Author Topic: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships  (Read 8710 times)

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28957
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
We have a few examples of BT surface ships (Luftenburg CV, Jormungand BC, Meabh CA, Rapier DG, Andryusha DD, Cliona FF/G and Wakmiya amphib?) though most are parked with the Lyrans the fluff hints at more as appropriate for water or important worlds.  We had warships in the MW4 games though they are not canon its something to ponder- I want to say it was the Thunderchild but I will have to go back and inspect them.  I would say they were corvettes or maybe frigates based on their weapons.

But we also have a lot of interesting warships in various navies designed since WWII which would be some interesting inspiration for conversion to BT ships . . . but which would reflect each House?  Leave aside the 'Davions are Brits/French' bit and just go with the design aspects.  Heck based on the limited ships we do see, what would the construction doctrines for the Houses be?  Can they also be reflecting in the black water naval design?

Since we have so many Lyran ships . . . and for the most part are the largest ships . . . I would say they will fall in line with their mech and space warship design- biggest around, load up on guns & armor and go for a extreme quality angle.  Not sure what IRL designs might compare, but IMO it would be cutting edge for the time . . . like Aegis cruisers & US supercarriers.

I would swing it the other direction for Drac ships . . . generalist budget ships, which seemed to be what they did with their space warships too.  Though occasionally they will spend for capabilities like Lysander CV sub.  Honestly I think here it might be appropriate to duplicate old Soviet designs specs (not performance . . . though maybe) looking at things like not using DHS & MRMs.


Also, what would weapons convert as?

For example, what do 16 inch main guns convert as?

ASROC torpedo launchers?
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7103
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #1 on: 22 June 2017, 17:52:38 »
I don't think we have anything equivalent to a 16" gun, but a Long Tom makes a good equivalent to an 8" gun.  With that in mind, I'd probably treat 6" guns as Snipers and 5" guns as Thumpers.

ASROC....is there an Arrow IV torpedo?  That seems the closest equivalent.  Cruise missiles are cruise missiles , of course.

The biggest issues I see is the lack of a VLS equivalent.  While Arrow IVs can cover the majority of missile roles on modern ships thanks to the variety of munitions, including air defense, surface attack, etc., modern warships depend heavily on being able to throw massive throw weight in a single volley, which a Battletech surface warship can't do.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

YingJanshi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4507
  • Switch Friend Code: SW-4326-4622-8514
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #2 on: 22 June 2017, 17:55:41 »
Are the larger vessels able to mount sub-capital weapons? Or would that have to be on something using the mobile structure rules?

Initiate of the Order of Valhalla

(HBS: Backer #4,960)
(Clan Invasion: Backer #314)
(Mercenaries: Backer #6,017)

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28957
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #3 on: 22 June 2017, 18:24:36 »
AFAIK surface vessels that do not use combat vehicle rules (I think they are up to 500t) are considered mobile structures and can mount Subcaps . . . which is why I was pondering the heavy subcap AC being a 16 inch, med 14 inch and light 12 inch.  Long Toms & other standard types are smaller caliber guns.

One thread down in the design talked about CMs being different since the launcher & missile weights are much larger than current- but it could be done.  They would also be VLS . . . and VLS is a creation of the late 70s?  I was looking at the Moskva cruiser and thinking it was basically a A4 launcher or two with a single ton of ammo for the launcher.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Death by Lasers

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 297
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #4 on: 22 June 2017, 23:45:36 »
  You can make some really cool warships with the TACOPS large naval vessel construction rules.  However, I've found one major issue with constructing RL ships.  The rules don't factor in the real life fuel efficiencies and (relatively) small engines that ships traveling at low speeds have so you have to have spend ridiculous amounts of tonnage on fuel and your engine for large ships.  For this reason it's virtually impossible to make a true to form victory ship or any other cargo vessel.

   In real life ships can get away with proportionally very small engines and extremely high levels of fuel efficiency if they are not concerned with going above 30 knots or so but Btech ships follow the same speed/weight curve that ground vehicles do meaning that the require very large engines and huge fuel reserves. 

  This doesn't stop you from making some pretty cool warships or decent btech approximations of real life vessels but it limits your ability to accurate conversions like you can mostly pull off with ground vehicles.
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

J.R.R Tolikien, The Two Towers

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28957
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #5 on: 22 June 2017, 23:55:42 »
Hmm, down on the design forums I had someone who did the ships actually make me a Liberty ship and presented two versions.  I kept the info as they filled out BTU IMO and I have already used them in fluff.  The conversation DID get rather involved with fuel range.

