Turrets. particularly pictues of - a request.

[GypsyComet]

It's a Space Fantasy, and was choreographed from WWII fighter footage (as in, craft flying in a lift-and-drag environment). There was a clue or two involved, the biggest being "Physics can go hang". The rest of the SW movies (and EU) don't change that.

Some other supposedly SF properties out there should have known better, however.

 

[far-trader]

Gypsy Comet beat me to the post button

I note that SW space battles always seem to occur *somewhere*. No deep space fights. If SW gravitics act like ether drives, treating "the ether" of gravity as both a lift and drag medium, the fighters movements start to make more sense.

???

No, the movie was just scripted by someone who was clueless.

Hardly (though why I'm wading in on this boggles even me, this is not a defense or apology of SW or GL though it may come off as such...).

It was done for purely cinematic reasons. It's a Movie (capital M). So you have dogfights in space, actually scripted from research and copied from real fighter plane war action captured by cameras. And the space fight has sounds and light of engines, and guns, and the rest because reality (silent and invisible) does not translate well to The Big Screen. What I'm saying is don't blame the production, the fault lies with the audience. Even those who know better and might appreciate more reality are often swayed by flash and bang.

I'm sure given half a minute if put on the spot GL would grab your gravity resistance idea like a drowning man to justify the less scientific aspects of his dogfight cinematic space battles He's ret-conned and post-production fudged before on flimsier notions.

 

[atpollard]

No, the movie was just scripted by someone who was clueless.

This strikes to the heart of the topic.
George Lucas was not clueless, he just knew that he was making an adventure movie rather than a training film.
WW2 fighter combat footage was used to create the SFX because it was exciting.

Likewise in Traveller, my fighter drone fights your fully automated turret while I watch from several AUs away ready to jump to safety if the battle goes badly, may be more realistic ...
... but it sounds less 'fun' than your gunner quickly reloads the launchers while the pilot evades to buy some time for the ship's engineer to repair the damaged jump drive so you can all escape.

 

[GypsyComet]

because reality (silent and invisible) does not translate well to The Big Screen.

I'm okay with the artifice of the "Universal Microphone", so that we hear the engines and firing weapons because the pilot can hear them, and can hear near misses at the receiving end because of interactions with the target's shields. Doppler effects on the engine noise is just Cinema, though.

Visible weaponry fire could be due to not everything being a laser, though lasers with enough power do in fact look like cheap special effects when fired in air, not that this helps with space...

 

[phavoc]

I note that SW space battles always seem to occur *somewhere*. No deep space fights. If SW gravitics act like ether drives, treating "the ether" of gravity as both a lift and drag medium, the fighters movements start to make more sense.

???

No, the movie was just scripted by someone who was clueless.

Nah, not clueless. Star Wars was space opera.... audiences don't care about space combat where you never see the attacking ships. You are being too harsh.

The other thing was that Lucas took his inspiration from WW2 aerial combat. Where if you weren't close enough, you could actually miss between the time you squeezed the triggers, the bullets fired and the time it took to impact the enemy aircraft.

If any of you are gamers and can recall SWOTL that Lucas put out, you'll know where his thought process came from.

(for the uninitiated, that's Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe)

 

[phavoc]

well except if you take Gunnery in High Guard.

High Guard is in the Core Rule Book? REALLY?

He's got you on this one DFW. You said you searched through your PDF's.

 

[PFVA63]

I wanna know how these 50 Dton and 100 Dton "bays" are supposed to look like on deck plans. In theory (and according to the rules) a turret is simply an external bay, while a bay is totally internal.

Some deckplans show the tonnage of the bay taking up internal space, which, according to the rules, they should be external....

Ah, the joys of awaiting errata to clear this up!

Hi,

Similar to what a couple others here have suggested, my take on a bay is something like this modern naval gun module shown below.

Here (if I am understanding correctly) shipyard workers are lowering a weapon module into a "bay" within the ship. The weapon module consists of the gun, which sits above the deck (shown in gray). The white box beneath this houses the rest of the stuff the gun turret needs to operate, such as the magazine, controllers, and the like. Once fully lowered in place, the white part of the module will be totally in the "bay" in the ship, and the gray deck section (with the gun above) will mate with the main deck of the ship, and will be bolted(?) in place (I think).

