Quick "reality" check:
Using the Pournelle Rosetta Stone conversion rates (1 FB mass = 25 cargo
space = 100 DS2/SG2 capacity) and the MT troop transport guidelines, a
squad of 6 troopers "in quarters" take up 24 cargo space, which is slightly
less than one FB mass point or 100 metric tons. Troops "in cryo" only take
up 1/4 as much space, so 24-25 troops could be transported in the same
amount of space.
Ship's crew is equal to 1 person per unit of mass for the ship, so a mass 100
ship will have 100 crew (20 officers, 80 ratings). If the ship has a fragile
hull, then the maximum tonnage that could be devoted to habitable spaces such
as quarters, accessways, control stations, etc. would be 10 mass units. On the
ship's control sheet, only half of those would have "stars" on them, so let's
assume that our crew of 100 would be bunking in 5 hull boxes of crew quarters
and that the other five hull boxes would be "work areas". That's 20 crew per
point of mass. If we wanted to add in a small ship's marine contingent we
could probably go as high a total of 25 personnel per point of mass. (Note:
This is about half the number of marines per unit mass suggested in MT, even
after converting to FB masses.)
Now since it's a fragile hull, I visualize this as the sort of cramped
living conditions one might expect on a U-boat; but it seems like a good
rule of thumb for maximum density habitation. As the number of hull boxes
increases, not only does the ship's superstructure become more robust (more
pressure doors, double hulls, bulkheads, etc.) both living and working
conditions become less cramped. (For ships with a great many hull boxes, we
can assume that much of the volume is devoted to swimming pools, bowling
alleys, holodecks, etc. and that every ensign has a stateroom bigger than my
first apartment.)
If this same ship was a carrier with a maximum load of fighters, then the crew
complement number could more than double. For the sake of keeping things neat
let's assume that a portion of the mass devoted to the hangar bays includes
quarters for the pilots as well as ready rooms, flight ops control centers,
machine shops, ammo and fuel stores. Quarters for the pilots of a squadron of
six fighters should be less than one point of mass, with an allowance for up
to 4 pilots per fighter. Support crew for the bay
itself should come out the ship's crew; a single mass-9 hangar bay would
probably have 2 flight officers, 7 techs/maintenance crew/flight ops
personnel and the equivalent of at least one full-time member of the
ship's engineering crew.
One might argue that soldiers need more room than ship's crew because of their
kit, but if true then this should apply to vehicle crews as well. It
seems that it might be best to calculate quarters and/or cryo space
separately from kit since this will vary according to troop types; powered
armor troopers will have considerably more kit than a heavy weapons crew who
will have more than regular leg troops. Vehicle crews would have the least
amount of personal kit, but their vehicles will take up considerable space
themselves.
So if we can squeeze 20-25 crew or troops in quarters into 1 FB mass
unit, then cryo tubes should allow considerably more transport capacity. In
MT, the ratio is 4:1 for cryo tubes. That means one trooper in cryo requires
one metric ton, or one DS2/SG2 capacity point under the Pournelle
Rosetta conversion rate.
Note that this is the same amount of space allocated to a leg trooper with
full kit in the hold of an APC (or half the space allotted by a PA trooper on
a dropship). On the whole though, this seems about right; while cryo tubes
require extra machinery, they can also be stored more efficiently than leg
troopers who need to move around. I think that it would be most accurate to
say that it isn't so much that leg troopers with kit weigh a ton each, but
that they displace a volume inside an APC that could have been filled with a
ton of armor, fuel, ammo, or electronics.
Couple of side notes; in looking at the calculations to convert vehicles
(particularly the size-3 aerospace fighter) to FB masses, I don't think
it
is really necessary to apply the 8/5ths rule for capacity; unlike an APC
or dropship, for starships designed to carry cargo, the limiting factor will
be mass more often than volume.
A cargo bay on any transport vessel would have to be built with sufficient
volume to accomodate lower density cargoes such as field rations, medical
supplies and so forth as well as higher density cargoes such as ammo and
armored vehicles. It is the total mass in those cargo bays that has the most
effect on the ship's engines and jump drive and not how tightly they
are packed. A 100-ton bay may be stacked to the ceiling with crates of
cigarettes and toilet paper or may have a single 100-ton MBT chained
down in the middle.
For calculating the cargo space requirements for vehicles, I'd say go with
5 CS or up to 20 tons per size class; that way a single class-5 vehicle
has
a FB mass of one. At this scale, an M1 Abrams would be class-4 (63-69
tons). Of course, calculating masses from size classes will be a bit dodgy; a
truck may take up just as much space in the hold of a dropship as a MBT, but
weigh less; that's why I'd say each size class is up to 20 tons for heavy
AFVs. To be on the safe side, when in doubt I'd go ahead and allocate the
higher lift capacity and have the dropship or transport running a little
light.
