Traveller-digest     Monday, September 6 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1066



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

RE: request for URLs with Traveller pictures
Re: standards of beauty
Traveller En Garde
FYI
re: Acceptable Battle Losses
Re: request for URLs with Traveller pictures
Re: UpPorts (was AKUS MOBY Update (was Ship Damage...Oh my!))
Fleet Logistical Limits (long)
Nuking with Lighter Fluid
Re: GDW Sign for sale
Re: Titan Games Preview for (9/5/99)
RE: request for URLs with Traveller pictures
Re: Vacuum tube computers
Re: Acceptable Battle Losses (was: Re: Safety of low berths)
Re: Vacuum tube computers
Re: Acceptable Battle Losses (was: Re: Safety of low berths)
Re: Virus and Chamaeleon Hardware
Re: Jump Horizons of stars
re: Acceptable Battle Losses
Re: Fleet Logistical Limits (long)

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 18:01:03 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: RE: request for URLs with Traveller pictures

 "Jesse DeGraff" <fenris@slip.net> started:

>Well, if you're going to start collecting the demographics ;)
>
>Sys1 (Home):  Acer / Frankenstein PII-266, 160meg, 10gigs, Acer 17in monitor
>Sys2 (Work):  Acer PII-350, 148meg, 10gigs, Acer 21in monitor
>Sys3 (pieces, waiting to build:  Dual PII-333, missing ram, missing hdd,
>same 17in.

Sys1 (Home) Apple PowerMac 6400 / PPC 603e-200/56 Mb/2.3 Gb/OS8.5/15in
Sys2 (Home) Apple PowerBook 190 / 68LC040-66 / 20Mb / 500 Mb /
OS7.5.2/640x480 LCD
Sys3 (Work) Dell Lattitude CP / PII-233 / 64Mb / 4Gb / WinBlows NT4 / 21"

Dom

- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
                       MiB - Marines in Battledress
   "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 18:25:24 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: standards of beauty

Ron Brown <ronnyq@nightowl.net> writes:
>BTW, does anyone have a reference or know the location of one concerning
>religion in Traveller?  I am especially interested in Zhodani, Solomani, and
>Vilani views.  Thanks!

Try BITS 101 Series Book, "101 Religions", available from SJG in the US and
UK retailers. Descriptions on the products page at http://www.bits.org.uk/

Dom

- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
                       MiB - Marines in Battledress
   "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 18:35:08 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Traveller En Garde

Is anyone aware of a Traveller implementation of En Garde? I think it could
be fun, and I'd be surprised if no-one has tried it yet!

Dom

- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
                       MiB - Marines in Battledress
   "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

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

Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 10:40:16 -0700
From: Dave Strebe <strebe@intergate.bc.ca>
Subject: FYI

There is some interesting stuff on this page
- -orbital transfer calculator
- -an interface for Belter and Triplanetary
- -and a engine performance calculator

http://www.ExodusProject.com/

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 13:59:27 -0400
From: Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU>
Subject: re: Acceptable Battle Losses

Matt Clonfero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
B-17 = 10 crew (pilot, co-pilot, navigator, bombardier, 2x waist
gunners, tail gunner, ball turret gunner, engineer, and the one I
forget).
>>>>>>>>>
Radio Operator. He also had a canopy in his compartment (just aft
of the bomb bay, just forward of the waist compartment) that could
open, allowing him to use a single machine gun in a pintle mount [1]. This
gun was often omitted, as it proved pretty much ineffective.

I think this is the B17E, B17F and B17G (the one with the chin-mount 
turret), I believe the Radio Operator gun position was common to all
models, but some earlier models had fewer crew...I think models prior to
the B17E lacked the belly ball turret gun, for example, and some very
early models even lacked the tail-gunner seat.

Then there was the "Formation Escort" B-17...it had twin .50 machine
guns in powered gun mounts every place a gunner sat, including the
Radio Operator's spot. Extra armor, too - thing looked like a cartoon.
It was only used once or twice, as it was too slow to keep up with the
regular bombers once they'd dropped their bomb loads.

ObTrav: Gotta love the variations on the standard types of starship.
_Broadsword_ mentioned how a Mercenary Cruiser could give up cutter 
module space for armor (redistributing fuel into the module hangars), for 
example. Or the Subsidized Merchant with four hardpoints instead of two.

