Re: Merchant Hulls and Amphibious Vessesls

At 05:53 PM 2/13/97 +0100, you wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 AEsir@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I suggest that you read on in my description to the sections that
cover the
>> troop carrying capacity etc.  Using the More Thrust section on troops
carried
>> we can see that a standard warship can devote about 10% of its mass
to carry
>> shore parties.  This means a standard warship can carry its Mass X
5/4 worth
>> of troops.
>
>To be accurate, 8% and Mass X 1, if 'worth of troops' means 'number of
>marine soldiers' (from MT, page 18. The other FT/ground interface uses
>completely different scales...). Troopships with no other equipment can
>carry Mass X 25/4, or roughly Mass X 6, infantry soldiers (unless
they're
>frozen down, of course). Not that it matters much.
>
>>   Amphibious ships, particulary today, conduct their battles close to
enemy
>> shores.  I see not difference in space.
>
>I do. How sea-worthy are today's landing craft? Will they survive a 
>storm on their own?
>
>OTOH, in space the roughest part of the trip - excepting enemy fire, of
>course - is the insertion into the atmosphere. Thus the landing, not
the
>long-distance transport, requires the most structural integrity (or
>'seaworthyness'). 
>
>>  The USS Tripoli survived a mine hit,
>> because of her DC and structural integrity, meanwhile many converted
>> merchants have not done so well...
>
>Mines are far, far easier to hide in water than in space, though. 
>
>The entire point is 'Must the transport get close enough to the enemy
to
>be fired upon while disembarking troops'? 
>
>You think it has to, so you think military hulls are mandatory; I don't
>think it has to - I think assault shuttles have long enough range to
>launch quite far from the planet - so my troop transports don't need
>military hulls... as long as the enemy is prevented from firing upon
them.
>In addition, if my transports are 'container ships', they can change
roles
>- for example to bulk haulers, or tankers (something you _can't_ do
with
>wet-naval ships) - far easier than purpose-built troop carriers... and
>they'll probably be quite a bit cheaper. 
>
>Regards,
>
>Oerjan Ohlson
>
>"Father, what is wrong?"
>"My shoes are too tight. But it does not matter, because
> I have forgotten how to dance."
>- Londo Mollari
>
>
IMHO I think you two have two different concepts in mind.  The design of
the
"amphibious ship" depends on which you use...

 A) close support:  the ship physically gets close to the shore, and
then
drops off the troops

 B) landing craft:  The ship stays out away from shore, and just
launches
landing craft.

In A the ship must be a military ship, where in B it does not.

Donald Hosford
--
Registered ICC User
check out http://www.usefulware.com