Transport Capacities
From: "The Nameless One (aka Thomas Barclay)" <kaladorn@h...>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 03:23:58 -0400
Subject: Transport Capacities
Jeff said lots of smart stuff, to which I reply:
Okay, I'd buy splitting out kit from Jarheads. Now, I suppose we could
easily rationalize 1000 kg if we count powerplant and fuel for same and
revival centres and all that kind of stuff that would go with the
Jarhead brand freezerstick.
I can see a desire to keep kit separate (esp supplies) from the Jarhead.
But I'm trying to keep some perspective on the existent designs - if we
said each soldier has his basic kit load (personal weapon, body armour,
etc), we only really have to just up multiply the number of Marines in
existing designs, not totally refigure.
Andrew raised a good point about awake marines. I assume the 4* mass
helps to account for things like extra supply, life support, etc. Since
you don't have to deal with this stuff for crew, lets no think to hard
about it for soldiers.
I did have one problem with Jeff's post on vehicles. His mass ranges
overlapped! Add to which the 8/5ths rule doesn't reflect a "mass" issue,
but a "space" issue I think.
How about this:
A vehicle has X capacity points (5* size class normally, but some
oddball designs are out there).
By cannon, that would take up 8/5 the space it internally uses. It's
this space that really matters.
So, if we have 4 DS/SG spaces = 1 Cargo Space, and 25 CS = 1 Mass = 100
DS Spaces = 100 t.
So therefore a size 5 MBT would take up the equivalent of a size 8
vehicle, which would be 40 DS capacity points, or the equivalent of 40
metric tons. That's about 80,000 kg. That's heavy. But, in the future,
with aligned superdense armours and VERY thick armour, VERY heavy guns,
and very powerful powerplants for propulsion, this might not be totally
out of whack for a class 5 tank. And anyway, it isn't just the tank,
it's the tank plus it's associated storage decking. So I think you
should preserve the 8/5ths rule.
Exception: Vehicles shipped "packed" (some assembly required) might be
shipped for their size in DS spaces. Of course, you can't "drive" it off
the other side. It probably will take a day to re-assemble (or some
period of time depending on type of vehicle). And this must be done on
the ground! This is the "car transporter" method. It can be used to move
strategic stockpiles, but not on a RO-RO assault transport.
So, if you want to keep special (heavy) kit separate, like PA, vehicles,
heavy weapons, etc., how had you in mind to calculate this mass? From
your TO&E?
And supplies, what figures had you in mind for covering expendables
(everything from medical supplies, ammo loads, food, water, blood, pay
stubs, playing cards, etc....) for the troops?
I'd say that someone paying 4 cargo spaces to ship their guy (4 Mt)
shouldn't have to feed them while on the ship - you don't have to feed
crew members nor normal boarding parties. So the only supply you need
worry about is downwell supply.
I had some "guestimates" for expendibles for a standard mechanized
infantry force:
Low tempo operations: 10 kg/man/day
Mid tempo operations: 20 kg/man/day
High tempo operations: 40 kg/man/day
This is a generic way to account for things like everything from
rations, basic ammo loads, etc to TP and field message pads. You don't
want to go too detailed here - it'll be gross.
I think an easy way to do it would be to define your standard troop
types:
Infantry (Foot) (IF)
Infantry (Mech) (IM)
Powered Armour (PA)
Armour (ARM)
Air (AIR)
Artillery (ART)
Support (SUP)
We could take some educated guesses at their supply requirements:
Tempo Low Med High
vs. Troop
IF 5 10 20
IM 10 20 40
PA 10 20 40
ARM 20 40 80
AIR 25 50 100
ART 20 40 80
SUP 15 30 60
Now, this is hardly a panacea of everything, but it will certainly cover
a reasonable weight of supplies in KG/day.
So, we have the base weight of our marine (1 DS space), plus his
personal kit. Then we have an additional (if he's mech infantry) 20 kg *
however many days of supply we think he needs (I'd say a month minimum -
600 kg). Add in the space consumed by any vehicles. I'd say treat PA as
a 1 space vehicle, which can be stored for 1 capacity point. This
includes a locker and some basic spares. IWs, treat as same class
vehicle. Bikes and such get treated as size 0.5 vehicles.
An example might be instructive:
I have a company to build a transport for.
The company consists of 200 men in 5 40 man platoons. Four of these are
mechanized infantry, one is support.
So, I have 200 men, which is 2 mass as cryosleepers. But I want these
guys capable of operations so I keep them in berths so 200 men is 8
mass. They have 4 APCs per mech platoon, and the APC is a size 3 vehicle
(15 capacity points). So we have 60 cap points per platoon * 4 platoons
or 240 capacity points. Stored RO-RO style, this needs the 8/5ths
conversion factor. That's 384 capacity points - call it 4 mass and we've
got room for two class one vehicles additional (jeeps for the command
staff). The support guys have the equivalent of another 60 points of
vehicles - another mass. So we have 8 mass in troops (awake) and 5 mass
in vehicles (RO-RO). We need supplies for this unit - the infantry are
IM and the support guys are just that. We decide we want 30 days
supplies for normal tempo operations. That is 20 kgs * 160 guys * 30
days or 96,000 kg. Add to this supply for 30 days for the support group
of 40 - 30 kgs * 40 guys * 30 days for a total supply weight of 132,000
kg. Or more than 1 mass. So call it 2 mass, put in 200,000 kg of supply,
and that should be supplies for 45 days of normal tempo ops (4400 used
per day). This of course would be 90 days of low intensity ops or 22.5
days of high intensity ops.
So, all told we have 2 mass for supplies, 5 mass for vehicles, and 8
mass for humans. So that is 15 mass. Now, this doesn't account for
ortillery support modules, nor air support or transport to the surface
(you could streamline the troopship or install shuttles). But that gives
you a good base.
Now, this is a pretty simple example (as compared to some you could
construct) but it demonstrates a reasonable approach to the problem.