Topic: SM: P VM A-2.4 Determine Minimum Crew (22) Total Gunnery techs p. 117

[snrdg051306]

I need some clarification concerning Total gunnery technicians as per tonnage as stated on p. 117 which is

The number of gunnery technicians is determined by totaling the tonnage of weapons (not payloads).

Is the Auto/Projectile Cannon ammo and missile reloads considered payload when determining weapon tonnage?

Torpedo payload pallets, launchers, or tubes are not included in the minimum crew calculation right?

[snrdg051306]

Hello all,

Would the torpedo tube and/or launcher tonnage be included as part of the gunnery tech crew calculation?

Would the payload pallet launcher be calculated under General personnel?

[markc]

 IMHO a torpedo launcher would be included in the gunnery crew formula, payload pallets would not. I do not know what a payload pallet launcher is so I cannot say.


 I think the official answer would come from Defendi.


MDC

[Defendi]

I'd probably go with mark on this one.  Launchers are kinda an after the fact thing.  If someone wanted to say there were automated I wouldn't blink.  I suspect I didn't crew them in the official ships, but Mark's answer is probably better.

[snrdg051306]

Okay, I was thinking that a torpedo tube/launcher system would be part of the gunnery crew calculation. Thanks Defendi for adding confirmation to the discussion. A lot of the work of reloading torpedo tubes is done using automated systems. However, the torpedoes still need to be maintained, not to mention having the bodies available to use old fashioned muscle power coupled with block and tackle to do the work when the automated systems are off-line.

Not being clear on how a torpedo payload pallet is fired at a target I used the term of payload pallet launcher. Something has to kick the pallet carrying the torpedo away from the craft

[Defendi]

You don't typically feed and house a lot of people to take over if your loader goes out.  It's not likely you'll lose the loader and not the ability to load manually as well.  You just steal crew if it happens.

You probably don't need anything at all to push a torpedo away from its pallet when fired in space.  I'd do it anyway, just because it would probably feel wrong not to, but even then a small, hard blast of compressed air would push it free.  More likely that means nothing, though, because what are the odds of you firing a torpedo when floating dead in space?  More likely you're maneuvering heavily when it happens, and anything you do do push the torpedo clear is going to be inconsequential with the Gs the ship itself is pulling.

[markc]

 Pallets and the weapons/equipment they hold IMHO would be in the general section not the weapon section as it would be loaded outside of combat.
  I think of pallets being like the under wing mounted weapons/equipment for helicopters of today. In space in combat I guess you could try and reload these systems but it would be vary hard (not skill rating IMHO) with modifiers for things the ship was doing.


 Does that help?
MDC

[snrdg051306]

I was a sonar tech on three boomers and one very old fast attack. On all four boats I was familiarized on how to perform the basic function of moving, loading, and launching torpedoes. I'm grateful I never had to actually do the job and appreciated what the torpedoman did. Of course being in another department or division there was some good natured rivalry.

This thread has established that a torpedo tube/launcher falls under the gunnery technician calculation rules, which leads me to believe the stem will have a crew of some sort.

Here is what I think I have a handle concerning hard points, strong points, and payload pallets.

Hard and strong points are reinforced areas added to a craft's and are required to attach components. Strong points can handle energy weapons in fixed, compact and small flexible mounts. A hard point is capable of mounting anything that the designer and GM agree can be loaded.

What I'm to sure about is if I can swap out systems attached to the hard or strong point similar to how the mounting points work on military combat aircraft today.

If you can then on one mission a payload pallet can be carried and the next one the craft carries lasers in using either a fixed, flexible, or turret mount.

A torpedo payload pallet is attached to a hard point and somehow held in place during normal craft operations. In order to attack a target the torpedo has to be released from the hard point, which leads me to think about some sort of clamp. In an aircraft air drag and gravity assist in getting aircraft ordnance and drop tanks to separate from the aircraft. Zero-G combat something else appears to be needed to get the separation.

Which is easier to move a 1.25 metric ton torpedo pallet or a 100 ton TMAC in Zero-G?

Pushing the torpedo pallet away from and maneuvering the TMAC would probably works.

The torpedo pallet has the same acceleration as the craft carrying the device. Releasing the mechanism holding the torpedo pallet to the hard point and trying to change the launching craft's direction in my mind anyway has the risk of smacking into the device.

Since a torpedo can maneuver the drive has to produce thrust which has the potential to damage the launching craft.

Of course since I don't have an understanding of how the payload pallet works and is becoming apparent I'm just a clueless with a torpedo tube/launcher I'm probably still out in a field somewhere.

Again, my apologies for being a pain and slow witted.

[snrdg051306]

I agree that the payload pallet system is covered under the general personnel calculation rules.

I'm concerned more with the torpedo tube/launcher added by the errata and how to handle the non-energy weapon gunnery technician calculation.

When calculating the gunnery tech for the auto/projectile cannon, missiles, and torpedo tube/launcher do you include the mass of the magazine?

Do you include the mass of the reloads for the weapon systems?

Since I'm still not sure about how to Determine Minimum Crew (22) for anything but the energy weapons I'm holding off working any further through the design example.

Thanks to you and Defendi for the replies and trying to get me to understand the system.

[markc]

1) IMHO you do include the mass of the magazine for the weapons. As they would have to be maintained by the weapons crew.
2) You do not include the mass of the reloads in storage (cargo) for the calculations for any crew. That would be covered by the weapons crew of the weapon in question.


 Does than answer all your questions?
MDC

[Defendi]

  I think of pallets being like the under wing mounted weapons/equipment for helicopters of today. In space in combat I guess you could try and reload these systems but it would be vary hard (not skill rating IMHO) with modifiers for things the ship was doing.

In the spacemaster novel I wrote back in the day, there was a scene where they had to do just that, as the fighters were launched from external racks and they couldn't cycle them through the hangers in the carrier quickly enough.

[Defendi]

Don't mean that to sound like a refutation.  Not EASY.

[Defendi]

You do include ammo.  Not reloads.

[snrdg051306]

Let's see if I've got this straight for the auto/projectile cannon, missile launcher, and torpedo tube/launcher for calculating gunnery techs.

W1. auto/projectile cannon firing mechanism tonnage + magazine tonnage + ammo in magazine tonnage

W2. missile launcher tonnage + magazine tonnage + ammo in magazine tonnage

W3. torpedo tube/launcher tonnage + magazine tonnage + ammo in magazine tonnage

W4. Total of all installed Energy Weapon Firing Mechanism tonnages

(W1 + W2 + W3 + W4) x Crew Tech Level Factor = Total Gunnery Techs.

[markc]

Yes looks perfect.
MDC

[snrdg051306]

Thanks MarkC, looks like I'm getting the hang of somethings in SM: P.

[David Johansen]

You know, snrdg051306, assuming any future version of Spacemaster builds on SPAM's design rules, you are doing some invaluable work here going through it all and hashing out the answers.  Hopefully some draft of your work will make it through to the designers once things are sorted out and moving again.

Even if Spacemaster Privateers just got a cleaned up and corrected edition this is really useful stuff.

[snrdg051306]

Thanks David for the kind words and encouragement. I'll be submitting a Word document for the design example in A-2.4 Complete Vehicle Construction Rules. One of the items in the document is the adjustment for the hard point required with the installation of the torpedo payload pallet.

[NanoEther]

I think this is more the case of terminology re-use then anything else. From the description in the manual, I get the impression of under-wing rail systems used to hang many types of equipment (fuel pods, bombs, missiles, torpedoes, targeting systems, EW systems, cargo, refueling pods, and more), in fact in the core SS system, these were options and more were added in vessel companions. The real telling point is that the torpedo does not take up any volume, this indicates that either the torpedo is either very, very, very small (there's Vol formulas that track .001 square meters), or it's normally external. SS was originally a space fighter combat system and during that time there were no fighters that used internal pallets. Bombers did, but who uses bombs in space? But even a bomber does not reload the bay in flight, it dumps the load and returns to base for reload. In addition, the mass limits are close to under-wing systems (the largest I could find was a 3mT cruise missile)

Personally, I would suggest changing missiles to rockets, torpedoes to missiles, and maybe add torpedoes as a new option, since in space it is technically just a really big missile (and have i mentioned the 3 ton cruise missile).

I would also change pallets so you have the option of making them internal (vol = 3 * pallet mass, this would include option for doors). I am allowing additional systems to be added to the pallet, right now I'm running the pod as 3 time the mass of the pallet with a vol of 9 times the mass for construction purposes. I'm adding "compact construction" as an option, this increases the cost, reduces vol, and increases repair difficulty & time. All exposed pods also suffer the exposed weapons flaw.

As mentioned in another post, I'm working on a larger version I'm calling payload modules. I'm not sure if I should include it in this thread since it's not confined to weapons systems.

[snrdg051306]

Hi again NanoEther,

By the by Thom let me know how to change how postings are shown. Click on Profile at the top of the page, Modify Profile, select Look and Layout, scroll down the list and above Show WYSIWYG is the option to show most recent posts at top.

Back to the the reply

I think this is more the case of terminology re-use then anything else. From the description in the manual, I get the impression of under-wing rail systems used to hang many types of equipment (fuel pods, bombs, missiles, torpedoes, targeting systems, EW systems, cargo, refueling pods, and more), in fact in the core SS system, these were options and more were added in vessel companions. The real telling point is that the torpedo does not take up any volume, this indicates that either the torpedo is either very, very, very small (there's Vol formulas that track .001 square meters), or it's normally external. SS was originally a space fighter combat system and during that time there were no fighters that used internal pallets. Bombers did, but who uses bombs in space? But even a bomber does not reload the bay in flight, it dumps the load and returns to base for reload. In addition, the mass limits are close to under-wing systems (the largest I could find was a 3mT cruise missile)

Personally, I would suggest changing missiles to rockets, torpedoes to missiles, and maybe add torpedoes as a new option, since in space it is technically just a really big missile (and have i mentioned the 3 ton cruise missile).

I would also change pallets so you have the option of making them internal (vol = 3 * pallet mass, this would include option for doors). I am allowing additional systems to be added to the pallet, right now I'm running the pod as 3 time the mass of the pallet with a vol of 9 times the mass for construction purposes. I'm adding "compact construction" as an option, this increases the cost, reduces vol, and increases repair difficulty & time. All exposed pods also suffer the exposed weapons flaw.

As mentioned in another post, I'm working on a larger version I'm calling payload modules. I'm not sure if I should include it in this thread since it's not confined to weapons systems.

I don't have my SpaceMaster stuff handy so I may be totally out to lunch.
Rockets are unguided missiles.
Missiles have guidance systems.
Torpedoes are large missiles.

Since I don't have my books I can't recall if rockets/missiles/torpedoes have different propulsion systems. If they do then a rocket has a continuous burn system that burns out in a sort time after launch. Missile and torpedo propulsion systems are more flexable.

As recommended on the other post starting a new topic is probably the best way to go.