How many tankers and tenders per fleet?

[aramis]

Why can't a tanker be fitted with the same pumps as a drop tank and thus achive the same fuel transfer rate?

If a drop tank can feed its fuel into the jump fuel process why can't a tanker?

This is something that has long made little sense for the other fuel tank solutions.

It's not the pumps, it's the hoses. Drop tanks (and dedicated fuel shuttles in specific-to-the-shuttle cradles) can have direct ports to the main fuel pumps., and those are hard fittings.

Flexible connections, when not straight, induce turbulence, and further, generally have lower maximum pressures, resulting in lower fuel flow. ALso, some forms generate turbulence even while straight, due to the expansion joints.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

could game it out, you know. once put up a system for playing out all of this here.

Quite easily done.

Take the Sol system for example. We have Terra and four outer GGs as main refuelling points.

The defender has 100 pts of combat power. You can expect a main attack, or a raid passing through. You can place as many detachments as you want, anywhere you want, e.g. in orbit (close or 100D) around the refuelling points. If you want to reposition the detachments, detail a time table.

Example:
1: 100 pts in close orbit around Terra.
2: 20 pts each in 100D orbit around Terra, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

Decide. Post.


Intruder mission to follow...

 

[flykiller]

turbulence

... uh ... well, that's not mentioned in lbb 1-6 or tcs ... neither is there any mention of being "too close" to a jumping ship causing damage to the proximity ship.

seems very straight-forward that if a drop tank works, then a mobile drop tank (ship) would work too.

 

[Condottiere]

In the Traveller context, concentrating a large number of tankers for a small raiding strike group is viable, doing so for a battle fleet will denude the entire Sector of their mobile refuelling assets, and will provoke the mobilization and massing of opposing counter forces, if not pre-emptive strikes of their own, covert or otherwise.

 

[kilemall]

In the Traveller context, concentrating a large number of tankers for a small raiding strike group is viable, doing so for a battle fleet will denude the entire Sector of their mobile refuelling assets, and will provoke the mobilization and massing of opposing counter forces, if not pre-emptive strikes of their own, covert or otherwise.

Exactly so, I am certainly not arguing for a main force breakthrough (although years of stalemate may make an attempt on that scale more justifiable then continued hostilities).


The goal of the raiding fleet is to force an opponent to split up defenses at primary conventional range targets to ease a conventional fleet attack, or suffer unacceptable back line logistical/economical/political damage. Potentially a cavalry screening/scouting force for the main fleet to root out and prepare for advances, or conversely a disruption/logistics cut fleet against the enemies' raiding/main force.



The raiding fleet needs to be large enough to demolish local SDBs/patrol fleets, spread out and scout/kill mercantile/system traffic, and destroy orbital military/industrial/shipyard assets without engaging in a protracted siege/trading fire with planetary defenses.


As such it's an adjunct to using the primary fleet conventionally and allowing it to do it's job.


I'd say 1/10th of the budget at most for them.


Bigger issue missing to me- repair/recovery infrastructure for ships too damaged to jump home, but salvageable particularly as repair is so much faster then building new. Mobile shipyards/docks or deployable bases is a major fleet element missing from most Traveller empire games, the equivalent of outpost or frontier maintenance in Imperium.

 

[flykiller]

years of stalemate

given the utter pourosity of traveller "borders" and the impossibility of maintaining any kind of "front line", just how is a stalemate arrived at?

Mobile shipyards/docks or deployable bases is a major fleet element missing from most Traveller empire games

a blatant failure, yes. one notes that fleet combat actions are so much more exciting than repair logistics. imtu I pay careful attention to yard capacity and just say that any mobile yards are not extra but rather are existing yard capacity deployed forward (i.e. no net gain), so while imtu there are repair ships their primary job is to get damaged boats moving again and back to a full yard, otherwise the boat just gets nuked.

 

[kilemall]

given the utter pourosity of traveller "borders" and the impossibility of maintaining any kind of "front line", just how is a stalemate arrived at?

