I actually think it's very possible to put a few House Rules in to "fix
it." Enough for my own personal satisfaction, anyway.
As a generic round it's fine, but getting complex never scared me away.
I'm translating most of my stuff into new php back end web site, but check
out what I did for Jump rules. This is obviously intended to be linked
into the technobabble. Getting that digitized is proving a head scratcher
since I'm most inclined to do some simplistic ASCII art rather than
scanning. I might whip out GIMP or MSpaint, etc...
http://masteruxi.net/traveller/phpTNE/ is the WIP test dir. Everyone
please feel free to preview/critique. I have thick skin, though I'll
caution about a bunch of broken links. Most of the design links haven't
been translated yet since I'm still pondering the best way to bring in the
vanilla txt files I was using in the early HTML days (before I converted to
a stylesheet around '07).
I have everything from the COTI thread on the Turin Consolidation there
with the most current edits.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM, <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Yeah, I know that the correction made your original complaint even worse,
> sort of.
>
> And I'm fresh out of anything remotely useful to say about "here's how we
> would have fixed that," or "here's why it is that way," or whatever.
>
>
> > Damn you're right, of course. Stopped with the warhead on this go around.
> > Have corrected it now. I went with BB propellant for my APFSDSDU-8 so
> > it's indeed 39.24kg and 992.4 Cr apiece. Unfortunately this is almost
> > double the mass of the Real Life Silver Bullet used by the Abrams. BB
> > propellant increases short range to 593m for KE and 444 for HE.
> >
> > Real Life M829 DU Sabot variants ranged from 18.6 to 22.3kg. Ironically
> > enough both first and A3 model are reputed to have 8.1 kg of propellant
> > though the M829A3 has much better performance (supposed it would count as
> > "BB" propellant in FF&S), though the DU penetrator gained length and
> > apparently density as well as shedding weight in the sabot petals and
> more
> > advanced fin designs. One thing that looks very interesting is if I use
> > the 2.2 multiplier for KEAP and divide that from the mass of the APFSDU
> > "warhead", it's damned close to the mass of the original M829. Think that
> > might be my house rule on the issue but want to play with the numbers
> > some,
> > too
> >
> > I think a better system would be to let the designer decide on the mass
> of
> > the KE penetrator and use a different formula to determine the
> propellant.
> > Damage and Penetration should then be determined from the "baseline"
> > determined in the weapon design. This would follow a more realistic
> > evolution of ammunition to meet mission requirement and most likely enemy
> > profiles rather than just tech level progression.
> >
> > In Real Life, the M829A2 was reputed to be specifically designed to
> > counter Kontakt-5
> > ERA, for example.
> >
> > My biggest beef is that ask any one of my loaders over the years: they
> > would have much rather been slinging sabot rounds in Tank Gunnery than
> > HEAT
> > or MPAT rounds. Not that I ever had to shoot at any target more than
> > twice
> > to hit it. ;) Still, the system gives them all the same dimensions when
> > HEAT are the heaviest, MPAT the longest (and have a nasty habit of
> getting
> > the air/ground switch snagged on one of the lines by the ammo door)...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Jake <> wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Forgot to say, your design is correct except for the ammo where you
> >> appear
> >> to have forgotten to calculate for the propellant. APFSDSDU/HEAP mass
> >> correctly calculated is 39.24kg
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In , Master Uxi <master.uxi@...>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
it." Enough for my own personal satisfaction, anyway.
As a generic round it's fine, but getting complex never scared me away.
I'm translating most of my stuff into new php back end web site, but check
out what I did for Jump rules. This is obviously intended to be linked
into the technobabble. Getting that digitized is proving a head scratcher
since I'm most inclined to do some simplistic ASCII art rather than
scanning. I might whip out GIMP or MSpaint, etc...
http://masteruxi.net/traveller/phpTNE/ is the WIP test dir. Everyone
please feel free to preview/critique. I have thick skin, though I'll
caution about a bunch of broken links. Most of the design links haven't
been translated yet since I'm still pondering the best way to bring in the
vanilla txt files I was using in the early HTML days (before I converted to
a stylesheet around '07).
I have everything from the COTI thread on the Turin Consolidation there
with the most current edits.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM, <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Yeah, I know that the correction made your original complaint even worse,
> sort of.
>
> And I'm fresh out of anything remotely useful to say about "here's how we
> would have fixed that," or "here's why it is that way," or whatever.
>
>
> > Damn you're right, of course. Stopped with the warhead on this go around.
> > Have corrected it now. I went with BB propellant for my APFSDSDU-8 so
> > it's indeed 39.24kg and 992.4 Cr apiece. Unfortunately this is almost
> > double the mass of the Real Life Silver Bullet used by the Abrams. BB
> > propellant increases short range to 593m for KE and 444 for HE.
> >
> > Real Life M829 DU Sabot variants ranged from 18.6 to 22.3kg. Ironically
> > enough both first and A3 model are reputed to have 8.1 kg of propellant
> > though the M829A3 has much better performance (supposed it would count as
> > "BB" propellant in FF&S), though the DU penetrator gained length and
> > apparently density as well as shedding weight in the sabot petals and
> more
> > advanced fin designs. One thing that looks very interesting is if I use
> > the 2.2 multiplier for KEAP and divide that from the mass of the APFSDU
> > "warhead", it's damned close to the mass of the original M829. Think that
> > might be my house rule on the issue but want to play with the numbers
> > some,
> > too
> >
> > I think a better system would be to let the designer decide on the mass
> of
> > the KE penetrator and use a different formula to determine the
> propellant.
> > Damage and Penetration should then be determined from the "baseline"
> > determined in the weapon design. This would follow a more realistic
> > evolution of ammunition to meet mission requirement and most likely enemy
> > profiles rather than just tech level progression.
> >
> > In Real Life, the M829A2 was reputed to be specifically designed to
> > counter Kontakt-5
> > ERA, for example.
> >
> > My biggest beef is that ask any one of my loaders over the years: they
> > would have much rather been slinging sabot rounds in Tank Gunnery than
> > HEAT
> > or MPAT rounds. Not that I ever had to shoot at any target more than
> > twice
> > to hit it. ;) Still, the system gives them all the same dimensions when
> > HEAT are the heaviest, MPAT the longest (and have a nasty habit of
> getting
> > the air/ground switch snagged on one of the lines by the ammo door)...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Jake <> wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Forgot to say, your design is correct except for the ammo where you
> >> appear
> >> to have forgotten to calculate for the propellant. APFSDSDU/HEAP mass
> >> correctly calculated is 39.24kg
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In , Master Uxi <master.uxi@...>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>