Battle Dress

[kristof65]

Leak lower, yes, but flashover not so. Partially, or totally, empty tanks allow the liquid/gas to expand, making ignition MORE likely.

This also, of course, depends on how the tanks are baffled.

More than likely, a starship's fuel tanks will be baffled in some increments like 1 to 5 tons, and as each section is drained, it will be closed off, and probably set to at least a partial vacuum. Baffling serves a couple of purposes - one is to help prevent the fuel mass from shifting during manuevers, another would be to reduce potentially explosive places.

 

[GypsyComet]

Past sources have described the fuel tankage as baffled both to prevent wild swings in flying trim and to prevent battle damage from blowing out ALL of the tanks. Note that the damage results in the original High Guard were for 10% of the tankage at a shot unless a critical hit ("Fuel tankage shattered") was scored.

As long as the plumbing can handle the massive needs of the jump drive, sub-division of the tankage is not a problem.

 

[opensent]

Oh I get it, when a boarder shoots the fuel tank, it is on the inside of the ship, but when another ship shoots the same fuel tank it is on the outside. Makes perfect sense that way.

Now try this. Close your hand on fire cracker (1 point MPA). Now open your hand and set off grenade (4D6 Particle bay). Of course the firecracker is worse becsue you closed your hand, thyat many times more powerful grenade is not going to blow your face off.

Besides, there is nothing to keep that bay from punching through both sides of that tank, after all it is so thin on the inside an MPA can punch it, so the bay goes off on the inside as well.

Look at the damage bands on the table. If ships are that fragile, the penetrating hit should turn them inside out. Doesnt seem to be a result for that, so again, explain why peneteating hits dont cause this tremendous damage, yet an MPA does.

Or is it just that you dont care about logic, just dont want PCs to use heavy guns in boarding action. Fine by me, its your game. But dont try to dress it up as if it isnt inconsistant for me.

By your logic, firing an RPG inside of a tank, or a shooting a cannon inside of a battleship and be fine because they can take those types of hits from the outside without blowing up...

Things (Ships, buildings, etc.) are engineered to take damage, load and stress in certain ways. They generally fail when they take similar damage, loads or stress in way they were not designed for. Even if the damage is of a lower order of magnitude, it can still be catastrophic.

 

[kristof65]

By your logic, firing an RPG inside of a tank, or a shooting a cannon inside of a battleship and be fine because they can take those types of hits from the outside without blowing up...

He never said that, you're twisting things to suit your argument.

Things (Ships, buildings, etc.) are engineered to take damage, load and stress in certain ways. They generally fail when they take similar damage, loads or stress in way they were not designed for. Even if the damage is of a lower order of magnitude, it can still be catastrophic.

Note that you said "CAN still be catastrophic." That's a far cry from "MUST be catastrophic. It's all about odds.

We're all gamers here (I think), and therefore are used to dealing with dice and odds. We should have a better understanding how people deal with odds than most people do. When the odds are in their favor, people do deadly things all the time - like drive without buckling up, or smoking, or possibly even firing an FGMP inside a starship...

 

[GypsyComet]

With boarding actions, it isn't so much a matter of bringing heavy weapons, but of bringing the *right* heavy weapons.

For close shipboard work, I'd consider the "smaller-at-any-TL" PGMP or Plasma Rifle over the larger FGMP. Both are "smoking boots" weapons.

Alternately, battledress allows for some fairly silly slug-thrower options that might be far more useful. 4-gauge full-auto shotgun, anyone? A slug can be engineered to be frangible against bulkheads while still being plenty dangerous vs personal armor.

 

[opensent]

By your logic, firing an RPG inside of a tank, or a shooting a cannon inside of a battleship and be fine because they can take those types of hits from the outside without blowing up...

He never said that, you're twisting things to suit your argument.

I'm not twisting anything. If his contention is that my conclusion is illogical, then I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of taking his premise to its logical conclusion. The damage chart can't reliably predict internal damage because it fundamentally assumes attacks happen from outside the ship.

 

[Infojunky]

Things (Ships, buildings, etc.) are engineered to take damage, load and stress in certain ways. They generally fail when they take similar damage, loads or stress in way they were not designed for. Even if the damage is of a lower order of magnitude, it can still be catastrophic.

Ah... I see you are forgetting Meson weapons.... And with such in the 'verse internal explosions are taken into account.

 

[opensent]

Things (Ships, buildings, etc.) are engineered to take damage, load and stress in certain ways. They generally fail when they take similar damage, loads or stress in way they were not designed for. Even if the damage is of a lower order of magnitude, it can still be catastrophic.

Ah... I see you are forgetting Meson weapons.... And with such in the 'verse internal explosions are taken into account.

Thanks for proving my point!

