Would a far/free trader ever use missiles?

[Sigtrygg]

Technically speaking, it's called hammerspace.

I don't think it's ever been addressed.

In theory, you could have one missile chambered.

This is sadly true,
1 ton for the fire control for a turret.

The turret is dimensionless and can be single, dual, or triple mount.

The GURPS crowd were really, really upset by this

Since the hardpoint restriction is sort of a surface area available limitation you can almost get away with saying that s/d/t turrets take up more surface area but since surface area is abstracted to 1 harpoint per 100 displacement tons...

 

[swordtart]

Can I just verify that I am not misunderstanding how ship combat (wrt. missiles occurs).

1. You conduct manoeuvring etc.
2. In initiative order you conduct attacks.
3. You conduct other actions.

Ship M armed with missiles is attacked by Ship L armed with lasers and they are at Medium Range.

If ship M wins the initiative it can launch missiles that arrive "immediately". Thus as EW is conducted in the action phase they will arrive before any EW to destroy them can be conducted. Ship L can only use point defence. Once this is resolved Ship L can fire its lasers, but only those it did not use in point defence.

If ship L wins the initiative it can fire its lasers first and after that is resolved ship M can launch its missiles. Any lasers ship L uses to attack cannot be used in point defence. Ship L still cannot perform any EW to destroy missiles before they arrive.

If ship M uses a mix of different missile types, each batch of the same missiles counts as a separate salvo and point defence (and EW) can only be carried out on a single salvo. If ship M has several hardpoints each salvo launched from a hardpoint counts as a separate salvo.

If I fire a mix of standard missiles, decoy missiles and interceptor missiles from hardpoint 1 and the same mix from hardpoint 2 have I fired 3 salvos or 6?

The answer to this will determine if some or all of the missiles would arrive unopposed if the number of laser turrets or gunners is overwhelmed.

 

[swordtart]

Apologies I sometimes forget that this is Mongoose and not everyone is familiar with the CT corpus (I would recommend ever single Traveller fan get the cd/thumbdrives/dropbox versions from Marc direct - $35 for everything is too good a deal and I don'e know if Mongoose will continue it)

In GDW JTAS several special supplements were released - Merchant prince, Exotic Atmospheres, and number 3 was Missiles.
These are now available on the CT cd/USB/drop box, or alternatively the GDW JTAS cd/USB/dropbox.

So my quote above is taken from Special Supplement 3: Missiles.

I do have access to Special Supplement 3 but it never formed part of my default CT experience as it seemed to be geared to a dedicated ship to ship battle as a discrete wargaming session rather than something that got included in our regular sessions. My referee 40 odd years ago didn't use it and later referees used later iterations of traveller.

If something is in the 3 main LLBs then it is probably enough to say CT, if it is one of the 3 special supplements, dozen or so supplements, or 5 other "core books", 8 alien modules or the dozens of adventures just in the GDW offerings, it probably needs signposting. When you start including the hundreds of licenced CT products and confuse the whole issue with rules that changed between printings it becomes a configuration nightmare. The CD is certainly good value, but whether so much material is useful is another matter

Supplement 3 provides a lot of crunch which, as an engineer that evaluated complex weapons proposals, I found quite interesting (not withstanding some Space Magic) and some dubious metrics. It does however require quite a lot of complex calculation if you are to leverage that crunch in a battle scenario and all of the ship combat needs to be equally complex or you cheapen the whole experience.

 

[Condottiere]

Breakaway missile hulls/casing.

You screw on the warheads onto estimated range fuel tank, and the desired acceleration rocket stage.

 

[Ol'Weedy]

It would be much easier if they just added rules for a missile magazine and autoloaders lol.

I ended up house ruling this very thing. Just made it 0.2 tons, and 0.1 MCr, + defined storage space. Maybe remove the extra space for barbettes, since they already have auto-loaders.

 

[phavoc]

IRL missiles carried as cargo often take up more space than missiles in a ready to fire configuration due to the packaging to make them less vulnerable to damage in storage and transit. To a degree they are also "peace-bound" which means civilian carriers can move them without them being classed as armed. Finally it provides anti-tamper evidence.

Complex weapons also require varying degrees of preparation when transitioning them from long term storage to firing readiness (e.g. fuelling, charging, cooling of sensors and initiation with current mission parameters). You would not bother with this for missiles in storage as it takes time and exposes the interfaces to damage (and inspection by undesirables) and in some cases this is something that can only be done once in the lifetime of the missile (e.g. activating a thermal battery).

Missiles carried in cargo can replenish any of the turret magazines, missiles in a turret magazine can only feed that turret. Whilst an edge condition in most Traveller combat, this could be important if you are carrying a variety of missile types (but not enough of any specific one to fully load all of your various turrets, or if a turret (including its munitions stockpile) was knocked out.

Missile are sometimes fired from breech loaders. Many missiles use the container as the breech, but there are certainly missiles that launch from tank barrels. Traveller does not describe the missile launcher mechanism, so as long as it doesn't affect the game mechanics, you are free to chose whether they are carried on a rail like an on an aircraft, in a case that is disposable like many ground launched missiles or feed into a non-disposable tube like some tank and submarine missiles.

Finally cargo, does not necessarily mean the main cargo hold with your paying cargo. Cargo can be carried in other places as well. The books suggests positioning munitions held in cargo close to the turret they will be used to avoid people having to schlep them the length of the ship in combat. Of course if you do decide to build a ton or so of cargo capacity near the turret and later decide you do want to use it for regular cargo, it will probably need to be break-bulk cargo since getting a shipping container into it might be difficult.

Can you give a page reference to this, I could only find the below in LBB2(81) p32:
Reloading: Each launcher (sand or missile) has an inherent capacity for three missiles or canisters. This means that a triple turret with three missile launchers has a total of 9 missiles in ready position.
When a launcher's missiles or canisters are exhausted, it may be reloaded by the turret's gunner in one turn. Reloading three launchers would take three turns. A gunner engaged in reloading is unable to fire other weaponry in the turret.

It seems odd to me that a turret that is the same size regardless of the number of launchers fitted is capable of carrying more missiles. Common sense would indicate that the more launchers in a turret, the less space would be available for for missiles (either as part of the launcher or in the 12 missile reserve).

Mongoose allows 12 missiles per turret regardless of the number of launchers. Presumably one loaded per launcher and the rest in an autoloader ready for use which makes a bit more sense to me (and is easier to manage).

That's true, missile carried as cargo and not as ready rounds have additional packaging/storage materials for transit and handling. Missiles that are stored as ready rounds do not, as they are (generally) efficiently stored in a feed mechanism to allow for quick use. Even the older model USN and UK ships that had the 1st Gen missiles requiring fins to be fitted had them store efficiently in a magazine to allow for quick (for the time) movement into the fin-fitting area before launch.

Typically naval ships do not store reload rounds onboard as cargo because space is at a premium. Instead they return to port or else are reloaded at sea (the USN is just now finally deploying the capability to reload VLS magazines at sea). Other rounds, such as pre-packaged boxed/tube launchers may be carried, but of that I'm not sure. The original idea had been to be able to reload VLS systems, but missiles kept getting bigger and heavier and the onboard crane quickly became useless, so it's back to port. Obviously in space you don't have that issue, nor the issue of rough seas when trying to load an explosive device, so the rules for that would be entirely different.

It's within the realm of possibility to move munitions within a ship, down corridors and into a magazine. Not a good idea, but possible. I'd not want to do such a thing during a battle, but once you are out of combat it's just another task for crew to do, albeit a potentially hazardous one. The speed in which the gunner is reloading the missiles is rather impressive for a single gunner. Assuming there is some sort of hoist or loading mechanism (which would further argue against the free space for ammunition) being able to do that would get them hired in a second by an artillery crew. If I recall correctly the Iowa class BB's had an internal below-deck rail/crane system that would allow for transfer of 16" rounds between the fore and aft magazines. I do not know how often it was used beyond testing and some training. During combat they would not be moving them (I would think) due to the risk of damage and compartment flooding - not to mention the crew would be fully engaged in combat duties and/or damage control.

When I made the comment about missiles being fired from breech-loaders I had deliberately not included rounds like the Shilleagh, or say the Israeli Lahat rounds because they are too small and are not considered anti-ship rounds in the Traveller universe. They are vehicle rounds intended for anti-vehicle and would be, in my opinion here, a ground-weapon. But, to your point, it IS possible to fire a missile from a breach loader.

 

[phavoc]

It's probably worse than silly. A gunner is allowed to build missiles from components prior to loading into the launch system.
The rules as they stand allow for crew other than the gunner to be reloading the 12 ready to load missiles in the turret. Replace that crew member with a robot and you have an autoloader. Build a cargo compartment next to the turret with the robot in it and you have an autoloading magazine.

It would be much easier if they just added rules for a missile magazine and autoloaders lol.

Some missiles are breech loaded. Quite a few tank guns have been designed to launch missiles rather than fire cannon rounds. There are still modern tanks with a loader crew member, but a lot are going the way of autoloaders.

I would be interested to talk to one of the original designers to find out exactly what they had in mind.

Mongoose authors have the benefit of foty eight years of real world weapon development to base weapon systems off, but it once gain boils down to author knowledge and ability to extrapolate weapon systems from TL7 to TL15+

For a 50kg standard civilian missile I would have all 12 in a VLS configuration, or in individual "blisters" just under the hull, but that would require a surface area data point. For barbettes I would add more missiles and of a larger size. A magazine and autoloader are difficult to justify for a civilian vessel, but should be standard on a warship. For bays it goes without saying that an autoloader and magazine may be added internally.

Yar, tank missiles are breech loads, but I was referring to naval anti-ship missiles. Ground weaponry wouldn't even take up hard point space since it's not counted in the same way as naval turretted weaponry (i.e. anti-ship weapons vs ground attack weapons).

 

[Sigtrygg]

That's true, missile carried as cargo and not as ready rounds have additional packaging/storage materials for transit and handling. Missiles that are stored as ready rounds do not, as they are (generally) efficiently stored in a feed mechanism to allow for quick use. Even the older model USN and UK ships that had the 1st Gen missiles requiring fins to be fitted had them store efficiently in a magazine to allow for quick (for the time) movement into the fin-fitting area before launch.

Typically naval ships do not store reload rounds onboard as cargo because space is at a premium. Instead they return to port or else are reloaded at sea (the USN is just now finally deploying the capability to reload VLS magazines at sea). Other rounds, such as pre-packaged boxed/tube launchers may be carried, but of that I'm not sure. The original idea had been to be able to reload VLS systems, but missiles kept getting bigger and heavier and the onboard crane quickly became useless, so it's back to port. Obviously in space you don't have that issue, nor the issue of rough seas when trying to load an explosive device, so the rules for that would be entirely different.

It's within the realm of possibility to move munitions within a ship, down corridors and into a magazine. Not a good idea, but possible. I'd not want to do such a thing during a battle, but once you are out of combat it's just another task for crew to do, albeit a potentially hazardous one. The speed in which the gunner is reloading the missiles is rather impressive for a single gunner. Assuming there is some sort of hoist or loading mechanism (which would further argue against the free space for ammunition) being able to do that would get them hired in a second by an artillery crew. If I recall correctly the Iowa class BB's had an internal below-deck rail/crane system that would allow for transfer of 16" rounds between the fore and aft magazines. I do not know how often it was used beyond testing and some training. During combat they would not be moving them (I would think) due to the risk of damage and compartment flooding - not to mention the crew would be fully engaged in combat duties and/or damage control.

When I made the comment about missiles being fired from breech-loaders I had deliberately not included rounds like the Shilleagh, or say the Israeli Lahat rounds because they are too small and are not considered anti-ship rounds in the Traveller universe. They are vehicle rounds intended for anti-vehicle and would be, in my opinion here, a ground-weapon. But, to your point, it IS possible to fire a missile from a breach loader.

A Traveller ship to ship missile was 50kg, the size of a Hellfire. This may have been changed.

 

[Condottiere]

It's twelve per tonne, plus packing case, which is implied.

Though, chances are, by accident.

If canisters don't need packing cases, they both might still be the same volume.

 

[Sigtrygg]

That doesn't tell me the mass, only the volume.
Is there anywhere the missile mass if given?
Is there a breakdown of how much space is required for 12 reloads?

If a missile turret has a single, double, triple or quad launch rail, plus a reload mechanism that restricts the volume available for the 12 ready missiles doesn't it?

 

[phavoc]

A Traveller ship to ship missile was 50kg, the size of a Hellfire. This may have been changed.

I think (been a long while) in the 1978 LBB days there was an illustration somewhere of a gunner in a scout-ship carrying a missile in his hands as part of the reload process. It was taller than him, so maybe about the size of an AMRAAM missile?

The thing that's always bugged me about Traveller missiles is they are just too frigging small to damage a warship that is unarmored but can shrug off some pretty major damage from "just" ground-scale weaponry. How does a teeny missile hurt it when other weapons do not?

 

[swordtart]

A Traveller ship to ship missile was 50kg, the size of a Hellfire. This may have been changed.

CT Supplement 3 also made them 1m Long and 15cm diameter. This is smaller than the 50kg class weapons that I worked on (Hellfire is 1.6m long and 18cm diameter for example). There is quite some divergence from reality. These volumes might work for reaction drive missiles with the limited boost-coast phases in Supplement 3, but not for missiles described in MGT2 that have constant thrust of 10-15G and as pointed out before to almost infinite range. Supplement 3 is a fun book and might work for ground and air missiles but for space combat it is fantasy and inconsistent with even CT ship design space magic.

The Missile Chassis in MGT2 Robot Handbook is size 4. The handwavy conversion on P14 indicates that 20 would fit in a DTon if packed in tight making them 0.7 cubic metres each (about the same volume as a Meteor* BVRAAM). These would be in the 200 Kg bracket but weight is irrelevant for ship design. Allowing for some extra space for packing and access 12 missiles is at least the same magnitude. Missiles in the Robot Handbook also do not use reaction drives and the vehicle thrusters could achieve the performance attributed to the missiles in the game. It aligns with the MGT2 ship design space magic.

If you move away from reaction drives then you also remove a lot of the space you need to allocate to fuel (normal missiles are 70-90% fuel), The warhead on a reaction drive missile might only be 5% once guidance and other systems are taken into account. The Robot Handbook Missile allows 50% of it's internal volume to be payload.

* The current MBDA one, not the AAM-N-5 of the early 1950's.

 

[swordtart]

I think (been a long while) in the 1978 LBB days there was an illustration somewhere of a gunner in a scout-ship carrying a missile in his hands as part of the reload process. It was taller than him, so maybe about the size of an AMRAAM missile?

The thing that's always bugged me about Traveller missiles is they are just too frigging small to damage a warship that is unarmored but can shrug off some pretty major damage from "just" ground-scale weaponry. How does a teeny missile hurt it when other weapons do not?

Hand carrying a 50Kg Missile is at least a 2 man lift and should be an MHE task. Dropping one would be a BAD thing.

We cannot rely on what an illustrator thinks would be a cool image as an indicator of even a fantasy "reality"

 

[Sigtrygg]

I think (been a long while) in the 1978 LBB days there was an illustration somewhere of a gunner in a scout-ship carrying a missile in his hands as part of the reload process. It was taller than him, so maybe about the size of an AMRAAM missile?

The thing that's always bugged me about Traveller missiles is they are just too frigging small to damage a warship that is unarmored but can shrug off some pretty major damage from "just" ground-scale weaponry. How does a teeny missile hurt it when other weapons do not?

I chose the hellfire because it is 50kg as per the description of the Traveller missile, the AMRAAM is too big at 161kg - three times the size. Even the sidewinder is larger than a Traveller missile at 85kg.

I agree that the Traveller civilian ship to ship missile is magic of Clarketech proportions.

 

[Sigtrygg]

SS3 allows for crew members or gunners to assemble missile components "on the fly" before they are loaded, so perhaps the components are carried separately then assembled.

As to the difference in length between the hellfire and the Traveller STS missile the Traveller missile must have a much denser fuel, after all it can burn at 6g for a couple of hours...

Unless their is some clarketech fuel available (at TL7) that we have not been told about since we can't use it for any other application the Traveller missile can not be using a rocket fuel and reaction drive.

Can a fusion power plant be reduced in size to no larger than a coffee mug? At TL7? How about a fission power source, could that be leveraged? Battery? Not at TL7. Pure clarketech.

 

[Condottiere]

Going by how Traveller works, fifty kilogrammes dirtside, does transform into one twentieth of a tonne in space.

 

[Sigtrygg]

That was back in the CT days of 1 ship ton being 1000kg.

 

[Arkathan]

We are partially back to 1000 kg per dton with small weapons blisters on ships.

 

[swordtart]

SS£ allows for crew members or gunners to assemble missile components "on the fly" before they are loaded, so perhaps the components are carried separately then assembled.

As to the difference in length between the hellfire and the Traveller STS missile the Traveller missile must have a much denser fuel, after all it can burn at 6g for a couple of hours...

Unless their is some clarketech fuel available (at TL7) that we have not been told about since we can't use it for any other application the Traveller missile can not be using a rocket fuel and reaction drive.

Can a fusion power plant be reduced in size to no larger than a coffee mug? At TL7? How about a fission power source, could that be leveraged? Battery? Not at TL7. Pure clarketech.

Focussing on MGT2 (since for CT and SS3 that starship has already jumped).

Sadly someone decided that as we have had missiles since WW2, the TL of Missiles is 7. They failed to recognise that the capability of a WW2 missile would not enable it to be an effective space missile. A TL7 missile is rubbish for a number of reasons, not least because the smart trait is all but useless at that TL.

A space missile needs the same manoeuvre drive of the ships it is supposed to be chasing down. You don't get thrust 10 until TL16. Even if you go old school (TL10) and use Reaction Drives you need to allocate 45% of the tonnage to drive an fuel (MGT2 standard missiles are at least limited to 1 hour of thrust). That won't leave much for other stuff, especially if you have a long range or higher thrust option.

 

[swordtart]

The thing that's always bugged me about Traveller missiles is they are just too frigging small to damage a warship that is unarmored but can shrug off some pretty major damage from "just" ground-scale weaponry. How does a teeny missile hurt it when other weapons do not?

Ground scale projectiles do not tend to move at km/s. After 1 hour at thrust 10, a missile is travelling at 36 km/s. Kinetic impact at 36 km/s will probably put a crimp on your day even without any explosion. Even a single Kg of matter at that speed has an energy of over a billion joules or the equivalent of about a third of a ton of TNT.

The closer you are the slower the missile will be going of course but at the ranges you would be sensible using missiles they will be travelling at quite a clip.

For real-world example the CRV7 was found to travel sufficiently fast that a 10lb block of metal dummy payload was sufficient to penetrate a tank without having to bother with any complicated shaped charge.

That said quite a few ground support weapons CAN damage unarmoured spaceship (the FGHP doing 2 full dice damage). There are lots of vehicle heavy weapons in the CSC that do a few DD damage and the Heavy Gauss Cannon does 2DD and even gets Auto 2. By expending just Cr180 in ammunition the heavy autocannon could get 3x1DD hits in.

A Gauss Rifle is capable of 24 points of regular damage that would equate to 2 points of ship damage. With Auto 3 a couple of VERY lucky bursts could bring down a Ships Boat. Even a body pistol could do a single point of damage. On a ship with 10 Hull points or less every point of damage is also a critical. That critical could result in another 1D Hull points damage. A single hit from a 4D weapon could destroy a launch in this case.

You have got to be pretty close though

These rather silly results can be eliminated using the optional vehicle toughness rules in the Companion.