heavy missile barbette/bay/etc

[Nerhesi]

High-guard:

Listed in a table are values/stats for weight/cost for "heavy missile barbette" and "heavy missile bay" - 2 options, 50 and 100 ton.

I can accept that the 50 ton is a regular bay (12 missiles) and the other is the 24 missile bay. But what is the barbette? 2 missiles?

 

[DickTurpin]

"Heavy missile" is another name for torpedo, a new weapon type introduced in High Guard. A Barbette is a new, much heavier version of a turret. Descriptions of both can be found on page 48 of HG.

Standard missiles do not use the barbette mount. A heavy missile (torpedo) barbette fires a single torpedo, a 50 ton bay shoots three torpedoes, and a 100 ton bay fires six.

 

[Nerhesi]

Thanks for clearing this up very well

So there is Missile Rack, Missile Bay in the Core rule book.

In HG, there is Torpedo Barbette, Torpedo Bay, Torpedo Heavy Bay and Missile Heavy Bay

 

[F33D]

The whole turret/barrette/movable mounts for missiles is a bit silly. Missiles are not like rail guns. They can maneuver on their own. They would more likely be set up similar to VLS's on modern warships. Also, all batteries would be considered to be "bearing" no matter the size/configuration of ship.

 

[JP42]

The whole turret/barrette/movable mounts for missiles is a bit silly. Missiles are not like rail guns. They can maneuver on their own. They would more likely be set up similar to VLS's on modern warships. Also, all batteries would be considered to be "bearing" no matter the size/configuration of ship.

Agreed, given the turn length of space combat in Traveller (and most space combat games) the notion of batteries bearing is a bit daft, especially with self-guided munitions with their own source of thrust.

 

[phavoc]

Under the rules barbette's are considered "heavy" turrets. They are necessary to mount the larger weapons that utilize a single hardpoint.

Other's have already explained the differences in missile labels.

And I totally agree that missiles never should be placed in a turret. A missile mount should be either a one-shot system (like VLS systems today), or it should be from an internal launcher with a magazine. Missiles are somewhat of an anomaly in the game system as far as the rules go. There have been some attempts (search the forums) for people to come up with house rules to address them within the system.

 

[locarno24]

The whole turret/barrette/movable mounts for missiles is a bit silly. Missiles are not like rail guns. They can maneuver on their own. They would more likely be set up similar to VLS's on modern warships. Also, all batteries would be considered to be "bearing" no matter the size/configuration of ship.

True, but in that case you can consider a barbette a single tube, and a bay or heavy bay multiple co-located tubes. It doesn't necessarily have to be a turret in an 'SM standard launcher' style.

I wouldn't be so sure about modern VLS style 'fireworks buckets' in traveller warships, though. I'm assuming traveller missiles are better at insensitive munitions technology that we are currently*, but even so, Traveller naval combat is much more a game of armoured dreadnoughts than modern naval combat - where ships are lovingly fashioned from bacofoil and good intentions**. A few heavily armoured tubes poking through the main armour belt makes more sense than a big "plz shoot 'ere for massiv secondary splozion" sign, even if you've put a clamshell over it.


Missiles can certainly be fired off-bore - it can be done now - and if you don't have to take aerodynamics in hand, then in theory you can kick them out, have them wait a second or so, flip end-over-end almost*** 180' and then fire up their drives.


* I don't think that really matters, though, in this case - tech level or not, there is a practical limit to insensitive munitions technology simply by function. Response to fire and fragment attack is one thing but if the bloody thing won't ingite when hit by a particle beam with a higher yield than a small nuke, how do you expect to set it off when you actually want to fire it?

** There is a sort of logic - mostly that even the most armoured naval battlewagon still dies horribly when faced with antiship torpedoes from a sub, whereas a traveller starship doesn't have to deal with a situation like this and can't "sink".

*** The almost is important there!

 

[F33D]

** There is a sort of logic - mostly that even the most armoured naval battlewagon still dies horribly when faced with antiship torpedoes from a sub, whereas a traveller starship doesn't have to deal with a situation like this and can't "sink".

You're making the common mistake of comparing the 2 because they both have the word ship in their name. Armoured "naval battlewagons" had belts of armour. The ENTIRE ship wasn't armoured like Trav spaceships are. A torpedo hitting the actual armour of a WW2 BB would do nothing significant. Same with modern anti-ship missiles.

 

[barnest2]

** There is a sort of logic - mostly that even the most armoured naval battlewagon still dies horribly when faced with antiship torpedoes from a sub, whereas a traveller starship doesn't have to deal with a situation like this and can't "sink".

You're making the common mistake of comparing the 2 because they both have the word ship in their name. Armoured "naval battlewagons" had belts of armour. The ENTIRE ship wasn't armoured like Trav spaceships are. A torpedo hitting the actual armour of a WW2 BB would do nothing significant. Same with modern anti-ship missiles.

