[TML] Molding Ships

[Charles Prevatte]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tml-bounces at travellercentral.com
> [mailto:tml-bounces at travellercentral.com]On Behalf Of James Ramsay
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 2:43 AM
> To: The Traveller Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [TML] Molding Ships
>
>
> Charles Prevatte wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, you missed the point.  I was mainly talking about what a
> very small
> > group of "space men" and their ship could have done reasonably in that
> > situation.  Even a very few spy or comunications sats would
> have taken more
> > tech than could be cobbled together from one small space ship.
> Leonard already answered this. If the ship has a missile turret they
> could probably launch a ton of sats and never leave the ground.
>
> > While upgradeing a factory, or even several, to produce year
> 2000+ engines for
> > helecopters would have been trivial.
> Combat useful helos require more than the airframe. Training the pilots
> would take significant amounts of time, especially as you have to start
> the training program with no senior pilots.
>

Ouch, got me there.  Well if you assume one of your "space men" is a pilot
you have a work arround.

> > Boot straping the electronics era in the WW1 era would have
> been nearly imposible due to the ammount of supporting
> technologies that would have to also be boot strapped.  But high
> grade light engines for choppers and/or aircraft is mostly
> limited by tollerences in the machine processes available at that
> time.  The best use of the available computing power would be to
> improve a factory to produce a
> > product that could tip the balence of the war.  By your own
> statement above
> > you yourself say as much.


> No I don't. I said increasing production of already combat active
> machines or doing minor improvements to those machines (such as the
> T-34/85), and improving logistics using the computers on a space ship
> would be a better idea. Improved logistics and satellite tracking would
> affect the outcome of a war more then 50's and 60's war machines.
>

Again the sats.  I do not see them as posible with 1920-1945 tech.  No solar
cells, batery life would be short, and the electronic would be very power
hungery.  Drop the sats, and you could be on the right tract.  It depends on
what the tactical situation is and how mush time you have to get the "help"
to the front lines.  Oh and by the way, there wer ehelecopter in WW2, they
just were not very effective because of the engines power to weight ratio.
That was one of the reasons I mentioned them.  1942 to be exact.

> Of course given how tough the average Traveller ship is, you could just
> load it up with commandos and crash into the Reich stag, or other
> important HQ.
>

I was pretty much leaving that out as a posibility for that reason.  A
traveller ship is better armored that most tanks.

> Garry Ward wrote:
> > The early successes in WWII were due in a large part to the logistics
> > advantage of the new mechanized warfare over the previous
> horse/wagon/foot
> > methods.
>
> No they weren't. The logistics chain of the Wehrmacht  was largely
> compromised of horse drawn wagons for the entire war. Blitzkrieg was a
> strategy of quick breakthrough and elimination of enemy command and
> logistics elements, not a logistics method.
>

He is right there.  The Germans were not good at long range logistics.  They
simply did not have the needed machinery to haul the mail.  Blitzkrieg was a
short range tactic 5-15 miles or so.  Cut up and cut off parts to the target
and break their cohession to break their strenght.  It worked.  It was the
WW2 equivalent of "shock and awe".  Later in the war the US and Britan
learned that if they stayed tough and supplied in place they could break
"the blitz" like a iceberg broke the titanic.  The "cut off forces" also cut
off German resupply if they themselves were well supplied.  Add air
superiority and german tanks became targets.  Also the blitz did not deal
well with massed heavy artilery counter fire.

Charles L.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date: 10/2/2007
11:10 AM