RE: Marine carriers?

At 8:49 AM -0400 6/8/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
>[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).

I'd be inserting teams by smallish landers as well. Is the Boxcar 
capable as a 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).

Oh, yes. I was thinking FT 'Mass' you are talking DS 'size'. A Size 5 
lander is more like an AAV7. A Mass 5 lander is more like an LCAC.

>
>[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.

But then you suffer from all your eggs in one basket syndrome...

>  > 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.

Well, there are tactical aircraft that are really small. I equate the 
helo's to Dirtside size craft. Larger landers are more akin to the 
ships boats measured in FT masses....

>
>[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

One advantage of orbital insertions is that it's far and above the 
concept of "over the horizon" assaults. You can pick where ever you 
want that the red force isn't Planets are bloody big. Assuming you 
can land on the other side of a continent, then you could road march 
over, better yet perform a series of Air hops. (remember how the 
Imperials got under the Rebel defensive shields on Hoth?)
>
>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

Given the nic precise nature of ground artillery, once you're down, 
you can take bounding leaps to the objective and given better 
mobility, out maneuver your red force folks.

>
>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

One advantage of the Mass 5 landers is they're much bigger and harder 
to destroy. You may hurt that LST with your GMS/p, but he's going to 
disgorge a world of hurt on you when those doors open. I also have to 
wonder what sort of weapons a Mass 5 Lander would have for close in 
defense...perhaps a few HELs, pop guns in the FT scale, bloody bad 
for partisans with a GMS/L or P.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		 ----------	      SW1025 H -
-   Internet Technologies  --  Data Center Manager (3N &10S)   -
- ryan.gill@turner.com			 rmgill@mindspring.com -
-		   www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- C&R-FFL -	  The gunshow loophole isn't		 - NRA -
-	     keep federal laws out of private lives	       -	

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