After flipping through a book at borders this weekend and seeing a section in
it on Fast Transports from WWII, I decided to convert a Ticonderoga figure.
I snipped a bit of material off the side and added a larger boxy bit of metal
that came with the wings and things set. Now the question.
With the Fleet Book as a basis, what do people use for a figure/factor
when calulating Troop/Storage compliment?. Just what was in MT? or
something else?
If I use MT, then I can up the mass to 38, drop the hull integrity to weak,
drop the firecon and beam weapons, add a ortillery system and create a 3
capacity passenger accomodation and 5 capacity bay.
Netting 150 Crysleep Marines 2 mass 2 Assault landers, carrying 20 troops each
1 mass 1 Ships boat (unless that should be free?), carrying 10 troops each.
Does this seem reasonable for an APD?
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
An interesting vessel that's appeared on the news recently is HMAS
Jervis Bay. She's a large Catameran, a Ro-Ro troopcarrier. And she looks
as if she belongs in the middle 21st century, rather than the late 20th.
Amongst other things, she can outrun torpedos (the Russian
Rocket-powered ones excepting), and initially appears on many combat
systems with an ID of aircraft/helo.
Some photos:
http://www.navy.gov.au/3_photo/jb0006.jpg
http://www.navy.gov.au/3_photo/jb0007.jpg
So... Thrust factor 12 Troop Transport anyone?
> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Los wrote:
> Any chances of fitting in a bitomore storage capacity? Not so much
This thing
> would be working with other ships anyway no?
Well the original APD's were set up to carry a Btn of Rangers. It worded
really well for raiding. Theoretically it could operate indepedently or with
another DD or two. Sneak into rear areas, make a raid, dash out. The idea was
to give the APD all it needed to carry a self sufficient strike
force.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> etting 150 Crysleep Marines
Any chances of fitting in a bitomore storage capacity? Not so much fort more
personnel but for equipment ammo supplies. I'd drop the ortillery. This thing
would be working with other ships anyway no?
One Full Thrust Point is the equivelent of 50 DirtSide II points and 1 Mass of
ship can carry 25 CC of DS stuff.
Under FTFB, you need 1.5 x mass for the landing craft, so you would need to
lose the ortillery system to accomodate the hanger.
When running conversions, a mass 1 shuttle works out at either size 4 or 5
(depending on what you prefer), so your mass 2 assault landers can carry
40-50 troops if they have no defences or weapons.
'Neath Southern Skies.
> -----Original Message-----
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> Under FTFB, you need 1.5 x mass for the landing craft, so you would
I was using that in my calculations for the mass of the hull.
Thus the 5 mass of craft would take 8 mass for the bay to accomodate them.
Again, unless the Ships boat would be part of the ships fit and be
free. Thats more where my questions lie. And along the lines of the mass
conversion for Cargo Spaces (cs) from MT to the FB.
> When running conversions, a mass 1 shuttle works out at either size 4
Size 4 or 5 for DS or FT? According the MT a mass 2 assault lander can carry
20 foot troops. 1 man = 1cs. 10 CS = 1 mass drop capacity.
Where do you get the no defences or weapons part from?
For transport (not landing craft) MT has a value of 1 man = 4 cs accomodation
1 man = 1 cs cyro sleep
1 mass = 50 cs accomodation/cargo.
> Brendan wrote:
> Ryan wrote:
The Pournelle Rosetta Stone may be handy:
> One Full Thrust Point is the equivelent of 50 DirtSide II points and
This seems to offer a better conversion rate that is consistent with FT
fighters and DS aerospace fighters.
There was a major discussion on and offlist in january/february this
year
where we discussed FB CS and cargo. We used the fighter as a base for
our conversion.
1 fighter = 1 mass
in DS/SG, size 4 fighters can have max aerospace armour (level 3) and
get 20 CS of space for equipment. When you look at the CS for carrying other
vehicles, you notice that it required 8 CS to carry a 5 CS (size 1) vehicle as
deployable cargo (1.5 x mass!)
Thus 1 mass = 20 cs equivalent in DS/SG or you can use 1 mass = 25 cs if
you want to include the largest normal vehicles as 1 mass. Effectively it's a
50-55% reduction in capacity due to the change in ship mass between MT &
FB.
