Re: Merchant Hulls and Amphibious Vessesls

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> OTOH, in space the roughest part of the trip - excepting enemy fire,
of
> course - is the insertion into the atmosphere. Thus the landing, not
the
> long-distance transport, requires the most structural integrity (or
> 'seaworthyness').

Enemy fire is the whole problem though, the transport has to survive
contact with the enemy in order to land the troops. Fighters and assault
shuttles are easy targets on the way down, the farther they have to go,
the longer the enemy can zero in and fire on them. not to mention heavy
cargo. tanks probably cannot be taken in by assault shuttle.

> The entire point is 'Must the transport get close enough to the enemy
to
> be fired upon while disembarking troops'?
> 
> You think it has to, so you think military hulls are mandatory; I
don't
> think it has to - I think assault shuttles have long enough range to
> launch quite far from the planet - so my troop transports don't need
> military hulls... as long as the enemy is prevented from firing upon
them.
> In addition, if my transports are 'container ships', they can change
roles
> - for example to bulk haulers, or tankers (something you _can't_ do
with
> wet-naval ships) - far easier than purpose-built troop carriers... and
> they'll probably be quite a bit cheaper.

how do you plan to stop the enemy from firing on them? the nice thing
about troop transports is their support functions. they act as hospital,
air traffice control, supply depot and HQ until such funtions can be
taken over by on ground personnel. Self defense is another reason why
military ships have it all over civil hulls. even if escorted they make
prime targets for enemy fire, particularly if they know you are coming
for THEIR planet.

Marshall