Re: Close Orbit Support (COS) a.k.a. CSS (Close Space Support)

--- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:

> I differentiate the four as thus:
> 
> Ortillery, the process and equipment in DS2 and
> FT/MT (and by implication FB1/FB2 [the last of which
> I don't own - yet] allowing frigate or larger
> Starships and PBMs {Planetary Bombardment Monitors
> (FTL and perhaps non-FTL)} to attack positions on a
> planet.
> 
> Ortillery, based on the rules and the current short
> discussion, appears to be a system designed more to
> destroy positions to dislocate planet to Space 
> defenses, cause rupture of major fortifications or 
> positions of battalion sized units heavily dug in, 
> cause shock in the defenders (and terror in their 
> political leadership) precipitating collapse and
> surrender of governments.  This is not a typically
> tactical (as in SG) weapon, IMO.  Beam use on a 
> planet surface would be a lighter form of
> weapon system with the same general intended effect.

OK, I'm with you so far as the MT interpretation of
Ortillery as above.  

> NBC (or ABC, depending on your generation) would
> invite response by WMD by the defending force.

At least that's how I'd view it.

> So the opposite end of the spectrum is aerospace
> support from Starships carrying fighters.  There 
> might be room to differentiate between the
> effects of Standard, Fast, Heavy, Interceptors,
> Attack, Long Range, and Torpedo fighters in CAS 
> house rules but I don't think we have discussed
> such things on this list in that arena very much.

Someone's got house rules for those up on a website
somewhere--I've got them on my computer in the room.  

> I originally envisioned COS (years ago) as ships in
> the upper edge of atmosphere providing PGM 
>[Precision Guided munition] type support to the
> guy on the ground [As John knows, that's the area
> where the Army and The Air Force have the most 
> divergent views of the application of Air power]

Yeah.  The Air Force doesn't believe in it anymore. 
But it's the second most important thing they do. 
(The most important is reconaissance).

> and capable (barely) of air breather (and similar)
> interception and where i envisioned the most likely
> contact between Star/Spaceship carried
> (space capable/specialized for non-atmospheric
> missions primarily) aerospace vehicles and 
> planetary "Edge of the Air envelope only"
> aerospace Defense forces (Interceptors, fighters,
> and  (attacking the PBMs) strike vehicles.

Now that's an interesting arena.  I mean, I'd think
that planetary-based fighters would have to be
aerospace in order to be any good in the defense. 
In-atmosphere, restricted to slow speeds and with
massive sensor signatures, they'd be easy meat for
starship weapons systems, at least the way I'm
thinking.  This is an area that requires further
thought.

> CSS was more the vaguely defined arena where less
> precise (scatter!) and more area oriented weaponry 
> was employed beyond the effective arena where
> planetary forces could, at great cost but with great
> reward possible attack the bombardment forces.  It 
> is at this level where I think non-FTL
> Spaceships (due to design and no need to have FTL
> engines, releasing more mass for weapons - Thank 
> you, Traveller) and where the Starships should
> be at some disadvantage (additionally) operating in
> an 'unusual' combat environment.

Why would the starships have a problem?  They're
operating in a low orbit plinking at will.  

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com