Yes, in classic traveller (pg 48 high guard) meson weapon internal hits are handled on a special chart with three times the chance of critical than external hits.
That's three times the chance of the ship being vapoized on the critical chart.

Internal damage is fundamentally different from external damage and more/more destructive in comparison.

 

[AKAramis]

CT Bk2 baffles at 10 tons per hit.

 

[kristof65]

Things (Ships, buildings, etc.) are engineered to take damage, load and stress in certain ways. They generally fail when they take similar damage, loads or stress in way they were not designed for. Even if the damage is of a lower order of magnitude, it can still be catastrophic.

Ah... I see you are forgetting Meson weapons.... And with such in the 'verse internal explosions are taken into account.

Thanks for proving my point!

Yes, in classic traveller (pg 48 high guard) meson weapon internal hits are handled on a special chart with three times the chance of critical than external hits.
That's three times the chance of the ship being vapoized on the critical chart.

Internal damage is fundamentally different from external damage and more/more destructive in comparison.

That doesn't prove anything. First off, Meson weapons don't roll on a "special chart", they simply bypass the Surface Explosions table and go straight to the Interior Explosions table. Secondly, it's not three times more chance of a critical, since you're rolling on 2d6 and adding DMs. And before you jump and say that makes it even more likely, start looking at the ENTIRE table.

On the Interior Explosion table, there are three critical results (2, 3 & 4), plus one "Fuel Tanks Shattered" result (a 5). On the Surface Explosion table, there is one critical result (a 2), plus three "Interior Explosion" results (3, 4 & 5) - which jumps you over to the Interior Explosion table, plus FIVE Fuel results (7, 10, 13, 16 & 19). I haven't computed the actual odds, but even in CTs HG, it looks more likely to hit a fuel tank via a beam or missile weapon than via a meson weapon.

And even if you do get a critical and have to roll on the Critical chart, the chance of a Ship Vaporized result is still only 2.7778% (roll a 2 on 2d6).

Yes, internal damage can be more catastrophic, but that doesn't make it it so dangerous that the odds say plasma and fusion weapons can't/won't be used in boarding actiions. It just means you have to be more careful, because if things go wrong, it's a bigger boom.

Note that I'm not disagreeing that the use of PGMPs and FGMPs in boarding actions isn't dangerous, nor am I saying that the interior's of ships are as fortified as the exterior of ships. What I'm saying is that the odds of a catastrophy aren't high enough to forebear the use of them in a lot of cases.

A flare gun can put a hole in the hull of a fiberglass boat - but the Coast Guard still recommends that boats carry them...

 

[Maedhros]

Besides, unless you have mixed oxygen in with the H2 you are not going to get a boom, just a fire around the breach hole. And a fire that will go out soon anyway, as there is not enough volume of O2 in all the coridors to oxidize a full tank of fuel anyway.

A Fusion Gun hit would, theoretically, cause a volume of the impacted hydrogen to fuse into helium. Wouldn't need to be that much, really, to make a boom...

 

[zozotroll]

Besides, unless you have mixed oxygen in with the H2 you are not going to get a boom, just a fire around the breach hole. And a fire that will go out soon anyway, as there is not enough volume of O2 in all the coridors to oxidize a full tank of fuel anyway.

A Fusion Gun hit would, theoretically, cause a volume of the impacted hydrogen to fuse into helium. Wouldn't need to be that much, really, to make a boom...

It isnt just the temp, it is also the preasure, and I am not sure you can get a high enough spike to cause it to fuse. but you are correct that would be a bad thing.

And again, the much higher energy of a ships weapon is much more likely to cause this to happen.

The thing is, if you are dead, you are dead. It is user transparent if you have a stab wound to the heart, or are a small expanding cloud of plasma, you are still dead.

Real troops in all times and all wars have used the most effective weapon they can lay hands on . And when something pops up in front of you, you shoot what you got, because if you dont, you are dead.The ship blowing up is next second, you have to survive this second to get there. I dop not see that in the future that is likely to change much.

Spar torpedos are a pretty scarry way to do the job, but they certainly where used. There are numerous acounts of soldiers throwing grenades just past an enemy, even though the thrower is still in the blast radius. yes they got hurt but the other guy got it worse.

I have never cleared a ship, but I have been taught to clear buildings and trenches. Backblast inside a room sucks, but you gotta see the other guy.

And, if it is so likely to explode, why are you bothering to board anyway? Just so you can wave your silly cutlas about? That sounds like Noble officer horse apples.Enlisted marines are going to bring thier squad weapons, and that will include a few heavies, because you never know. And if you accidently blow up the ship[, at least the other bastards had to go first. bet it makes the next batch of sorry donkey pogues think twice about resisting a boarding.

 

[AKAramis]

Besides, unless you have mixed oxygen in with the H2 you are not going to get a boom, just a fire around the breach hole. And a fire that will go out soon anyway, as there is not enough volume of O2 in all the coridors to oxidize a full tank of fuel anyway.

A Fusion Gun hit would, theoretically, cause a volume of the impacted hydrogen to fuse into helium. Wouldn't need to be that much, really, to make a boom...

Unlikely. The fusing plasma won't keep fusing without constriction, and will rapidly cool as well.

 

[opensent]

Real troops in all times and all wars have used the most effective weapon they can lay hands on . And when something pops up in front of you, you shoot what you got, because if you dont, you are dead.The ship blowing up is next second, you have to survive this second to get there. I dop not see that in the future that is likely to change much.

I disagree with this entirely. Lance Corporal Snuffy does not/not get to write his own rules of engagement.

Real troops in times of war have not/not used the most effective weapons available. Delta Force and Rangers in Somalia were specifically denied the AC-130 and armored vehicle support they requested because of concerns about collateral damage. Flamethrowers have yet to be used to clear caves in Afghanistan or Iraq, despite their clear and considerable advantages in these combat applications.

What Marines get to carry will be determined at a much higher level in the chain of command and when faced with a 2.77% (or whatever it is) chance of destroying a ship entirely, MPA will be off the table. Small arms and melee weapons will be the order of the day.

 

[Infojunky]

Flamethrowers have yet to be used to clear caves in Afghanistan or Iraq, despite their clear and considerable advantages in these combat applications.

Point of order, there are no Flamethrowers in the U.S. armed forces arsenal. DoD removed them in 1978.

 

[opensent]

Flamethrowers have yet to be used to clear caves in Afghanistan or Iraq, despite their clear and considerable advantages in these combat applications.

Point of order, there are no Flamethrowers in the U.S. armed forces arsenal. DoD removed them in 1978.

And why did they do that? It wasn't because they were not effective in room clearing. If anything, this weapon system is too effective this role.

<rehetorical question> Perhaps there was some decision, made above the E-3 level that caused that to happen? Hmmm...</rehorical question>

 

[Infojunky]

Flamethrowers have yet to be used to clear caves in Afghanistan or Iraq, despite their clear and considerable advantages in these combat applications.

Point of order, there are no Flamethrowers in the U.S. armed forces arsenal. DoD removed them in 1978.

And why did they do that? It wasn't because they were not effective in room clearing.

<rehetorical question> Perhaps there was some decision, made above the E-3 level that caused that to happen? Hmmm...</rehorical question>

Most likely it was do to the horrific types of wound it causes.

 

[opensent]

Point of order, there are no Flamethrowers in the U.S. armed forces arsenal. DoD removed them in 1978.

And why did they do that? It wasn't because they were not effective in room clearing.

<rehetorical question> Perhaps there was some decision, made above the E-3 level that caused that to happen? Hmmm...</rehorical question>

Most likely it was do to the horrific types of wound it causes.

Exactly. The weapon is a victim of its own success. It's so good at what it does, it was removed from service. And that's a weapon that doesn't present a signficant chance of blowing up yourself, your ship, the enemy, and the enemies ship!!

So if DOD would do this a weapon system, why wouldn't the Imperium?

TNS: 031-998 - The Admiralty today banned the use of high energy weapons during shipboard operations due to the general dangers posed by these weapon systems during boarding operations. Captain Eneri Ugaama, spokesman for the board of Admirals said that the weapons would be limited to use during ground assault operations.

 

[AKAramis]

Ben:
nothing other than the previously published TO&E's for various units in Striker II...

 

[zozotroll]

Removed from inventory, not removed from Snuffys hands. And you know why? Because if they where available, they would be used.

So if MPA are removed from inventory, then the marines wont use them, no argument there. But then they are not in the invantory.

As for ROE, the writers of those are far away, and not sitting on Snuffys shoulder grabbing his wrist so he cant fire. Remember Aliens, no heavies, but oops, somebody brought one anyway? And yes it screwed up things, but without that one heavy nobody would have made it out.

As for in theatre assets that cant be used, again that happens a lot, but the decision is not in the hands of the grunts on the ground.Nor thier immedieate commander.

Besides, none of this has yet to address the defenders. You know, they guys the marines are going to kill with thier cutlasses. They know where the fuel is, so they can position the heavies where theyy wont hit the plstic fuel tanks. So the cutlass guys get to charge into modern weapons fire playing blackbeard. Might make the recruiters have to work a hell of a lot harder to make up for that kind of exchange rate.

Again, it just brings up why board at all? Capture the Admiral? For what? Once he is dead, no more problems from him. Hostage rescue? In a boarding action that will end in a plasma ball when somebody throws a grenade because of the plastic fuel tanks/ Intell? Where most of it is electronic, and can be dumped with a few key strokes?