he Rulebook examples include the NAC Phalanx which is big, but wheeled. Look
at a modern "big but wheeled" armoured vehicle, like the Italian Centauro B1
(which is a "Tank Destroyer" that carries a 105mm tank gun on
an 8 wheel chassis). It has a weight in the 24,000kg class - half that
of
the tanks carrying the same gun - but you can carry it in much smaller
aircraft.
** With the exception of the AC-130, I don't think I've ever heard of an
aircraft carrying a 100mm plus cannon.
Maybe the wheeled NAC designs follow a similar design philosophy
- - they do have to be lugged around rather large areas of space,
afterall... The NSL and FSE vehicles are GEVs, so you can imagine the
designers not producing them with maxed out armour (and weight).
** SG2 isn't about cost. If you want to factor in design costs and trade offs,
use DS2 to design your SG2 vehicles. That'll give you some concept of why you
might or might not want to do certain things.
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Thomas.Barclay wrote:
> ** With the exception of the AC-130, I don't think I've ever heard of
C5's carry 120mm and 155mm's all the time. Now you may note that this is
as cargo, but that was where the Centaro was being referred to. An Air
Portable Tank is usually not going to be in the 70 tonne range like the Abrams
unless you are talking about Strategic transport.
The issue was air mobile armour that had heavy firepower and was still air
mobile in a useful manner (ie rough fields, minimal support at the field).
You should see what those russian transports carry around.
In a message dated 1/12/00 6:22:01 PM Central Standard Time,
> monty@arcadia.turner.com writes:
<<
C5's carry 120mm and 155mm's all the time. Now you may note that this is as
cargo, but that was where the Centaro was being referred to. An Air Portable
Tank is usually not going to be in the 70 tonne range like the
Abrams unless you are talking about Strategic transport.
The issue was air mobile armour that had heavy firepower and was still air
mobile in a useful manner (ie rough fields, minimal support at the field).
You should see what those russian transports carry around.
> [quoted text omitted]
The air mobile AFV? Well, we have the Sheridan which has been an insufficient
weapon system in so many ways, but every time we try to get it replaced the
new project gets cancelled. First the LAV-75 based on the M113 chassis
and
sporting a HV long 75mm in a remote turret - slick design and air
transportable for our air mobile divisions. That got cancelled. Then the army
proposed a new variatn of the M2 Bradley with a 105mm gun in a conventional
turret. This was air transportable and other aircraft could carry armor
add-ons to make it a little more survivable. That got right up to
production and then got cancelled for economy's sake. The net result is that
we have light forces with no better tank destroyer assets than HMMWV mounted
TOW II's and Cavalry Regiments with neither tanks nor armored infatry fighting
vehicles. Some day those light divisions are going to pay in very expensive
coin for those economies.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Thomas.Barclay wrote:
I think there is a misunderstanding here. The AC130 has a cannon on it along
with 40mm bofors and mini guns, it's a fire support aircraft not a transport,
so you guys are talking two seperate things. <grin>. AC130 is not a transport.
> The air mobile AFV? Well, we have the Sheridan which has been an
Welcome to polotics 101. As long as the disaster doesn't happen while I'm in
office, it's not my fault...
> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
> > The AC130 has a cannon on it along
Well IIRC the Air Force is fielding seven 747s mounted with airborne
anti-ballistic
missile laser on them. Now if we can only get that forward lens to depress
enough.....
> Los wrote:
> > > ** With the exception of the AC-130, I don't think I've ever heard
> The AC130 has a cannon on it along
> Now THERE's a frightening thought: the AC-5A...
ugh.... you can imagine: 30mm rotary cannon, 40mm cannon, 120mm cannon, 155mm
cannon, catapults for chucking refridgerators...
> Well IIRC the Air Force is fielding seven 747s mounted with airborne
heck, just aim it sideways and bank the airplane....
I heard somewhere that the airborne laser was perfectly capable of engaging
ground targets, but that they don't advertise that much...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Los wrote:
> > C5's carry 120mm and 155mm's all the time. Now you may note that
Again, I do know what an AC130 is. The A part indicates its primary duty
is "attack", the C part is the residual designation from its basic Herky
Bird use. One could use it as a transport, but it doesn't have much room
with all of the ammo bins, armament, sensors and the "booth" up front behind
the flight deck.
Might I offer you a healthy dose of tongue and cheek? When I was speaking of
C5s carrying 120mms and 155mms, I was thinking of well M1A2s and
M109A5's and A6s. Heck, I bet you could have fit a M110 w/203mm on a
Galaxy (I don't have any tech books on C5 Load specs).
One really interesting thing was when I was at LockMart we did an
unsolicited bid to the USAF to build Additional C5s (A -D, Not sure what
happened to the -Cs, we do have -As and -Bs). The general gist of the
bid was uprating the Turbo Fans with those developed for the B777 (which has
2 of the monster engines). The C5-D would have had 4!. Time to cruise
was amazing, as well as fuel consumption. It could go further, faster and with
more cargo than ever before. Another idea was increasing the cargo door width
to allow for double palette wide loads (or two palettes across) of loads. So
Fitting a 2.5Ton truck and a 155mm towed gun side by side meant you could get
4 pairs in there (or was it 5?) rather than half
of what the C5-A/B carries.
One of the other idea was to use the C5 as a tactical aircraft for tactical
drops. Now that would have been impressive! I would have gladly
paid extra taxes to see that kind of massive airdrop. I certainly think
it would have been better than the C-13 with all its teething troubles.
Better a tried and true airframe with nice updates. Too many composites
are the C-13's weakness IMO.
> At 06:43 AM 1/17/00 -0500, you wrote:
> it would have been better than the C-13 with all its teething troubles.
> Better a tried and true airframe with nice updates. Too many composites
> are the C-13's weakness IMO.
For an extremely tangental anime reference to this kind of thing, the
series Gundam Wing feature extensive use of C5-sized aircraft for
ferrying
about and ocasionally combat-dropping various mobile suits (big honkin'
giant robots, for those not familiar with the Gundam world(s)). In fact, in
one ep a MS fires from a Starlifter in close air support of a ground battle.
Possible DSII scenario rule?
Random thoughts....
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Jim 'Jiji' Foster wrote:
> For an extremely tangental anime reference to this kind of thing, the
Ahh, old news. The Zion forces have been combat deploying Mobile suits since
the Type I Zaku suits were first deployed back in 0079. Now the impressive
thing is the rather large craft that the Zion forces carried attack fighters
and Mobile Suits on for atmospheric operation. Bigger than a White base and
rather impressive in form.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Magic wrote:
> They tried to get us to volunteer for the C5 drops while I was in the
I never did understand why they just don't run the sticks out the rear cargo
ramp.
In a message dated 1/18/00 3:58:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> monty@arcadia.turner.com writes:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Magic wrote:
Probably due to the fact that you'd end up with multipule entanglements in
MassTac as Military Lawn Darts run into each other. Out the troop doors you at
least get a moderate amount of seperation.
> PsyWraith@aol.com wrote:
> Probably due to the fact that you'd end up with multipule
Actually there's more chance of entaglement with doors since you don't send
guys off a ramp 2x2 buy in single file.
I'm guessing that the reason there are no ramp jumps on the C5 (It doesn't
give the reason in the manual) is the minimum airspeed of the Galaxy. Like the
C141, it's too high for a safe ramp jump, which is why the doors are equipped
with special blast deflectors to assist in a safe and stable exit from the
aircraft.
> Los wrote:
> PsyWraith@aol.com wrote:
Of course this is offset somehwat by the tendancy for guys to pile ff the ramp
a lot faster but that's a jumpmaster control issue.
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Los wrote:
> Of course this is offset somehwat by the tendancy for guys to pile ff
Did they ever fix the PASGT helmet strap problem that the para's had a problem
with?