[FT] Troop transports

6 posts ยท Oct 31 2004 to Nov 3 2004

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:38:44 -0400

Subject: [FT] Troop transports

Looking back in the archives (
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/199811/msg00947.html ), Mike Elliot
suggests that 1 FB mass should be about 20 Cargo Space from MT (pg
15), with a note that a size 3 vehicle will occupy 60 tons (4CS/size x
Size 3 = 12, 12CS/CS/mass = 0.6 mass, and 1 FB mass =100 tons), and
"that seems about right." On the other hand, a Bradley is, AFAIK, about the
same size hull, and weighs in at 25 tons, so maybe a class 3 vehicle should be
25 tons. Four of them would fit neatly into a 100 ton FT mass; four times 12
CS = 48CS.

And MT says that a troop who is awake (ie, not a Marine-sicle) will
need four CS. That means 5 guys per Mass, which means 1 man per 20 tons. Even
including life support and such, that seems like a lot. Queen Elizabeth was
83,000 tons, and in her troop transport days she
could carry 15,000 troops (hot-bunking and stacked six high, but
still...). Even assuming that her *entire* mass was devoted to "troops
capacity" (ie no hull, no engine) that's 5.5 tons per man. Let's say instead
that she had a Fragile hull, MD2 and FTL, and
everything else was barracks space-- that works out to roughly 4 tons
a man. Let's double that to account for life support and a little more room
for the lads. That would make 8 tons per troop, which means about 12 of them
would fit into a FT mass...which again works out to 4CS per man x 12 men =~
48CS per FT mass.

Coincidentally, MT suggested 50CS per Mass...even though FB ships are bigger
than original FT ships, maybe it'd be as well to stay with 1 Mass = 50 CS.
Comment?

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:17:02 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] Troop transports

> 15), with a note that a size 3 vehicle will occupy 60 tons (4CS/size

Oops, dropped a line: "If you define an Abrams as Size 3 or 3.5, that
fits--an Abrams weighs in at 70 tons."

> On the other hand, a Bradley is, AFAIK, about the same size hull

From: Michael Brown <mwbrown@s...>

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:37:26 -0700

Subject: RE: [FT] Troop transports

I read CS to be more like Traveller tons (displacement).

Mike

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Brendan Pratt <bastard@o...>

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 23:19:34 +1100

Subject: RE: [FT] Troop transports

This has been revisited a few times. The most notable was Feb2002

http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200202/thrd2.html#01473
or
http://lists.firedrake.org/cgi-bin/gzg/search.cgi
Search terms: "Mass vs Capacity"

I'm just trying to find it, but there was a post or two on volume vs mass when
working out capacity (mostly relating to Traveller based
construction -
which is excellent when working out appropriate deckplans).
Unfortunately, I can't find it even though I wrote it. :-(

Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/

> -----Original Message-----

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:06:52 -0500

Subject: RE: [FT] Troop transports

> This has been revisited a few times. The most notable was Feb2002

I saw that or something similar; someone else pointed out that in space, it's
not necessarily volume so much as mass that you have to worry
about--although you still have to fit it inside the hull, of course.
You might have room for more MBTs but not lift capacity; you might have the
lift to carry more empty trucks, but not be able to squeeze them in.

The low I've seen is 20CS = 1 Mass, the high was 100CS = 1 Mass (proposed IIRC
by TomB in 98 or so). I think that 50CS is reasonable, possibly with a
"density" rating for vehicles.

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:16:36 -0600

Subject: RE: [FT] Troop transports

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm following this, but could Tony's post help?

http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200106/msg00302.html

The_Beast