CT Only: CT HG2 Flight Section Crewing

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

I can not find the percentages of officers and NCOs that the Flight section should have, besides the requirement that all pilots must be officers, a flight officer, and a flight supervision officer when rapid launch facilities are installed.

Can any one provide the information?

 

[Vladika]

For the flight section, there isn't a breakdown I'd suggest though that 1 in ten be an officer and 2 in ten be POs.

The mechanics are a quandary. At one per smallcraft, a carrier wing maintenance shop gets big real fast and, no officers...(I know you EM types would just love that.:devil

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Vladika,

For the flight section, there isn't a breakdown I'd suggest though that 1 in ten be an officer and 2 in ten be POs.

The mechanics are a quandary. At one per smallcraft, a carrier wing maintenance shop gets big real fast and, no officers...(I know you EM types would just love that.:devil

Thanks, I was just checking to make sure that I hadn't missed the breakdown and my work around of 10% officers and 20% NCOs appears to be a good fit then. The maintenance shop I'm going with 10% officers and I'm thinking that the when there is only one or two small craft the first or only maintenance tech is an NCO after that I'm thinking about using 20%.

Another related item concerns the Flight Officer and the Flight Supervision Officer when launch tubes are installed.

There are two sections that require a specific number of officers in the command section that number is 7 and in the gunnery section 1.

Do the Flight Officer and Flight Supervision officer add to the Flight section personnel like the gunnery officer or are they part of the 10% officers?

 

[Vladika]

Hello Vladika,



Thanks, I was just checking to make sure that I hadn't missed the breakdown and my work around of 10% officers and 20% NCOs appears to be a good fit then. The maintenance shop I'm going with 10% officers and I'm thinking that the when there is only one or two small craft the first or only maintenance tech is an NCO after that I'm thinking about using 20%.

Another related item concerns the Flight Officer and the Flight Supervision Officer when launch tubes are installed.

There are two sections that require a specific number of officers in the command section that number is 7 and in the gunnery section 1.

Do the Flight Officer and Flight Supervision officer add to the Flight section personnel like the gunnery officer or are they part of the 10% officers?

Unfortunately, by the rules, the Flight Officer is not part of the 10%. For some odd reason, TPTB, seemed to feel that an officer, department head no less (Single Stateroom), was required if the ship had even ONE smallcraft. Personally, I can't see the need until there are several of them to keep track of. An Ensign (air traffic controller) could handle it, and if not a Lt JG. But to be entitled to a Single Stateroom on top of it? I think NOT!

As I read the Flight Supervision officer, he is part of the launch tube crew. (So he can launch, or recover, 40 smallcraft PER TURN but still shares quarters...)

As for the Gunnery Officer, WHY if there are only a few batteries like the Gazelle? Let a PO handle it and skip the weapons officer. A small ship can get right "top heavy".

And, if I already have a Doctor AND a Nurse aboard, I'm not for adding a medic to the crew of a small to medium ship. (Think about your old Sub; Medic/Corpsman only right? No Doctor and Nurse. And a Destroyer...) Medical overkill and a waste of Cabin tonnage.

 

[rancke]

As for the Gunnery Officer, WHY if there are only a few batteries like the Gazelle? Let a PO handle it and skip the weapons officer. A small ship can get right "top heavy".

I've always assumed that terms like 'gunnery officer' were job titles, not ranks and could be filled by NCOs. After all, NCOs are officers too, sort of, even if they do work for a living.

And, if I already have a Doctor AND a Nurse aboard, I'm not for adding a medic to the crew of a small to medium ship. (Think about your old Sub; Medic/Corpsman only right? No Doctor and Nurse. And a Destroyer...) Medical overkill and a waste of Cabin tonnage.

These objections are perfectly valid IF you see the Imperial military as a cut and paste of 20th Century Western militaries. (Which you have a good excuse for, considering how much US military stuff appear to have been cut and pasted back in the early days ). But perhaps Imperial militaries aren't total carbon copies of the US military. Personally, I welcome any trace of differences. Including "wasting" a trained doctor on a smaller crew than would have rated one on a 20th Century sub.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

These objections are perfectly valid IF you see the Imperial military as a cut and paste of 20th Century Western militaries. (Which you have a good excuse for, considering how much US military stuff appear to have been cut and pasted back in the early days ). But perhaps Imperial militaries aren't total carbon copies of the US military. Personally, I welcome any trace of differences. Including "wasting" a trained doctor on a smaller crew than would have rated one on a 20th Century sub.
Hans

But a ship with 15-25 crewmen having a Doctor and Nurse and a Medic? A bit of overkill.