In Traveller terms, here's my take on what a bay might look something like.

Here, in the 1st image you can see a large opening in the ship's hull that extends down three decks. The large blue box houses alot of the components of the weapon, while the white piece represents the rotating "turret-like" portion of the weapon. Together the white and blue sections make up the total 50 dtons of the weapon. When fully inserted into the ship's "bay" the blue section is fully in the hull and only the white rotating part extends above the deck.

Here is an inboard profile and partial set of deck plans that I drew up for a 2000dton ship housing four large bays, configured somewhat along these lines.

Don't know if any of this helps, but I just wanted to share my take on what this stuff might look like.

Regards

Pat

 

[DFW]

well except if you take Gunnery in High Guard.

High Guard is in the Core Rule Book? REALLY?

He's got you on this one DFW. You said you searched through your PDF's.

Typo. We were both (read the thread) talking about the MRB.

 

[gendo666]

well except if you take Gunnery in High Guard.

High Guard is in the Core Rule Book? REALLY?

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I thought you were looking for examples that would indicate that Turrets were normally occupied.
The quote from High Guard was supposed to be more of a confirmation.

Ditto any quotes from the Gurps or megatraveller books.
I'm surprised you didn't feel the need to point out they were technically different systems.
I honestly don't care if in your games gunners sit comfortably in the middle of the ship bent over keyboards. That's your prerogative, but I think I have pretty clearly found enough evidence that the guns are normally manned in the turrets.
I just want to see a piece of art with a manned turret other than the illustration in the High Guard book. - Or even a cut away of the top turret of a Scout ship.
Preferably I would like to see an actual illustration from the company (and you know, that would still satisfy both of us because you could rationalize that the turret was occupied in an "emergency situation").

 

[DFW]

That's your prerogative, but I think I have pretty clearly found enough evidence that the guns are normally manned in the turrets.

Nope, for non-capital ships read the MGT MRB

 

[far-trader]

That's your prerogative, but I think I have pretty clearly found enough evidence that the guns are normally manned in the turrets.

Nope, for non-capital ships read the MGT MRB

Surely you don't mean to imply that because the rules fail to clearly state the case (a presumption*) in the Core that non-capital ships employ remote op turrets while because HG states clearly that turrets are local op that capital ships don't employ remote op turrets?

* I'm not that versed with the verbatim but wasn't the skill mentioned here upthread as Core stating local turret ops?

Anyway, my take has long been local op turrets are the standard. All turrets are drop in cans designed to be a complete package. And that's all that smaller (sub-1Kton) ships need and can easily and routinely fit.

Larger (+1Kton) ships may opt for remote op turrets (the larger bridge includes the connections and space required) but typically this is a military or para-military practice only. The bigger civilian and merchant ships generally stick with the simpler local op turrets (and generally don't max out hardpoint allocation anyway - typically 50% max).

Some smaller (sub-1Kton) military ships may include remote op turrets (any battery organization requires it)... in CT I restricted this to the computer rating similar to the CT fixed weapon rule, 1 turret per model number may be remote op and battery organized (eg. a 400ton ship with 4 triple turrets and a model/4 computer could remote op all 4 turrets and battery organize them)

MgT has taken a step to making this even more rational with the different sized bridges. The smaller bridges should not be able to organize battery fire or remote op turrets, they just don't include the required space or hardware. This will be mostly civilian and merchant ships. While the larger (more complete, enhanced, added features) bridges typical of bigger and military ships may remote op turrets and organize battery fire. It is what they were designed to do. That doesn't mean the turrets still can't be local op, or that they don't come right off the shelf with the local workstation and independent targeting suite.

 

[atpollard]

The core Mongoose rulebook pretty much indicates that someone is in those turrets most of the time.

Actually doesn't state that anyone is "in" a turret. I searched my PDF's and couldn't find that.