Walt Smith
[1]The above information was from books, but verified by me at the
Elmira Air Show, Elmira, NY, 1998. The crew of the restored, flying
B17G "Fuddy Duddy" were giving tours of their fine airplane. <G>

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

Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 14:34:58 -0400
From: Jeff Zeitlin <jzeitlin@cyburban.com>
Subject: Re: request for URLs with Traveller pictures

On Mon, 6 Sep 1999 01:14:54 -0400 (EDT), "Benyamene' ZeAbe'
Akella" <xrp@sierratel.com> wrote:

>> In fact, as a favor to me, please do the same for all of your
>> Travelleresque favorites in your collection.

>I colect alot of sci-fi art on the web, does the 'esque suffix mean you're
>interested in Not Exactly Traveller art as well?

Yes, but...

The idea here is that the pictures in question should "feel
right" for a relatively orthodox Traveller universe.  Take a look
at Freelance Traveller's Multimedia Gallery for some examples.

- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jzeitlin@cyburban.com

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

Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:18:13 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: UpPorts (was AKUS MOBY Update (was Ship Damage...Oh my!))

Eris
>  ps.  Does anyone find these MTU posts useful?  I know they don't
>  always match published sources, but I hope is some folks might be
>  able to use (or spark off from) my ideas in their games.  When I
>  post things like the above I hardly ever hear *any* comments.  If
>  I'm just wasting everybody's bandwidth I guess I should just stop.
>  <sigh>


Eris, shut up and keep posting. #:-)

Nick

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 14:42:30 -0400
From: Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU>
Subject: Fleet Logistical Limits (long)

An idea I've been working on, and I wanted some opinions from the list.

Fleets require supplies to function, and more supplies to fight. While 
fleets generally obtain these supplies from Supply Ships, Naval Bases
and Naval Depots, the original source of these supplies will always be
the industries of inhabited planets. The supply ships, bases and depots
simply store, manage and transfer these supplies as needed.

During peacetime, supplies will be stockpiled at Naval Depots and Navy
Bases. Depots will have very large quantities and varieties of supplies,
as well as native industries dedicated to producing more supplies.
Navy Bases, on the other hand, will have more limited stockpiles, 
probably dependent on what fleets are based out of them, their strategic
position, and the ability of local industry to directly resupply them.

So, just to generalize my model for where supplies come from and
where they go:

(These ideas are presented with High Guard/TCS in mind, but the 
theory should be portable to Fifth Frontier War and Imperial Squadrons).

</begin rules variant>

Supply Points:
- ----------------------
Each world will have a "Support Capability" for navy fleets, based on
tech level, population and government type - a variation on the Trillion
Credit Squadron rules for intial fleet builds and maintenance costs is 
intended.

This Support Capability is modified by the presence of support 
facilities, such as Depots, Bases, and Starport Rating. A negative
modifier is applied to newly captured enemy systems, this negative
modifier decreases towards zero with time. Modifiers are totalled 
into a final modifier.

This final modifier, multiplied by the Support Capability, will provide
the number of Supply Points the planet produces every year. Usually,
a fraction of these Supply Points will be available every turn - as an
optional rule, "future" supply points can be used immediately, at a
loss. (This would represent Emergency Appropriations, or even
Pillaging).

Furthermore, certain facilities - Depots and Bases - would have a 
minimum number of supply points they could generate per year.
If the calculation above provided a lower amount, the minimum would
be used. This would, of course, represent the stockpiles and included
production facilities of these bases.

These Supply Points can be used on site, or transported to another
location to be used. As an optional rule, unused Supply Points can
be stockpiled at Depots and Bases (only), perhaps with some loss.

Optional rule: a departing fleet, or certain types of attacking fleets
may be able to reduce Supply Point output, either by reducing 
the modifier (blowing up starports and bases) or by reducing
the base Support Capacity (strikes on industrial complexes,
nuking cities from orbit, other scorched-earth tactics).

Transporting Supply Points:
- ---------------------------------------
Depots, Bases and class A Starports can be considered to have
an inherent logistical transport capability. This can be abstracted by
allowing Supply Points to be spent at a distance from the Supply Source.
It will cost extra Supply Points to maintain ships at a distance from the
Supply Source, with the surcharge based on distance - these extra 
Supply Points are considered used up to supply the transport ships,
as well as to cover the losses, misdirections and inefficiencies in
supply at a distance compared to supply at the source.
This transport capability will not function if there are uncontested
enemy ships in the Supply Source's system.
Optional rule: there may be an additional transport surcharge if the
ships being maintained are in a contested system. 

