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

On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Los wrote:

> 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

Umm the over the horizon thing is new. They used to go in to hot
beaches. 
Remember IwoJima and all the other islands. LCPs, LCHs, and amtraks all 
went in under fire. 

However, in the planetarry assault mode, I can pick where ever I land, 
not just over which beach I come in on. The "beach" shouldn't have much 
in the way of assets. If it does, I probably will hose it with the first

wave. If not, it gets ortilleried unless danger close.

> 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.

Nukes don't get any smaller due to physics. Also your guy fires a nuke 
1000 feet up. How much lead is he carring around? I do not want to be 
anywhere close to 1000 feet from any nuclear detonation. 

> 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
[dogface and coxwain's nightmare snipped]

Murphy will always strike. Don't not expect him to. However, don't pussy

foot around and never do the job because he may. 

> 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.

It seemed an intersting concept.

> 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.

Perhaps I was overstating things. I do think that the landers should
have 
weapons. It would seem that larger landers should have some heft weapons

to deal with what ever may rear its ugly head. Be it a Size 5 tank with
a 
pair of MDC4's. 

Perhaps one can take an example from Vietnam and the riverine combat. 
LCVP's with turrets and flame throwers. Some were turned into monitors. 
Pretty hefty compared to what the vc trucked around typically. 

The russian Pomornik class carries 2 SA-8 positions, 2 30mm AA, 2 140mm 
bombardment Rocket Launchers. 

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------