Spinal Mount Railguns?

[EDG]

Am I just being blind, or does Traveller not have any rules for Spinal Mount railguns? (as in, big honking projectile-lobbing weapons?)

And more to the point, has never had rules for such weapons? :shock:

EDIT: I guess one problem might be that recoil from firing such a weapon would significantly affect the ship, but surely there are ways around that?

 

[AndrewW]

Am I just being blind, or does Traveller not have any rules for Spinal Mount railguns? (as in, big honking projectile-lobbing weapons?)

You aren't. Just particle and meson for the spinal mounts. Railguns are available in barbettes, bays and large bays.

EDIT: I guess one problem might be that recoil from firing such a weapon would significantly affect the ship, but surely there are ways around that?

One would think with the technology available this could be compensated for.

 

[EDG]

Am I just being blind, or does Traveller not have any rules for Spinal Mount railguns? (as in, big honking projectile-lobbing weapons?)

You aren't. Just particle and meson for the spinal mounts. Railguns are available in barbettes, bays and large bays.

Why no spinal mounts, I wonder? Too destructive?

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Well, in CT, railguns and Mass Drivers didn't exist. That is probably why they didn't get added until MGT HG.

Spinal Mount Mass Drivers would probably not be usable for ship-to-ship combat, the range would be too short (look at the ranges of the 100-ton bay Mass Drivers and Railguns).

As an Ortillary round it could be very devastating. Now you are talking 100-ton + metal shots at near-C speeds...

I see Londo standing on the bridge watching these puppies flying away towards Narn...

Should be easy to house-rule though... Just figure out a reasonable ammunition size for the shot and average something between a PA and Meson mount...

 

[EDG]

Spinal Mount Mass Drivers would probably not be usable for ship-to-ship combat, the range would be too short (look at the ranges of the 100-ton bay Mass Drivers and Railguns).

You kidding? It's a big metal slug that's shot out of a cannon in space... there's nothing to slow it down! The problem I guess would be that at some point you'd be able to detect the slug coming and get out of the way, but the useful range would still be pretty long.

As an Ortillary round it could be very devastating. Now you are talking 100-ton + metal shots at near-C speeds...

Not quite that fast. More like something around Mach 10 as measured in earth's atmosphere). Still bloody fast though.

I see Londo standing on the bridge watching these puppies flying away towards Narn...

Yep .

Should be easy to house-rule though... Just figure out a reasonable ammunition size for the shot and average something between a PA and Meson mount...

This would be way more damaging than an energy weapon. The only way to stop the railgun shell would be using focussed repulsor technology to deflect the shell - armor isn't going to do a darn thing to stop it.

 

[cbrunish]

Spinal Mount Mass Drivers would probably not be usable for ship-to-ship combat, the range would be too short (look at the ranges of the 100-ton bay Mass Drivers and Railguns).

You kidding? It's a big metal slug that's shot out of a cannon in space... there's nothing to slow it down! The problem I guess would be that at some point you'd be able to detect the slug coming and get out of the way, but the useful range would still be pretty long.

This is a good point. Not much into science (outside of political science) but I would think that anything non-energy would continue on the same path until it hit something. So why the short range?

I would love the range to be longer. It would give the feel for Battlestar Galactica space battle. I guess you could say that those were missiles but from watching the show it seemed more to be a gun than a missile launcher.

 

[EDG]

I would love the range to be longer. It would give the feel for Battlestar Galactica space battle. I guess you could say that those were missiles but from watching the show it seemed more to be a gun than a missile launcher.

Certainly all they had were projectile weapons and missiles - no lasers or energy weapons anything. The capital ships were usually lobbing missiles at eachother at long range, and using cannons at short range.

 

[Colin]

Harry Harrison's Homeworld novel had spinal mount railguns, as did the old Renegade Legion Leviathan game.

Harrison's spinal mounts were more like giant machine guns, firing round iron balls like a wall of metal at the opposing Earth fleet.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Sounds like a great idea - anybody fancy doing rules for spinal rail guns and mass drivers as an S&P article?

Come on, tech-heads, this is just the kind of article we want to see for Traveller

 

[Colin]

The limited range of railguns is more about their relatively slow speed. Against stationary targets, though, this is not an issue. High Guard does feature Ortillery railguns, for use against worlds and habitats.