As for fighters, I feel that it is safe to assume fighters come in a
variety of sizes depending on their mission; so you may have a size-3,
45-ton interceptor and a size-5, 90-ton fast/heavy torpedo bomber. But
the
same standard-sized hangar bay would need to support both. Therefore I
think we should say that fighters are up to 100-tons (or mass-1) each
and that some (or most) of them are quite a bit less.
> On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Jeff Lyon wrote:
> Ship's crew is equal to 1 person per unit of mass for the ship, so a
I would imagine that the more compartmentalized (and more damage points a
given hull gets, the less space there would be for crew. Compartments break up
the usable space to a degree. I will point out that the NAC has
the best ships crew accomodation wise and they tend to be the lest damage
resistant. Weak and Average ships.
> If this same ship was a carrier with a maximum load of fighters, then
I'd imagine that purchasing the weapons and fitments includes the cost of
adding crew to man said weapons. A civil ship (freighter) isn't going to
have much in the way of crew compared to a military ship.
> One might argue that soldiers need more room than ship's crew because
powered
> armor troopers will have considerably more kit than a heavy weapons
The USN gets a lot of people on their transport and assault ships. I
understand the jar^h^h marines spend quite a bit of time spread out cleaning
things and doing typical marine like things...
> So if we can squeeze 20-25 crew or troops in quarters into 1 FB mass
One metric ton for equipment, storage of his gear, power systems, monitors
etc.
> armored vehicles. It is the total mass in those cargo bays that has
In space craft, Mass is the critical factor, not volume.
> As for fighters, I feel that it is safe to assume fighters come in a
But the
> same standard-sized hangar bay would need to support both. Therefore
It avoids unnecessary complication...
I'm of the opinion a detachment of AWACS would be a nice addition to a NAC
carrier.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> break up the usable space to a degree. I will point out that the NAC
Actually per the Fleet Book it seems that the FSE might have the best crew
accomodations also. Heck they probably even get served wine for dinner!
> The USN gets a lot of people on their transport and assault ships. I
Like doing PT. I hope they have some wide corridors to run around plus a nice
gym. Gotta work off that testosterone...
[quoted original message omitted]
> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 21:21:59 -0400
...
> The standard is one Fleet Book Full Thrust Mass is equal to 25 Cargo
Isn't that exactly what I said?:)
> ...This should change your calculations dramatically. ...
Actually, I intended for my calculations to be different from the currently
accepted rates; that was the point.
I'm not disagreeing with your conversion rate; indeed, it sounds like we are
in agreement on the cargo requirements for vehicles. Instead, I'm suggesting
that the cargo space requirements for personnel which have been carried over
from MT may be too high.
Sixteen metric tons per leg trooper and one hundred metric tons for a squad of
six? Don't those sound a little high? Even counting kit, rations, and other
overhead, that's still an extraordinarily large allotment of cargo space per
trooper; especially when compared to the number of ship's crew that routinely
serve aboard the smaller ships.
By differentiating between the mass required for bunking troops and the mass
required for stowing their kit, the two values can be calculated separately
and their combined value more accurately determined.
I've seen some good posts on how much kit troops would need, but the old
"4
CS per trooper" rule of thumb keeps muddying the water; especially when you
start comparing different types of troops.
I'm simply suggesting that we take a look at the question from a different
angle and see if our assumptions are sound rather than simply accepting the MT
values as canon just because we've always done it that way.
> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:52:02 -0400 (EDT)
> I would imagine that the more compartmentalized (and more damage points
Hmm. Good point. I was thinking in similar terms when I stated that:
> As the number of hull boxes increases, not only does the ship's super-
Basic assumption is that you'd go from 5-tiered, hot-bunking to maybe
3-tiered individual bunks first...then maybe add a shower and a galley.
I'm thinking WWII era tin-can U-boat vs. modern SSBN or coal-burning
dreadnought vs. modern aircraft carrier. All of them are cramped, but the
modern ships are not only more structurally sound, but (relatively) more
comfortable to live in (partly) because they don't need to devote as much hull
space for engines, fuel, ammo and armor to carry out their mission.
> I'd imagine that purchasing the weapons and fitments includes the cost
Exactly. In my example, the hangar bay would have ~9 support crew assigned to
it since that's how much mass it takes up and the ship's crew is 1 person per
unit of mass. If it were a batteship, they would have been missile techs or
particle beam gun crews or whatever.