Of course for combat ships, XL, LFE and SFE engines for the designs would cut the fuel problems along with providing power.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4497
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #6 on: 23 June 2017, 07:28:17 »
  You can make some really cool warships with the TACOPS large naval vessel construction rules.  However, I've found one major issue with constructing RL ships.  The rules don't factor in the real life fuel efficiencies and (relatively) small engines that ships traveling at low speeds have so you have to have spend ridiculous amounts of tonnage on fuel and your engine for large ships.  For this reason it's virtually impossible to make a true to form victory ship or any other cargo vessel.

What about the compact fusion engine? Would that help?

The big issue I see is that BT only allows one engine at all. A lot of naval ships use combined engine systems where they pair a diesel engine for slow speed operation and a gas turbine for high speed sprint speeds.* I suppose you could house rule it, but at the moment the best you could do would be to add a supercharger to an engine to simulate this powertrain setup.

Regarding the VLS equivalent remember that the SturmFeur artwork and fluff says that one of the LRM-20s is actually in a vertical configuration. The Clanner's Mars has the same thing for its LRM-20s so putting a missile launcher at 90 degrees isn't really hard. I'd personally suggest the Extended LRMs for their range, but that's just me.

Also remember that current VLS systems can use a variety of missile types: You'd need a missile launcher that could fire cruise missiles (Tomahawk/Storm Shadow), Arrow IVs (Harpoon/Exocet/Standard missiles), AA Missiles (ESSM), and Light AA Missiles (Quad-packed ESSM) at least. The nearest thing I can think of is the AR-10** used by WarShips. I suppose an MML/ATM could work for the smaller stuff, but they're probably filling the role of the Rolling Airframe Missile. And this still doesn't provide an anti-sub capability. (Note to self: Look into creating "Sea Thunder" LRM munitions that lay a minefield in BT ocean hexes.)

*Not that anyone cares but there are other types of combined engine trains in ships. CODAG, CODOG, etc.

**researching the answer to your question helped me understand how the various WarShip missile launchers like the AR-10 could work, so thanks for that. Here's the relevant passage from the WikiPedia page.

Quote from: Wikipedia Mk 41 Vertical Launching System article
Mk 41 VLS adopts modular design concept, which result in different versions that vary in size and weight due to different "canisters" in various modules. The height (missile length) of the launcher comes in three sizes: 209 inches (5.3 m) for the self-defense version, 266 inches (6.8 m) for the tactical version, and 303 inches (7.7 m) for the strike version.

In my head the Barracuda, Killer Whale, etc. launchers correspond to these dimensions. Barracuda = Self Defense, Killer Whale = Tactical, AR-10 = Strike.
« Last Edit: 23 June 2017, 07:57:40 by mbear »
Be the Loremaster:

Battletech transport rules take a very feline approach to moving troops in a combat zone: If they fits, they ships.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your BT experience. Now what? (Thanks Sartis!)

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #7 on: 23 June 2017, 10:21:09 »
You can mount subcapital weapons on large naval support vehicles. However except for missiles the rules don't allow subcapital weapons mounted on a non-airborne unit to fire at another non-airborne unit, so they would be no good against other ships, 'Mechs, etc. They would work great against spaceships though.

If you don't mind going somewhat slow, support vehicles can have much smaller engines than the equivalent combat vehicle, because they use entirely different rules to figure out their engine weights, and don't have to match up with the standardized engine ratings other unit types use. I have no idea how well the ration matches up with reality, but it might be closer than any combat vehicle could get.

Death by Lasers

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 297
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #8 on: 23 June 2017, 12:27:37 »
  Nah, I've tried to make large naval vessels using the construction rules and they are very different than real life.  For example a 70,000 ton Panamax ship carries 1.5 million gallons of fuel, cruises at 25 knots, and burns 175 tons of fuel a day at that speed in its (crudely estimated from the three times larger Emma Mearsk's 2300 ton Engine) 800 ton engine.  You can't approach anything like this in Battletech as the example below shows a Btech large naval vessel trying to match the stats of a real life cargo vessel and quickly becoming overweight.

               RL Panamax     Btech Panamax (C-Tech ICE engine)
Weight     70,000 tons      70,0000 tons
Speed      4/6                  4/6
Engine     800 tons (est.)  25,200 tons
Fuel         4,200 tons        66,780 tons
Range      26,496 km        26,500 km
« Last Edit: 23 June 2017, 12:30:23 by Death by Lasers »
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

J.R.R Tolikien, The Two Towers

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #9 on: 23 June 2017, 13:43:33 »
Ah I see what you are saying. I was thinking in terms of modern navy ships, and thinking of using higher tech engines for battletech versions of them. They still don't get quite as light as that engine, but the higher tech ones do make the ratios a lot closer. Also I have to point out that the wiki article on it does give the weight of the main engine, but the propeller shaft also has five more diesel generators, and 2 electric motors powering it. It has a steam turbine that takes a lot of the engine's exhaust and recycles it into more power as well, along with associated electric motors.

