Tech Levels - Different Enough?

[Jame Rowe]

From the OP ... I've been putting ideas onto a new TL table, trying retain the Traveller feel (sorry its based on the Book 3 version). Adding what I can, and including RPG or movie settings I think roughly correspond.

http://zozer.weebly.com/uploads/3/4/3/3/3433372/expanded-tech-table.pdf

I would have put battledress and limited cybershells at TL 12, holovision and ONiell Cylinders at TL9 and bioscanners, cloning, bioroids and gene-fixing at TL 10. Otherwise I like it.

 

[simonh]

So it comes back to the interpretation of what tech level means; manufacturing capability for self-sufficiency?..or tech-propped-up-by-imports...

I think the TMB explains it very well on page 179, in the World Creation chapter.

"The Technology Level measures the average technology presence on the planet, and gives an idea of local production and repair capability."

I read that as meaning that it's the level of the technology you're most likely to encounter on the world if you were to wind up in an average populated location, because it's the level of the average technology that is present.

The TL gives an indication of local production and repair capability - but only an indication. I interpret that to mean that on most worlds it's reasonable to expect that the average technology present is producible and repairable on that world. It's only an indication though, so much of it may be, or some or all of it may not be.

The same paragraph later goes on to say that rich locals or governments might have access to higher technology from off-planet. There's also a note that the local tech level may be one or more levels higher or lower in particular fields.

In other words, the TMB gives GM plenty of freedom to interpret the TL of any given world in whatever way they like. It could all be locally produced, or much or all of it might be imported. It's up to you. It's the TL of the majority of the stuff, but there's no hard and fast ruling on how that stuff got there.

Simon Hibbs

 

[hector]

Hence why Earth is technically TL7; there are some examples of TL8 technology, but they're rare and only owned by the wealthy/government or else are only prototypes. Meanwhile, some of the poorest parts of the world make do with TL6 technology and less. It will differ depending on where you go, and I'd expect this to be the same on any planet I landed on in Traveller, but the average is what counts.

 

[aspqrz]

One should put that stuff on US Ronsons (mostly M4A2) in the Sowjet tank corps into perspective:

Indeed, one should :wink:

The total number of Ronsons in Red Army service was around 4000. Compare that to more than 50.000 T34 (not to mention various other mediums and heavies)

Indeed. Let's look at the figure more closely, however.

At the end of the war the Soviets had only 20% (+/-) of those 50,000 still in service.

What happened to the other 40,000?

They may not have been called "Ronsons" ... they should have been called "Gillettes" ... since you used them a couple of times and then threw them away :shock:

Their serviceability rate was less than 1/3 the rate of the M-4s ... which meant, in effect, to equal those 3 M-4 equipped Mechanised Corps the Soviets had to field 3x as many T-34 equipped Mech Corps, on a vehicle for vehicle basis.

So, possibly, the T-34 was a better tank in some ways, but if 2/3rds of them are unserviceable at any given time, while 80%+ or more of the Shermans are serviceable at any one time, that makes the Sherman a superior choice, especially for breakthrough units.

Which is almost certainly one of the many reasons the Soviets used them in such units.

The "spare transmission" some early model T34 (There are four major versions) lugged around was at least partially due to the logistics problems (The Red Army was short on trucks until Lend/Lease supplied those) and this quickly ended when the Sowjets fixed some errors.

Possibly.

Or Possibly Not.

When the Allies faced brand spanking new T-34's in Korea they found that the MTBF for key components on the vehicle was less than 20 hours of operational use. And that for things like the Transmission it was around 200 hours, then it had to be torn apart and rebuilt for another 200 hours, then you threw it away.

They didn't manage to fix this in the T-44, T-54 or T-55. And, IIRC, the same problem existed in the early models (through till 1989 at least! maybe they have improved since) of the T-62/72 (and probably the T-64, but since it was never available as an export model it was hard to tell back during the Cold War).

One of the choices facing many 3rd world countries wanting to buy some armoured vehicles (APCs or MBTs) after WW2 was whether to buy Soviet vehicles which were simple and, theoretically, required less trained personnel to maintain, or allied stuff which was less simple, and required competent personnel to maintain.

Those that purchased Soviet stuff almost always regretted the decision as they found out about the reliability problems the hard way when they found that 80-90% of their vehicles were soon unserviceable.

In the end, they either bought western or they bought western upgrades for key systems like engines and transmissions, usually along with service contracts from western mechanics to go with it.

Soviet crap only appeared cheap, because it was never designed to last. And in the Cold War "peace" having something that lasted was a key element even for 3rd World s**tholes.

The Ronsons where typically NOT used as a first line tank but rather as a "follow up" vehicle employed after the T34s had punched a hole and eliminated/tied up german tanks (That would eat Shermies for lunch).

Perhaps you have a different understanding of the term "first line" to the rest of the world.

The Shermans were used in 3 of the dozen or so *First Line* Mechanised Corps the Soviets used as spearheads for all exploitation operations they mounted in the later war period (1944-45).

The actual breakthrough may have been made by IS or KV units, more likely than T-34's, but the exploitation of the breakthrough was made by first line, effectively elite (in all but name in some cases), Mechanised Corps.

The T-34s were always late for lunch. At least the Shermies were on time.

So, yes,

One should put that stuff on US Ronsons (mostly M4A2) in the Sowjet tank corps into perspective

Phil