> A civil ship (freighter) isn't going to have much in the way of crew
Already taken care of in the FB ship design rules.
> The USN gets a lot of people on their transport and assault ships. I
Which explains why the fleet types are so eager to stow them in cryo...
:)
> In space craft, Mass is the critical factor, not volume.
Agreed.
> As for fighters, I feel that it is safe to assume fighters come in a
But the
> same standard-sized hangar bay would need to support both. Therefore
Or anyone else's.
> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Jeff Lyon wrote:
> >I'm of the opinion a detachment of AWACS would be a nice addition to
In a recent game where the NAC and the NSL did some fleet maneuvers (they
weren't really fighting...) I learned you don't go toe to toe with NSL
Dreadnoughts. You Fighter them and protect your carriers with the battle
line. The NSL player gained a healty respect for fighters, especially torpedo
bombers and interceptors.
I'm currently contemplating a super carrier form for Full Thrust.
Essentially two hull sections arranged en-echelon, both with launch
decks a fore and engine sections to the rear.
I'll do the figure, then do the stats...
[quoted original message omitted]
> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:11:57 -0400
Fleet Book, page 10. 1 mass = 100 metric tons. In the "official" background,
anyway.
> The standard is one Fleet Book Full Thrust Mass is equal to 25
Therefore: 1 FB/MT cargo space = 4 metric tons and
1 DS capacity point = 1 metric ton
Right?
> Phillip Pournelle wrote:
----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lyon <jefflyon@mail.utexas.edu>
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thursday, October 07, 1999 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Transport capacities
> The standard is one Fleet Book Full Thrust Mass is equal to 25 Cargo
> Where did you get the metric ton data from?
> From FB1. All the designs are given tonnages that correspond to their
Taking that into account, it seems that the transport masses from MT will have
to bee modified, at least a little.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 02:36:13 -0400
Thanks. And thanks for the feedback. Good stuff; I've made a few comments
below:
> ... but as I recall in MegaTraveller (and their tonnage was disp
Same in High Guard. And their cryo is eight times that many (0.5 tons per
low berth) or even thirty-two times as many in a pinch (emergency low
berths; same size and holds four people, but they share a single set of cryo
machinery... and the same survival roll)
> We know a Marine as a fish stick should take up some amount of
I'd kinda like to keep kit separate for now, since that will vary according to
troop type; powered armor troops will have a lot more than company clerks.
Also, by setting a standard for the amount of mass needed for lifesupport, you
will know how far you can push the limits in other situations; think refugees,
think Dunkirk in space, think the 23rd century equivalent of steerage on
colony ships.
Otherwise, your numbers seem to demonstrate that 1000 kg should be more than
ample (maybe even a bit high) for cryo storage depending on how big one's PSB
says a cryo tube ought to be.
> So now, rather than putting 25 Jarhead-brand Freezersticks into
Definitely.
> If we extended this to the *live* version, we'd then get 25 live
Again, I'd like to keep kit and vehicles separate since they tend to vary
according to troop type and because in a lot of ways, those are more easily
quantifiable. If we can demonstrate that the total mass requirements for
active and awake jarheads are really as low as 2, 2.5 or 3 tons per trooper,
then I'd rather pack in 30, 40 or 50 of them at this stage and do the
calculations for kit and vehicles later.
Otherwise, I'd just as soon stick with the 25 personnel per 1 mass yardstick,
(even if it is comfortably on the high side) and chalk the extra mass up to
unspecified ship's overhead.
> So now, to move a division of Jarheads with some basic transport
Absolutely. And they feel more consistent with real world force levels. It
also makes infantry relatively more cost effective than they were when
compared to vehicles.
<snip comments on vehicle space requirements>
See my later post on vehicles. I think my suggested figures are a bit higher
than what you had posted here.
> .... this level of carrying capacity makes some of the large
Good points. I absolutely agree.
Jarhead-brand Freezersticks and less mass:
One point on the Frezerstick vs. awake argument is consumables. How much do
these guys eat if they are awake? How much strain do they put on the
life-support systems? Do you ware out equipment and clothes just
maintaining a level of training.
thanks Andy
Well, I've been looking at the rulebooks again, as well as trying to adapt
the conversion rates I was suggesting to both real world and sci-fi
examples and the numbers still seem to have some problems. In particular, the
tonnage rates for infantry and smaller vehicles both still seem too high.
At this point, I'd be inclined to suggest the following conversion:
1 DS2/SG2 capacity point = 500 kg (0.5 metric tonnes)
This conversion rate seems to work even better than my earlier idea.
