Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4332
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby phavoc » Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:10 pm

If your carrier is an escorts carrier, it doesn't need max armor, or much max of anything. Escorts carriers are typically designed to do the job, but not to be minaturized fleet carriers.

And carriers would typically have escorts as well. Staying withing the very stupid hangar rules (they really are very stupid) keeping the launch tube and recovery deck are ok. You should still add some additional hangar space for search and rescue craft to retrieve pilots and craft that are unable to return to the carrier under their own power. And you would still need smaller sub craft for personnel and supply transport.

Capital craft definition is too small in MGT rules. Basically the tule is saying any frigate or small destroyer is a capital ship. That's way too generous. If you want to look at where the definitions came from then a heavy cruiser would typically be at the lowest end of the capital ship definition. Otherwise just about any warship is considered a capital ship. And that makes the definition superfluous.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:57 pm

MGT HG 2ed has destroyers at the most 3,000t and the only 5,000t vessel the Sloan Escort as being a sub-capital.

The merchant cruiser is more the civilian version of cruiser.

As for cruisers, all cruiser are by definition capital ships and are the most numerous class of capitals.

The battle-cruiser wasn't the only cruiser class ship termed a capital ship, carriers which had a variety of tonnage were also classed as capital ships before the creation of the super carriers.

A better way to put this, cruisers are the most numerous and varied capital ships.
Linwood
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Linwood » Tue Dec 26, 2017 12:44 am

Keep in mind outside of game mechanics what counts as a capital vessel may be a bit subjective. An Imperial destroyer might seem like a battlecruiser to a TL 8 system defense navy.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:40 am

I remember the US cruiser gap and all the fun that was.

This is why I try to stick with the current rule set and the definitions. ( Although I do sometimes get suckered into MT Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium.)
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6536
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:56 am

Cruisers were never considered capital ships, which is why there was a South American battleship arms race.

Destroyers nowadays aren't considered capital ships, despite being the size of early twentieth century cruisers.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Sigtrygg » Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:03 am

The term cruiser has changed its meaning almost as much as the term destroyer over the years.

A cruiser was originally a mission type - a ship rigged for ocean sailing and with enough stores to make it from one end of empire to the other. It became a ship 'class' as a means of subverting the intent of naval treaties, not to mention getting procurement through...
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6536
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:24 am

It was an understood and defined category of warships by the end of the Victorian era.

It was a more rigidly defined category in naval treaties, so that they can't be used to subvert the intent of said arms limitations.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:10 am

The reason for naming larger vessels destroyers in the current era is to hide the fact the ships are essentially cruisers, especially after the cold war when trying to justify new builds.

And to get back on track, what level of armour would a 5,00t ship need to possess? Especially given the major threat is missiles.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4332
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby phavoc » Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:04 pm

baithammer wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:10 am
The reason for naming larger vessels destroyers in the current era is to hide the fact the ships are essentially cruisers, especially after the cold war when trying to justify new builds.

And to get back on track, what level of armour would a 5,00t ship need to possess? Especially given the major threat is missiles.
It wasn't to hide the fact at all. It was a/ is a mix of scope creep, size creep, budget maneuver creep. And yes, today's destroyers are the size of cruisers of ww2 era. Then again accommodations are a lot better for the crew. So the extra size is appreciated. :) not that it's the only reason.

Armor depends on the mission. An escorts carrier is supposed to be for missions where it's not expected to come under a lot of fire, so it should be lightly armore to reflect it's deployment needs as well as a reduction in costs.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6536
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:37 pm

As I recall, the original escort carriers were used as convoy protection.

As they got bigger, they were tasked to provide cover for bombardment and amphibious operations.

The only time they faced serious opposition, was:

The Battle off Samar was the centermost action of the Battle of Leyte Gulf, one of the largest naval battles in history, which took place in the Philippine Sea off Samar Island, in the Philippines on October 25, 1944. As the only major action in the larger battle where the Americans were largely unprepared against the opposing forces, it has been cited by historians as one of the greatest military mismatches in naval history.[2]
Adm. William Halsey, Jr. was lured into taking his powerful 3rd Fleet after a decoy fleet, leaving only three escort carrier groups of the 7th Fleet. The escort carriers and destroyer escorts which had been designed to protect slow convoys from submarine attack had been repurposed to attack ground targets, and had few torpedoes as they could normally rely on Halsey's fleet to protect them from any threats from armored warships. A Japanese surface force of battleships and cruisers, battered earlier in the larger battle and thought to have been in retreat, instead turned around unobserved and encountered the northernmost of the three groups, Task Unit 77.4.3 ("Taffy 3"), commanded by Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague. Taffy 3's seven destroyers and destroyer escorts possessed neither the firepower nor armor to effectively oppose the 23 ships of the Japanese force, but nevertheless desperately attacked with 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal guns and torpedoes to cover the retreat of their slow "jeep" carriers. Aircraft from the carriers of Taffy 1, 2, and 3, including FM-2 Wildcats, F6F Hellcats and TBM Avengers, strafed, bombed, torpedoed, rocketed, depth-charged, fired at least one .38 caliber handgun and made numerous "dry" runs at the Japanese force when the American planes ultimately ran out of ammunition.[3][4]
Sprague's task unit lost two escort carriers, two destroyers, a destroyer escort and several aircraft. Over a thousand Americans died, comparable to the combined losses of American men and ships at the better known Battles of the Coral Sea and Midway. But in exchange for the heavy losses for such a small force, they sank or disabled three Japanese cruisers and caused enough confusion to persuade the Japanese commander, Vice Admiral Takeo Kurita, to regroup and ultimately withdraw, rather than advancing to sink troop and supply ships at Leyte Gulf. In the combined Battle of Leyte Gulf, 10,000 Japanese sailors and 3,000 Americans died. Although the battleship Yamato and the remaining force returned to Japan, the battles marked the final defeat of the Japanese Navy, as the ships remained in port for most of the rest of the war and ceased to be an effective naval force.[5]
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:12 pm

