Low tech ships - Need help

[phavoc]

Either use strike carriers for extraction or bail into populated areas.

Pearl Harbour was a bit overblown as it used a lot of resources by an already overextended Japanese navy.

Pearl Harbour failed, to an extent, because the planners were too focused on killing battleships. Had they destroyed the fleet train, drydocks, fuel storage and other REMF-specific areas they would have crippled the pacific fleet. But the planners were all old-school and though big guns = big importance. The USN showed them if you don't protect your merchant marine when you are a seaborne nation, you are screwed in the long run. The Germans showed it to the Brits, twice.

Naval warfare as conceptualized in Traveller seems a balance of forces; sending a converted megafreighter looks more like a suicide mission, especially without fleet support.

There was a plan years ago to turn 747s into massive air-launch cruise missile carriers (https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371). It never came to fruition, but a pair of these would be able to launch nearly 200 cruise missiles. Though as we have seen with naval missile strikes, a small flotilla is able to launch a massive cruise missile salvo. But what I haven't read much about was how long it took to reload those ships and return them to full strength. Which is always important in a longer war (though, in all fairness, when your opponent cannot shoot back it's not much of a 'war').

While not along the same offensive vein, there was a plan by the British during WW2 to build an 'unsinkable' carrier made of ice and sawdust and position it in the atlantic to provide air support for convoys. It never got off the ground, but it could have potentially been a game changer against the U-boats. Though usually every great idea has a great counter-idea by the other side, so they tend to equal each other out over the long run.

 

[AndrewW]

Pearl Harbour failed, to an extent, because the planners were too focused on killing battleships. Had they destroyed the fleet train, drydocks, fuel storage and other REMF-specific areas they would have crippled the pacific fleet. But the planners were all old-school and though big guns = big importance. The USN showed them if you don't protect your merchant marine when you are a seaborne nation, you are screwed in the long run. The Germans showed it to the Brits, twice.

They also wanted to catch the carriers in port but failed to do that.

While not along the same offensive vein, there was a plan by the British during WW2 to build an 'unsinkable' carrier made of ice and sawdust and position it in the atlantic to provide air support for convoys. It never got off the ground, but it could have potentially been a game changer against the U-boats. Though usually every great idea has a great counter-idea by the other side, so they tend to equal each other out over the long run.

Project Habakkuk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk

 

[Condottiere]

Theoretically, ice cold space should keep the iceberg in tact, though mixing it with said sawdust and heavy interior insulation should keep it from melting from personnel and ship systems.

As for Pearl Harbour, if the Japanese had risked more, like a third strike and then hunting down the missing carriers, or willing to remain in the area to ensure that the job was finished, they might have had a longer window of opportunity to try and achieve their strategic goals.

 

[baithammer]

The japanese Navy had little resources available to sustain either option, as this was a desperation move to see if they could buy more time to consolidate their conquests and improve resource production.

 

[Condottiere]

There's one theory that if they had just gone after the Philippines, the Americans either would be more less willing to prosecute the war in the Pacific, or foollowing the original strategy, the Japanese would have been able to sink the entirety of the Pacific Fleet as it made it's way to Manila Bay, justifying the massive investment in the Yamatos, which were fuel guzzlers.

 

[phavoc]

There's one theory that if they had just gone after the Philippines, the Americans either would be more less willing to prosecute the war in the Pacific, or foollowing the original strategy, the Japanese would have been able to sink the entirety of the Pacific Fleet as it made it's way to Manila Bay, justifying the massive investment in the Yamatos, which were fuel guzzlers.

It would have had to been in 1942, as the Yamato wasn't even commissioned until December, 1941 (Mushashi was commissioned in August of '42). But I doubt that the US would not have responded. If anything the US might have delayed going to war by a few years, but Japan already knew they could not match the US industrially.