For example:
Starship Troopers - An MI in full kit weighs about a ton, in SG2 one PA
infantry requires 2 capacity points.
Aliens Technical manual:
The UD-4 utility dropship has a lift capacity of 16,000 kg, this would
be 32 capacity points; enough for a size 4 vehicle. The dropship itself is
described as having a fully-loaded mass of over 34,500 kg. This would
be a
small size-9 vehicle with a capacity of about 43-45 points; deduct the
32
points dedicated to transport and that leaves around 11-13 capacity
available for support weapons.
The M577 APC weighs 14,500 kg and carries up to 12 troops. This would be 29
capacity points or about a size 3 or 4 APC depending on the level of armor.
So here are my latest suggestions for conversion rates:
1 FB Mass = 100 metric tonnes = 200 DS2/SG2 capacity points
Vehicles require (size x8) capacity points plus (size x4) for each level of
regular armor or (size x6) for each level of reactive or ablative armor. (Note
that when using this conversion rate small, lightly armored vehicles work out
to about half the mass described in my earlier post, but because of the higher
rates for armor, the larger and more heavily armored vehicles are still quite
massive.)
Dropships can designed using the DS2/SG2 rules for determining lift
capacity, size and mass, then converted to FB mass units or a rough rule of
thumb of a maximum of 120 capacity points per FB mass unit can be used
instead.
Each point of shipboard mass devoted to non-vehicle troop transport
systems (drop capsules, transporters, etc.) should have a capacity of 40
points per
turn for two-way systems such as transporters or 80 capacity points per
turn for one-way systems such as drop capsules.
Each element of infantry (2-5 troopers, depending on kit) requires a
lift capacity of 4 points for regular troops or 8 points per element for
powered armor.
Long-range transport of personnel requires 4 capacity points per person
if in quarters or 1 capacity point per person if in cryo.
Long-range transport of infantry kit requires 1 capacity point per
element
for rifle, assault, or lightly-equipped (4-5 man) engineer teams; 2
capacity points per element for APSW, fire designation, anti-armour,
local
air defense or heavily-equipped (2-3 man) combat engineer teams.
Long-range transport of powered armor kit requires 8 capacity points per
element. Personal kit for vehicle crews can be assumed to be stowed aboard
their vehicles or kept in quarters.
A full platoon of Mobile Infantry from the novel Starship Troopers would
require 100 points of capacity (this assumes command elements are costed in
with some of the line troops) for drop capsules and/or recovery boats.
This would be a mass 2 drop capsule launcher system and a dropship of at least
size 20 (slightly less than 1 FB mass).
Long range transport requirements would be about 200 capacity points or 1 unit
of mass for quarters and at least 100 capacity points for powered armor
storage. Devoting 1 full unit of mass would give them ample room for storage,
maintenance and spare suits as well as ammo and supplies.
Therefore the total requirement for transport of a platoon of 50 MI powered
infantry plus command elements would be:
Troop quarters (50 men) - 1 mass
Powered armor storage - 1 mass
Drop capsule launchers - 2 mass
Retrieval boat hanger - 2 mass
========
Total 6 mass
All this would easily fit about a corvette-class troop transport such as
the Rodger Young. Note also, that the MI complement of a ship this size would
be about three times the number of ship's crew, which is also consistent with
what is described in the book.
A regimental transport such as the Tours would be equipped to carry up to
twelve platoons in crowded conditions but normally carries as few as six. Drop
capsule capacity is be sufficient to launch up to six platoons at a time. I
was unable to determine the exact number of retrieval boats available, so
let's assume it's similar to the drop capsule capacity. This gives us:
Troop quarters (600 men) - 12 mass
Powered armor storage - 6 mass
Drop capsule launchers - 8 mass
Retrieval boat hanger (6) - 9 mass
Follow up ideas on crew accomodations/troop transport capacity. The
following is the impact on living conditions at given levels of occupancy for
each mass unit devoted to quarters for crew, troops or passengers and some
suggestions for using ships as auxiliary troop transports:
12.5 persons/mass unit - Luxury accomodations; officers or wealthy
passengers get a double-sized stateroom, crew, troops or regular
passengers are quartered in single occupancy cabins.
25 persons/mass unit - Normal accomodations; officers get a single
occupancy cabin, crew or troops are quartered in double occupancy cabins.
50 persons/mass unit - Crowded conditions (not uncommon for troop
transports); officers share a double occupancy cabin, ratings or troops are
quartered four to a cabin (probably with two-shift "hot bunking").
