Re: [OT] Update JohnA

On Wed May 14 2003 04:36 pm, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> At 4:07 PM -0400 5/14/03, Flak Magnet wrote:
+++SNIP+++
> start. Airborne units can be very fragile things. To think of them as
> just as combat capable as a Mechanized Ground force ignores many key
> points in their usage and especially their disadvantages.

Short version:	Airbornes don't have the "staying power" of line units,
and 
shouldn't be expected to.  It's not their role.

> Issues with past US Army war game rules (real stuff in the military)
> where the Airborne units when para dropped were 'protected' from
> artillery bombardment in the first 12-24 hours also drove it home.
+++snip+++

I have a lot of qualms about the rules OpFor is forced to follow in 
wargames...  It flies in the face of "train as you fight" and leads to 
inflexibility.

> Now, in a light conflict where the opposition can't find it's own
> arse in the dark let alone a drop zone in their backyard, Para's are
> great. Even so, they can get in over their heads quickly due to their
> low horsepower to weight ratio when it comes to beating feet or
> pushing through an blocking force. HMMWVs and Mk19 GLs just don't cut
> it in all the combat situations.

No arguments there.

> TICKET PUNCHER: A career military officer
>	whose primary concern is personal advancement.
>	A common practice was to temporarily leave
>	a rear area job and spend a few weeks in the
>	field with the troops for the sole purpose of
>	gaining decorations and awards such as the
>	such as the coveted CIB (Combat Infantry Badge)

Ah.  Thanks.  No, that's not what I was implying, not at all.

-- 
Flak Magnet (Tim)
www.geocities.com/flakmagnet72