Our loading time was based on MJ? At first I couldn't figure out what you
meant by MJ, because MegaJoule didn't make sense with loading time, but
that appears to be what you're saying. If that's the case, then I
definitely am not remembering enough to give you a good rationale. We were
certainly aware of what a good manual loading time in a tank was, so I can
only conclude that rule was intended for some other application, and we
didn't think it through adequately when it got applied to loading tank
guns.
I like your use of the skill to reduce loading time, which takes me back
to one of the other things I wished we could have had time to do: bring
skills and tasks more fully into the game. Starship skills is what I
thought about a lot, but this tank example would be another. Rather than
the design sequence being abstracted from skills, it should have been
interwoven with it. So you could build a smaller, better, more efficient
widget, but only if you had a person of Engineer-2 or Gunner-2 running it,
or actually rolling a difficult task each time.
All I can say about the round-per-MJ is that it had to have been derived
from some datapoint somewhere, but then was not adequately scaled across
its entire range.
Sorry, I don't think I can answer the mail on this one, except by saying
that I like your house rule.
> Redesigned this as part of the CPR sequence for doing the M1 Abrams series
> of MBT
>
> Some thoughts that have occurred to me over the years (and this time in
> particular):
>
> Ammo is pretty far off and should probably be more detailed. Rather
> simple
> assumption, regardless of type. The table should adjust for materials and
> intent, as well as just TL. For example, 120mm ammunition if I'm reading
> right is 30kg regardless if it's APFSDS, AFSDSDU, HEAT (HEAP, etc). Real
> Life ... or even Wikipedia. much less my FM-17-12 (aka 3-20) tells us the
> M829 sabot variants ranged from 18.6 to 22.3kg depending on the propellant
> and density of the DU penetrator as well as details like metal vs carbon
> fiber sabots, etc.
>
> Loading times and crew requirements don't seem to fit my experience or
> understanding of our own MBT. I don't consider the Abrams to have
> mechanical assist, for example, and default timing is one 5-second combat
> round per MJ. In the standard crewman skills test, the deadline is 7
> seconds for the 120mm and my manual says 5 seconds for the 105mm. In the
> Fleet, a loader is gonna kicked if he can't do it in 4-5 seconds which is
> about the minimum for the hydraulic door to open enough to grab the round.
> The crew requirements might work for indirect fire as it is, though and
> would also either be a human loader or an autoloader. Almost ironic that
> NATO used human loaders and Warsaw Pact nations used mechanical
> autoloaders given their doctrines on man vs machine.
>
> The time/power discrepancy actually seems to be somewhat proportional to
> the MJ difference, which has a natural correlation to the size and thus
> weight of the round at the MJ calculated (8.85MJ for the M256 vs 6.90MJ
> for
> the M68/L7 105mm). Realistically, the proper time to load should be a
> function of the size of the round and the strength of the loader and
> experience and familiarity with the task. In a skill system like TNE,
> basic Task Failure would be accomplished in the speed of the MJ while
> basic
> success would just beat it by exactly 2 seconds each. Outstanding success
> would double that by shaving 4 seconds giving realistic times. Critical
> failure would mean damaging the round, possible causing misfire or perhaps
> striking the combustible case and releasing propellant in the turret! Ref
> discretion. There, that nit is picked with my House Rule.
>
> The Abrams uses safety features that actually slow down the loading,
> though
> increases crew safety. Lap-loading (holding a round in the lap while
> waiting for command), etc could be much faster and while I hear it was SOP
> in the old days with the M60 but that was before blow-off panels, etc.
> Soviet autoloaders are SLOW (they max elevate to eject the round) but one
> 5-second round per MJ still sounds excessive. 2 seconds per MJ rounded up
> to the nearest whole combat round is more reasonable for autoloaders.
> Most
> Soviet/former-Soviet designed tanks are going to take 2-3 rounds or so
> which is between 150-200% the time a NATO meatbag loader not messing it up
> is going to take . Not sure what the thought process was for this design
> sequence. I imagine it's indirect fire but maybe Dave can elaborate.
> anyhoo:
>
> *M256 Cannon / Rheinmetall 120mm L/44*
> TL8
> 528cm Long (120/44 caliber)
> Laser Rangefinder (LRF)
> Optical Rangefinder (GAS)
> TL8 Digital Ballistic Computer
> Direct Mount
> No options
> 8.85 MJ muzzle energy
> Crew: 2
> Range: KE 494m / HE 370m
> Reloading: 9 rounds* [1-2 rounds per Skill/Task roll]
> Volume: 2.0204 m3
> Mass: 2.0204 tonnes
> Price: 0.048 MCr
>
> *Ammunition*
> APFSDSDU (M829)
> TL8
> 12cm
> Damage: 26
> Burst: nil
> Penetration: Short: 145, Med: 135, Long:125, Extreme: 105
> Price: 900 Cr
>
> HEAP (HEAT M830)
> TL8
> 12cm
> Damage: 16
> Burst: 29
> Penetration: 113C
> Price:450 Cr
>
meant by MJ, because MegaJoule didn't make sense with loading time, but
that appears to be what you're saying. If that's the case, then I
definitely am not remembering enough to give you a good rationale. We were
certainly aware of what a good manual loading time in a tank was, so I can
only conclude that rule was intended for some other application, and we
didn't think it through adequately when it got applied to loading tank
guns.
