Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault

John Atkinson wrote:

> >>That had to do with the physical geography.
> >
> >If all that matters had been physical geography, you could've landed
> >directly at Basra and saved yourselves a lot of marching through the
> >desert. If the Iraqi defences there were unable to interfere, why
didn't
> >you do that? :-)
>
>Because the port at Basra was not conducive to being a proper
>logistical base until it was secure.  There were secure ports
>available within a short march of the Iraqi border.  On a colony
>planet this is unlikely to be the case.

"Short march" in this case means "several days along a single MSR".
Better 
than half a planet away, granted :-/

Yes, D-day is a very good analogy for most planetary invasions on
entirely 
hostile planets.

> >>At which point the Rebels were screwed.  Not precisely the best
> >>planetary defense plan if you mean to hold the system.  I'm still
> >>unclear on how, other than handwaving, the Rebels managed to
evacuate
> >>the planet coming from a known location on the surface.
> >
> >By having a planet-based weapons battery powerful enough to at least
> >temporarily disable a Star Destroyer with a single hit clear the
would-be
> >blockading units out of the way. (We only see one SD disabled in this
way
> >on-screen, but since the gun kept firing throughout the evacuation it
is
> >probably safe to assume that Vader tried to close the gap thus
opened.)
>
>Couldn't fighters have maneuvered in to smash the damn things?

If by "the damn things" you mean the evactuation transports: not until
they 
had dealt with each transport's escorting force of Rebel fighters.

If you mean "why didn't the quite numerous Rebel fighters grab the 
opportunity to smash the damn crippled Star Destroyers": no, because
they 
were busy escorting the evacuation transports :-/

>In my opinion, planetary defenses will be about as common as large
>coastal fortresses were in European colonial posessions in the
>Americas.  In other words, the major ports and that is about it.

And since those major ports are very likely to be located in close
vicinity 
of the very colonies the invaders want to take over, most of those 
planetary defences are quite well placed to force the invaders to land 
somewhere else and keep would-be bombardment vessels at arms distance.

> >>>>Because of the difficulty of logistical support,
> >>>>there was practically no armored support availible.
> >>>
> >>>The lack of armoured support in the Falklands had at least as much
to do
> >>>with the terrain as with the logistics. Even if the Brits had been
able to
> >>>get MBTs ashore, they wouldn't have been able to drive very far
without
> >>>running major risks of bogging down. The light vehicles they did
use were
> >>>far better suited to the terrain - and since the Argies didn't have
> >>>anything heavier to oppose them with, they were sufficient to do
the job.
> >>
> >>Eh, even a few more trucks, never mind some more helicopters,
> >
> >You were talking about ARMOURED support above. Generally speaking,
trucks
>
>Oerjan, dammit, do you need it spelled out in words of one syllable?
>I was conceeding that point.

You were? Ah well, if you say so :-/ To me it looked exactly like you
were 
moving the goalposts, changing the subject from armoured vehicles to 
softskins <shrug> Better use single-syllable words next time, then.

> >Like I said, even if the Brits had been able to put a serious
armoured
> >force on the Falklands they would've had severe difficulties to use
them -
> >unless they by some miracle had managed to land them within firing
range of
> >Port Stanley... but I don't think that even the US would've been able
to
> >pull *that* off :-/
>
>I think after an American carrier group or two worked over the
>Argentinian Navy and Air Force, we would have done precisely as we
>pleased.

If having an American carrier group or two working the defenders over 
would've allowed you to land heavy equipment directly into an enemy-held

harbour (which Port Stanley was), didn't you do precisely that in Basra
a 
couple years ago? After all, you had not only a carrier group or two  in

the Gulf working the Iraqi forces over, but a major USAF force as well;
and 
the Iraqi navy and air force showed far less fighting spirit in 2003
than 
their Argentinian counterparts did in 1982. (Particularly the
Argentinian 
Air Force, of course.)

Answer: because you (and more importantly, the US high brass) know as
well 
as I do that trying to land troops directly into an enemy-held harbour
is 
madness. (Yes, MacArthur did it at Inchon, but I'd rate him as being
quite 
mad :-/ ) The US and UK troops attacking Iraq landed elsewhere and
attacked 
overland, and you would've done exactly the same in the Falklands too if

you had been the ones fighting that war.

>We also would have had more than a handful of helos, and air
>assaulted all over the place.

All over the place except within LOS of the Argies, since IIRC they had
a 
fair amount of MANPADS available. (As it was the Brits used a fair
amount 
of helo transport too, eg. down to Goose Green and back.)

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l