Also, Battletech as far as I understand it, would also be including the weight of the propellers and all the other machinery working to propel the ship forward in it's abstract "Engine weight", which would account for some of the disparity.

That fuel efficiency difference sucks though. I have no explanation for that.

A C tech rating Fuel Cell engine that goes 3-5 would be 8736 tons, and the fuel for that 34,725.6, with a super charger adding another 873.6 tons. That is much closer tot he other's engine weight, though even that is ten times the weight.

In terms of modern navy ships, my biggest beef with the current rules is the how they determine the available space. You can remake WWII ships alright, but recreating 21st century ships becomes more difficult because you have the tonnage, but lack the space to recreate them.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28957
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #10 on: 23 June 2017, 14:08:52 »
Well . . . some of its going to come down to abstracting weapons instead of a 1 for 1 exchange.  The other would be realizing the 'cruise' missiles are more like SCUDs than Tomahawk or ATACMs for size, accuracy and damage.  Same sort of deal might apply for for single, double or triple gun turrets.

And while the rules do not say they can use SubCap weapons, IMO it would be logical . . . just like I would say they could use the lightest NAC which might be comparable to the largest cannons ever made.  Missiles, easily . . . naval gauss would get interesting.

Their role, as discussed in other threads would IMO be mobile fire support for ground forces as well as interdiction & orbital control.  Some of the conversation came down to do you want a single supership (like the LCAF's Luftenburg) or perhaps smaller ships mounting a single mid-sized SubCap missile launcher to take shots at Dropships?  Sure the smaller ship is easier to sink . . . but its also easier to hide and with it costing less can be spread around on more worlds.  Or if you took the Davion approach with the Rapier DDGs, you can transport them in to help defend your LZ.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #11 on: 23 June 2017, 14:21:00 »
And while the rules do not say they can use SubCap weapons

Actually the rules do say they can be.

TO pg 343 lists the two letter codes for each unit type that can use the item. The item in question, subcapital weapons, lists SV, as in support vehicles. The entry does not restrict that to only satellites. The chart on page 411 reinforces this giving the space it takes to mount each sub capital weapon on a support vehicle.

I have never seen any restriction for the type of support vehicle they can be mounted on anywhere, so the rules allow them to be mounted on any SV that has the required weight and space.

Well . . . some of its going to come down to abstracting weapons instead of a 1 for 1 exchange. 

I was looking at the AA VLS systems on frigates and wanting to put that many arrow IVs on instead, but there is no way to enough on to engage the same number of aircraft as our modern destroyers do.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28957
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #12 on: 23 June 2017, 15:00:50 »
Sorry, let me be clear . . . I meant the rules does not say they can target other surface objects- missiles are the only thing capable of S-S modes.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."


Death by Lasers

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 297
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #14 on: 23 June 2017, 17:08:14 »
  Good point on Btech including propellors, etc., in engine weight.  Still, even throwing all that in when include all the structures, engines, etc. the Panamax has more than 50,000 tons of Dead Weight Tonnage for fuel and cargo meaning the engine plus structure weight is no more than 20,000 tons.  The heart of the issue with fuel efficiency is that the engines are too heavy for slow moving ships and fuel use is based on engine weight.  With ships the efficiency curve goes down very steeply when you add speed.  To represent this better I would give ships a very low Base Engine Factor but also a steeper Movement Factor formula, something along the lines of X+Cruising Speed^3 rather than X+Cruising Speed^2 as it is done with land vehicles.

  Moving on to representing weapon systems we have some good weapons to choose from.  The neat thing about the weapons choice for making Btech warships is that they actually work pretty decently for modern weapons systems.  For ship-to-air or ship-to-ship guided missiles you have Capital and Sub-Capital missiles, and for Cruise Missiles you have... Cruise Missiles.  You also have Long Toms for 8" guns and Arrow-IV missiles for smaller ordinance.  Although admittedly Btech missiles are huge, for example a Piranha Sub-Capital missile weighs 10 tons versus a real life 1.6 ton Tomahawk missile.  A 200kg Arrow-IV missile is probably a closer representation but I honestly can't think of anything between 1 and 10 tons in Btech's missile inventory.  Still, they work well enough to make some decent representations.

