On 09Jan2021 0132, Timothy Collinson - timothy.collinson at port.ac.uk
(via tml list) wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 05:06, Charles Hensley - hensleyc1 at mac.com
> <http://mac.com> (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com
> <mailto:xxxxxx@simplelists.com>> wrote:
>
>         As an addition to my previous post, having done a bit of
>         research on her
>         (i.e. going to the builder's page), /Dilbar/ displaces 15,917
>         tons and
>         is 156m long. That's 'destroyer' size these days, and WWII
>         cruiser size.
>
>     16k is a light cruiser these days.
>
>     Here is a converter from ship tonnage to volume, it is an
>     approximation as the actual formula is complex and not very accurate.
>
>     https://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/volume/tonnage.html?u=tonnage&v=21%2C143
>     <https://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/volume/tonnage.html?u=tonnage&v=21,143>
>
>
>
> Thank you for that.
>
> So, if I'm reading this correctly, a 6300-ton (ocean) ship would be a
> just shy of 22,000-ton Traveller ship?
>
> OK.  I think I need to fix this difference more clearly in my head.
Other way round. An ocean-going ship's volume in cubic metres is several
times its displacement (and thus mass in tonnes), but as a Traveller
'ton' is 14 cubic metres, the ship will displace somewhere between 1/3rd
to 1/5th its sea displacement when measured in Traveller tons.

Modern cruise liners will be larger (in Traveller terms) than average
(they aren't very dense), and battleships will be smaller (look how low
they sat in the water for their displacement).

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>