 

[tneva82]

This is a good point. Not much into science (outside of political science) but I would think that anything non-energy would continue on the same path until it hit something. So why the short range?

Wouldn't other ships be able to...I don't know...move OFF the track before it hits at longer ranges?-) At short ranges they might not have time to do that but at longer ranges one would imagine they would be able to just move so the rock will fly straight off.

I mean it doesn't take much more than moving ship up/down size of the rock and it will be missing it big time.

 

[Infojunky]

One of the reasons Traveller never has had effective Rails guns is due to the assumed range of ship to ship combat.

I don't agree.....

I like railguns, my 1st house rule after seeing the ones in High Guard was to remove the close range only rule. The second was to allow all the tech improvements to apply.

I tend to have a blind spot for ships over 1000 dtons, and as such kinda ignore spinal mounts.

 

[EDG]

Wouldn't other ships be able to...I don't know...move OFF the track before it hits at longer ranges?-) At short ranges they might not have time to do that but at longer ranges one would imagine they would be able to just move so the rock will fly straight off.

I mean it doesn't take much more than moving ship up/down size of the rock and it will be missing it big time.

They'd have to detect the shell coming first. Given that it's very probable that there's no visible effects of firing the gun in the first place (it's not like you get big clouds of smoke, or a loud boom) that's going to be very hard to do.

It's not really that different to lasers or beams or mesons though. Either way, once you get beyond a light-second of separation (300,000 km) things are going to be a lot harder to target and hit because you're targeting where they were a second before you fire the weapon.

 

[captainjack23]

This is a good point. Not much into science (outside of political science) but I would think that anything non-energy would continue on the same path until it hit something. So why the short range?

Wouldn't other ships be able to...I don't know...move OFF the track before it hits at longer ranges?-) At short ranges they might not have time to do that but at longer ranges one would imagine they would be able to just move so the rock will fly straight off.

I mean it doesn't take much more than moving ship up/down size of the rock and it will be missing it big time.

Exactly the problem. Unless it's shooting at near lightspeed, it will always allow a target enough time to dodge; and the longer the trajectory, the less dodging required.

Detection with any kind of active scanners will be doable on any kind of projectile of a useful size: keep in mind the resolution of traveller civilian scanners is adequate for targeting a missile at 1 LS, or about 6x the distant range band limit. I'd suggest that the energy pulse of a mass driver firing is probably quite "loud" to ems sensors, even if passive.

In general, traveller space weapons need to either be a. essentially lightspeed , b. able to maneuver c. fast and short ranged (hard to stop is good, too).

a= lasers, particle beams and meson guns..

b. = missiles

c. = fusion guns (and potentially railgun/mass drivers)


A railgun, even a mach 20 railgun, isn't even close on speed, and can't maneuver.

Short range does allow shorter time to detect and target, so railguns can be effective there. However, a spinal mount is much less effective at short range -you aim the whole ship, requiring fairly substantial maneuvers to line up the closer you are; plus, gross manuevering to ine up a shot will wreck any evasive maneuvering pattern you are doing, also.

So, no good use for a spinal mount in traveller terms -and to hit a planet, or stationary target, you can use rocks. Bays, and turrets, yes.

I'd also wonder at the actual velocities involved -how fast could a MDriver get a slug going compared to a M4 drive and spacecraft velocities. Outrunning it would seem very possible.

So, the BDPG (big dumb projectile gun) is very limited in the OTU, or any U where maneuvering is fairly easy for the target.

 

[EDG]

Personally I think the idea of space combat between spaceships that involves anything that isn't missiles or drones at ranges even approaching one light second is pretty ridiculous. That's almost as far as the Moon is from Earth, for crying out loud.

Railguns are going to be long range... whether they're actually still effective at long range is another matter, but that slug's just going to keep on going - and not slow down - until it hits something.

 

[captainjack23]

Personally I think the idea of space combat between spaceships that involves anything that isn't missiles or drones at ranges even approaching one light second is pretty ridiculous. That's almost as far as the Moon is from Earth, for crying out loud.

yeah, I think that may be why MGT dialed down ranges. basically, most combat is happening at less than .1 ls, and that's optimum range (long) for missiles.

Railguns are going to be long range... whether they're actually still effective at long range is another matter, but that slug's just going to keep on going - and not slow down - until it hits something.

[/quote]

Point.....Well, technically, I suppose anything that doesn't hit something or converge/disperse) just....keeps...going. In which case it isn't a weapon, it's a hazard.....

 

[The Chef]

Sounds like a great idea - anybody fancy doing rules for spinal rail guns and mass drivers as an S&P article?

Come on, tech-heads, this is just the kind of article we want to see for Traveller

and if you are doing rail gun spinal mounts, would it be possible to do rapid fire turrets as well...



Chef

 

[EDG]

Point.....Well, technically, I suppose anything that doesn't hit something or converge/disperse) just....keeps...going. In which case it isn't a weapon, it's a hazard.....

Well, lasers and particle beams can just get diffused/absorbed/scattered by interstellar dust - at some point the energy is going to be spread out so much that it's barely noticeable anyway (not even lasers are perfectly straight lines, the beams would widen over thousands or millions of km, especially if designed to only be focussed on things a relatively short distance away).

That slug though? It just keeps going. It may be deflected by gravity, but it's not going to stop otherwise. Maybe that's reason enough not to use them, in case they hit a habitable planet - they're a permanent hazard .

 

[Infojunky]

In general, traveller space weapons need to either be a. essentially lightspeed , b. able to maneuver c. fast and short ranged (hard to stop is good, too).

a= lasers, particle beams and meson guns..

b. = missiles

c. = fusion guns (and potentially railgun/mass drivers)

Humm.......

Martin, both Particle weapons and meson weapons should be classified as number c. also. As a class they use a magnetic impulse as a core portion of their firing cycle. As such we can imply the technology exists....

In fact thinking a little further on this topic of direct fire weapons I ponder the change in range regime of MgT from earlier editions. MgT uses 6 minute turns which gives us a base range increment of 1250km.

Or approx. 10% of ranges from earlier works.

Ack, my argument is wandering. There is no reason that railguns shouldn't exist within the given engagement envelope.

or

Why are they too slow?

 

[captainjack23]

In general, traveller space weapons need to either be a. essentially lightspeed , b. able to maneuver c. fast and short ranged (hard to stop is good, too).

a= lasers, particle beams and meson guns..

b. = missiles

c. = fusion guns (and potentially railgun/mass drivers)

Humm.......

Martin, both Particle weapons and meson weapons should be classified as number c. also. As a class they use a magnetic impulse as a core portion of their firing cycle. As such we can imply the technology exists....

In fact thinking a little further on this topic of direct fire weapons I ponder the change in range regime of MgT from earlier editions. MgT uses 6 minute turns which gives us a base range increment of 1250km.

Or approx. 10% of ranges from earlier works.

Ack, my argument is wandering. There is no reason that railguns shouldn't exist within the given engagement envelope.

or

Why are they too slow?

Mainly it isn't the slow part per se, but rather how much time the target gets to react, and part of that is how much reaction is necessary.

I'm assuming that a sensor active ship of traveller tech will detect a slug almost as soon as it is launched - the longer the trajectory to the target, the more time for reaction (which will include a quick course calculation), and the less effort the target will need to expend to avoid it. *

Assuming a mach 10 slug(10*1220 km/hr), it takes about 1/10 hour to transit out to the limit of short range - or whole turn. In those six minutes , all even a 1g ship needs to do is to 1. plot the trajectory of the slug (1 second, maybe? I know fire control radar now can do faster than that) instant) and 2. to change its vector so that any computed intercept is 1.1 diameters of its smallest profile away from its original vector. That's for one slug, granted, so that's where the shotgun style railgun (or firehose) matters. Still, the necc coverage to guarantee a hit at 1250km (say, 1 slug per diameter of the ship)is going to be huge, which will require lots of slugs fired over a very short period of time (or one can avoid them by groups).

How does that sound ? I'm not speaking ex cathedra, In fact, I'm thinking as I write, so I may well have missed something in the analysis.


* a passive ship will have a bit harder time, but also is way harder to target. And with unguided trajectories you need to get it very right......