HG2 seems to imply that you need the Medic because the Doctor and Nurse aren't treating patients. (Lord help you if you do need three medical people for a crew that size.)

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Vladika,

Unfortunately, by the rules, the Flight Officer is not part of the 10%. For some odd reason, TPTB, seemed to feel that an office, department head no less (Single Stateroom), was required if the ship had even ONE smallcraft. Personally, I can't see the need until there are several of them to keep track of. An Ensign (air traffic controller) could handle it, and if not a Lt JG. But to be entitled to a Single Stateroom on top of it? I think NOT!

You're much better than I am at figuring out that the Flight Officer is like the gunnery officer on hulls >1,000 tons.

Of course, I keep wondering why the Chief Engineer in HG2 is not a separate officer. At least that was what I learned posting to one of the Traveller forums a few years back. I remember the post because I provided documentation from military sources from both the USA and Great Britain which did not gain any support.

From personal experience in the USN the officers in charge of the departments where part of the crew not an additional one.

As I read the Flight Supervision officer, he is part of the launch tube crew. (So he can launch, or recover, 40 smallcraft PER TURN but still shares quarters...)

In the case of the flight supervision officer would he be an additional officer of part of 5h1 10%

As for the Gunnery Officer, WHY if there are only a few batteries like the Gazelle? Let a PO handle it and skip the weapons officer. A small ship can get right "top heavy".

The way I play on ships between 100 and 1,000 the Gunnery Officer a NCO
or an officer does double duty.

And, if I already have a Doctor AND a Nurse aboard, I'm not for adding a medic to the crew of a small to medium ship. (Think about your old Sub; Medic/Corpsman only right? No Doctor and Nurse. And a Destroyer...) Medical overkill and a waste of Cabin tonnage.

IIRC HG1 required the Command Section on hulls >1,000 ton to have a doctor and nurse while HG2 only requires a medical officer.

Yep, submarines have a Corpsman/Medic usually an E5 or E6. CT HG2 with input for the Consolidated CT errata allows an E3 or E2 to be a corpsman/medic.

Having a hard time keeping my eyes open so I'm heading to bed.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Hans Rancke,

Apparently I have once again missed replies since yours and Vladika's posts were here

I've always assumed that terms like 'gunnery officer' were job titles, not ranks and could be filled by NCOs. After all, NCOs are officers too, sort of, even if they do work for a living.

Way back when on either the CT starships board or here I asked for about the Chief Gunnery Officer being an NCO the response was the Chief Gunner was required to be an officer.

These objections are perfectly valid IF you see the Imperial military as a cut and paste of 20th Century Western militaries. (Which you have a good excuse for, considering how much US military stuff appear to have been cut and pasted back in the early days ). But perhaps Imperial militaries aren't total carbon copies of the US military. Personally, I welcome any trace of differences. Including "wasting" a trained doctor on a smaller crew than would have rated one on a 20th Century sub.


Hans

To be honest, I'm glad too that the crew requirements aren't the same as they are today.

HG1 required that the command section have a doctor and nurse on hulls > 1,000 tons and one medic per 240 per persons on board.

HG2 with the Consolidated CT Errata changed the requirement to a Medical Officer in the Command section and 1 medic per 240 persons on board. The 240 persons include ship's troops.

Personally, Ship's Troops should have separate medical personnel assigned to the unit and not to the ship. Of course my view point is in the minority.

Another personal suggestion is that if the gunnery section requires a separate chief gunnery officer why doesn't engineering or the service crew.

Thank you for the reply.

 

[snrdg082102]

Missed this one last night

But a ship with 15-25 crewmen having a Doctor and Nurse and a Medic? A bit of overkill.

HG2 seems to imply that you need the Medic because the Doctor and Nurse aren't treating patients. (Lord help you if you do need three medical people for a crew that size.)

HG2 Consolidated CT Errata states that on hulls >1,000 tons 1 medic is required per 240. Round(25/240) = Round(.1042) = 0.

HG2 hulls >1,000 requires a Medical Officer in the command section and per HG2 Consolidated CT Errata states that on hulls >1,000 tons 1 medic is required per 240. Round(25/240,0) = Round(.1042,0) = 0.

Book 2 requires 1 medic on hulls >= 200 and <= 5,000 tons plus 1 per 120 passengers carried. A crew of 25 requires round(25/120,0) = round(.2083,0) = 0.

Of course I may not be interpreting the rules correctly either.