Why manned turrets?

[McPerth]

HG would treat a mixed turret in a scout (let's say the typical laser/missile/sandcaster) as 3 different batteries that require 3 gunners, so, they either are remote controled or you'd better have quite small gunners to fit all three in a turret.

Also in HG crew section (pag 33,under gunnery):

(...) turret wapons should have a crew of of at least one per battery(...)

As one battery is usualy more than one turret (and up to 10), you also need centralized firre control position (outside the turret) or quite a fast crewmember to man the multiple turrets in the battery.

 

[mike wightman]

Don't forget the chief gunnery officer and the petty officer required for each type of weapon.:devil:
If you really want to nit pick and if you read HG the right way your 100t scout example needs 6 crew for that one mixed turret.

At some point you have to use common sense - or LBB2 crew requirements.

Oh - wait. Doesn't HG actually state that for ships of 1000t and under you use the LBB2 crew rules...

 

[McPerth]

Don't forget the chief gunnery officer and the petty officer required for each type of weapon.:devil:
If you really want to nit pick and if you read HG the right way your 100t scout example needs 6 crew for that one mixed turret.

In fact it will need 7 (chief gunnery officer, 3 petty officiers, one per weapon type, and the 3 gunners) but only the gunners need to be in the turret if you assume it must be maned localy.

Add to this the pilot and engineer, and they don't fit in the 4 staterooms the scout has, not even in double occupancy (time to adapt the MT bunk).

At some point you have to use common sense - or LBB2 crew requirements.

If possible you should use it always, not just at some point :devil:

Oh - wait. Doesn't HG actually state that for ships of 1000t and under you use the LBB2 crew rules...

True, then change it for a 2000 dton merchant with only 1-2 mixed turrets for self-defense.

 

[McPerth]

Anyway, as this thread is not CT specific, see in MgT:HG the fighter pilots have gunnery in their specialty tables, so that the Pilot may also fire the weapons.

Shame MgT forgot the rule about a single crewmember filling two positions in a ship (or at least I didn't find it) :devil:.

Se also that while the fighter description in page 136 of MgT:CB gives us a single fixed weapon, but the picture in page 134 shows us a belly turret .

 

[mike wightman]

In fact it will need 7 (chief gunnery officer, 3 petty officiers, one per weapon type, and the 3 gunners) but only the gunners need to be in the turret if you assume it must be maned localy.

ha ha - good catch.

Add to this the pilot and engineer, and they don't fit in the 4 staterooms the scout has, not even in double occupancy (time to adapt the MT bunk).

Just give them sleepinfg bags and make them crawl into the avionics bay access tube

If possible you should use it always, not just at some point :devil:

A lot of these discussions would not happen if people used common sense

True, then change it for a 2000 dton merchant with only 1-2 mixed turrets for self-defense.

This is where it gets a bit iffy. The ships in LBB2 have a crew formula once they hit the 1000 to 5000 bracket - 10 crew per 1000t of ship minimum.

This would conflict with the crew requirements from HG for your armed merchant example.

Perhaps it's better to add a rule somewhere that the LBB2 crew are used for al ships 100-1000t and for civilian ships 1000+ to 5000t. For military ships over 1000t use HG crew requirements.

 

[Enoki]

Don't forget the chief gunnery officer and the petty officer required for each type of weapon.:devil:
If you really want to nit pick and if you read HG the right way your 100t scout example needs 6 crew for that one mixed turret.

At some point you have to use common sense - or LBB2 crew requirements.

Oh - wait. Doesn't HG actually state that for ships of 1000t and under you use the LBB2 crew rules...

Just remember, what goes on in the turret stays in the turret.... o:

 

[BytePro]

Shame MgT forgot the rule about a single crewmember filling two positions in a ship (or at least I didn't find it) .

Actually, pg 50 of the main book, under Multiple Actions - 'A character can try to do two or more things at once, like firing a spacecraft's weapons with also flying, ...'

Also, in the space combat section, it covers multiple folks being able to 'occupy the same position.' (Er...)

And there are 'automated positions' - explicitly stating 'Fire Control programs can either act as gunners or aid existing gunners.' (No aid for 'non-existing' gunners... )

 

[Carlobrand]

HG would treat a mixed turret in a scout (let's say the typical laser/missile/sandcaster) as 3 different batteries that require 3 gunners, so, they either are remote controled or you'd better have quite small gunners to fit all three in a turret.
...

That's why I use trained chickens.

 

[PFVA63]

That's why I use trained chickens.

Hi,

Pigeons might be better

http://cyberneticzoo.com/?p=5819

 

[pendragonman]

Great, you guys will get the ASPCA after us ( or rather, the imperial equivalent); and all I was worried about was breaking child labor laws with using the toddlers high on Frosted Flakes.

 

[McPerth]

Actually, pg 50 of the main book, under Multiple Actions - 'A character can try to do two or more things at once, like firing a spacecraft's weapons with also flying, ...'

True, but this is though (or I understand so) as emergency ad hoc situations, not as filling two crew positions (as would a lonely scout acting as Pilot and Engineer in a Scout/courier), and no mention is giving to how this affects salaries if some crewmembers are asked to fill two positions.

Also, in the space combat section, it covers multiple folks being able to 'occupy the same position.' (Er...)

Aside of what I told above, what I can find in MgT:CB space combat (pages 146 and 150) is about a crewmember switching from a position to another, not filling two at once.

See that if you apply those rules to a single seat fighter, the Pilot could either pilot the craft or fire the weapons each combat round, but not both at once (but see below).

And there are 'automated positions' - explicitly stating 'Fire Control programs can either act as gunners or aid existing gunners.'

Sure, and I guess most single seat fighters will leave the weapons to a fire control program But that will mean using skill 0 in the fighter shown in page 136, as its computer has only rating 5 (and wait, its software doesn't list the Fire Control/1 program, so this will add MCr 2 to the price, about a 10% price raising...).

(No aid for 'non-existing' gunners... )

I disagree with you here, as in the example is shown that among Fire Control/3 options it may (...) make one attack with a +2 DM (page 113, ship software table, under Fire Control programs), so, IMHO, it can aid this "non existing gunner" with whatever remains of its capability.

 

[McPerth]

That's why I use trained chickens.

Hi,

Pigeons might be better

http://cyberneticzoo.com/?p=5819

And so you also have an emergency food reserve... Nice idea :devil:

 

[Amber Chancer]

In fact it will need 7 (chief gunnery officer, 3 petty officiers, one per weapon type, and the 3 gunners) but only the gunners need to be in the turret if you assume it must be maned localy.

Leaving aside Mike's point that ships of 1,000 and under get crews in accordance with LBB2 rules, this is not how I read the HG crew rules.

The engineering section gets one crew member per 100 tons of drives, which must include a chief engineer, a second engineer, and several petty officers: 10% officers and 20% petty officers overall (I take the view that the chief engineer must ALWAYS be an officer; but that on a ship with less than 2,000 tons of drives the second engineer may be a petty officer, so the irreducible officer requirement in this section is 1, not 2.

Gunnery, similarly, requires a chief gunnery officer and at least one petty officer for each type of weapon aboard, but again I have always assumed that these are drawn from AMONG the total crew requirement of the weapons mix (1 per 100 tons of spinal mount; 2 per bay weapon; 1 per battery of turrets and 4 per screen) and not in addition to it.

I have tried to check these assumptions by reverse-engineering the smaller >1,000 ton designs in Fighting Ships ... but this doesn't work. I always arrive at an irreducible minimum of 10 officers (7 in the command section, and one each in the engineering, gunnery and service sections) and yet the Midu Agashaam is said to have a crew requirement of 6 officers and 27 ratings; whilst the P. F. Sloan apparently gets by with 8 officers and 32 ratings, and the jump ship at page 22 (I never could figure why this appeared in Fighting Ships!!!) has no gunnery section to test on - and still manages to be slightly light in officers, with only 8 of them.

The Kinunir is the only one which appears to meet the HG minimum officer standard - but I believe it was originally designed according to a slightly different rule set in any event.

 

[Amber Chancer]

And so you also have an emergency food reserve... Nice idea :devil:

Chickens will feed you for longer ... and they lay better eggs.

 

[McPerth]

Leaving aside Mike's point that ships of 1,000 and under get crews in accordance with LBB2 rules, this is not how I read the HG crew rules.

The engineering section gets one crew member per 100 tons of drives, which must include a chief engineer, a second engineer, and several petty officers: 10% officers and 20% petty officers overall (I take the view that the chief engineer must ALWAYS be an officer; but that on a ship with less than 2,000 tons of drives the second engineer may be a petty officer, so the irreducible officer requirement in this section is 1, not 2.

Gunnery, similarly, requires a chief gunnery officer and at least one petty officer for each type of weapon aboard, but again I have always assumed that these are drawn from AMONG the total crew requirement of the weapons mix (1 per 100 tons of spinal mount; 2 per bay weapon; 1 per battery of turrets and 4 per screen) and not in addition to it.

I'm afraid I fully disagree with you here, as is usually a bad idea to give the command people in any organization other roles than just commanding/supervising. If you chief gunnery officer is busy firing its own weapon, gunnery sections is left without command. I see those gunnery chief officer and weapon petty officies as the internal command section of the gunnery section. IIRC (I have it not handy now) in AHL bridge there is the position for the gunnery officer, so his post is in the bridge, not at any weapons post.

IMHO, this will be as saying the flight control officier of the flight section may also be crewing one of the crafts the ship carries. IMHO again this could only be possible ithere are crafts specifically designed for flight control and direction (akin the current AWACs).

