Weapons in Mercenary

[rust]

The general rule of thumb established in FF&S was 10 metric tons to the displacement ton.

I think it will depend a lot on the technology level and the design philo-
sophy.
For example, a fast fighter in an interceptor role with titanium armour
and a single beam weapon should be much lighter than a strike fighter
with superdense armour and "shipkiller" weaponry.

 

[Infojunky]

The general rule of thumb established in FF&S was 10 metric tons to the displacement ton.

I think it will depend a lot on the technology level and the design philo-
sophy.
For example, a fast fighter in an interceptor role with titanium armour
and a single beam weapon should be much lighter than a strike fighter
with superdense armour and "shipkiller" weaponry.

I think you are not getting the concept of "Rule of Thumb"

Yes, the specifics you mention fall outside it. But it gives a general starting point.

As for your two examples the weight of the armor really depends on how much there is. An equivalent level of protection will probably mass about the same. Though there are some other factors in Armor protection, mass is a good general indicator.

 

[Travellingdave]

As a quick aside, this book was not designed for military-oriented gamers. It was designed for all gamers of Traveller to have new options that expand their game. I would never design a book aimed a specific type of gamer, it alienates part of our customer base no matter what. The closest thing I might do is aim at a specific role or mentality of the characters, but never at the gamers. All I aim for is a book that is interesting to read and a game that is fun to play.

Cheers all,
Bry

Thanks, Bryan. It does help to understand your design philosophy. I've done game design myself and know how hard it can be to please everyone.

Just my two-cents: My personal experience with Traveller players and GMs (over 28 years) is that most look for a certain level of "realism" in the game. Many of us greatly appreciated Traveller's attempt at a rather unsentimental and "realistic" projection of weapons and technology (for it's time). I always found my players would rather know they shouldn't attack a tank with small arms and figure out another way to deal with it than have the game rules provide them with a unrealistic opportunity (That's what the Star Wars RPG is for :wink. Knowing such an attack was suicidal did not detract from the fun -- it simply mandated more creative thinking on the player's part. That was fun.

 

[rust]

I think you are not getting the concept of "Rule of Thumb"

Ah, I get the concept - I just do not consider it a useful one in cases
like this.

Just imagine I would propose a rule of thumb for the armour value of
military ground vehicles, putting APCs and MBTs in the same category
to come up with a common value for both of them ... :lol:

 

[Infojunky]

I think you are not getting the concept of "Rule of Thumb"

Ah, I get the concept - I just do not consider it a useful one in cases
like this.

Just imagine I would propose a rule of thumb for the armour value of
military ground vehicles, putting APCs and MBTs in the same category
to come up with a common value for both of them ... :lol:

Ok, I just would like to remind you that you used two military designs as your exception. Which in terms of the entire ship production of the entire span of known space are in the vast minority. I will hazard to postulate that armored military hulls make up less than 0.01% of all the hulls ever produced.

Oh, and it's not my Rule of thumb, it comes from Traveller rules itself, in that I can state that is has some weight.

But all things being equal you can assume what you will, and if it takes places where the rest of the base points and sniggers, well we all live with that hazard... :twisted:

 

[rust]

Ok, I just would like to remind you that you used two military designs as your exception.

Since the question was about the mass of a 10-ton fighter, I considered
it acceptable to use two possible fighter designs as examples.

 

[aspqrz]

Sorry but MARDER IS all-around armored against 20mm in the current variants (A3 and better) and can even take 30mm on the front/turret.

Unless you have information that I am not aware of, the Marder is only protected against 20mm rounds on the front hull, and the upgraded versions increased this to protection against 30 mm rounds for the front hull only.

Which is what I said.

You will note that the M-113 has better armour protection on the front hull than it does on the sides.

This is common on all AFVs, including APCs.

But I believe that you have misread information about the Marder somewhere ... certainly a quick check on Wikipedia makes it plain that the front hull is the part that is protected against 20mm, and not all round.

If you have more definitive information, I'd like to see it (seriously, and without any sarcasm or condescension ... I always like to know if my information is wrong :? ).

Phil

 

[rust]

The Marder 1A3 has indeed got an additional bolted-on armour on
hull and turret that now protects "all critical parts" against projectiles
of up to 30 mm.

Unfortunately I only have a German source for this, I highlighted the
important sentences:

"Die bis dahin umfangreichste Kampfwertsteigerung wurde mit dem
Übergang auf die Version Marder 1 A3 durchgeführt. Erstmals wurden
bedeutende Änderungen in Bezug auf Überlebensfähigkeit und Schutz der
Besatzung unternommen. Der Marder 1 A3 wurde mit durch Bolzen
befestigte Zusatzpanzerung an Wanne und Turm ausgestattet. Diese
sollte nun an kritischen Stellen Schutz vor Feindfeuer bis zu einen Kaliber
von 30 mm gewährleisten. Durch das Hinzufügen der zusätzlichen
Panzerung verzichtete man nun auch auf Winkelspiegel und Luke des
Notsitzes hinter dem Fahrer."

It is from this website:
http://www.military-page.de/gross/rheinmetall/marder/mar_01.htm
- but I have checked that other sources contain the same information.

 

[aspqrz]

The Marder 1A3 has indeed got an additional bolted-on armour on hull and turret that now protects "all critical parts" against projectiles of up to 30 mm.

Hmm. Wikipedia says ...

"Armour: Welded steel, protection up to 20 mm APDS DM43 from 0 m and 25 mm APDS from 500 m; Marder 1A3 onwards - spaced welded steel up to 30 mm APDS"

and

"The hull of the Marder 1 is all welded steel, giving protection from small-arms fire and shell fragments with the front of the hull providing protection from up to 20 millimeters APDS rounds. Later variants had increased protection up to 30mm APDS, in response to the 30 mm autocannon armed BMP-2 and the development of top attack cluster bomblets"

Note the caveats for the 20mm and 25mm ... from 0 meters for 20mm and only from 500 meters for 25mm!

No data for 30mm, but I seriously doubt that they could make it from 0 meters without a huge weight penalty.

You have to be careful about manufacturers claims for such things ... being protected against 25 mm rounds fired from more than 500 meters is, well, not much protection at all :wink:

I'll have to check my copy of Janes' at home to be sure, but I suspect that the protection against 30mm rounds is hedged the way it is because its much the same as the "protection" against 25mm rounds for earlier models ... not very good

Phil

 

[rust]

Of course, all the modifications of the Marder are only attempts to make
a very vulnerable vehicle somewhat less vulnerable until it can be repla-
ced by something significantly better.

Therefore you can rest assured that I would not volunteer to sit in a Mar-
der while someone fires 30 mm rounds at it, no matter what type of am-
munition and from what distance. :lol:

 

[Deniable]

The general rule of thumb established in FF&S was 10 metric tons to the displacement ton.

No it wasn't. That was only a convenience used to avoid detailed mass tracking and only used for thrust / mass calculations. Most TNE book ships were between 6 and 8 tons / dTon. Any ship over 15 tons / dTon had to be calculated with actual mass. As another example cargo was calculated at 1 t / m^3 (14 tons / dTon) for ships and 0.25 t / m^3 (3.5 t / dTon) for vehicles.

 

[aspqrz]

Of course, all the modifications of the Marder are only attempts to make
a very vulnerable vehicle somewhat less vulnerable until it can be repla-
ced by something significantly better.

Therefore you can rest assured that I would not volunteer to sit in a Mar-
der while someone fires 30 mm rounds at it, no matter what type of am-
munition and from what distance. :lol:

And, of course, there are some of those truly horrendous "Anti Material Rifles" that, loosely, qualify as "small arms" ... very very, very, loosely :shock:

Some of those, IIRC, are in 20 mm caliber ... here and now ...

In the future ... <shudder> :shock:

Phil

 

[MadDog]

Actually, no. The purpose of an APC's armour is not now nor has it ever been (well, except for those Israeli tank/apc conversions) to "make it immune to smallarms".

Indeed, in some cases, I should more carefully consider before posting.

Allow me to rephrase: "the purpose of the APC armor is to protect against fragments or smallarms under most circumstances (not point blank, and not using unusual ammo types).

Now, this is for WW2 APCs. Many of the APC used today have relatively beefier armor. Not enough to stop anything serious, but good enough to provide some degree of defense against small calibre autocannon.

In the future, I would expect further increase in effective defensive capabilities.

Mad Dog

 

[MadDog]

The other APCs/IFVs mentioned are also only resistant to the heavier caliber rounds mentioned on the front ... and as vulnerable to smallarms fire on the sides and rear (and hull top and bottom) as all APCs are ... making them anything but "immune".

Immune to having armor or structure being blown off by a guy with a TL 5 rifle or light machinegun.

I challenge anyone to provide me a real world example of this.

Mad Dog

 

[aspqrz]

The other APCs/IFVs mentioned are also only resistant to the heavier caliber rounds mentioned on the front ... and as vulnerable to smallarms fire on the sides and rear (and hull top and bottom) as all APCs are ... making them anything but "immune".

Immune to having armor or structure being blown off by a guy with a TL 5 rifle or light machinegun.

I challenge anyone to provide me a real world example of this.

<sigh>

TL/5 = WW2(ish)

PTRD Anti Tank Rifle: 14.5 mm capable of penetrating 25 mm of armour at 300 meters (1941/42).

.55", Boys Anti-Tank Rifle. Mark 1, Mark 1*, Mark 2 which probably had similar performance (c. 14 mm round).

Lahti L-39 Anti-Tank Rifle: 20 mm :shock: with

• Penetration (mm)        Degrees (impact angle)         Distance (m) 
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  30                                90                      100
  20                                60                      300
  16                                60                      500

Solothurn S-18/100, S-18/1000, S-18/1100 20 mm Anti-Tank Rifle: All firing 20 mm rounds. "A Finnish source gives armour penetration of the gun (probably achieved with the Hungarian APHE-T round, since it was the only type used in Finland) as 20mm at a 60-degree angle at 100-metre distance, decreasing to 16mm at 500 metres."

Amazing, innit :wink:

Phil

 

[aspqrz]

None of the weapons qualify as "small arms", they all must be fired from the bipod or tripod and the Solothurn is a small canon of about 60kg in firing position. And 20mm armor penetration is most likely NOT enough to penetrate current generation IFV and heavy APC (like the Israeli tank->APC conversion).

Ah. The cited armour penetration would seem to give the lie to that statement. Especially at ranges less than those cited ... and against side or rear armour as, as we have already discovered, the maximum protection levels cited for moderm IFVs are ... misleading ... only applying for considerable distances (500 meters) and only for the front armour.

"Immune to having armor or structure being blown off by a guy with a TL 5 rifle "

Terminology issue (my point).

MadDog didn't mention smallarms, only rifles (regardless of what the original post said :wink: )

And, if we're getting really persnickety ...

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) small arm – noun Usually, small arms. a firearm designed to be held in one or both hands while being fired: in the U.S. the term is applied to weapons of a caliber of up to one in. (2.5 cm).

And then there's Wikipedia ...

"Small Arms: The NATO definition extends to "all crew-portable direct fire weapons of a calibre less than 50mm and will include a secondary capability to defeat light armour and helicopters. Though there is really no civilian definition within the US, since any firearm utilizing a projectile greater than 1/2 inch (.50 caliber or 12.7 mm) in diameter is considered a "destructive device" , anything .50 caliber or less would be considered "small arms"."

Ain't precise definitions a wonderful thing :twisted:

One needs to be precise for persnickety old b******s like me 8)

Phil

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Immune to having armor or structure being blown off by a guy with a TL 5 rifle or light machinegun.

Since the LMG in Mercenary weighs 20kg, it's more similar to those heavy guns than an M60. The FN Minimi weighs between 6kg and 7kg, depending on the specific model. A WW2 era MG34 weighs 10kg.

Interestingly, an M134 Minigun weighs almost 20kg. So does the .50 cal XM312.

So what Mercenary terms an LMG clearly isn't the same kind of LMG that the US or UK military define. Now maybe that's another debate, but going by the weapon stats, that's how it is.

Anyway, an M60 or Minimi style LMG would use the Gun Combat skill over the Heavy Weapons skill, surely.

And the TL5 rifle, and it seems I have to repeat this, which is 3d6 and not auto, cannot harm anything with AR20+, and with AR18, it's chance of doing so is around 1-2%, and that's with an expert shot rolling well, and only a single hit.

 

[aspqrz]

Nope ...

Neither the M2 maschine gun nor any weapon using the Boys or KPV round qualifies simply because of the recoil. And if the S-18 is a smallarm, I will buy myself a MILAN ATGM tomorrow since it is actually lighter than the S-18 (and I am qualified for it)

As usual, wrong.

"Small Arms: The NATO definition extends to "all crew-portable direct fire weapons of a calibre less than 50mm and will include a secondary capability to defeat light armour and helicopters.

I think NATO's definition could generally be regarded as being more authoritative than your personal opinion.

And it mentions nary a word about recoil.

That's only my opinion, of course :wink:

And that, presumably, of all the NATO member militaries. :mrgreen:

Which is pretty comprehensive, I would have thought.

Phil

 

[rust]

And that, presumably, of all the NATO member militaries.

There also is the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and
Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Wea-
pons (A/60/88 ), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
8 December 2005 - including all NATO members.

According to this UN document:

“Small arms” are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for individual
use. They include, inter alia, revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and
carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns.

“Light weapons” are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for use by two
or three persons serving as a crew, although some may be carried and
used by a single person. They include, inter alia, heavy machine guns,
hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-
aircraft guns, portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers
of anti-tank missile and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-aircraft
missile systems, and mortars of a caliber of less than 100 millimetres.

In short: The jury is still out, there is still no generally accepted clear defi-
nition of "small arms" - no use to argue about it here, I think.

 

[collins355]

To avoid several more pages of back-and-forth. Yes, KK is right, a standard MGT TL5 single-shot "rifle" cannot do more than 18 damage in usual circumstances (however, using the 'aiming to kill' rule in MGT Mercenary page 71, it could do up to 24 points damage). And, yes indeed, there do exist real historical weapons to which the name 'rifle' has been attached that are intended to penetrate armoured vehicles (as has been noted, however, these are not comparable to the 'rifles' we are really discussing here in that they are extremely bulky, have a very limited ammunition supply, and usually require a bipod to fire, making them akin to the Traveller LAG and MGT's ARMP).

Neither of these facts detract from the more general point that in MGT TL6 autorifles, TL7 assault rifles, TL10 ACRs, TL12 Gauss rifles, TL9 and 11 laser carbines, TL9 and 11 laser rifles, and TL5 LMGs are threats to almost all the published armoured vehicles when using the burst fire rules as written (i.e. adding auto to damage).

The disparities continue at higher tech levels. The TL15 G-carrier, described as a "flying tank" and the Imperium's "standard fighting vehicle" has armour 25 (and costs MCr15). Yet even a humble TL9 rocket launcher (at the princely sum of Cr800) has a better than 20% chance of doing some damage. A more comparable weapon in TL terms, the FGMP, has a hundred percent chance of inflicting damage if burst fired. One can only imagine what the morale is like in the crews of these vehicles as they face the Zhodani hordes (or even a few low tech insurgents with rocket launchers or ARMPs)!

Even a VRF Gauss Gun firing needle bullets has a near 70% chance of getting at least one damage roll (and a 40% chance of doing double damage) against the best armoured vehicle in the game.