100 persons/mass unit - Very crowded conditions ("normal emergency"
occupancy); all cabins and some common areas are utilized at maximum
occupancy and a strict rotation schedule is used for "hot-bunking",
galley access, etc. Ships at such crowded levels would not normally engage in
combat or high-G maneuvers.
200 persons/mass unit - Life boat conditions (extreme emergency
occupancy); all available space (cabins, common areas, passageways) would be
utilized. Life support would be strained to the limit. Food, water and access
to all ship's facilities would be rationed. Such crowded conditions should be
considered a hazard to the health and safety of all aboard. As none of the
redundant life support equipment can be taken off-line for routine
maintenance, long-term occupancy at these levels may result in a
catastrophic breakdown of life support systems.
A ship with an "average" (30%) level of hull integrity would have sufficient
mass devoted to crew quarters to satisfy the "normal" level of occupancy for
the ship's crew and up to one element (5 capacity points) of ship's marines
per crew factor.
Ships of "average" hull integrity may also be used to transport up to five
elements of infantry (25 capacity points) per crew factor under "crowded"
conditions without impacting combat abilities.
A ship with a "fragile" (10%) level of hull integrity would have sufficient
mass for crew quarters to satisfy the "crowded" level of occupancy for the
ship's crew and up to one element (5 capacity points) of ship's marines per
crew factor. Such ships cannot normally be used for troop transport duties,
but could be used for an emergency evacuation (although this would impact the
ship's combat and maneuvering capabilities).
A ship with a "very strong (50%) level of hull integrity MAY (at designer's
option) have sufficient mass devoted to crew quarters to satisfy the "luxury"
level of occupancy for the ship's crew and up to one element (5 capacity
points) of ship's marines per crew factor.
Ships with "very strong" hull integrity can be used to transport up to five
elements (25 capacity points) of infantry per crew factor under "normal"
conditions or up to fifteen elements (75 capacity points) of infantry per crew
factor under "crowded" conditions without impacting combat abilities.
Passenger liner and troop transport occupancy levels are determined by
counting the number of mass units explicitly devoted to troop or passenger
accomodation.
> Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 03:23:58 -0400
<snip comments on space required for freezersticks>
I agree that 1000 kg seems high. See my other post.
> Andrew raised a good point about awake marines. I assume the 4* mass
Agreed.
> I did have one problem with Jeff's post on vehicles. His mass ranges
issue,
> but a "space" issue I think.
You are correct on both points; the mass ranges do overlap and the
8/5ths
rule as written is clearly a "space" issue and not mass...that's why I had to
go to the BVP to find something even close to mass.
> So therefore a size 5 MBT would take up the equivalent of a size 8
Actually, it would be 40,000 kg which isn't all that massive; an M1 Abrams
is on the order of 60,000+ kg. One of the tanks from Hammer's Slammer's
is made of iridium and weighs 170 metric tonnes (170,000 kg)... which is more
in line with your comments about dense, exotic armor on futuristic vehicles.
> <snip> ...So I think you should preserve the 8/5ths rule.
I'd love to, but I'm just not sure you could do so and get a conversion rate
that was even reasonable close to being accurate.
The problem is that, as you point out, the 8/5ths rule really measures
volume more than anything, so to make a generally applicable conversion rate
to mass (which is what the FB uses) you have to either use a low estimate or a
high estimate. A size 5 bus will take up as much volume as a size 5 main
battle tank, but their masses will vary tremendously.
If you base you estimates for converting volume to mass on the tank, then you
get about 20 metric tonnes per size class. That's fine if the only vehicles
you are transporting are MBT's, but it's a bit on the high side if you are
transporting infantry or small, light vehicles.
Size 1 vehicle are described as jeeps, motorcycles with sidecars, dune
buggies and the like. A twenty-ton allotment apiece is a bit on the
high side for vehicles of this size or for two elements of infantry (which
take up the same number of capacity points).
Likewise, if you base your estimates on the low side, say about 4 tons per
size class, then a size 5 armored vehicle should only mass 20 tons in which
case an M1 Abrams would be size 16 or so.
I think that by considering the 8/5th rule to describe lightly armored
vehicles only, and adding extra capacity points for each level of armor one
can have their cake and eat it too, as it were; both extremes seem to fit
reasonably well.
Thanks for the comments. I'll be looking at the estimates you sent on supply
requirements and will try to send some feedback on them using the 500 kg per
capacity point suggestions I made earlier today.
> On 11-Oct-99 at 14:04, Jeff Lyon (jefflyon@mail.utexas.edu) wrote: