Re: [GZG] Still "colinies" :)

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Enzo de Ianni <enzodeianni@tiscali.it>
wrote:

>  You see, John, my original comment was inspired by the reflection
>  somebody (can't remember who) did about how much space would a land
>  unit occupy on a spaceship and the dimension of such a transport,
>  with the final reflection proposed upon the very small total size of
>  an interstellar invasion force.

True--but one presumes that an invasion force would have a number of
transports.  In fact, the assault commanders would probably prefer
multiple smaller transports (so that you don't loose a major portion
of your force's equipment when one goes down, cf. MV Atlantic Conveyor
and the helicoptors) in large numbers, as opposed to the Navy which is
probably arguing for a handful of giant transports for efficiency's
sake.

Personally, I wouldn't drop a single battalion on anything populated
by more than a few thousand folks in any case.	YMMV.

>  While all the reflection of the original post are sound, given my
>  opinion of a limited usefulness of the small elite units, such a
>  small size of an invasion force would mean that interstellar
>  invasions would simply be impossible, even in the SF universe we
game.

Except for very small colonies, stipulated.  I make one of two
assumptions:

Either Assault Transports are operated in great numbers for a major
operation, or

Assault transports are used to land an initial force that may be
limited in size but with as much firepower as possible to secure
landing sites for troops packed into transports in a more efficient
but less 'combat ready' configuration.

>  They were, in the open battle sense: they used close order movement
>  and assault, had bad coordination of movements of different separated
>  bodies and no ability  in cooperation between different branches
>  (when they used them, later in the war)

You're simply factually incorrect.  Cite source.

>  I think most of the skirmishes lost by the US involved light
>  infantry; tanks and artillery participated in the later invasion of
the South.
>  Still, "guns and light tanks" is ill-equipped (to my eyes) when faced
>  by air support, helicopters, trucks, APC, heavy bomber, electronic
>  sensor, air recce, satellite... (can go on, but you get the view).

Again, please cite source.  At no time did any Vietnamese contingent
defeat a United States force larger than a recon patrol or special
forces team, and even then those instances were exceedingly rare.

>  >...Poland or Yugoslavia in WWII.
>
>  Well, Poland had no ACTIVE resistance movement until '44 (that's why

The Jews in the Ghetto might be surprised to hear that.

The Armia Krajowa might be deeply surprised to hear that--given that
they (among other things) smuggled V-1 and V-2 rocket parts out of
Poland to England, fighting in the Zamosec Uprising and Operation
Tasma, etc. . .

Karol Juliusz "Igo" Sym would be surprised to hear that, given his
date of death as well.

It's hard to have a conversation with someone who simply makes facts
up as he pleases.

>  Now you hit a good idea... the existence of a sanctuary and
>  logistical staging area would be important, in the long run; but
>  after how much time?

Immediately.  Do you have any idea the rate at which modern weapons
expend ammunition?  Never mind food, water, etc.

>Obviously, the locals would have larger stores

Not obviously--prestrike intelligence should identify major locations
of ammunition storage and other militarily significant stockpiles.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again. We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l