What I envision this design to do is escort smaller convoys ( That wouldn't warrant a cruiser escort.) and sub-capital warship groups. ( Extending Sensor Range via Distributed Array and Fighter Patrol.)

So, given the above what armour would be appropriate?
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4332
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby phavoc » Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:00 am

baithammer wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:12 pm
What I envision this design to do is escort smaller convoys ( That wouldn't warrant a cruiser escort.) and sub-capital warship groups. ( Extending Sensor Range via Distributed Array and Fighter Patrol.)

So, given the above what armour would be appropriate?
Armor factor 4 to 6. I'd max out your turret count to offset the loss of armor and provide more protection against small craft and missiles. You could even throw in some sand turrets to give yourself some added protection. Most player designs always max out the turret count. You are using quad turrets, which isn't standard, so those would need to drop to triple. But going to armor 6 would free up 240 tons and enough credits which would easily pay for the turrets. You should also use the tonnage to set aside magazine space if you planned on having any ordnance for the fighters and sand barrels if you installed sandcasters. Plus you would need some smaller craft, at least pinnace sized, for S&R and general utility. That will quickly eat up your tonnage savings from the armor.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:36 am

Revised

Image
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:11 am

baithammer wrote: So, given the above what armour would be appropriate?
Either heavy armour or basically none.

If you intend to take the ship into battle it needs the same defences as any other warship, max armour and max turrets.
If you intend to keep out of battle, it needs none. Your defence is your drives, and ultimately jump capability.

A little armour will do very little to protect you, better spend the space on more craft or better accomodations for long patrols.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:55 am

If you intend to take the ship into battle it needs the same defences as any other warship, max armour and max turrets
Which isn't true in all cases, sometimes you need something other than a hammer. ( Also have to watch power usage at times.)

The design is meant to augment the escorts of smaller scale convoys and small warship fleets ( Under 5Kdt), as such needs to stick with the assigned fleet which is one of the reasons for launch tube /recovery deck. ( Keeps mobile.) The second part is its supposed to act as "radar ship" as none of the other escorts / fleet members are likely to have distributed arrays.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6536
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Condottiere » Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:37 pm

Fleet carriers primary defense are it's own air wings and their cruiser escorts, their high speed, plus a buffer zone provided by battle groups and submarines.

Escort carriers have their air wing and destroyer escorts; by definition, they are expected to away from the frontline.

The hull is a relatively cheap but viable commercial variant; it's meant to be disposable.

I think that the emphasis would be on the survival of the crew.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:14 pm

baithammer wrote:
If you intend to take the ship into battle it needs the same defences as any other warship, max armour and max turrets
Which isn't true in all cases, sometimes you need something other than a hammer. ( Also have to watch power usage at times.)
I don't understand your point. If you allow enemy warships into range you will face the same threats as any other warship, e.g. massive missile salvoes and fighters. Without defences the ship would just be an easy kill.

A few turrets take quite some tonnage, primarily for gunners, but much less than armour. Power is very cheap, especially at TL15, and you already have plenty of power overcapacity (~700 Power). Fixed mounts with missile racks takes no tonnage or power and are very cheap.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4332
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby phavoc » Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:23 pm

I think this better reflects what an escort carrier would look like.

I don't think the "no armor" concept is a good idea Another Dilbert. Warships never know where they might get attacked. A ship of this class isn't supposed to tangle with other ships. But most enemies tend to not do what you want them to do. It is true some earlier warships gave up armor for guns or speed, but nearly all of those designs were treaty warships. Once the treaties were discarded the designs went back to being more about the mission.

An escorts ship isn't meant to be a front line warship, but it's still a warship and it still expects to fight. Now if this was an auxiliary carrier, I think then going with zero armor and minimal weapons would be appropriate.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:55 pm

Since you need the launch tube and recovery decks at the ready, there is only 36 power left.

Not to mention the other escorts bring the guns, this escort carrier is more about extending the sensor range of the attached fleet so it has more time to react as well as acting as a bug zapper for overconfident pirates.

Just need to figure out the tipping point on armour against sub-capital opposition.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:14 pm

baithammer wrote: Since you need the launch tube and recovery decks at the ready, there is only 36 power left.
Yes, sorry, I missed the power consumption of the tubes.

Still, power is very cheap and you have a 500 Power margin in the basic systems power requirement, since you can turn off half of the basic systems for short periods of time, e.g. in combat.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: paltrysum and 14 guests