I like your use of the skill to reduce loading time, which takes me back
to one of the other things I wished we could have had time to do: bring
skills and tasks more fully into the game. Starship skills is what I
thought about a lot, but this tank example would be another. Rather than
the design sequence being abstracted from skills, it should have been
interwoven with it. So you could build a smaller, better, more efficient
widget, but only if you had a person of Engineer-2 or Gunner-2 running it,
or actually rolling a difficult task each time.
All I can say about the round-per-MJ is that it had to have been derived
from some datapoint somewhere, but then was not adequately scaled across
its entire range.
Sorry, I don't think I can answer the mail on this one, except by saying
that I like your house rule.
> Redesigned this as part of the CPR sequence for doing the M1 Abrams series
> of MBT
>
> Some thoughts that have occurred to me over the years (and this time in
> particular):
>
> Ammo is pretty far off and should probably be more detailed. Rather
> simple
> assumption, regardless of type. The table should adjust for materials and
> intent, as well as just TL. For example, 120mm ammunition if I'm reading
> right is 30kg regardless if it's APFSDS, AFSDSDU, HEAT (HEAP, etc). Real
> Life ... or even Wikipedia. much less my FM-17-12 (aka 3-20) tells us the
> M829 sabot variants ranged from 18.6 to 22.3kg depending on the propellant
> and density of the DU penetrator as well as details like metal vs carbon
> fiber sabots, etc.
>
> Loading times and crew requirements don't seem to fit my experience or
> understanding of our own MBT. I don't consider the Abrams to have
> mechanical assist, for example, and default timing is one 5-second combat
> round per MJ. In the standard crewman skills test, the deadline is 7
> seconds for the 120mm and my manual says 5 seconds for the 105mm. In the
> Fleet, a loader is gonna kicked if he can't do it in 4-5 seconds which is
> about the minimum for the hydraulic door to open enough to grab the round.
> The crew requirements might work for indirect fire as it is, though and
> would also either be a human loader or an autoloader. Almost ironic that
> NATO used human loaders and Warsaw Pact nations used mechanical
> autoloaders given their doctrines on man vs machine.
>
> The time/power discrepancy actually seems to be somewhat proportional to
> the MJ difference, which has a natural correlation to the size and thus
> weight of the round at the MJ calculated (8.85MJ for the M256 vs 6.90MJ
> for
> the M68/L7 105mm). Realistically, the proper time to load should be a
> function of the size of the round and the strength of the loader and
> experience and familiarity with the task. In a skill system like TNE,
> basic Task Failure would be accomplished in the speed of the MJ while
> basic
> success would just beat it by exactly 2 seconds each. Outstanding success
> would double that by shaving 4 seconds giving realistic times. Critical
> failure would mean damaging the round, possible causing misfire or perhaps
> striking the combustible case and releasing propellant in the turret! Ref
> discretion. There, that nit is picked with my House Rule.
>
> The Abrams uses safety features that actually slow down the loading,
> though
> increases crew safety. Lap-loading (holding a round in the lap while
> waiting for command), etc could be much faster and while I hear it was SOP
> in the old days with the M60 but that was before blow-off panels, etc.
> Soviet autoloaders are SLOW (they max elevate to eject the round) but one
> 5-second round per MJ still sounds excessive. 2 seconds per MJ rounded up
> to the nearest whole combat round is more reasonable for autoloaders.
> Most
> Soviet/former-Soviet designed tanks are going to take 2-3 rounds or so
> which is between 150-200% the time a NATO meatbag loader not messing it up
> is going to take . Not sure what the thought process was for this design
> sequence. I imagine it's indirect fire but maybe Dave can elaborate.
> anyhoo:
>
> *M256 Cannon / Rheinmetall 120mm L/44*
> TL8
> 528cm Long (120/44 caliber)
> Laser Rangefinder (LRF)
> Optical Rangefinder (GAS)
> TL8 Digital Ballistic Computer
> Direct Mount
> No options
> 8.85 MJ muzzle energy
> Crew: 2
> Range: KE 494m / HE 370m
> Reloading: 9 rounds* [1-2 rounds per Skill/Task roll]
> Volume: 2.0204 m3
> Mass: 2.0204 tonnes
> Price: 0.048 MCr
>
> *Ammunition*
> APFSDSDU (M829)
> TL8
> 12cm
> Damage: 26
> Burst: nil
> Penetration: Short: 145, Med: 135, Long:125, Extreme: 105
> Price: 900 Cr
>
> HEAP (HEAT M830)
> TL8
> 12cm
> Damage: 16
> Burst: 29
> Penetration: 113C
> Price:450 Cr
>