  The rules aren't as good for WWII like warships since we have nothing to represent the big guns as we have been discussing.  What you could do is substitute Cruise Missiles for heavy artillery.  A Cruise Missile/120 is for all intents and purposes a 16" (or larger maybe larger :D) gun rules wise.  The launcher is light and the ammo is heavy but Cruise Missiles are virtually identical in function to dumb fired artillery shells in the Btech rules.
« Last Edit: 23 June 2017, 17:10:00 by Death by Lasers »
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

J.R.R Tolikien, The Two Towers

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #15 on: 23 June 2017, 18:51:24 »
Interesting fact, the Japanese battleship Yamato had 200ish ton main guns, so if we could point them at other surface ships, subcapital weapons would work great there.

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7103
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #16 on: 23 June 2017, 19:54:43 »
Wiki lists the Yamato's guns at 147.3 tons, whereas a light subcapital cannon is 200 tons.  A light SCC seems like you'd be pushing your luck, at a full 33% bigger than anything ever fielded in real life, and bigger SCCs seem looney tunes.

As for the one mention of an NAC, the NAC/10 is 2000 tons, or close to the standard load of a Fletcher class destroyer. The entire destroyer.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Death by Lasers

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 297
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #17 on: 23 June 2017, 21:55:37 »
  A Cruise Missile/120 would be a good approximation of a 16" gun at 135 tons.  Well, sort of, the ammo for the CM/120 is 60 tons per shot while the 16" shells are about 3 tons each IIRC.  Still, fluff aside they are functionally very alike, they have similar ranges with CM/120 at 60km and the Iowa at 40km.  I started trying to make a Battleship using Cruise Missiles only to realize their are some pretty strict space caps that keep from putting more than 5 CM/120s on a 60k ton ship.  Still, might keep working with it to see what kind of monster I could make.

Edit: Subcapital missiles might be a better choice.  You can put nine on your Battleship for 225 space slots with each launcher weighing 120 tons and each missile 12 tons.  Sure it's technically a missile launcher but just think of it like a Gyrojet cannon ;)
« Last Edit: 23 June 2017, 22:24:43 by Death by Lasers »
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

J.R.R Tolikien, The Two Towers

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #18 on: 23 June 2017, 22:31:03 »
Wiki lists the Yamato's guns at 147.3 tons, whereas a light subcapital cannon is 200 tons.  A light SCC seems like you'd be pushing your luck, at a full 33% bigger than anything ever fielded in real life, and bigger SCCs seem looney tunes.

As for the one mention of an NAC, the NAC/10 is 2000 tons, or close to the standard load of a Fletcher class destroyer. The entire destroyer.

I had known they matched up with SCL/1s fairly well, I just got their weight mixed up, and should have checked before posting. Sorry about that.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28957
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #19 on: 24 June 2017, 00:10:06 »
Well, the thing I could not find for the 'gun' weight . . . I think its JUST the tube.  Because when I find the weights it gives one with and one without the breech.  Which means its not taking into account any of the other weight in the turret . . . BT weapons lump in all the power & targeting feeds, ammunition feed and traversing/elevation mechanisms into a single weight.  So yeah, the gun tube with breech comes in at 171 tons IIRC for a Iowa.

I still think current Cruise Missiles are more like SCUDs than Tomahawks.  One thing with some warship armaments is you have a few designs that have external missile launchers that are single shot- and we unfortunately do not have A4, CM or SC Missile single shot launchers yet.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."


Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37050
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #21 on: 24 June 2017, 08:51:13 »
Now that's an idea crying out for a house rule...

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #22 on: 24 June 2017, 10:34:51 »
For example a 70,000 ton Panamax ship carries 1.5 million gallons of fuel, cruises at 25 knots...
That would be better modeled with a 3/5 engine, not a 4/6 engine. It's not like that Panamax ship is capable of a top speed of 35 knots. With a 3/5 the same design would be about 32,000 tons lighter.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #23 on: 24 June 2017, 11:10:20 »
Another thing to consider is that real world cargo ships that size don't accelerate to full speed in a matter of seconds either.

YingJanshi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4507
  • Switch Friend Code: SW-4326-4622-8514
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #24 on: 24 June 2017, 11:54:32 »
Another thing to consider is that real world cargo ships that size don't accelerate to full speed in a matter of seconds either.

That would be fun to watch...  [watch]
(Wouldn't want to actually be in or on said vessel at the time though...)

