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

Ryan M Gill wrote:

> 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.
>

First off note I was talking about ASSAULT LANDERS not your run of the
mill
interface trasnports or shuttles.  Assault landers means ships to come
in under
fire or into hot LZs.

Don't carry the LCH analogy too far! We're talking AIR landing not water
landing.  Number one Marines don't drive LHA's up to contested landing
beachheads UNDER fire and run them aground. They carry all those little
helicopters and LVTPs full of squads and platoons to go in and secure
the scene.
Even marine units today do not drive up whole battalions to contested
landings
they split the unuits into squad/ section or platoon sized elements.
There is a
very good reason for that. Those big ships only come in when the
beachhead is
relatively secure.

Ok picture this scene. Said Yahoo with shoulder fired launcher (oh by
the way a
nuke warhead right now weighs in at under 60lbs so lets half that or
quarter it
for a little micro nuke seeing we're talking 200 years from now  lets
fly and
vaporizes the back half of the lander a 1000 feet up.

Or picture this scene: Said yahoo with shoulder launcher fire his non
nuclear
(but still much more powerful warhead than today) launcher at the lander
as it
is coming down vertically on final approach, 100 feet (a few seconds
up). The
missile seeks right to the right rear engine causing the thing to crash
the last
100 feet onto it's right rear side. The bigger the lander (company or
battalion)
the heavier it is and the less able it is to sustain the shock of
loosing power
at this last critical juncture.Sure only a few guys are killed but half
of them
now have broken bones up to spinal injuries. Nor were all the tanks and
vehicles
it was carrying designe dto eb dropped from 100 feet so many are
dnamaged. The
unit inside is now combat ineffective while it sorts itself out
precisely when
it needs to be hitting the ground running.

>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>

I do support using smaller weapons for defense, but you take an aliens
type
lander with missiles and other heavy weapons that is made to hang around
in a
high threat area and provide fire support.

>
> Even the Helos used in vietnam were armed some how. Though the slicks
> (UH1 with door gunners) were discreet from the gunships.
>

But slicks were not designed to hang around and provide fire support for
infantry companies and that's my point. Big honking difference. Some
hueys did
carry heavier ewapons (mini guns and rockets but thse were dedicated
gunships.
Please read and understand my posts more carefully before responding.
Thanks.

Los