Another thing is how many crew (crafts, in the flight case) you must have in each section to need this "internal command" personnel

 

[McPerth]

Chickens will feed you for longer ... and they lay better eggs.

You're right,I didn't think about the eggs... That will make them more than emergency food reserve.

Even though, you'll need a rooster for them to lay eggs (guess who the chief gunnery officer is) :devil:

 

[Amber Chancer]

it is usually a bad idea to give the command people in any organization other roles than just commanding/supervising.

I agree - but there is no shortage of historical precedents for it being done.

Not every tank that was ever built had a 3-man turret (nor even a 2-man turret).

The captain of a Lancaster bomber was expected both to command the other crew members (gunners included) and fly the thing.

The post of the torpedo officer on a destroyer (in the days when destroyers still had torpedos) was at the torpedos, not on the bridge.

The gunnery officer on a Flower class corvette was also the gun commender of the 4" (OK, so it only had a 4" and a pom-pom).

On larger vessels, yes, where they could afford the luxury of a complete separation of command from operational function, they went for it. On smaller vessels, however, they didn't.

In traveller terms, the larger vessels have spinal mounts; and I rationalise that the "1 per 100 tons" includes those who have purely command functions, and are not "hands on".

And of course, the presence of the gunnery officer on the bridge of any particular ship does not resolve the question of WHAT he is doing there. In the 19th and early to mid 20th centuries, it was doubtless necessary to be physically located AT a weapon to be involved in the working of it. But even by WWII this was untrue. A spitfire had 8 machineguns in its wings. But they weren't fired by a man in the wings ... they were fired by a man in the cockpit, not the wings.

I agree that there is room for more than one interpretation; but I have always viewed the "chief gunnery officer" role as being principally an administrative / management role for the gunnery branch when NOT at action stations. When at action stations, the targeting and command decisions come from the bridge and each weapon's crew (having been drilled to an efficient state by the chief gunnery officer and the petty officers at other times) responds independently to those commands. i.e. I suppose a minimally flat command structure, which increases efficiency. In such a model of the functioning of the ship at action stations, there is nothing incongruous in officers with administrative / management roles at other times being expected to roll up the sleeves of their vacc suits and muck in with the working of the weapon systems.

 

[Amber Chancer]

You're right,I didn't think about the eggs... That will make them more than emergency food reserve.

Even though, you'll need a rooster for them to lay eggs (guess who the chief gunnery officer is) :devil:

Trust somebody to come along, take a perfectly good analogy, and cock it up ...

 

[McPerth]

On larger vessels, yes, where they could afford the luxury of a complete separation of command from operational function, they went for it. On smaller vessels, however, they didn't.

That's why I said a minimal crew should be stated to need those section command staff.

In traveller terms, the larger vessels have spinal mounts; and I rationalise that the "1 per 100 tons" includes those who have purely command functions, and are not "hands on".

I envision a gun commander (probably officer status too) in the spinal, but the chieff gunner officer job is not any particular weapon (IMHO).

I agree that there is room for more than one interpretation; but I have always viewed the "chief gunnery officer" role as being principally an administrative / management role for the gunnery branch when NOT at action stations. When at action stations, the targeting and command decisions come from the bridge and each weapon's crew (having been drilled to an efficient state by the chief gunnery officer and the petty officers at other times) responds independently to those commands. i.e. I suppose a minimally flat command structure, which increases efficiency. In such a model of the functioning of the ship at action stations, there is nothing incongruous in officers with administrative / management roles at other times being expected to roll up the sleeves of their vacc suits and muck in with the working of the weapon systems.

And this (the underscored part) is what I see the jobs for the chief gunnery officer and the weapons petty officers in the bridge (on ships large enough to have them).

This targeting and coordination is their main job (IMHO), not directing any weapon (not even the spinal) in combat. In routine operations (when not in combat) and in jump time, I agree their main job would be administrative and (algong with enineering/techincal crew) maintenance of the weapons themselves.

 

[Amber Chancer]

I don't really think we're that far apart here, McP.

For me, the guys who give the orders at the part which you have underlined are to be found in the officers of the Command Section - hence the title of the section.

The guys who carry them out, so far as gunnery is concerned, are found in the Gunnery Section. The guys in the gunnery section work the guns. Some of them are officers. The most senior gunnery officer is the "Senior Gunnery Officer". He has overall administrative and executive responsibility for delivering an efficient, effective gunnery section to enable the captain to fight the ship. But he is both officer and gunner, in just the same way that the chief engineer is both officer and engineer. Thus, both roles are found from within the complement of the gunnery and engineering sections, rather than being supernumaries who are in addition to it.

But if you want to read it the other way - I'm not going to argue that you're wrong. The rules admit of either interpretation. The important thing is that in any given game, everybody knows which interpretation is to be followed in ample time to ensure they design ships which comply! THere's nothign worse than having to accommodate your chief gunnery officer in an exterior rumble seat ... :rofl: