Re: Dropcaps and Paraops

--- Tomb <tomb@dreammechanics.com> wrote:

> Note that your last statement makes many of these
> landings seem viable
> by small airdrop formations on remote colonies or
> outposts (light ADE). 

Yes, the futuristic equivelant of invading Grenada or
Panama.  Pick on little threats before they buy good
air defenses.  When dealing with people like Iraqis
who have dug up the wherewithal to purchase enough
obsolescent SAMs to pose a cetain threat, the airborne
guys become mere truck-mounted infantry, useful
primarily to secure undefended desert and attack
lightly-defended airbases.

Of course, once your 'airborne' guys become power
armored, then they are a lot more useful in a standup
fight against real opponents.

> Canada still has (at least for now, though there is
> a move to turf them)
> some limited parachute assault capability (one
> company per infantry unit
> I think?). 

I wouldn't know.  All I know is that you guys have
some sort of hangup about your airborne units and
scrapped the last major one (along with your
institutional memory and capability) just because a
couple of 'em got out of control.

If every military unit which had individuals commit
crimes, even murders, then there would be very few
units on the planet.

John 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup