Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 371
Date:	95-08-07 17:04:45 EDT
From:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com

From:	traveller@mpgn.com
Sender:	traveller@mpgn.com
Reply-to:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com (Multiple recipients of list)
			    TRAVELLER Digest 371

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) WARNING: message delayed at "mmu.ac.uk"
	by J.Brooks@mmu.ac.uk
  2) [T369] A little help...
	by jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
  3) Re: Barbettes
	by "Christopher Weuve" <caw@intercon.com>
  4) Re: Ok........
	by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
  5) Re: Ok, a little help would be nice here.
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  6) Re: Ok........
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  7) Re: Ok, a little help would be nice here.
	by Bill Currie <BILLC@teleng1.tait.co.nz>
  8) Re: Ok, a little help would be nice here.
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  9) Ship Sizes
	by e.gutierrez3@genie.geis.com
 10) Meson gun Dangerspace
	by myhre@oslonett.no
 11) Changing address?
	by dberry@np1.com
 12) Ine Givar
	by FKiesche3@aol.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 21:56:21 +0100
From: J.Brooks@mmu.ac.uk
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: WARNING: message delayed at "mmu.ac.uk"
Message-ID: <199508062056.QAA24839@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

Your message, 
	ID <199508052052.QAA03998@Ambassado 
	UA-ID TRAVELLER dig...
has not yet been delivered to the following recipients:

za9za03@alaric.mmu.ac.uk

The message is queued for processing on ehlana.mmu.ac.uk.

Delays are usually created by hosts being down, less often by network
outages.

Delivery attempts will continue and no action on your part is
required. If the message cannot be delivered in the next 143 hours
it will be returned to you.


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Aug 95 23:02:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: [T369] A little help...
Message-ID: <8AE9566.0100053336.uuout@execnet.com>


T::> As far as the subeject of ship visulization.
 ::> Take a Armored Cruiser(assuming it's a Wedge hull in T:NE), it's 280m
long.
 ::> Now how long would this be -vs- say 'average' city blocks?
 ::> Could anyone help me visulize the size of this thing?
 ::> The way I had it calculated(And I MUST be wrong) was that was about
 ::>2blocks long, now how does 245 peple live with full life support, weapons
 ::>et all in 2 blocks? These Traveller ships must be tiny. How could you fit
 ::>one person on a scout?

 For what it's worth...

 In New York City, we have two kinds of 'standard blocks'.  The
 _short_block_, from one numbered street to the next, along an
 avenue, is 0.05 miles (80.45m).  A _long_block_, from one numbered
 avenue to the next, along a street, is about 0.2 to 0.25 miles
 (321.8 to 402.25m).

 Let's assume short blocks.  Your 280m craft is about 3.5 blocks
 long.  Now, we're missing two very important dimensions - how
 _wide_ is that sucker, and how many decks (3m per deck) _high_ is
 it?  Consider One and Two World Trade Center, here in New York.
 It's about one square short block, by more than 110 decks high.
 I'm fairly confident that it could easily support a sizeable crew,
 without changing the exterior dimensions.

 Better still - let's look at displacements - what's the
 displacement of your armored cruiser, and what's the displacement
 of the total "living space" that needs to be allocated for your
 crew?  FWIW, the "Patrol Cruiser" in T:TNE (basic rules) is a
 5600m3 (400td) job, measuring 66m in length - less than a single
 block.  It takes a crew of 15.  If we just scale up this ship to
 accommodate 245 crew, we're looking at a monster of a ship -
 6500+td!

 Also, let me point out that living space on military craft is
 likely to be cramped - I went to visit the retired USN carrier
 _Intrepid_ on the West Side of Manhattan, and was surprised at how
 cramped everything was inside.  Downright claustrophobic, almost.
 They spend a lot more than a week at a time in those conditions...

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
---
  OLXWin 1.00a  Humans are very peculiar.

