| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I still see it as being 1 full zero more than a ship that size could carry. You even mentioned the US Navy..
Well, BEING I HAVE served on 2 US carriers (the Uss america, the USS John F Kennedy), i can attest to that they do carry 5800 or so with airwing.
So taking that the Broadsword is 3-4 times the size, that means AT MOST it should be able to support around 23,000 people.. INCLUDING troops.
So seeing you have rougly 8400 crew. that would give 14600 remaining for troops...
Which would be close to the "Take off a 0" as i mentioned above.
Hell.. Both the Soverign and Eclipse SSDs which are 10x the size of this ship, carry round the same as what you are putting on this thing.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kemper Boyd wrote: | | I was at some point toying with the idea that the Evakmar transports would be inverted U-shapes to facilitate a protected hangar that's far larger than what any other Imperial ship carries. This would help with dropship operations. Maybe the Broadsword could have an elongated hangar to help it dump out all troopships at once instead of doing inherently dangerous maneuvering with tractor beams to get them to the launch bay? |
I used to think something similar, but I couldn't quite wrap my head around a visual for it. And then I saw this drawing for the Broadsword in the Starship Stats compilation and things just started to click together. After all, it was a KDY product, so something wedge shaped would be in keeping with their design philosophy. Plus, it also connected with the idea of KDY using standardized parts to construct their vessels, so there would be a commonality of parts between the Broadsword and the ISD (and the Tector, see my other post).
As for hangars, because of its missions, the Broadsword wouldn't need to dump out all of its ships at once. The current small craft complement doesn't even have dropships. The Broadsword class almost always performs uncontested landings or loadings with secured landing sites. The Broadsword can still perform assault landings but requires the assistance of additional vessels carrying the necessary assault craft (dropships, gunboats, etc.)
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | I still see it as being 1 full zero more than a ship that size could carry. You even mentioned the US Navy..
Well, BEING I HAVE served on 2 US carriers (the Uss america, the USS John F Kennedy), i can attest to that they do carry 5800 or so with airwing.
So taking that the Broadsword is 3-4 times the size, that means AT MOST it should be able to support around 23,000 people.. INCLUDING troops.
So seeing you have rougly 8400 crew. that would give 14600 remaining for troops...
Which would be close to the "Take off a 0" as i mentioned above.
Hell.. Both the Soverign and Eclipse SSDs which are 10x the size of this ship, carry round the same as what you are putting on this thing. |
So by your reasoning, all of the Evakmar-KDY transports would have to be the size of the Sovereign or the Eclipse, never mind the fact that the Evakmar-KDY's aren't equipped with Superlasers, Gravity Well Projectors, and a whole host of other pieces of combat equipment that might take up a lot of space that could otherwise be used for troop transport. If you want to count numbers, I refer you to my earlier statement, that a 1200 meter long Mon Cal Evacuation Cruiser could transport 150,000 refugees (if safety was not considered a factor). I again reiterate that if a ship with that transport capacity could be designed and modified for service on extremely short notice, a larger vessel designed from the ground up for the express purpose of transporting large numbers of people could easily carry a smaller amount.
Also, the Broadsword is not just 3-4 times the length of a Nimitz-Class. In addition to being almost five times longer, it is also 4-5 times wider and 3-4 times taller. 5 x 5 x 4 (going with the larger numbers to adjust for the fact that an aircraft carrier does not occupy the full volume of its three dimensions) means that a vessel like the Broadsword is easily 100 times the internal volume of a modern aircraft carrier. Apply that multiplier to the 5800 crew found aboard an aircraft carrier, you come up with 580,000. Compared to that number, 8400 crew and 120,000 passengers is quite reasonable, especially when factoring in that the Broadsword needs some of that internal volume to account for its vehicle garages and cargo bays, landing bays, internal freight corridors, shield generators, life support, artificial gravity, etc. Of course, a relatively large portion of a modern aircraft carrier is taken up by its internal hangar bay, as well.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
?? Have you ever Been on a carrier? With the hangerbay as the first level, and an ave of 10 (some have 11) levels above that to the top of the bridge (at 11ft a level), and 10 decks Below that, for a round (lets say) 20 floors at 11ft each come to 220ft tall. Now. Officially they are 244 feet (~74 meters). Where are you seeing that this destroyer is 3x4 times wider/taller?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | ?? Have you ever Been on a carrier? With the hangerbay as the first level, and an ave of 10 (some have 11) levels above that to the top of the bridge (at 11ft a level), and 10 decks Below that, for a round (lets say) 20 floors at 11ft each come to 220ft tall. Now. Officially they are 244 feet (~74 meters). Where are you seeing that this destroyer is 3x4 times wider/taller? |
Yes, I have, actually. My cousin Mitch was a plane captain on the old Constellation, and he got me a tour.
First off, this ship is not a destroyer; it's a troop transport. That means that it is not a multi-purpose warship like a Star Destroyer. It is large, slow, and has a lot of empty space inside to carry stuff.
Now, I have here a copy of the Encyclopedia of U.S. Military Weapons. It lists five different types of carrier classes; the Enterprise, the Forrestal, the Kennedy, the Kitty Hawk and the Nimitz. Lengths tend to vary but the longest is 335 meters. Beam (greatest width at the water line) again varies, but is right around 40 meters. However, since a carrier very obviously slants outward above the water-line, I will move on to include the listed width of the flight deck. Again, the number varies, but the largest is about 82 meters at its widest point.
The stat block for the carriers only lists the ships' draft, which doesn't tell us the actual height of the ship from the keel to the masthead, just the maximum depth of the keel below the waterline, so I will take your word for it that the carriers are approximately 74 meters tall. However, the information you gave doesn't tell me whether that height is from the keel or the waterline, so to be generous, I will add the deepest draft between the five ship classes (11.9 on the Enterprise) to get a total height of ~86 meters from the keel to the masthead.
Now, taking those compiled numbers, any American aircraft carrier occupies a box in space that is 335 meters long, 82 meters wide and 86 meters high. Now naturally the carrier does not occupy the entire box; the ship is not completely rectangular, so there is a great deal of space within said box that is occupied by water and air that is not a part of the carrier's internal volume.
Now as for the internal volume of the Broadsword class, the only measurement we have available is the length; 1,475 meters. Divide that by 335, and you get ~4.4. If the ship were a simple tube in space that were only 82 meters wide and 86 meters high, that would be the end of it. However, based on the picture found on page 261 of the Starship Stats compilation, we can see that the Broadsword is not a tube in space, but a vessel comparable in size and shape to an ISD. There are physicists out there who could extrapolate an exact figure for the ship's width and height based on that drawing, but I am not one of them, so I will just have to make a guestimation. From the picture, I would estimate that the ship's width is roughly 2/5ths its length, while its height is about 1/5th the length (minus the antenna on the command tower, and assuming that the design follows a relatively symmetrical design and extends the truncated wedge form below the ship's prow as well as above).
Applying those estimated fractions to the ship's length gives us the following dimensions: 1,475 meters long x 590 meters wide x 295 meters tall. If you use those dimensions to create a three dimensional box, then filled it with aircraft carriers lined up side side, end to end and one on top of the other, you would have a rectangular cube 4 carriers long, 7 carriers wide and 3 carriers deep, and I'm being generous there by dropping the 1/2 carriers that would result in the length (4.4 carriers) and the height (3.4 carriers). Even so, the volume described by the one actual and two estimated dimensions of a Broadsword is sufficient to contain 96 American aircraft carriers, with room left over
Now before you try to tell me that the Broadsword doesn't occupy the full volume of that rectangle, I would remind you that neither do the carriers. Since neither the carrier nor the Broadsword are rectangular in shape, there is a great deal of space within that volume that doesn't count as internal volume. I would be willing to concede that the air space on the flight deck qualifies as part of the aircraft carrier's internal volume, as it is needed space for the launching and recovery of aircraft. However, by the same token, that doesn't account for the volume of air and water surrounding the ship down to the keel level, or surrounding the outer perimeter of the deck.
I would also argue that a Broadsword doesn't need the hangar and flight deck space necessary to accommodate the 8,160 aircraft that equip 96 carrier air wings of 85 aircraft apiece (regardless of the current size of Naval Air wings, all the carriers in the book are listed as having a maximum aircraft capacity of 85 aircraft). It can, however, use that storage space to haul the 3-7,000 armored vehicles that equip an Imperial Army corps, in addition to its small craft contingent.
Also, we can apply your previously listed stat of aircraft carrier crew (5,800) to the modifier of 96, and arrive at a total crew capacity of 556,800. By that standard, my ~128,400 is more than reasonable, even when factoring in the additional life support equipment necessary for deep space operations.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
In restrospect, as this is a KDY vessel, I would probably rename it. There is nothing wrong with calling a capital ship class Broadsword, but in keeping with KDY naming conventions (Acclamator, Venator, Imperator, Tector, Executor, you see the pattern), I would probably name it something that fit. The Dictator-Class comes to mind.
On that note, what would be some good KDY ship class names? The overall theme seems to be Latin or Latin-based words ending in -or.
Suggestions?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
For note.. Here is the link to the site i used.. http://science.howstuffworks.com/aircraft-carrier2.htm
| Quote: | | Now before you try to tell me that the Broadsword doesn't occupy the full volume of that rectangle, I would remind you that neither do the carriers. Since neither the carrier nor the Broadsword are rectangular in shape, there is a great deal of space within that volume that doesn't count as internal volume. I would be willing to concede that the air space on the flight deck qualifies as part of the aircraft carrier's internal volume, as it is needed space for the launching and recovery of aircraft. However, by the same token, that doesn't account for the volume of air and water surrounding the ship down to the keel level, or surrounding the outer perimeter of the deck. |
That is true.
BUT a carrier does not
A) have to have lots of area dedicated to massive fuel cells (ever seen the ISD cross section?)
B) doesn't need air scrubbers and oxgen storage.
C) does not have almost a third of its '@$$ end' dedicated to just the engines (like an isd does).
BUT looking at your numbers/math, i can see why you would feel this ship can carry that many... Though being the same size as an ISD but with over 20 times the personnel... that is something i am seeing as having an issue with.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | BUT looking at your numbers/math, i can see why you would feel this ship can carry that many... Though being the same size as an ISD but with over 20 times the personnel... that is something i am seeing as having an issue with. |
I can understand. I once saw homebrew stats for an Evakmar-KDY that put 100,000 troops in a ship that was only 890 meters long. Given the math I just did, that ship would have to look like a Borg Cube, 890 meters on a side, to pull it off, and even then, that's certainly not a ship I would want to take a ride in.
As for the disparity in crew and passenger sizes for two ships that are so similar in size, I explain it away by saying that the Broadsword is built specifically for the purpose of hauling large numbers of troops and their equipment, and little else. Even its consumables aren't up to long-term deployment, just hauling troops from Point A to Point B and resupplying every six months. The ISD, on the other hand, is a front-line warship. It's designed for long term deployment, with on-board manufacturing facilities, massive amounts of storage for consumables, multiple redundant system to counteract combat damage, on-board science labs, heavy weapons systems, heavy ordnance armories, not to mention that it is also most likely honeycombed with sealed compartments to reduce combat damage, ala US aircraft carriers.
On top of that, the ship is also intended for multi-year deployments, and even an organization that treats its crewmen and troopers as expendable assets needs to make some concessions to crew mental health if they are going to be on a ship for years at a time. There could be provisions for lounges, arenas for sporting events, swimming pools, etc. Some recreational facilities could even serve a dual purpose; holo-theaters could double as briefing rooms, and gardens and arboretums could function as part of the ship's atmosphere scrubber network. A friend of mine who is in the Navy told me that aircraft carriers have fast food restaurants on-board now (I haven't been able to verify this independently), like McDonalds and Taco Bell, so a TaggeCo Biscuit Baron wouldn't be out of place on-board an ISD.
P.S. Thanks for the link.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your welcome for the link...
BY the way have you seen stats (IRL) for our amphibious craft (the marine carriers!!!).. Even the biggest for troops only goes iirc around 3k..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | Your welcome for the link...
BY the way have you seen stats (IRL) for our amphibious craft (the marine carriers!!!).. Even the biggest for troops only goes iirc around 3k.. |
Yup. I have a BA in Social Science with an emphasis in military history. I would've joined the Marines out of HS, but my father, who was a Marine in Vietnam, talked me out of it. When a man who was a Marine tells you that being a Marine might not be the best idea, you tend to listen, but that hasn't stopped me from being fascinated with the military, or from giving free passes to everyone with a military ID when I was managing the strip club in Chico (Don't ever let it be said that I don't support the troops).
