RE: Marine carriers?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Gill [SMTP:rmgill@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 1:06 AM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu; Gzg-L
> Subject:	RE: Marine carriers?
> 
> At 6:27 PM -0400 6/7/01, Brian Bell wrote:
> >
> >[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
> 
> Oh, such things are far too big for an effective piece in a DS battle 
> per say. Even the Mass 5 craft end up being pretty damnably huge when 
> you get down to it. The Mass 25 super heavy assault lander seems 
> right on the LCT size of things. ie it gets carried into the system 
> by a Deck Ship or what ever you call the space equivalent, and then 
> acts as one of the heavy lifters for orbit to surface transport that 
> you don't have the benefit of in an invasion mode (that normally 
> would be around to handle heavy cargo). Something more than a lighter 
> really in that it doesn't need additional hardware on the surface to 
> handle the off loading...
> 
> The really big ships (FTL in, assume orbit, land, offload return for 
> another helping) would never figure into combat. If your red force 
> gets near there, then its all over for the beachhead....
> 
[Bri] Exactly my point. But you still have to get the initial forces
down
somehow. And I would entrust airpower to completely remove ground forces
from expected landing zones (unless you use nukes). So the role of the
Assault Lander comes in to play. Has some armor to protect against the
lone
guerilla with a GMS/P-AA. Can land on a grass strip (most likely VTOL,
but
small enough not to have to worry about ground pressure). Can be fit
into a
relatively small ship for insertion. And can deliver some advanced
troops
and/or armor (that will be used to take the airfield so the _real_
dropships
can land the major forces).

> >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.
> 
> Oh, aye. Definately. I'm of the opinion that the Size 5ers and maybe 
> above to say size 10 could land on softer ground, something with 
> bedrock nearby would be a good idea. Landing in the middle of the 
> jungle would be bad. But, the planet has to have some salt flats or 
> some really flat land with a high ground loading....if there is a 
> space port or three, then great. Perfect place for a battle. Land 
> your platoon landers elsewhere and do an overland assault to the port 
> and perform a hot insertion of additional blue forces (can we say 
> market garden?). I played one of these with a buddy that did Air 
> Force Security work for 6 years...he loved the game...
> 
> >  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
> 
> Hmm, according to MT, you can get two Size 3's into a mass 5
lander....
> 
[Bri] Hmm...Yes and No. A FT Mass 5 lander, yes. A Size-5 lander, no. A
Size-5 lander has a maximum of 25 capacity points. Each Size-3 tank
takes 24
capacity points (8x size to get the capacity size needed to hold a
vehicle -
DS p.12).

> >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.
> 
> C5's are strategic airlift. And they can take 3-4 Abrams if you don't 
> plan on flying far. The C-17 can take 2 (or is it one) and can do 
> rough field landings. C-17s are supposed to be tactical and 
> strategic. They replace the C-141 which was mostly strategic...
> 
> There were trials back with the C-17 was having all sorts of problems 
> out in Witchita and Seattle. I was working for Lockmart at the time 
> and we did an unsolicited bid on a C-5D (A and B were in inventory 
> with the Airforce). It was faster, cheaper, more common and flew 
> farther than the C-17 with more. Lockheed even got the Air Force to 
> do tests on Paratrooper drops out of the C5 and I think even tried 
> some LAPES drops. The interesting mods were a Glass cockpit, a cargo 
> rack above the main hold for more pallets (not stacked tall), twice 
> the load of the C-5A/B models and all using the new fancy engines 
> developed for the 777, just 4 of them vs the 2 on the 777. Bloody 
> huge high bypass turbofans. It was especially nice in that it was 
> common with something like 60% of the parts already used by the 
> C-5A/B models too.
> 
> >
> >[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.
> 
> Don't carry the landers on the ship that can carry a Mechanized 
> Taskforce (its a coy short of a Btn I think...).
> 
[Bri] I agree. I was using the example from More Thrust and Jon's
descriptions.

> Split larger landers into separate forces. Use size 5 landers (4 of 
> them) for the platoon size landings. If you really have to take a 
> bigger red force, you're going to have far more than one Amphib ship 
> on hand. 
> 
[Bri] Agreed. But more landers means less effecient use of the internal
storage of the landers. I.e. using the MT method a 120cs lander can hold
10
Size-3 tanks, but 3 40cs landers can only hold 9.

