual turret is present. All computations, however, may assume that the craft carries one turret." That seems pretty clear to me ... and for any rules lawyers wanting to argue otherwise do please be advised that I am an actual lawyer, and that arguing about the precise meanings and nuances of words is what I do in the day job ...

 

[aramis]

Just doing some math here... if the inertial compensation system has a 0.1 sec reaction lag, and a nuke vaporizes a few hundred kilos of armor by vaporization... imparting, say, a whopping 20G's of acceleration for a 2 second impulse... you get D=A*T*T... D=20*0.1*0.1=0.2m/s one side, then the other, and the ship gets a D=20*2x2=80m/s nudge... the ship can factor that out in a dozen seconds with the off-axis overthrust mentioned in SSOM.

And I'd expect compensators to have a shorter lag - not more than 0.03 S... for a much lower nudge time. And that's a focused fusion bomb kicking a huge lot of kinetic and thermal energy on a smallish armored target to do that - and it's likely as not to have done more damage to the crew simply with the radiation and EMP.