I have read up a lot on the amphibious carriers, and they could've made my point even more...pointed. They are smaller in dimensions than the carriers (although their boxier shape does allow them to take up more of the volume), which means I could've fit even more of them into the space defined by the Broadsword, although I probably would've reduced the end figures by about 25% to account for the irregularities in the Broadsword's shape, and fact that the Wasps and Tarawas have higher percentage of internal volume in their "box". That being said, they have an almost identical function to something like the Broadsword, except that the Wasp and Tarawa class usually end up supporting something along the lines of an assault landing or expeditionary special operations. The Broadsword's mission is more along the lines of the sealift or prepositioning ships, but with the addition of carrying the equipment & the troops all at once.
When I consider an analogy for space warfare in the SWU, my mind immediately goes to the Pacific theater during WWII; thousands of little islands, some of great strategic value, some not even worth the time it takes to think about them, and huge fleets fighting for control over the space in between. The US military's mindset was a thousand little ships hauling hundreds of troops, so that even if some of them got sunk, there would still be enough for the attack.
In a way, something like the Evakmar-KDY is perfectly representative of the Imperial mindset. Rather than make a hundred smaller ships, they make just one big one that can haul lots of stuff, but can only be one place at a time.
P.S. With all of these massive ships, do you ever get the feeling the Emperor is trying to compensate for something?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | I still see it as being 1 full zero more than a ship that size could carry. You even mentioned the US Navy..
Well, BEING I HAVE served on 2 US carriers (the Uss america, the USS John F Kennedy), i can attest to that they do carry 5800 or so with airwing.
So taking that the Broadsword is 3-4 times the size, that means AT MOST it should be able to support around 23,000 people.. INCLUDING troops.
So seeing you have rougly 8400 crew. that would give 14600 remaining for troops...
Which would be close to the "Take off a 0" as i mentioned above.
Hell.. Both the Soverign and Eclipse SSDs which are 10x the size of this ship, carry round the same as what you are putting on this thing. |
As I understand it the USS America is just over 300m, thats about 1/5th of the Broadsword in lenght, or lets say x4,5. This does not mean that the Broadsword is 4,5 as big, as we have three dimensons. This means that if you just want to multiply size based on lenght comparisons youll end up with a ship that is 4,5 x 4,5 x 4,5 = 91 times as big as the USS America. 5800 crew x 91 = 527800! This does not take shape or anything else into the calculation, but is justa a USS America that is 4,5 times as long with the same dimensions as the small ship. It goes to show however that you can cram a lot of crew/troops in there, well over 120.000 if you have the same crew density as the ship you served on.
EDIT: Just saw that someone had allready done the math, but the point stands.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | P.S. With all of these massive ships, do you ever get the feeling the Emperor is trying to compensate for something? |
What... his schwartz is smaller than yours? 
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sutehp
Commodore
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apologies for necro'ing a 6 year dead thread, but does anyone have any good pics of the Broadsword troop transport anywhere? I can't find any pics that match what's found in the Ships Conversion PDF. Not that I was expecting to find it since it's a homebrew ship. And I can't cut and paste the image that's in the PDF (I just get a big black rectangle on my doc file).
Suggestions for alternate pics for a big Star Wars style troop transport would also be appreciated.
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TBH, I'm strongly considering taking my stats for the Broadsword and tacking them onto fractalsponge's Consolidator-Class Corps Assault Transport. To the best of my knowledge, the only existing image of the Broadsword is the one attached to the stats.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sutehp
Commodore
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | TBH, I'm strongly considering taking my stats for the Broadsword and tacking them onto fractalsponge's Consolidator-Class Corps Assault Transport. To the best of my knowledge, the only existing image of the Broadsword is the one attached to the stats. |
Aside from the landing gear (is this thing supposed to rival the size of an ISD?), it looks like a good ship. Landing gear and hangars, that's a weird combination for a mile long capital ship.
(Landing gear on anything larger than 1,000 meters strikes me as fanciful; ships that large aren't designed to make landfall. And for those about to mention the Lusankya taking off from Coruscant, that ship was specially modified to have way more repulsorlifts than usual in order to take off from underground, so that's not analagous. Not to mention that an Executor-class Star Dreadnought being able to land is especially ridiculous.)
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