Initiate of the Order of Valhalla

(HBS: Backer #4,960)
(Clan Invasion: Backer #314)
(Mercenaries: Backer #6,017)

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9901
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #25 on: 24 June 2017, 14:13:49 »
I don't think the rules say you can't make Sea Mine T-Aug missiles.

Just that you should mark the RS with what type of mine ammo.

TT
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

Death by Lasers

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 297
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #26 on: 24 June 2017, 16:04:37 »
That would be better modeled with a 3/5 engine, not a 4/6 engine. It's not like that Panamax ship is capable of a top speed of 35 knots. With a 3/5 the same design would be about 32,000 tons lighter.

  You still wouldn't save very much weight though since you have to go at flank speed to match the 25 knots cruising speed and per the TechManual every velocity point of flank speed costs twice the fuel as cruising speed.  However, because of the lighter engine you still have a net efficiency gain of 5% so a 3/5 engine would be a better choice but you aren't saving 32,000 tons.  Even with the smaller engine we still are off by an order of magnitude when compared to real ship engine weights and fuel efficiencies.

  The problem is that mathematically Btech models ships like ground vehicles.  A 70,000 ton cargoship is treated like a giant 18 wheeler even though in real life a typical cargoship gets about 514 mile-tons per gallon of fuel while an 18 wheeler gets 59 mile-tons per gallon.  Ships get huge fuel efficiency savings for traveling slow orders of magnitude beyond what you can achieve with a ground vehicle.  For example if our Panamax was traveling at 18 knots (Btech speed 3) it would burn 55 tons per day versus 175 tons per day at 25 knots (Btech speed 4).  Trucks can save a little fuel by cruising slower but not on this order of magnitude.

Another thing to consider is that real world cargo ships that size don't accelerate to full speed in a matter of seconds either.

  In fairness neither can Battletech large ships.  They can only add or subtract one velocity per turn so it would take a full minute for our ship to come to full speed.  I know at full reverse a real life cargo vessel will take five miles to come to a halt versus 700 meters for our Btech Panamax so you are still ultimately right but I thought I would point that out.
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

J.R.R Tolikien, The Two Towers

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #27 on: 24 June 2017, 16:47:16 »
  The problem is that mathematically Btech models ships like ground vehicles.
That's more a problem with the ICE engines themselves. Ground vehicles - especially when you get into small support vehicles - instead get ridiculously mileage out of their fuel on ICE compared to reality, and that with "realistic" engine weights; for Tech Level C "cars" of around 1 ton with a 7/11 engine run somewhere around 150 mpg at their 75 km/h cruise speed.

Perhaps applying a factor comparable to what's done for the final cost calculation could fix this somewhat in both cases. The (1+(tonnage/x)) factor, with different x variables depending on type of vehicle and motive system. Though working out that variable for various vehicles isn't something i'd want to do.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #28 on: 24 June 2017, 16:57:51 »
  You still wouldn't save very much weight though since you have to go at flank speed to match the 25 knots cruising speed and per the TechManual every velocity point of flank speed costs twice the fuel as cruising speed.  However, because of the lighter engine you still have a net efficiency gain of 5% so a 3/5 engine would be a better choice but you aren't saving 32,000 tons.  Even with the smaller engine we still are off by an order of magnitude when compared to real ship engine weights and fuel efficiencies.

Can you point me towards where it says large naval support vehicles use fuel points? They certainly aren't assigned any during construction. I know aerospace units follow that rule including the airborne support vehicles, but naval units don't even use velocity, much less fuel points as far as I can tell. Their fuel is calculated based on range, so lowering to a smaller engine would lower the fuel needed as well whether you are using flank speed or not. So far I have only seen stuff about aircraft using more fuel at max thrust, so I could use a page number for this if you can find it.

  In fairness neither can Battletech large ships.  They can only add or subtract one velocity per turn so it would take a full minute for our ship to come to full speed.  I know at full reverse a real life cargo vessel will take five miles to come to a halt versus 700 meters for our Btech Panamax so you are still ultimately right but I thought I would point that out.

Ah I forgot that, thanks for the correction. Still, a minute to speed up to 35 Knots, vs a lot longer for a real world ship the same size.

Death by Lasers

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 297
Re: Converting real naval warships to BT blue water ships
« Reply #29 on: 24 June 2017, 17:34:50 »
Can you point me towards where it says large naval support vehicles use fuel points?

  Turns out it was in StratOps, my bad.  On page 35 under the section for support vehicle fuel consumption: "All fuel consumption rates are for Cruising movement rates; the rate of consumption is double at Flanking speed".
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

J.R.R Tolikien, The Two Towers

 

Register