Supply Squadrons (SupRons? LogRons?) can be created to move
Supply Points independently of Supply Sources' inherent transport 
capability, or to move Supply Points more efficiently than this
inherent transport capability. Supply Points transported by a SupRon
can be used at the SupRon's location only.

Warships may themselves have an ability to carry Supply Points, 
especially those specifically designed for long range cruising.
These Supply Points may be spent by the carrying warship at any 
time, by the warship itself or by any ships in the same fleet/task force.
(Note: see my detailed logistics rules[1] for an idea of how many supply
points a ship can carry.)

Spending Supply Points:
- ------------------------------------
Every ship must spend a number of Supply Points (depending on
it's class/tonnage/weapons) every week to remain fully functional. 

A ship must also spend an equal number of Supply Points for every turn
in which it attempts Damage Control rolls.

A ship must also spend an equal number of Supply Points for every ten
turns[2] (or one tenth this number per turn) it takes part in a space battle 
and uses expendable ordinance (missiles, sandcasters). 

A ship with insufficient Supply Points on board (or no Supply Points
on board) is considered to have sufficient supplies for ten turns of
combat (ready rack loads) and one turn of Damage Control rolls.
To reload and perform Damage Control, it must be provided with
Supply Points equal to its needs for one month's cruising.

Therefore, a ship carrying enough Supply Points for one month's
cruising will be able to fight for twenty turns of combat (ten with
ready-rack loads, ten with carried Supply Points).

Transferring Supply Points During Combat:
- -------------------------------------------------------------
To give or receive Supply Points during combat, a ship must be in
the reserve. Note that a friendly Supply Source (Depot, Base, Starport) 
is automatically considered to be in the Reserve, and may be used as
a source of Supply Points by a defender during combat.

A ship may give or receive one tenth (rounded down) the maximum
Supply Points it can carrry per turn. It may give or receive Supply Points
to or from any number of ships in a turn as long as the total Supply
Points transferred do not exceed one tenth of this maximum.

A Supply Source (Depot, Base or Starport) may give any amount of
Supply Points, up to total Supply Points on hand, to any friendly ship
in the Reserve. No new Supply Points are considered to be created 
during the course of the battle.

Lack of Supplies:
- -------------------------
See [1] for ideas on effects of lack of Supply Points. Of course, a ship
that uses up combat stores (missiles in ready racks, especially) cannot
use missiles or sandcasters in combat.

Fifth Frontier War Notes:
- -----------------------------------
The level of abstraction will simply need to be adjusted. Each system
is considered to be able to support their own SDB squadrons, plus
provide a number of Supply Points. Some systems can give those
Supply Points at a distance (Depots, Bases, class A Starports), other
Supply Points must be transported. Determine a Supply Point cost for
each type of Squadron, have some cost more (the Imperial BC's with 
the Black Globes, for example) while some cost less or are exempted
(Mercenary squadrons, Scout squadrons, certain kinds of deep 
penetration raiders like the Azhanti High Lightnings). Give each side
a number of SupRons equal to their number of TankRons. Curtail
combat abilities of Squadrons based on whether they are in supply
or out of supply. Adjust Supply Point production so neither side can
support their entire navy from one or two worlds, so the "stack your
navy in one hex and stomp the enemy" plan won't be feasible.

Notes:
[1] See essay at http://users.hartwick.edu/smithw/fleetlogistics.htm
[2] The rule of thumb here: 1 week of cruising equals 100 minutes of
combat, at least for missile-armed ships. Laser/Fusion/Particle/Meson
armed ships should find that 1 week of cruising equals about 300 minutes
of combat, depending on damage taken. These numbers require some
serious discussion.

- -------------------------------</end rules variant/>


If this model seems appropriate, numbers need to be generated - how
many Supply Points ships need, how many each planet generates,
what effect bases have on this generation, how many Supply Points
fit in a Fleet Tender's 3000dtn cargo bay, etc. I'll use the basic
logistics rules I mentioned before, with input from Trillion Credit
Squadron's rules on paying for fleet maintenance.

(In best Joel (or Mike) voice): What do you think, sirs?


Walt Smith

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 19:58:17 +0100
From: "Nicholas Wright" <Nick@corlecca.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Nuking with Lighter Fluid

Having been piqued by the memory I finally managed to find the lighter fluid
quote.  It comes from the designer's notes of the SPI (God bless 'em) game
NATO.
Game Design: James F Dunnigan
Graphics: Redmond A Simonsen

"NATO (this game not the real org) has rules covering the use of tactical
nuclear weapons.  To simulate the use of strategic nuclear weapons simple
soak the map with lighter fluid and apply a flame.  For that reason,
strategic airpower has not been included."