Arguably the desire to stay out of the wars was already waning by 1939. I think the American people would have been itching for taking back what Japan had 'stolen', and Japan wouldn't have been able to defend their overseas possessions. But, to be fair, the US would have probably agreed to peace once they had retaken what Japan took (and perhaps returned the British and Dutch territories as well). Had Pearl Harbor not occured I don't think they would have been willing to take the casualties that invading the main islands would have required, or dropping an A-bomb. In either case we'll never know.

 

[Condottiere]

The Yamatos were an almost complete surprise to American intelligence, possibly as much as the Montanas would have been to the Japanese later on.

 

[DivineWrath]

Well, next questions. Should chemical power plant fuel and reaction mass be treated as different substances than hydrogen fuel? In other words, I can't use battery fuel for a fusion reactor, and can't use reaction mass for battery fuel. Should each have different prices? Can I use a tank built for one substance for another substance? It matters as the ships need to be resupplied.

While I'm thinking about it, where is headlight fluid listed? (inside joke)

Edit: Fixed my mistake.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Well, next questions. Should battery fuel and reaction mass be treated as different substances than hydrogen fuel?

Battery fuel?

Reaction drive fuel is undefined. For simplicity I consider it hydrogen like most fuel, making the reaction drives fusion rockets or possibly ion drives?

 

[baithammer]

Chem plants require fuel but are generators not batteries. High Capacity Batteries don't require fuel, instead have a fixed displacement per x power units where x depends on tech level.

 

[DivineWrath]

Oops! Chemical fuel, not battery.

 

[Condottiere]

Any clue what the chemical is?

I was going with diesel.

 

[baithammer]

It would be hydrogen but we can use the same thing but with other fuel types depending on the campaign needs.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Chemical fuel would be mostly oxygen or some other oxidising agent?

1 kg petrol requires roughly 3 kg oxygen to burn. That works well on Earth since the oxygen can obtained free from the air. In space we have to carry the oxygen with us, so it works less well. Since we are often more interested in volumes it would be something like 1.4 m³ petrol to 2.3 m³ liquid oxygen.

To get electrical energy, not rotating axles, a fuel cell is probably more fuel efficient hence better choice in space.

 

[DivineWrath]

I ask about fuel tanks and stuff because I am worried about mixing stuff that shouldn't be mixed. Can you refuel the chemical power plants, reaction engines, and jump drives using the same tank? Can the stuff mix? Do I clean the tanks between shipments, or even keep separate ships for separate fuels?

Two other questions. Does reaction drives need refined fuel? Do fusion power plants need refined fuel?

 

[Condottiere]

Chemical plants use petrochemical or synthetic fuels. Chemical plant fuel can not be skimmed from gas giants or taken from water sources and can not be used by rocket motors.

Mongoose First


Apparently, left on the cutting room floor for Mongoose Second.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I ask about fuel tanks and stuff because I am worried about mixing stuff that shouldn't be mixed. Can you refuel the chemical power plants, reaction engines, and jump drives using the same tank? Can the stuff mix? Do I clean the tanks between shipments, or even keep separate ships for separate fuels?

I would not use the same tank for different fuels. Even small remains might react with the new fuel, e.g. LOX and LHyd.

We can freely mix LHyd for different purposes, so we can mix Jump, Fusion, and possibly Reaction fuel freely.

Two other questions. Does reaction drives need refined fuel? Do fusion power plants need refined fuel?

No idea about reaction drives. By CT power plants does not need refined fuel.

I would refine all fuel, but perhaps not in any hurry...

 

[Skaran]

In one game I played the power plant was almost out of fuel. The players tossed bodies into the fuel purification plant which extracted hydrogen and sent this to the power plant.
Based on other sets of rules any chemical plant could use hydrogen instead of distillates etc, but the hydrogen had a much higher volume so required a larger tank for a given endurance.

 

[Condottiere]

As I recall, hydrogen is explosive in our atmosphere.

 

[baithammer]

So is gasoline fumes.