A FTFB mass 1 drop transport (using DSII) would be size 4, with turretted
twin hel/2 and could carry 10 troops. Without the weapons, you could
squeeze in 20 troops (about what the small Starship Troopers dropship was
which rescued Rico on Planet P).
Your mass 2 drop transport would be: Size 8, armour 3, ecm: enhanced (d8).
Twin MDC/2 turret (enhanced firecon). => equivalent of an attack/torpedo
fighters dogfight capabilities. 30 cargo spaces. (30 infantry or 1 size 4
vehicle)
Check out the website for my fighter conversions between FT/DS/SG.
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
> -----Original Message-----
> carry 20 foot troops. 1 man = 1cs. 10 CS = 1 mass drop capacity.
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> 1 fighter = 1 mass
Seems fair.
> When you look at the CS for carrying other vehicles, you notice that
What about as a vehicle stored in the vehicle deck on the ship? Same
number for the shops to repair and the space to move the tracks/blowers
to the well deck for boarding the shuttles? Or less?
> Thus 1 mass = 20 cs equivalent in DS/SG or you can use 1 mass = 25 cs
So the following bears statement?
Vehicle size x 5 = CS for a vehicle CS value x 1 for the Stored form CS value
x 1.5 for the Deployment
Infantry 1 man = 4cs Accomodations 1 man = 1cs Cryosleep 1 man = 1cs
Deployment form
With 1 mass = 20 (or 25) CS.
> A FTFB mass 1 drop transport (using DSII) would be size 4, with
Hmm, this would be the smaller sized Tactical Interface transport model then?
Is that 10 Combat equipped troops? And do you mean squeeze 20
troops in with out the drop ship having the HEL/2 or the infantry
without weapons?
> Your mass 2 drop transport would be:
Then that would be the size of the Personel shuttle or system defense gunboat
resin models that GZG markets? I figured that would make a good LCP.
And the larger Interface Drop ship would be Mass 5. And have a capacity of a
platoon of size 3 tanks. 5 x 20 = 100 and allows the 90 CS worth of
vehicles. plus 10 left over for some extra kit, 1 scout vehicle, size 1.
A LCM in other words
Then there is the huge $30 Drop ship model I have at home will carry (25 mass
x 20 cs) 500 cs and 333 cs in vehicle space. Seems a bit of a waste. The
equivalent of a LCH.
Vehicles stored as cargo are transferred to the shuttle/dropship deck
for deployment (internal elevators & corridors are abstracted out of the
equation). The 1.5x space is needed for combat deployment, if you've got a
couple of hours to deploy then you can use the 1x cargo (difference between
RORO vessel & container ship). I think if you want repair facilities
available, you'd need to use the 1.5x space. This would take into account
things like heavy repair equipment, spare parts, munitions etc.
The size 1 dropship fits in 10 troops ready for deployment + 2 x HEL/2.
If
the dropship didn't have the 2x HEL/2, then you could fit in 20 combat
ready troops (it's only a short hop to the surface).
The resin models that GZG sell are variable as to the size. In SG, I use the
small resin as a size 4 dropship & the large one as a size 7 dropship.
For DS, the small one (pictured in the DS/FT conversion section) would
be
about mass 40-50 & the large one about mass 70-80. It comes down to
what scale you want to actually use yourself & which game you play.
'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> Vehicles stored as cargo are transferred to the shuttle/dropship deck
This makes sense. I'll adopt it as canon.
> The size 1 dropship fits in 10 troops ready for deployment + 2 x
> The resin models that GZG sell are variable as to the size.
??!!?
> For DS, the small one (pictured in the DS/FT conversion section) would
I can't see how the one that is bigger than 2 building blocks is a size 7.
Surely thats much larger than size 7 ( modular craft if I ever saw one) Oger
Figures are dwarfed by it. The ship they show in that section is huge. Have
you seen the model first hand? Surely thats a 25
mass craft. Or are we mixing terms? You say mass 70-80. Thats the size
of
a cruiser. Do you mean CS 70-80?
Because looking at the smaller platoon sized Landers, it looks as if 4 size 3
tracks could be fit inside given some transporter type handling gear (like a
car carrier).
Its about 3.2 times as long as the triton IV tanks that I use for size 3
vehicles. Size 5 tracks come out as the larger tanks in Battle tech.
I'm talking 2 different scales. The big, winged dropship from GZG:
For Stargrunt (25mm scale) I use it as a (DS/SG) size class 7 (CS:35)
ship (about the same size as the Slammers gravtank which GZG produces).
For Dirtside (1/300 scale) it would be about (FT) mass 70 (cs according
to
cargo - design as FT starship).
You have to be careful when mixing the scales. GZG do make a 1/300
scale version of the big dropship; it's only about 35mm long as compared to 13
inches for the resin version. I usually only use the resin ships for
Stargrunt, as they're too big for regular battlefield use in DS.
'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
would
> be
> size 3 tracks could be fit inside given some transporter type handling
> gear (like a car carrier).
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> I'm talking 2 different scales.
ship
> (about the same size as the Slammers gravtank which GZG produces).
Ahh, thats a different big Dropship. I was talking about the one on page
19 of MT. Its a huge craft. One of the engine pods rates about size 6 going by
the scales I use. The tanks in the same pic are size 3 or 4. The drop ship is
about 8" long. There is another platoon sized lander that is about 3" long.
These are Microtac ships (I guess that may be the source of confusion.)
> You have to be careful when mixing the scales. GZG do make a 1/300
herm? is it the same model in two different sizes for 1/300 or one in
1/300 and one in 25mm? I understand the diff in scales. Thats not a
problem
> I usually only use the resin ships for Stargrunt, as they're too big
Well the big transports are pretty big, but I can see a scenario where they'd
work fine. I can't see any size 3 vehicles doing much damage to one given its
size and volume. It may not take off again, but I don't see one crashing that
easily. Especially not the 8" one. It has what would amount to a class 1 beam
under the nose in addition to the turret (class
5 MDC or HEL). Not a nice thing to have popping as it comes in on its final.
> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
it looks darned similar to the SeaCat ferries that do the run across the
channel and the irish sea round these parts. they painted one black (well, a
model) and used it as the stealth ship in 'tomorrow never dies'. my data says
length 74 m, cruise speed 35 kts, displacement 3 000 tonnes.
see also the later HSS, which is stena's latest catamaran, and which is a dead
ringer for a shuttlecraft off star trek. length 127 m, cruise speed 40 kts,
displacement 20 000 tonnes.
http://www.seaview.co.uk/cruiselines/stena/Stena_HSS.html
i sailed past one in an 80-year-old gaff cutter out at Harwich. that was
comical.
i don't know how seaworthy they are - could they operate in foul
deep-ocean weather? if so, i can see navies picking up on catamarans
before too long.
tom
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Tom Anderson wrote:
> i don't know how seaworthy they are - could they operate in foul
The USN has several for sonar research. Had em before the aussies did too.
Just not operational vessels. They are for trials and research. (First
operational craft Sea Shadow was just a test bed)
www.uss-salem.org/worldnav/usa/aux_flt.htm
T-AGOS 19-22 Victorious class ocean surveillance Ships
AGOS-23 Impeccable
My understanding is that since the hull is mostly below the WL it tends to get
less wave action than a conventional hull. They are odd as far as
space. You get less hull volume but more square footage up top. The first one
the navy had, was great as far as helo pad space. There is also lots
of space for lowering gear into the water. Just open a hatch in the deck
between the hulls.
There were to be more of the Impeccable class, but there were problems with
the hull build so it looks like the follow ons are going to be axed.
> Tom Anderson wrote:
> > An interesting vessel that's appeared on the news recently is HMAS
> it looks darned similar to the SeaCat ferries that do the run across
Made by the same firm. May even be sister ships. You see, she was built for
the Bass Straight ferry run, and when business turned bad, and the RAN wanted
a fast transport, she was available.
> see also the later HSS, which is stena's latest catamaran
Nice!
> i don't know how seaworthy they are - could they operate in foul
They have better seakeeping qualities than any other vessel of their size.
Bass Strait is in the "Roaring Forties" so this was a major design
consideration. I believe a similar vessel currently holds the Blue Riband for
fastest transatlantic crossing.
> see also the later HSS, which is stena's latest catamaran, and which
The smaller ones such as the cross-channel Seacats are renowned for
being very lively in even slightly choppy waters. My wife's delicate stomach
dictates that we always take the ferry to France, never a Seacat, despite the
much reduced crossing time.