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  6 Aug 1995 20:33:17 -0400
From: "Christopher Weuve" <caw@intercon.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Barbettes
Message-ID: <9508062033.AA17072@caw.intercon.com>


--part_AC4AD78C0000F65400000002
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: Inline

HA281PMR01@ntu.ac.uk (Lynx) said:
> A barbette is essentially a larger turret capable of holding more 
> or larger weapons. Historically, i can only think of the Barbette 
> occuring in aircraft. Many WWII aircraft mounted single/double machine 
> gun turrets. The Northrop Black Widow had a remotely controlled 
> barbette mounting four weapons. I can't remember if the weapons 
> were standard machine guns, .50cal Brownings, 20mm cannon etc. 

Webster's defines a [naval] barbette as "the armored structure around a gun 
platform on a warship".  Historically barbettes were limited traverse weapon 
mounts located on the sides of ships.  The barbette itself does not move -- 
rather, it functioned as an armored blister for the weapon itself.  Pre-
dreadnought battleships often had barbettes on the sides of the ship in 
addition to turrets on top -- Dewey's flagship at the Battle of Manilla Bay 
(USS Olympia?) has this configuration.  

The remotely controlled weapons mount on the Black Widow was a *turret*, not
a 
barbette.  

Christopher Weuve  [caw@intercon.com]
I speak only for myself.

--part_AC4AD78C0000F65400000002--


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 19:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Ok........
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950806190056.23537C@linda.teleport.com>

 Yeah, I figured it out now.
 I was just sitting in a field today and I figured out.
 Even a Scout/Courier is *huge*.
:)
 Never pictured them as being that big until I saw it in a real distance.

bri


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 21:01:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Ok, a little help would be nice here.
Message-ID: <9508070301.AA25362@Rt66.com>


Howdy,

Re: Ship size visualization.

A 747 is about 70 meters long, that would make it about 2000 tons in FFS.

Later,
	Merrick


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 21:11:46 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Ok........
Message-ID: <9508070311.AA25801@Rt66.com>

 
>  Yeah, I figured it out now.
>  I was just sitting in a field today and I figured out.
>  Even a Scout/Courier is *huge*.
> :)
>  Never pictured them as being that big until I saw it in a real distance.
> 
> bri
 
 
Hi,

When you think of them as *ships* they're not very big at all... players'
sized ships (say under 1000 dtons) are all kinda airplane sized as I see 'em.


I'll dig up some figures and list dtons of aircraft (I'll assume simple
cylinders, and ignore the wings) that we've all seen as soon as I can.  The
ref
of the game I'm in (will he *ever* get back from Bosnia?) was on a Coast
Guard
cutter that had a crew of something like 56, and we guessed it to be about
700-
800 tons if I remember correctly. Of course it wasn't almost 60% fuel :)

-Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Aug 1995 15:30:19 +1100
From: Bill Currie <BILLC@teleng1.tait.co.nz>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Ok, a little help would be nice here.
Message-ID: <212171B1150@teleng1.tait.co.nz>

> From:          merrick@rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
> Howdy,
> 
> Re: Ship size visualization.
> 
> A 747 is about 70 meters long, that would make it about 2000 tons 
in FFS.
> 

Also, except arround the doors and service areas, a 747 has 10 seats
per row (3 on either side and 4 in the middle) and assuming the
spacing of the rows is 1m, that makes for slightly less than 700
passengers.  Going by memory (it's been 8 years since I last looked 
at a travel info sheet on a 747) that seems about right as there are 
about 30 seats on the upper deck.

I think the plane is about 12m in diameter and so this would make for
a total approx displacement of 7900m^3=564 dtons.

So, if a 564 ton airplane can sqeeze in 600-700 passengers, the crew, 
thier luggage, and the fuel, I imagine the Armoured Cruiser can 
manage 245 people (don't know its specs, but by Bri's assumption, 
it's 4 times as long as a 747 and thus >= 4 times the displacement).

One problem with this though, I thought a 747 was longer than 70m.

Bill
+--------------+-----------------------------------+
|Bill Currie   | "Watch that first step..."        |
|Christchurch  | Jump trooper motto.               |
|New Zealand   |                                   |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 21:50:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Ok, a little help would be nice here.
Message-ID: <9508070350.AA27698@Rt66.com>

 
> > Re: Ship size visualization.
> > 
> > A 747 is about 70 meters long, that would make it about 2000 tons 
> in FFS.
> > 
> 
> I think the plane is about 12m in diameter and so this would make for
> a total approx displacement of 7900m^3=564 dtons.
> 
> One problem with this though, I thought a 747 was longer than 70m.
> 
> Bill


I choppped off the non-cylindrical bits :)  I was going for order of 
magnitude.

