RE: Back on subject - Mercs

On Friday, January 11, 2002 10:53 AM, John Atkinson
[SMTP:johnmatkinson@yahoo.com] wrote:
> --- "Robertson, Brendan" 
> > Scalliwag's Mercenary Company
> > Sky Marshall E. A. Scalliwag commanding.
> 
> He's going to raise some eyebrows calling himself a
> Sky Marshall with a batallion task force and a single
> squadron under his command.
Makes the enemy think there's more support on the way.	The less
fighting he
has to actually do, the more profit in the bank.

> 
> > Excaliber BDN "Colliwobbles"
> 
> Where did he get it?	A capital ship is, I understood
> it, a fairly major investment for a nation, never mind
> a tiny merc unit.
Amazing what a few bribes and no questions will get you.  Internal
condition
is poor to mediocre due to lack of maintainance (and where it was
acquired
from in the first place).

> > 4 ZAD (size 4 GEV, Superior ZAD)
> > 12 MBT (size 3 GEV, twin turret class 3 railguns)
> > 12 heavy artillery vehicles (size 4 GEV, HAR, basic
> > PDS)
> > 21 scout cars (size 1 GEV, GMS/L)
> > 18 APCs (size 2 GEV, Twin turret APSW, 8 troop
> > spaces)
> > 178 vehicle crewmen
> > 144 infantry (d8 armour, advanced rifle w/- GL
> > (FP:3, I:d10)
> 
> Plus about 500 or so support weenies.  With a bunch of
> trucks, recovery vehicles, FDC vehicles, command 
> vehicles, etc.  Which might make for a hard time
> fitting into 4 transports.  
The above does fit into the transports (I structured it carefully), but
I
didn't really worry about support units.  This is a beachhead assault
force.
Blast through the orbital defences and secure a starport for further
units
to land, then retire to the transports.
I might have to add a few more transports worth of support equipment.

> I'd also suggest guns vice HAR for more flexibility
> and faster response time.  I also heartily detest twin
> weapons mounts (other than APSW, of course) and would
> upgrade to a single size 4 rail gun instead of 2x3.  
One advantage of HAR over guns: Red Pills & Chem warheads.  They don't
tell
their employers they have them (usually), but they are handy in certain
situations.  I generally prefer gun artillery for the suppressing fire
for
most forces.
The twin guns are for rounds-on-target, also to maximise space
allocation
and for redundancy.  The MBT are more for base security than as a heavy
offensive unit.

> Weaknesses of this org:  No obstacle clearance
> capability, no capability to emplace obstacles.  No
> mortars--if you need a quick smoke screen you have to
> launch a huge HAR to get it, which ain't economical. 
> No dismounted scouts.  No mention of support weapons
> for infantry (SAW, GMS/L).
I didn't detail it down to that level.	You can presume about 1 in 5 has
a
support weapon & about 1 in 30 has a heavy weapon (GMS/L or light
mortar).
Note that all the scout cars mount a GMS/L for quick fire support.

It all comes down to speed, if this force gets bogged down, it's in
trouble,
but should have enough speed and firepower to take it's objective (and
hope
they're not double crossed by their employer).

Brendan
'Neath Southern Skies