This is the most memorable description of the effect of nuclear war I have
ever read.


I remain etc, etc.
Nick Wright

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:12:20 EDT
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com
Subject: Re: GDW Sign for sale

In a message dated 9/5/99 11:22:55 PM !!!First Boot!!!, meow@advancenet.net 
writes:

<< I talked to the owner of the building where the GDW office used to 
 be this afternoon, he will sell the sign for 100.00, buyer takes it down
  >>

Shouldn't Marc, Loren or Frank get first crack at this one?

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:25:49 EDT
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com
Subject: Re: Titan Games Preview for (9/5/99)

In a message dated 9/6/99 8:17:30 AM !!!First Boot!!!, 
shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca writes:

<< <koff> _$41?!_ <koff>    >>

my local used book store has two copies for about $10-15...

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 13:08:38 -0700
From: "Jesse DeGraff" <fenris@slip.net>
Subject: RE: request for URLs with Traveller pictures

Yep, it's good ta' be the king!  :)
Jesse



> 	If I were king (and it's good to be king ...), all cool graphics
> would be available at about 12,800 x 10,240, and peasants could use
> their favorite image program to reduce the size to what fits on their
> desktop without having to worry to much about resizing artifacts ...
> :-)
> -- ------------------------------------------------------------ --
>    Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj 
> 
>    Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings, they 
>    did it by killing all those who opposed them.
> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 14:18:20 -0600
From: cos 90 <cos90@powersurfr.com>
Subject: Re: Vacuum tube computers

>>:::de-lurking::: Has anyone ever figured out how many acres of vac-tubes it
>>would take to replace One pc ?...never mind an Imperium system...
>>:::lurkermode on:::
>>BobS.
>
>Vacuum tubes could be make significantly smaller with advanced manufacturing
>techniques. Supposedly, quite sophisticated Soviet technology relied on
>miniaturized vacuum tubes computers.

GURPS Lensman comes to mind -- the worldbook / sourcebook for roleplaying
in the universe of the Lensman series by E.E. "Doc" Smith. In keeping with
the fact that the stories themselves were written in the 1930s, and that
Smith himself never foresaw the transistor or the silicon chip (and I am
NOT faulting him for that), the tech in the GURPS book had machines using
vacuum tubes. These futuristic vacuum tubes were about the size of a small
indoor Christmas light, about an inch long and the thickness of a pencil
(if that). 

I'm not sure if these tubes were used to run computers, though. But I don't
see why not. (How big would a room have to be using these tubes to equal 
the function of a standard desktop PC? Say, my 200MMX with 32 megs of RAM?)


     Glenn St-Germain  Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 
cos90@powersurfr.com  http://plaza.powersurfr.com/glenn
        "There is no longer any normal to be"
                                 -- Gary Numan

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:29:02 EDT
From: RASFranzen@aol.com
Subject: Re: Acceptable Battle Losses (was: Re: Safety of low berths)

Dear Matt, 
you are not as good in military history/armchair admiralship as you think you 
are ;->
 Matt-C@aetherem.demon.co.uk wrote:

<< OTOH, a Shorts Sunderland flying boat (with a
 defensive armament of around 8 .303 calibre mgs) held off five Ju-88s.
 Attacking a late-model B-17 with 13 .50 calibre mgs wasn't an easy
 proposition.>>

The Ju 88 was a light/medium (dive)bomber and not built to attack other 
planes.
It surely lacked agility for that.
 <<
 .  With far fewer fatalities, the US Navy
 >achieved a far more decisive victory at Midway than the German High Seas
 >Fleet achieved at Jutland.
 
 The Germans were tactical victors at Jutland? Being chased from the
 field; losing one battleship outright and having a modern BC flood so
 badly that it couldn't make harbour is wining? The Grand Fleet reported
 that it was at 24 hours notice for sea after Jutland. The High Seas
 Fleet couldn't sortie for months. Your point would probably be better
 made by looking at RN losses - higher than the Germans, in terms of both
 ships and men. But which fleet then stayed in port until 1918 and then
 mutinied rather than sortie again?
  >>

Ever heard about the difference between strategy and tactics?

As king Pyrrhus found out ( and America in Vietnam and btw Britain in Kenya 
against the Mau-Mau and Russia in Chechnya): It is possible to win battles 
and lose the war.

