RE: Marine carriers?

At 12:22 PM -0400 6/7/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
>
>
>Last year I suggested that:
>Assault Landers could be built to a number of sizes. The military
doctrine
>of your forces would determine the size of Lander used. You could
invest in
>an assault lander that drops an entire unit of 5 - Size 5 vehicles, but
it

Why the limit? A full on Streamlined or semi Streamlined vessel would 
be better on the logistics scale. (Witness the number of Army Vehicle 
Landing and Vehicle Transport ships operated by the US.)
http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/aux_seal.htm

Amphib ops would be phased much like water borne amphib ops are.

1. Gain system superiority
2. Suppress orbital defense systems
3. Gain orbital superiority
4. Suppress High altitude defenses
5. land small initial forces (small landers from size 1-5)
6. enlarge beachhead(s)
7. Suppress low altitude air defenses around beachhead
8. land medium sized follow on forces (med sized system landers size
10-25)
9. establish control of space port facilites or other large flat 
expanses where larger craft could land
9. land larger logistics ships (size 25-50)

Around step 3 you've got the advantage of the gravity well working 
for you in the bombardment sub-phase.

>would seem to draw a lot of AA attention. I would suggest that you set
a
>house rule on the size that the Lander can accommodate. You could limit
>Assault Landers to be a max of size 5. To determine the amount of
capacity a
>vehicle takes up, multiply the size * 8 (Dirtside p.12). Infantry may
be IN
>an APC that is in the Lander (ala Aliens) and the Lander would not have
to
>pay for the capacity to carry the infantry as it was already covered by
the

effectively what is in More Thrust right? Why the change from 50 CS 
per mass to 100?

>capacity of the APC. Example: Size 5 (max) Assault lander has a
capacity of
>25. It devotes 9 of this to a HEL-3 fixed mount and 3 to a PDS system.
This
>leaves 16 capacity points for it to carry. Thus it could carry 2 - size
1
>APC with infantry mounted in the APCs; 1 - size 2 vehicles; 4 line
infantry
>elements without vehicle support; OR 2 Power Infantry elements. If you
>needed to land a larger force, you would have to use multiple Assault
>landers or a dropship (that requires a landing field).
>And I suggested 100 DS capacity points = 1 FT mass rather than the More
>Thrust 1 mass = 50 CS ~ 60 capacity points. So you could have 4 Size-5
>Assault Landers per FT mass (and put 8 in a 3 mass hanger).
>So the To'Rok could house 16 assault landers and the assault transport
(FB
>p. 42) could house 80 assault landers (but would probably use some drop
>ships to land larger vehicles instead).

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