From the point of view of simulating the performance of a TL6 antitank or antiair rocket, I need to know the cross section of the rocket, the drag coefficient of its shape at various mach numbers, the rate at which the mass of the rocket changes, and the thurst produced as a result of that change of mass. So far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that hasn't changed all that much between TL6 and TL8. The propellants aren't all that much more efficient, the shapes of the rockets are largely the same, and a lot of the advantage of the higher TL rockets is more that they are self-guided fire-and-forget rather than command guided. As someone else mentioned, something designed for antiarmor is likely to be an explosively formed projectile at TL8 but at TL6 if you're designing a man-portable anti-air rocket that can take down something armored like a tank that can fly, you're faced with a fairly difficult problem. You have to devote quite a lot of mass of the ~25 kg you want to make the soldier carry around to propellant (if the rocket is expected to significantly climb against gravity to an airborne target) and some to the airframe, and that doesn't leave a lot for the warhead. You can shift that to the warhead somewhat in the hopes that it can damage an armored target, but that will decrease the engagement distance. -------- Original Message -------- On February 9, 2018 5:04 PM, Tim <xxxxxx@little-possums.net> wrote: >On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:36:56PM -0500, Caleuche wrote: >>From a strictly simulation point of view, given my own perception of >> TL6 anti-air technology, there are only a few ways to make a hit >> plausible: >> > Traveller TL6 is a lot more broad than our particular historical > equivalent of TL6. In particular, "antitank" weapons are much more > likely to be designed for use against air-capable armoured vehicles, > even if they can't manufacture antigrav or thruster units locally. > > There are still technology constraints on both propulsion and guidance > systems, and a portable unit probably won't cripple something the size > of even a small starship, but it's less likely to be a case of > adapting a weapon designed for ground targets to anti-air use. > > > - Tim > >The Traveller Mailing List > Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml > Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com > To unsubscribe from this list please go to >http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=0og3DHdoRHgL9lI7peOXYWnk6UF4c1zE >
