Re: How big is a troopship? [DS/FT/SG2] (and what it all means)

At 6:33 PM -0400 9/23/99, Ryan M Gill wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Los wrote:
>
>> A word about assault landers. I would never ever land anything bigger
than
>> a platoon in one ship in any environment that  was dangerous as per
the
>> reason's TOM outlines above. One yahoo with a shoulder fired weapon
who's
>> been skipped by sensors for whatever reason (remember each tech
always has

My last Striker II scenario had power armored troops in concealed 
positions with semi-portable AA weapons (rockets and one-shot plasma 
weapons) ambushing grav tanks. That yahoo may be packing some serious 
heat.

>I have to wonder what a yahoo with a shoulder fired weapon is going to
do
>to something the size of a LCH. Whooho, I made a 4 inch hole in the
cargo
>bay!. These things are going to have thrust out the wazoo to get off
>planet. They are not your uncle's space shuttle. To seriously damage
one,
>you'd have to hit it with more than a LAW or LAD.

woohoo ! I put a 4" hole in an engine ! or the cockpit, or a rocket 
pod, or into the cargo bay (or troop compartment for an assault 
shuttle); say, what kind of fuel do these things use ? .... There's a 
wide range of damage results possible, lets be suitably paranoid 
about ground fire. How many assault transports in your initial wave 
will seriously hose you if you lose them. My list includes all of 
your C3 assets, fire support units, your aid station (if landing 
one), etc.

>
>> a counterbalance to it) can ruin your whole expensive invasion! SO
Chinook
>> sized landers seem the way to go. Nor do I buy them fulfilling dual
roles
>> ala the aliens ship. They are too valuable. Have a dedicated fire
support
> > vehicle.

I can agree with some dedicated fire support zooming about, but your 
transports should have something to add to the suppressive fire. I'd 
say heavy rocket pods and a dual purpose point defense gun (combining 
PDS and APSW roles in DSII) at a minimum.

>Then why does the army have LCACs and LAAAV-7's with weapons? If the
>vehicle has to go into a hot zone arm it. I'd hate to be an infantry
>platoon with a LCAC bearing down on my beach. AGLs are not pretty when
>they open up from a large fast and stabilized mount.
>
>Even the Helos used in vietnam were armed some how. Though the slicks
>(UH1 with door gunners) were discreet from the gunships.
>

The door mounted .50s were great for suppressive fire in hot LZs. I 
seriously doubt too many direct hits resulted, but not much short of 
a tank or bunker can slow a .50 round down. And in the fun with 
physics dept: how does a .50 cal round compare in energy to an NVA 
regular. Hmmm, e=mv^2... the .50 is relatively light, and moving very 
fast, whereas the NVA grunt is about 50kg counting the AK47 and isn't 
moving very fast...   anyway :-)

I fully agree that anything that goes anywhere near any sort of 
ground defenses should be adding at least some firepower to the 
tactical equation.
Michael Carter Llaneza
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1991-1950
Devolution is very real to me.
Whenever I hear the "Odd Couple" theme, I get this image of Dennis 
Rodman borrowing Marge Schott's toothbrush.
Overkill: A Sufficient Preponderance of Firepower
http://www.flash.net/~maserati/
Security and Privacy Alert:
http://www.cryptonym.com/hottopics/msft-nsa.html