Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault
From: Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@t...>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:50:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault
John Atkinson wrote:
> >In the Falklands battles in the 80s between England and Argentinia.
> >invading troops were transported by cruise liners, because Brtian did
> >have the troop transport capacity.
>As a result, they had to drop off on a worthless part of that rock and
>walk to the object.
Which is pretty much what the US did in Iraq too - in spite of your
considerable troop transport capabilities, you had to drop off in a
useless part of the desert before you could move to the places you
wanted to be... and quite a lot of your equipment and supplies were
by commercial freighters. (Not sure about the troops themselves,
And, of course, it is *exactly* what the Imperial troops did on Hoth <g>
>Because of the difficulty of logistical support,
>there was practically no armored support availible.
The lack of armoured support in the Falklands had at least as much to do
with the terrain as with the logistics. Even if the Brits had been able
get MBTs ashore, they wouldn't have been able to drive very far without
running major risks of bogging down. The light vehicles they did use
far better suited to the terrain - and since the Argies didn't have
anything heavier to oppose them with, they were sufficient to do the
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
Gzg-l mailing list