RE: Marine carriers?

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Gill [SMTP:rmgill@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 12:46 PM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	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
> 
[Bri] Just a suggested limit. I suggested the limit, because anything
larger
built using DS2 rules would have to be modular (and thus VERY
vulnerable) or
built using FT rules. You would then have to develop a COMBAT
crossover
beteen DS2 and SG2. Also, at some point, the mass would be great
enough to
_require_ some form of prepaired landing surface (concrete, plasteel,
durasphalt, whatever) to keep the landing craft from sinking into the
ground. It was more of a technical division in dropships, spliting
those
that needed a landing surface from those that did not. 
  Looking up a C5 (at http://simviation.com/rinfolocc5.htm) it can
hold 2
Abhrams M1s (Size-3 Vehicle). So using my formula would require a
capacity
of 48; so it would take a minimum of a Size-10 lander to be
equivilent. The
C5 takes 2,987m to take off from a runway. The page does not indicate
(and I
do not know) if it can land on a grass strip.

> 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.
> 
[Bri} Assault Landers would fall under stage 5. Larger Dropships
would fall
under stage 8 and later.

> >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?
> 

[Bri] Well 3 things.
1) I changed the unit of measure CS is different than DS2 capacity
(20cs ~
24capacity). 
2) I misquoted More Thrust. It was 50cs to 1 FT mass for CARGO. For a
lander
it is 10cs to 1 FT mass. And I should have said 25 capacity points
per mass (not 100).
3) To get a reasonable force to the planet took a LARGE ship. Lets
take the example from More Thrust:
1 platoon Hvy Tanks (size 4, 5 crew each)
2 platoons Medium Tanks (size 3, 4 crew each)
3 platoons Mechanized infantry in 4 MICVs (2 crew + 8 troops each)
1 battery of 3 SP Artillery vehicles (4 crew).
1 command platoon of 1 command vehicle, 1 AA vehicle, 2 missile
vehicles (total crew of 13)
 The tanks would require 408cs. To fit that in one or more landers
would
take 81 a mass lander. To put the lander in a bay (pretty usless
otherwise)
would take a 122 mass bay. Plus you would need crew quarters for the
crew of
the tanks and infanty so, 788cs = 16 mass of passenger space.
  A soapbubble transport (MD2, 2xPDS, min hull) would mass 202 and
cost 700.
  Using my method, the force takes 470 capacity points. The lander
would be Size-10 (800 capacity points) and have an FT mass of 32. The
passenger space would still be 16. So 24 mass for a cargo bay. Would
give a soapbubble transport of mass 80 and cost 236.
  For a planetary invasion of an established world, you would
probably need 10x-100x this force. That would be make it much less
cost effective to transport a force.

[snip]
> 
> --
> - 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  -

- ---
Brian Bell
bbell1@insight.rr.com
ICQ: 12848051
AIM: Rlyehable
YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
- ---


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOx//ttOVrCdNYgyBEQIq1wCdG+7kSpw4Ycix8xoisC9ED11EWpwAoOaL
M9tcDfr4G1Gi1gxusfeP+OR6
=NeRX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----