What counts is the 'correlation of forces', you could get a stalemate where you actually have fewer ships overall but not enough to break through key PD sites on critical planets/bases. Conversely, a small enough border with large enough empires on either side could yield big fleets in each system. It depends.

a blatant failure, yes. one notes that fleet combat actions are so much more exciting than repair logistics. imtu I pay careful attention to yard capacity and just say that any mobile yards are not extra but rather are existing yard capacity deployed forward (i.e. no net gain), so while imtu there are repair ships their primary job is to get damaged boats moving again and back to a full yard, otherwise the boat just gets nuked.

I've been finalizing my CT/HG crossover and one of the key aspects is engineering drama and a redo on damage. With scaling the crew losses to something like HGs, I'm realizing having active crew on salvageable ships is a huge deal (hence yes you do need shuttles) and destroying the too far gone, hence scuttling rules.

 

[whartung]

I mean, one can asume that tankers may serve (so to say) as drop tanks, moving away from the supported ship while he has the power in its capacitors, before jumping (I guess there wil lbe time enough to go farther than the ships jumping danger zone). AFAIK this is neither allowed nor forbiden by the rules (again, being quite uncelar about details)...

We've talked this to death to no solution.

What's the difference between a "drop tank" (i.e. a big box filled with fuel temporarily connected to ship and ejected before jump) and a "drop tank with an m-drive and small crew".

If drop tanks work at all, if a drop tank can provide XX% of the jump fuel (whether that's 100% or not), then there's no reason POWERED drop tanks can't be used.

The only real suggestion is that somehow normal drop tanks are destroyed on jump.

Otherwise, they're simply discarded and, again, no reason they couldn't be recovered, and if they can be recovered, no reason they can't be powered.

And once they're powered, they're now "fuel shuttles".

So, simply, I have to assume that drop tanks are destroyed on use. Some aspect of the jump event with the dropped tank nearby destroys the tank. And the tanks simply can not be moved far enough away from the jumped ship in time.

Mind, none of this makes sense to me. But that's the assumption.

Otherwise, I can readily see large mega-corp merchant ships using this technology on mains to get high jump performance out of ships with small amounts of jump fuel. I can simply imagine it's worth the money to have an infrastructure that supports such a thing and tank recovery to facilitate large ships jumping.

I actually did the math on it a long time ago, and it "worked out" using TNE designs. The idea of getting a J4 cargo ship with only 10% of the hull consumed by fuel. At a certain scale, it works.

 

[whartung]

Planning to abandon the tankers would be very expensive, so need a very tempting target.

It's simply a contingency. I'm sure given the choice between losing a tanker and losing a battle cruiser, the calculus is probably pretty straightforward.

The other problem, of course, is that ship build times are based on raw tonnage (thus a 100,000 ton tanker takes just as long to build as a 100,000 ton battle cruiser, even those the tanks is 90% empty). But that doesn't make much sense either.

 

[whartung]

It's absolutely necessary. If you arrive piecemeal in range of an enemy your fleet dies, basically without returning fire.

Even if you are a few hours out from an enemy they can close the distance while the first few ships arrive, then kill the rest as they arrive.

It's an easy way to lose to an inferior force.

Not if you park far enough away.

Remember, the reaction time is measured in weeks, not days or hours.

When a fleet arrives in system, barring an unplanned arrival, the fleet has the system "to themselves" for 2 weeks. It takes 2 weeks for the system to respond (i.e. jump out to get help, and then send that help). It has 2 weeks to deal with any internal forces and targets before anyone can react to their new presences.

So, parking the fleet a day or two out of maneuver range of internal forces is no big deal. Still plenty of time to party before the parents come home.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Not if you park far enough away.

Remember, the reaction time is measured in weeks, not days or hours.

The problem is when you jump in within range of an enemy fleet. That cannot happen, period. Hence you must jump in at some distance from any likely deployment point, such as a refuelling point.