The important thing is that it is much easier in the modern day to place a torpedo actually under the ship (incredibly lethal) or to put a missile into the C3 facilities (impossible to armour) or weapon mounts (very difficult to armour). The first one is the big threat though, as it would break the ships spine with a single torpedo. Rapid sinking ensues.

EDIT: Also, fireworks buckets got added in TCS ^^ One hardpoint can mount twelve missiles for a bucket full of boom. And it can fire all of them in a single go. However they can't be loaded outside of dock facilities.

 

[dragoner]

** There is a sort of logic - mostly that even the most armoured naval battlewagon still dies horribly when faced with antiship torpedoes from a sub, whereas a traveller starship doesn't have to deal with a situation like this and can't "sink".

You're making the common mistake of comparing the 2 because they both have the word ship in their name. Armoured "naval battlewagons" had belts of armour. The ENTIRE ship wasn't armoured like Trav spaceships are. A torpedo hitting the actual armour of a WW2 BB would do nothing significant. Same with modern anti-ship missiles.

The important thing is that it is much easier in the modern day to place a torpedo actually under the ship (incredibly lethal) or to put a missile into the C3 facilities (impossible to armour) or weapon mounts (very difficult to armour). The first one is the big threat though, as it would break the ships spine with a single torpedo. Rapid sinking ensues.

EDIT: Also, fireworks buckets got added in TCS ^^ One hardpoint can mount twelve missiles for a bucket full of boom. And it can fire all of them in a single go. However they can't be loaded outside of dock facilities.

I've always thought of missiles being loaded in disposable cassettes, though the original had the as "racks" in the old traders and gunboats 33 years ago:

But for mixed turrets, with missiles, it makes sense as written.

 

[coldwar]

I believe I once saw a deckplan for a fighter. (Mind this was for T20 I think, but still had the pretty much same limitation that has been brought up here.) It had a single triple turret. Two Pulse Lasers and a missile rack. However, the designer didn't place the rack in the turret, he put it in the under carriage/belly of the fighter. And then put the Pulse's in to the actual turret.
One could just assume that if the turret was out of action, that it's the control systems for the weapons.

Another, more personal view of missile racks to me, mostly in bigger ships, and extends to sandcasters, is that the turret has a hatch at the top of it that pops out the missile being fired, in the best direction the internal rack can allow. Similiar in some fashion of missiles being ejected of hardpoints off a fighter jet. Though being ejected out of a hatch, and a moment later the missile launch's.
Along the lines of missiles being ejected out, I in general think that is what missile bays would do.
Just so there's no confusion, in this, the missiles would be popped out pointing at their intended targets. The internal racks able to operate on there own, even if inside a turret holding other weaponry. Obviously in a bay it would be all the racks in the bay doing the same in the bay itself.
Though, if its a homing missile (of any kind) then the rack doesn't need to be positioned as much as it would normally need to be, before it pops the missile out of the hull/turret. (Used Hull in purpose of Missile Bays)
Once the missile is popped out the hull/turret it then begins thrusting, in all cases of missiles.

Heavy Missiles, aka, Torpedo's, I more imagine them being fired more in a fashion (Mostly Bays) to Battlestar Galactica's Nuclear arsenal.

That is my opinions though.

 

[F33D]

Though, if its a homing missile (of any kind) then the rack doesn't need to be positioned as much as it would normally need to be,

ALL missiles in Trav have to be homing. Otherwise it would be impossible to hit another ship.

 

[barnest2]

Though, if its a homing missile (of any kind) then the rack doesn't need to be positioned as much as it would normally need to be,

ALL missiles in Trav have to be homing. Otherwise it would be impossible to hit another ship.

I think the difference is between 'terminal' guidance and 'total' guidance. One gets lobbed in the right direction, correcting at the last moment for a hit, the second can attack several times in the event of a miss, turning on itself.

 

[F33D]

I think the difference is between 'terminal' guidance and 'total' guidance. One gets lobbed in the right direction, correcting at the last moment for a hit, the second can attack several times in the event of a miss, turning on itself.

With the distances involved + the high speed of target vessels, that wouldn't be remotely possible. They have to be under constant homing.

 

[locarno24]

You're making the common mistake of comparing the 2 because they both have the word ship in their name. Armoured "naval battlewagons" had belts of armour. The ENTIRE ship wasn't armoured like Trav spaceships are. A torpedo hitting the actual armour of a WW2 BB would do nothing significant. Same with modern anti-ship missiles.

Missiles certainly won't, because they're trying to punch through. I agree you could fling excocets - or , equally, warheads the same size as that in a torpedo - at a battlewagon's armour all day and all you'll knock out are light weapon mounts and aerials.

Underwater explosions don't follow the same rules - they're quirky things and don't have to detonate on contact, or even try to penetrate armour (well, not that hard, anyway). A 'textbook' heavyweight torp spread detonates below the keel, at which point the sections of the ship's structure above it goes "holy crud, where's the displacement effect that's supposed to be supporting me gone?" and cracks under its own (not normally experienced) weight.

This is one of the major reasons why the battleship died as a weapon of war and the attack submarine is currently the king of the seas.

It's not relevant for a traveller comparison, because it relies on effects that don't occur in traveller. A ship is a sphere of armour built to support its own weight and if you crack slightly it it merely becomes a slightly cracked sphere of armour - which doesn't help unless you can hit the crack again.

EDIT: Also, fireworks buckets got added in TCS ^^ One hardpoint can mount twelve missiles for a bucket full of boom. And it can fire all of them in a single go. However they can't be loaded outside of dock facilities.

True, but they're a single salvo-pack. Not a case of loading a capital ship's entire armament in one single weak spot.

With the distances involved + the high speed of target vessels, that wouldn't be remotely possible. They have to be under constant homing.

Also bear in mind that the smart missile has the potential to 'come round for another try' - which, if one ignores the fact that it should take a while to do so after a couple of turns accelerating one way - means it must be able to come about completely and track something behind it (or at least 'remember' where it was when it moved out of the sensor arc before it turns)

This isn't especially novel. A lot of modern dogfighting missiles (Sidewinder-esque things) can be fired 'off-boresight' from a fixed rail - usually paired up with some sort of slew-able sensor on the plane or a helmet display. The fighter tells the missile "I know your sensor can't currently see it, but it's there. Do whatever you do for safe separation, then immediately pull a hard 93' turn left at this altitude (or whatever) and you'll get 'im."

 

[phavoc]

I would see a VLS missile system as operating a couple of different ways. The first would be that you have an in-hull launcher attached to a magazine that has the same inherent protection a normal turret would have. You could either have the missiles launch 'hot', or 'cold' via some sort of ejection mechanism or even a small add-on booster that just shoots it free of the ship. Both exist today.

And as F33D points out, missiles and torps launched from a ship really should be 100% bearing once they cleared the shadow of the launching vessel, then be able to light-off it's motor for it's flight. The Traveller system doesn't take into account any sort of bonus from using a launcher (such as a speed bonus), so there's no difference if you toss it out an airlock or fire from a 100ton bay. It's all the same.

The other VLS system would involve having boxed launchers mounted into the hull on various locations of the ship. Today you see the same thing, with launchers mounted fore and aft, and even amidships for things like RAM or SSM's. The bonus to that would be saturation salvo's, with the drawback being they are one-shot, and then you have to rely upon your energy weapons or internal systems.

The mention of missiles being too 'delicate' to be mounted externally was also part of the Starfire gaming universe. There they solved that problem with the concept of internal and external launchers. The advantage was your initial salvo was the largest, the disadvantage being if you were attacked with missiles externally, the EMP would burn them out and they would become junk. So they were one-shot weapons launched in the beginning.

In order to keep the game balanced, by increasing utility of missiles you'd have to also add in counter-missile and point defense. But that's best left to a different thread.

 

[F33D]

Also bear in mind that the smart missile has the potential to 'come round for another try' - which, if one ignores the fact that it should take a while to do so after a couple of turns accelerating one way - means it must be able to come about completely and track something behind it (or at least 'remember' where it was when it moved out of the sensor arc before it turns)

I alter the rules to fit the inescapable reality (as you mention above) and include the total turns needed. So, if the target is 5 turns out and the missile misses it must take 5 turns to "stop" and would take another 5 turns to get back to target.

 

[coldwar]

forgive my vagueness, I didn't mean a rocket type missile when I implied a non homing missile. I meant to imply the difference between a missile that tracks a target directly ahead of it, where it is launched it needs to be pointed at the target as well. Where once target is detected it can then make fine corrections, but if it miss's it loss's its track of the target unable to detect anything infront of it.
And where I mentioned Homing missile, I meant where it can be assigned track a source of transmission, very likely the targets IFF (Or can be anything else easily definable), where it can track it in all directions with out having to be pointed at it. Just simply assigned the data it is required to track and can sense in all directions.

Just How I remember the differences with normal missiles and Smart missiles. (Yes I give them misnomers of sorts, shoot me. Looks down at the floor.)

 

[F33D]

forgive my vagueness, I didn't mean a rocket type missile when I implied a non homing missile. I meant to imply the difference between a missile that tracks a target directly ahead of it, where it is launched it needs to be pointed at the target as well.

With the size of missiles in Trav and the distances involved they would not have the sensors capable of acquiring on launch. All would have to be initially guided at launch. That's why the Gunner makes the check...

 

[coldwar]

I find that hard to believe in most respects.

Missiles being larger, allowing space for more sensor equipment then modern day missiles. Most of those can perform in atmosphere range bands equivalent to Long and Very Long. Guidance they have is being assigned the target. Pretty easy then for one to see that they would have an easier time in space, as long as they have the means to make flight corrections in space.