As for the actual volume, I got a similar number when I did it, the 2000 tons
was from FFS (they must use a bigger diameter).

_merrick


------------------------------

Date: Mon,  7 Aug 95 06:36:00 UTC
From: e.gutierrez3@genie.geis.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Ship Sizes
Message-ID: <199508070702.AA228318953@relay1.geis.com>

Bri & Kelly St.Clair wrote asking about sizes of ships
 
Well your adverage USN conventional carrier runs about 300m
long with a full crew of around 6500 men
The Battleships run about the same length, but have crews in
the 1500 to 2500 range.
Where as you adverage supply ship is about 1/3 the length or
100m with crews running about 300, or with repair ships 600
but the length still is about 100m.
 
As for easy visualization I prefer the Buick scale: 1 Full
sized Buick wagon = 15ft, or approx. 5m. The easy way to
use this scale is to take your players out to some urban
resadentual street with plenty of parked buicks (or fords
or chevys, etc..) and have one lucky soul walk down the street
counting off buicks until he/she/it gets to the right length.
Then do this for the other diametions as well and you will start to see
how big these ships really are.
 
Or the last measure a Boeing 747 runs to about 400 tonnes
(Mr.Kundert may have to help me on that one)
 
The MacDude

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 19:16:15 +0200
From: myhre@oslonett.no
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Meson gun Dangerspace
Message-ID: <199508071716.TAA23369@hasle.oslonett.no>

As a rule suggestion I would propose that the dangerspace of a MG blast to 
be square root of DP divided on 2 dropping fractions.

Rather than finding the dimensionsof the section, compare the volume of the 
blast (BV) to the volume of the hull section. If the BV exeeds this 
everything and everyone in that section is dead/destroyed. Divide the 
restvolume from BV on all neighbouring sections including outside which will 
be its own section. Deal damage to these sections as normal, unless these 
too gets engulfed in the last.

Hits in area 1 or area 20 is the easiest to handle. If a blast in area one 
got a diameter equal to half the lenght of the ship, areas 1 through 9 (or 
12 through 20 if the hit is in the aft) gets slagged, while area 10 and 
eleven gets normal damage.

This is only a rough outline. I don't know if the DS figure is realistic for 
such a weapon, and would there be secondary and teriary zones to the blast? 
Then I primarily think of ground combat.

Comments are welcome.


--------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
Roger Myhre   | myhre@oslonett.no | http://www.oslonett.no/home/myhre/
HIWGmember 142| Some people have one of those days, I got one of 
              | those lifes.
--------------+-------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Aug 95 10:50:36 EST
From: dberry@np1.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Changing address?
Message-ID: <9508071050.D9285kL@np1.com>


       I'm switching service providers, and am wondering if their is a
command I can send to MPGN to get my subscription to this list switched
over automatically.  Please e-mail any help.

Thank You.

Douglas E. Berry - dberry@hooked.net
The Dream Is, And Must Remain, Alive- Challenger

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 15:22:47 -0400
From: FKiesche3@aol.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Ine Givar
Message-ID: <950807152245_49908857@aol.com>

Greetings:

Anybody have any knowledge of the status of the Ine Givar (from Classic
Traveller) in either the MegaTraveller "Shattered Imperium" time period or
the Traveller: The New Era time period?

Thanks much...

Fred Kiesche
(FKiesche3@aol.com)


------------------------------

End of TRAVELLER Digest 371
***************************


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Mon Aug  7 17:03:47 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mail05.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA236679427; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 17:03:47 -0400
Return-Path: <traveller@mpgn.com>
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id QAA00833; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 16:58:42 -0400
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 16:58:42 -0400
Message-Id: <199508072058.QAA00833@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>
Errors-To: traveller-request@mpgn.com
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Originator: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Precedence: bulk
From: traveller@mpgn.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@mpgn.com>
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 371
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