To get back to Traveller: The Solomani or Zhodani or Aslan may have had the 
better soldiers at the Imperiums heyday, but that would not ever have been 
able to give them more than tactical victories due to the tech/size advantage 
of the Imperium. Only when the Imperium butchered itself were strategical 
victories possible ... until an imperial strategic project ( Virus) became 
the great equalizer.

best wishes
Soenke Franzen

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:33:16 -0400
From: "Terry Carlino" <carlino@home.com>
Subject: Re: Vacuum tube computers

>This brings up a question I have had for along time, is the vacuum of space
>as hard a vacuum as in a vacuum tube?  If it is than wouldn't that whole
>technology merit rethought for use as in cheap "low tech" applications on
>air less rocks and constant vacuum situations in general?  The guts of the
>"tubes" would need to be shielded from dust of course but the heat
>dissipation issue would be largely solved in short order, indeed a source
of
>heat would probably need to be supplied.  What does everyone think?

Reminds me of an E.E. "Doc" Cummings story. it was a one-fer (Not part of
one of his well known series.) In it one of the Heroes, A brilliant
Physicist/Engineer/Jack of All Trades types is on a liner which is attacked
by pirates. (That sound familiar?) He and the girl crash their lifepod on an
airless ball of rock. The Hero commences to build a forge so that he can
smelt metals and so construct a high powered FTL communicator. Since the
story was probably written circa 1930's-40's his main electronic devices are
tubes, or more correctly cathodes, anodes, grids, etc. He doesn't bother
with sealing said components, just stick them out in vacuum.

Terry C

All that is Gold does not glitter
Not all who travel are lost

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

Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:38:34 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Acceptable Battle Losses (was: Re: Safety of low berths)

>The Ju 88 was a light/medium (dive)bomber and not built to attack other
>planes.
>It surely lacked agility for that.


Nevertheless, it saw service as a nightfighter and shot down a lot of
bombers. It doesn't take a great deal of agility to outmanoevre a B-17 or a
Lancaster.

I believe some Ju88s were even equipped with cannon in the dorsal fuselage
pointing directly upward so they could fly under the belly of a bomber and
deliver a devestating zero-deflection blast at short range.

(Do you think you might be thinking of the Ju87 "Stuka". The Ju87 was a
single-engined dive short-range dive bomber, the Ju88 was a medium ranged
medium bomber with two engines. I'm pretty certain the Ju87 was never used
in an anti-aircraft role.)

> The Germans were tactical victors at Jutland? Being chased from the

<snip>
> ships and men. But which fleet then stayed in port until 1918 and then
> mutinied rather than sortie again?
>  >>
>
>Ever heard about the difference between strategy and tactics?


I think that was rather his point. In terms of casualties, the British came
off a lot worse. However, the Germans lost their fleet as an effective
fighting unit, so suffered a strategic defeat.

Nick

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

Date: Mon, 06 Sep 99 15:49:45 -0500
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: Virus and Chamaeleon Hardware

On 09/06/99 at 09:44 AM,  "Slack, Andy" <andy.slack@gb.unisys.com> said:

>Not wishing to reopen the Virus debate, but in case it hasn't been
>posted here, the Oxygen project at MIT is currently working on
>chamaeleon hardware, in which actual chip configuration is controlled
>by software instructions, so that they can reconfigure handheld
>hardware on the fly. If this became widespread, it might explain how
>Virus is transmitted.

There is prelim work being done several places on sub-micro (and
nano) devices where components are actually moved into different
configurations depending on function.  This would effectively allow
software to reconfigure hardware from the inside out.  Tnis isn't
*quite* the same as Virus etching it's code onto the existing
silicon, but it is similar.  Of course, Virus is still a *very*
large leap.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
"Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 06 Sep 99 15:31:33 -0500
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Horizons of stars

On 09/06/99 at 08:45 AM,  Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca> said:

>> I ran that set of numbers using Book 6 (for the Stellar Radii table) and
>>found *in general* that K and M stars' jump horizon is beyond the habitable
>>orbit, G stars are a tossup, and the younger stars (O,B,A & F) rarely if ever
>>reach the habitable orbit. This generalization applies best to Type V stars,
>>but can be used for nearly any of them in a pinch...

>That sounds about right. And the habitable zone for a red giant is
>several _weeks_ from jumppoint, even with high-G ships!

Which means you pass through Red Giant systems, but hardly ever have traffic
going to a world in the habitable zone.  This makes any such world a good
candidate for a *serious* backwater or unexplored world even in a fairly well
settled region. 