MgT Core Rulebook, pg 146:
“Turret Gunner: Each turret has its own gunner. A character must choose which turret he is manning at the start of the combat.”

While admittedly vague, ‘manning’ a turret implies that the Gunner is at/near/in the turret (as opposed to ‘controlling’ a turret which might imply a more remote operation.)

tr.v. manned, manning, mans
1. To supply with men, as for defense or service: man a ship.
2. To take stations at, as to defend or operate: manned the guns.
3. To fortify or brace: manned himself for the battle ahead.

 

[gendo666]

MgT has taken a step to making this even more rational with the different sized bridges. The smaller bridges should not be able to organize battery fire or remote op turrets, they just don't include the required space or hardware. This will be mostly civilian and merchant ships. While the larger (more complete, enhanced, added features) bridges typical of bigger and military ships may remote op turrets and organize battery fire. It is what they were designed to do. That doesn't mean the turrets still can't be local op, or that they don't come right off the shelf with the local workstation and independent targeting suite.

You have made the most sense and I find your arguments well-reasoned.
I also noticed that in the original books, in the ship design book (Book 02 - pg19):

Fire control is specifically stated to be in the turret of the smaller ship. In the merchant ship, however, space for fire control is simply allocated instead. I don't know if this slight quibbling over the wording can be interpreted as larger ships having more choices for placement of fire control.

 

[far-trader]

I also noticed that in the original books, in the ship design book (Book 02 - pg19):

Fire control is specifically stated to be in the turret of the smaller ship. In the merchant ship, however, space for fire control is simply allocated instead. I don't know if this slight quibbling over the wording can be interpreted as larger ships having more choices for placement of fire control.

It's open to interpretation. I've seen it taken both ways (as the turret itself or separate from the turret). I've always taken it as the turret itself simply because otherwise the implication is that the turret itself has no volume or is additional volume not counted towards the ship tonnage, neither of which strikes me as the intent or realistic in the design rules.

I'll try to hunt up and post a few views of my take on turrets later. Basically it is approximately a 3m diameter 3m tall cylinder with an external bubble on top. The bottom of the can has a 1.5m cube (approx) workstation with electronics adjacent on one side. Across from that is the internal weapon systems (capacitors for laser, magazines for munitions, depending on the configuration). The slivers to each side are the turret tracking and gearing, and ejection system*. The bubble at the top contains the actual weapon business ends (barrels or launch rails).

A hardpoint designated as such but without a turret or weapons (such as the Free Trader) just has an empty space there, plated over, and often used for collecting junk or slacking off

A hardpoint with a turret installed but no weaponry (such as the Mercenary Cruiser) has everything but the bubble and weapons. It appears externally identical to the empty hardpoint and is simply plated over. It can be used for gunnery simulation and includes the ejection system.

The whole is actually a little over 1ton (closer to 2tons) but I fudge call it close enough. I could make it smaller, and have toyed with making it half a deck tall to make it 1ton and fit better in some deckplans (like the Scout with it's top turret). Someday I may even ret-con it to that Maybe even today after typing that Of course I'll have to edit some deckplans and adjust those views but that shouldn't be too hard. And it is the last area of overtonnage in my TU that has been annoying me for some time.

* my turret cans have long been autoeject (with a secure manual override) for gunner/ship survival. In the event of catastrophic damage (turret destroyed for example) the whole ejects and separates. The gunner survives (usually) to be picked up or make planetfall with the vaccsuit reentry kit, and the weaponry clears the area before the munitions and/or capacitors cook off and explode

 

[DFW]

I've always taken it as the turret itself simply because otherwise the implication is that the turret itself has no volume or is additional volume not counted towards the ship tonnage, neither of which strikes me as the intent or realistic in the design rules.

Same here. I use the "socket" design as someone depicted above. The one ton designated at time of construction being the empty socket that simply has hull plating over it if no turret installed.

 

[gendo666]

I'll try to hunt up and post a few views of my take on turrets later. Basically it is approximately a 3m diameter 3m tall cylinder with an external bubble on top. The bottom of the can has a 1.5m cube (approx) workstation with electronics adjacent on one side. Across from that is the internal weapon systems (capacitors for laser, magazines for munitions, depending on the configuration). The slivers to each side are the turret tracking and gearing, and ejection system*. The bubble at the top contains the actual weapon business ends (barrels or launch rails).
------------------------------------------------------------

* my turret cans have long been autoeject (with a secure manual override) for gunner/ship survival. In the event of catastrophic damage (turret destroyed for example) the whole ejects and separates. The gunner survives (usually) to be picked up or make planetfall with the vaccsuit reentry kit, and the weaponry clears the area before the munitions and/or capacitors cook off and explode

Thanks.. these are pretty much the pics I want.. (both for myself and players)
about 20 (good God!) years ago my friends and I ran a game where a ship went against a small asteroid base. Due to what might be considered either a series of catastrophic or amazingly lucky shots the Scout hit the main fuel depot of the base.
The base was very, very close.
it was an asteroid. it had a lot of fuel. it exploded.
The only character that survived was the one in the turret who then had to do one of those horrible manual self re-entries (you know with the ablative foam) to make planetfall.

 

[zero]

Pretty glad that my Bay is deckplanned in a way and explained to the players as the above example showed. :mrgreen:

 

[far-trader]

Thanks.. these are pretty much the pics I want.. (both for myself and players)

I'm making a break for it, but they'll probably have me back in solitary next week and I can get to it then

 

[Captain Jonah]

Just a random point here lads and lasses and other non gender alien types.

Computers running the correct software allow a single gunner to control the fire of multiple turrets or to gain a bonus on the fire of one turret. All turrets are therefore capable of remote control regardless of having a man in the bubble, under the bubble or sitting in a fire control closet next to the bridge.

So its very much personal choice. Me I put the turret and power feed/magazine etc on the hull and allocate the rest of the fire control bit to either a bridge area or to a separate room which is often the size of a broom closet on smaller ships.

If you have a gunner actually in the turret that means you need life support in that turret, you need to get the gunner there which requires access ways. Small ships are not designed or have the space to waste to add extra corridors and airlocks getting to turrets. You do need an airlock if the gunner is sitting in the turret otherwise a turret hit opens you to space. With purely remote turrets the turret sits on and within the hull but has hatches or bulkheads between it and the rest of the ship.

An engineer trying to repair a damaged turret may be looking for a broken power feed or un jamming the missile autoloader or something else which has stopped the turret firing but did not indicate it took a direct hit and was therefore wrecked beyond local repair.

However as I said it’s a refs game and if he wants to maintain the “low tech” 1970s RPG set in an 1770s universe with 1950s ideas of science then go for it.
Those star wars turret fights and games workshop have a lot to answer for. (the space battles in the more recent three star wars films with gunners next to huge cannon in broadside gun decks, from 40k). :roll:

 

[gendo666]

Just a random point here lads and lasses and other non gender alien types.

Computers running the correct software allow a single gunner to control the fire of multiple turrets or to gain a bonus on the fire of one turret. All turrets are therefore capable of remote control regardless of having a man in the bubble, under the bubble or sitting in a fire control closet next to the bridge.

So its very much personal choice. Me I put the turret and power feed/magazine etc on the hull and allocate the rest of the fire control bit to either a bridge area or to a separate room which is often the size of a broom closet on smaller ships.

If you have a gunner actually in the turret that means you need life support in that turret, you need to get the gunner there which requires access ways. Small ships are not designed or have the space to waste to add extra corridors and airlocks getting to turrets. You do need an airlock if the gunner is sitting in the turret otherwise a turret hit opens you to space. With purely remote turrets the turret sits on and within the hull but has hatches or bulkheads between it and the rest of the ship :

I would agree about personal choice about manning turrets bout would disagree about the "air locks" bit simply because all of the (lets say) "Gunnery control room" portions of the turrets DO have airtight Iris doors. (I have the description of the door somewhere in on of the books but can't find it right now.
And since I am already asleep I can't be bothered to look for.
I *DO* have this quote from "Freelance Traveller."