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

On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Los wrote:

> While they beaches remained under some fire for days the initial waves
went in on
> small craft. Unless your space fleet has the money to throw away on
loosing large
> ships. Since the invasion timetables and resistance expected was way
off the charts
> (we had expected had after 60 days or areial bombardment and two weeks
of shore fire
> that the enemy had been suppressed sotrt of like you and your
ortillery thing) the
> Americans were forced into that desperate situation. Not one that I
would plan for as
> regualr SOP.

There were some kind of heavy landing craft to get the Funnies in at
Gold 
Juno and Sword Beaches. Some had problems. Some were unable to make it
in 
close enough and ended up having the DD Tanks founder on the way in. I 
think its Cornealus Ryan's book that has pictures of LCM's beached and 
wrecked on one of the british beaches.

> The ship is a thousand feet up, he can be miles away. Nor do nuclear
weapons HAVE to
> be in the high yeild range. I'm not an expert on nucelar weapons
construction but they
> have shrunk from the size of a VW bus to something I can stick in a
rucksack. No
> reason to supose they won't get smaller if necessity demands it.
Especially for
> subkiloton yield devices. There are plenty of propellor heads on this
list that can
> lay out the specifics if I'm wrong.

The "backpack" nukes are still pretty hefty. Davy Crocket had a fairly 
small warhead, but was pretty low range. The firers had to jump into 
cover to be out of the rad zone when it poped. 

The physics prevent the fissables from getting too small. Your
ancilliary 
bits get smaller, but you still have a hefty chunk of some of the
densest 
metal known and some lead to keep your DNA in the right place. 

> Note that normally when this was used  a transport ship it  was used
primarily as a
> special ops recovery vehicle which is a sort of a differnt genre of
craft and
> discussion.

I'm actually talking about the smaller LCM's, not the LST's. Those were 
used as Tenders and Depot ships.

> There's a very simple tactical principle that has been learned the
hard way. When
> going into the assault (or the unknown) lead of with your smallest
tactical element.
> This way if it gets hit you don't lose too much and you can react with
your other
> forces. Send a company or battalion down onto a contested landing in
one big ship your
> deserve what you get. Corrolary to this is that modern firepower
requires dispersion.

I was never advocating throwing it all in on one lander. Send it in on a

bunch of little ones and a few medium ones. Get your lz "secure" and 
start bringing in the heavies. I have to point out that lack of armour 
can hurt very quickly in any kind of engagement. A strong point that can

deal with red force strong points is very important. Some must be there 
in the first waves, otherwise you get the problems like those had on the

american beaches compared to how quickly the funnies dealt with the 
germans on the Brit beaches in Normandy. 

> Actually all of this fits right exactly in line and compliments the
marine landing
> craft model you yourself mentioned in response to Tom's post so I
don't see why there
> should be the slightest disagreement between us.

I do think we are arguing half full/half empty...

------------------------------------------------------------------
- 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  -
------------------------------------------------------------------