Eris

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
"Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:49:55 -0400
From: Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU>
Subject: re: Acceptable Battle Losses

Soenke Franzen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Matt, 
you are not as good in military history/armchair admiralship as you think you 
are ;->

Matt-C@aetherem.demon.co.uk wrote:

<< OTOH, a Shorts Sunderland flying boat (with a
 defensive armament of around 8 .303 calibre mgs) held off five Ju-88s.
 Attacking a late-model B-17 with 13 .50 calibre mgs wasn't an easy
 proposition.>>

The Ju 88 was a light/medium (dive)bomber and not built to attack other 
planes.
It surely lacked agility for that.
>>>>>>>>>>
Matt may be better than you think...

If you knew the Short Sunderland Flying Boat, you know that a cargo
plane had enough agility to attack it. ;-)

The Ju-88 was a light-medium bomber that was adapted (due to
its ruggedness, availability and reasonable range) for a variety of
roles - maritime patrol, night fighter, pathfinder, even low-level ground
attack (with underslung cannon pods). Some were even equipped
with air-to-air rocket pods and air-to-air bombs for use against allied
mass bomber squadrons - a flight of Ju-88's would fly above and
ahead of a B-17 squadron dropping bombs, or fire rockets at them
from beyond the range of defensive machine guns.

Since so many flying boats operated at night, an encounter between
one and a flight of Ju-88 night fighters is pretty likely. Or a flying boat
might run into some Ju-88's far from the coast, outside the relatively
short ranges of British fighter planes.

If you're thinking of a dive bomber, are you thinking of the Ju-87 Stuka?
Even so, the memoirs of a stuka pilot (_Stuka Pilot_ was the title) tell
me that a Stuka could "out-turn everything in the air". Perhaps we should
discount that, though, because the pilot who shared that opinion with
the author (also a pilot) was last seen trying to dodge some 
russian fighter planes over Stalingrad. :)

The JU-87 was used as a dive bomber and as a cannon-armed tankbuster
(to **nasty** effect on the russian steppes, late in the war), but I've never 
heard of it being used in a fighter role.

Obtrav: Again, the many roles a widely available design (or even a
well-produced hull) can fall into.

Walt Smith

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

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:13:12 -0500
From: "shadowcat" <meow@advancenet.net>
Subject: Re: Fleet Logistical Limits (long)

There are some excellent ideas here, and its something I've been 
tinkering with as well, the closest thing to a system currently that I 
have seen is from WRG's "The Modern Naval Campaign"

I'm also not sure how much of it is valid in a high tech society
This set of rules has a system for replenishment at sea, and what
modern ships require to operate.

Heres the table for Individual ship requirements in tons
Type of Ship:                                Carried[L/S]              Daily Req
Large Carriers[50kt+ fld]                800/130                    90/13
Carriers[30-50kt fld]                       400/75                     65/10
Light Carriers[15-30kt fld]               240/40                     50/8
Battleships[50kt+ fld]                      900/140                   75/10
Battleships[30-50kt fld]                   600/100                   70/10
Cruisers[15-30kt fld]                      250/50                     60/8
Destroyers/CL's[8-15kt fld]            150/30                      35/5
Destroyers/Frigates[4-8kt]             100/15                      20/3
Corvettes/Frigates[1-4kt]                50/10                       10/2
Patrol Boats[500-1kt]                     25/5                          8/2

Notes: 
Fleet Carriers can maintain Sustained Operations unsupported
for 7 Days.
Nuclear Powered Ships can go for 14 days
Conventional Submarines can go 40 days, Nuclear for 60 days
as a general rule each ship will require 1 ton of supplies per 100
crewmen every 4 days.

my other source for information is the Adjutant set #7
Orbital Assault and Landing Craft.
Each soldier typically requires 45kg of consumables a day
call it 38 tons a day for a typical regiment.
Mechanized Units average 90kg per day per man
so call it 75 tons a day
an Aircraft Squadron requires 454 kg of materials per man per day
and a naval ship typically requires 35kg per day.
This suggests 100kg of supplies taking up 1 cubic meter
so it would take roughly 750 tons to supply a regiment for a month

Thats what I have found so far. suggestions etc?




Shadowcat AKA Kevin Walsh
Captain of the Free Trader Beowulf
ADD/ADHD Advocate
http://www.advancenet.net/~meow

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1066
***********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-traveller":

subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