 

[flykiller]

Otherwise, I can readily see large mega-corp merchant ships using this technology on mains to get high jump performance out of ships with small amounts of jump fuel.

... and the problem with that is ....?

 

[whartung]

The problem is when you jump in within range of an enemy fleet.

Then. Don't. Do. That.

Space is big. Really big, so I'm told. Terrain does not limit where you can arrive in system. (In general, without derailing everything with things about jump masking etc.) Instead of arriving at a range of 1 day travel, arrive 3 days away. By the time the residents start approaching your fleet, it will have all arrived. If they don't bother coming after you, then 2-3 days isn't going to do much to rally their forces anyway.

And even if they do, your intelligence gave you reasonable insight in to the forces and patterns of the system anyway (you didn't come to this system, in order to lose the battle in the first place) so if they close together, so much the better -- less to hunt down in open space.

You have 2 weeks of free time before anyone can respond to your new presence. Time is on your side.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If you arrive within range of a defended target that is fatal. You have to arrive a bit out of range, say a day, to collect your force before advancing on the GG.

That will slow your opperations by about 10-15%, adding a full day to refuelling operations. I've always seen FFW timing too fast, allowing streamlined ships to perform 1 jump/week without any delay (even if they fight a battle).

It's absolutely necessary. If you arrive piecemeal in range of an enemy your fleet dies, basically without returning fire.

Even if you are a few hours out from an enemy they can close the distance while the first few ships arrive, then kill the rest as they arrive.

Not if you park far enough away.

Remember, the reaction time is measured in weeks, not days or hours. ...

The problem is when you jump in within range of an enemy fleet. That cannot happen, period. Hence you must jump in at some distance from any likely deployment point, such as a refuelling point.

Then. Don't. Do. That.

Space is big. Really big, so I'm told. Terrain does not limit where you can arrive in system. (In general, without derailing everything with things about jump masking etc.) Instead of arriving at a range of 1 day travel, arrive 3 days away. By the time the residents start approaching your fleet, it will have all arrived. If they don't bother coming after you, then 2-3 days isn't going to do much to rally their forces anyway.

Which is, I believe, what I have argued for all along, even though McPerth is correct; it will slow you down.

You basically have to do this every time you jump in wartime, so you really don't want to waste a few days extra every jump. A little over one day out is necessary, two or three days out is just a waste.

You have 2 weeks of free time before anyone can respond to your new presence. Time is on your side.

Two weeks time is only for reaction forces in nearby systems. Defenders may be present. Reinforcements may already me on it's way as a reaction to you building up the attacking force. A fleet can pass by at random at any time.

Enemy forces can arrive at any time, even if it is less likely for the next two weeks.

 

[whartung]

Two weeks time is only for reaction forces in nearby systems. Defenders may be present. Reinforcements may already me on it's way as a reaction to you building up the attacking force. A fleet can pass by at random at any time.

Perhaps. If defenders are present, then ideally the intelligence you have on them is accurate and the fleet was built to beat them anyway.

If another fleet shows up in an untimely fashion, then that's the risk of war. Don't drop your airborne troops on a idle SS Panzer Division miles behind enemy lines.

But, going back to the whole "space is big" thing, and that fact that fleets appear out of nowhere, the odds of a fleet being able to engage the attack force before they can assemble are extremely low. That's why the fleet assembles outside of the main target -- to provide that buffer. A 2 day cruise is HUGE volume of space to patrol. And if it's being patrolled, then the patrols either can readily be defeated in detail even by the assembling fleet, or it's just flat out an unlucky day for the attackers, and if they're lucky they'll be able to get a message back out describing their bad luck.

C'est la guerre.

An attack on a system is a heavy commitment because of all those factors. Because you come in in a vulnerable state. Because you may come in tanks dry. Because your intelligence is out of date.

It's a risk. It's an intelligence game, a very expensive one. But the defense is playing the same game, so they may get some bad luck too.