> A whole slew of assets are going to be needed. One Marine 
> Amphib (Real USMC) group carries something like 1 tank company around 
> with them. Most everything is air portable (heavy lift Helos). The 
> same should be for Space navies. 
> 
[Bri] Agreed. But equipment that is designed for insertion is usually
lighter (in mass, size, and power) than equipment not designed for
insertion. I am somewhat confused by your example and how it relates,
however. If you are equating the Helos with Landers, they you are back
to
the question of 'how many eggs to put in one basket' (or how big of a
lander
do you want that will, potentially be subject to hostile fire). If not,
then
you also need to transport the Helos (or equivilent) to a safe landing
spot
and have them move the equipment. 

[snip good stuff]

> >  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.
> 
> I'd rather go with a smaller lander and move fewer in more trips. One 
> lander is a bit heavy. You could also go with a vessel that doesn't 
> land its own troops, rather it relies on other things you bring on 
> Deck Ships...
> 
[Bri] Agreed. I used one ship for simplicity. Any force leader that
would
put all his eggs in one basket should be drummed out of the service.

> >  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.
> 
> Depends on what is Dirtside. You've got Orbital bombardment working 
> for you. Add to that many of the operations in the canon history talk 
> about single divisions defending outlying worlds. That means you need 
> 3x the force power, multipliers help...what is Orbital Bombardment's 
> force Multiplier? I dunno....
> 
[Bri] Agreed. If you are attacking a small colony (Hadley's Hope), you
might
not need much (but you might have to prepare for guerilla warefare). If
you
are attacking a self-sustaining colony, you will want enough of a force
to
deal with the local militia. If you are attacking a colony with a
military
base, you will want a good deal more. If you are attacking a
long-established colony, you will want a good size force. If you are
attacking a major world, you will want more than you can get. Up to this
point orbital bombardment has been an option (subject to political
considerations). If you are on a mission to remove an occupying force,
orbital bombardment may not be an option. Also, heavy weapons near heavy
population centers may not be an option. The timeframe of the mission
also
effects force selection. I.e. if you have taken the system, but do not
have
the space assets to hold it against an expected counter attack, the
number
and kinds of forces dropped will be different than if you expect to be
able
to hold the system for a prolonged period of time. If the mission is to
obtain a specific asset or assets and depart, the force selection and
landing method might vary. The mission and what you face will have a
profound effect on what forces you need to insert.

> --
> - 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  -
> 
My comments above are marked by [Bri]

As I said, I see at least 2 types of landers needed:
 1) An Assault Lander to land a small force where there is some chance
of
enemy activity. This type should be built using the DS2 construction
method,
so that combat results are easy to apply. I could see such a lander
being in
a DS2 or SG2 game (if the opposition had no or limited air defence). In
a
DS2 game, partisans are hiding in nearby woods and hills. Air recon did
not
detect them. Unfortunatly, they do not have AA weapons. The first lander
comes in and lands. Tha partisans come out of the wood work. The landing
player must now decide what to do with the other 2-5 landers. If they do
not
land them, they are out numbered. If they land them, they are subject to
GMS/P fire. Also, if they do not land, they will not be able to take the
spaceport on schedule (and unarmored landers will be facing a hostile
landing). In SG2 set the board up with some clear area on each end. The
defending player can set up anywhere on the board using counters
(including
dummy counters). The defenders may not move until the first lander is
down
(do not want to draw supporting ortillery). They must stop the landing
forces (which will outnumber them if all land) from reaching either road
(each runs the short lengh of the table about 1/3 of the way from the
end of
the table). The attackers may spend 3 ortillery makers once the
defending
forces attack (but not within 8" of either the roads or the landing
zones).
 2) A Dropship to land larger forces in a secured area. These landers
could
be abstracted or built using MT or Modified MT rules. These should not
be in
a scenario except as a target while landed. They would be too big (and
therefore too easy to hit) while landing for a DS2 or SG2 game.

---
Brian Bell
---