Well,
This follows a discussion alluded to earlier this year, and a far more
extensive one about two years ago on the translation factors. As this was one
of my interests (in figuring out just how huge FT transports need to be), I've
spent quite a bit of time looking at it.
I went with 1 FB Mass = 25 CS (SG2).
Now, what can we fit in 25 CS? 4 CS = 1 active marine (with presumably a half
or quarter of a stateroom) 1 CS = 1 cryosleep marine
A vehicle stored within another (like an SG2 tank) takes up 8/5ths its
space.
1 Mass therefore stores 1 size 3 vehicle. (15 * 8/5 = 24... which is
just about right for a one mass 25 CS storage area).
But then we get into the question of supplies: How much does a modern
mechanized force consume? I believe I got figures like an average of 10 kg a
day in low tempo operations, 20 kg a day in normal operations, and 40kg a day
in high tempo operations per man. This includes food, water, medical supplies,
ammo, gasoline or other fuels, etc. (Owen, Los, anyone else care to oppose
these figures or suggest some alternates?).
So, we have two approaches: 1 is to assume the quoted cargo space above
includes some amount of supplies (a weeks?) as well as the marine. Reasonable.
The other is to assume supplies are extra.
But how many supply units (we'll call 1 man's supply for 1 day of normal tempo
operations 1 supply unit) can you fit in 1 CS? The
conversion I think I would use is 14 SUs per cargo space. Why - that
is 2 weeks supplies in normal ops! Alternately it is about 560 kg which
strikes me as the CS of 1 marine plus his freezer plus his kit plus 1 weeks
supplies (which we assume as the base 1 mass definition).
So, where does that leave us? 1 CS for a Marine in cold sleep with 7 SUs. 1 CS
for 14 SUs. 4 CS for a wake and operational Marine with 7 SUs.
Reasonably, a raider might get away with just this basic loadout. But any
force worth its salt will contain at least a months operational rations for
its forces at normal tempo. That means for every cryosleeping 1 CS marine, you
should figure 2 extra CS for supply. So in a 25 CS Mass Point for FB, you want
to include 8 marines in cryosleep plus 1 months normal tempo of supplies for
them (with 1 CS leftover).
Isn't that neat? That's about the size of an average squad! So, their APC (a
size 3 beast) takes up 1 Mass, so do they! So 2 Mass for a squad and its
vehicle.
So, let's say we run short platoons (likely in the future, esp given the cost
of troop transport) so we have 3 squads in our platoon. Plus
a command/support squad, with its own vehicle.
So we have a platoon taking up 2 Mass x 4 = 8 Mass.
So a streamlined platoon lander should have 8 Mass devoted to the platoon. But
wait! They'd be in cold sleep. Not such a hot idea. But you can get away with
the same ratio of space (1 space for a trooper)
in "awake" state as long as you aren't assuming living in that - this
is the number used in SG2 vehicle design. So.... we can use the same mass for
the troops, vehicles and supplies. (You could argue even for the lander that
you only need 4 mass as the troops land inside the vehicles).
The 25mm SG2 lander I treat as if it has 20 internal spaces and it is size 5.
That means I need 2 Mass for it. So it is a 2 Mass Interface Lander in FT.
But wait, how does this extend to a company?
Let's assume we have a short company with 3 platoons. 24 Mass. But wait, we're
ignoring a command unit plus some support personel, plus comms, plus EW, plus
cooks, plus clerks, plus etc. etc. Plus some light arty support (heavy mortars
for example). Say another platoon worth. We're up to 32 Mass.
If independently deployed, they'll probably need a bunch of things we
normally go back to base for - a field hospital on their ship, some
limited airlift capability, etc. The mass starts to add up. As a rough figure,
say we total to 40 Mass. To land them simultanously, you'd need to add hangar
space for 4 of the 2 mass platoon landers.
Then we think about moving to Battalion scale, with 3 companies. So we're
thinking to ourselves, we'll want some battalion assets like some howitzers,
and we'll need stuff like a B'n HQ. So really, it is more than 3 Companies.
Let's say 3.5 in the streamlined world of the
future. Plus add in some light armour support - a platoon of 4 light
AFVs and their crews. And a battery of 3 mobile howitzers.
So we have 3x40 + (4 (AFVs) + 2 (crew)) + (3 (Howitzers) + 2 (crew)) +
20 (HQ) = 151 Mass. For round figs, say 150 mass. To land this lot, you
probably would do it company at a time, so 4 or 5 of the 2 Mass landers might
do.
Note though that a 160 Mass transport (the ship will be bigger) is
starting to get into DN/SDN range and that is only for one battalion
and all shipped in cold sleep!
So, if we move to the smallest formation that could menace any sort of
significant force, the Brigade or Short Division: 3 x Battalions (Line) 450 1
x Battalion (Support) 150 1 x Company (attached armour) 40 1 x Company
(attached air) 40 Total 680
With this, you'd want to be able to land about at least a full Battalion which
means landing 150 mass which means using about another 40 Mass in landers.
So.... A Brigade might be about 720 Mass.
THAT is a lot of mass. THAT is an asset worth killing for an enemy (the ship
cost is quite high). THAT is worth defending. THAT dwarfs SDNs. Transports in
the GZGverse would far outsize warships (think DD vs Supertanker for an
analogy). And that's only arriving to a fight with maybe 2300 guys.
And Note I've ignored the ortillery aspects of things as well as the
need to protect these large transports - imagine the escort groups!
And imagine the supply vessels - since the numbers above include but
one months ops supplies, or two weeks in high tempo ops. So we're talking
hundreds of points worth of supply to supply a six month deployment of a
Brigade.
WHAT IT ALL MEANS:
Now we see clearly why any starmobile force deployed in the GZGverse will 1)
Be made up of a minimum of REGULAR quality
2) Be well equipped with top of the line kit, especially defensive -
they are worth a lot because they cost a lot to move about so they are worth
keeping alive once at their destination 3) Be of moderate size and not
overloaded with a huge number of
armoured vehicles or support assets - enough, but not too many.
4) Never be as big as you want
Local troops have a lot of place in this universe, as do lower tech locally
manufactured arms (esp vehicles!). Also, planetary invasions are BRUTAL. Only
ever done on colony worlds with low pop and low air defence. To assault say
even one country on a major colony of 20
million would take at least 200,000 regular troops - which is about
1000 of these 720 point transports, plus an ungodly amount of supply points.
AND an awful escort group.
The math bears out small forces in the GZG verse - with most battles
being left up to local colonial or militia forces. Regular forces deployed in
small units (company or B'n at most usually) and being of
high quality and high-tech kit. They are also too valuable to lose
frivolously and this would affect tactical thinking - ie victory
conditions. There will be something to be said for having 10,000
screaming IF militia - if all they have to oppose are 150 top of the
line NAC forces.... because the NAC can't afford to be everywhere at once.
So think about it. The thread was started examining what is reasonable for an
assault lander. Follow it up and you'll see that large formations would be
VERY rare in the GZGverse and you'd NEVER invade a big high pop planet. Makes
getting your claim in on the Rim worlds worth having that much more
important!!!!
BTW - Noam, if you read this, lovely ships (some broken image links I
think though) and great NI work. Now I want some of these NI ships. You've
done great work.
Good post, but I have one problem with this:
> So.... A Brigade might be about 720 Mass.
OK. 2300 people with some heavy equipment and provisions for a month or
so requires 720 HS in cargo/passenger space and landers alone; about
1000 HS if you add in minimal hull and engines as well.
The population of the NAC capital, Albion, grew from zero to "almost as large
as England" (assuming that the English population doesn't stagnate very much
in the FT future, that's at least 50 million) in 35 years, and much or even
most of this growth was due to immigration.
Assuming that the equipment necessary to survive on an alien world is no less
bulky than the military equipment of the brigade, Albion saw on
average at least one such Brigade-size colony unload its cargo EACH AND
EVERY DAY during those 35 years...
...and there are quite a few other planets that's been colonized as well in
the GZGverse, even if you don't count the horde of unofficial ones.
So, either colony ships of this size or larger (which would most likely be
drafted as troop carriers when the need arose) are rather common in the
GZGverse, or people in cryo (and most of their equipment) takes a *lot* less
space than Thomas's calculations suggest.
Regards,
> So.... A Brigade might be about 720 Mass.
Is there anything that says it all needs to be on the same ship?
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Thomas Barclay wrote:
[Lots of really sensable and logical info snipped]
> Note though that a 160 Mass transport (the ship will be bigger) is
Why put all eggs in one basket? Why not do a mix of ships like USMC MEU's
do? They comprise 3-4 ships and are a reinforced Battalion, a composite
aircraft sqdn, and support units.
Use several types of ships. One as a full up stores ship that doesn't have to
hang around the whole time. If there are protracted operations, it hoofs it
back to supply bases picks up more gear and hoofs it back to
keep the supplies coming.
You are going to need some sort of Ship to provide the aviation assets, why
not a light carrier? Another variety of assault ship would be needed
to carry the additional heavy assets (Artillery, Medical units, etc).
Why not break the forces down so you can do more mixing and matching.
Current MEUS have the following
a LHA or LHD (Landing Helicopter Assault) 1500+ troops, 1-3 landing
craft
35 helecopters/VSTOLs
a LPD (Landing platform Dock) or LSD Carry More troops, less helos and landing
craft no fixed wing. a AFS (Combat Stores Ship) carries supplies and combat
gear for the deployed troops.
Obviously the landing craft and helecopters would amalgamate into larger
landing shuttles. Some would be quite large like the LCACs are, others would
be smaller squad base sizes and would fill the role of the LCU's.
One could add to the task force transports and commandships.
Both have landing craft/helos (Shuttles) for the transfer of
men/equipment ashore.
> With this, you'd want to be able to land about at least a full
Even at D-Day we never got entire battalions down in one go. Each beach
got a company at a time. The heavy craft just can't go in on an opposed
landing if the red force has big guns to challenge them. But if you can land
on the other end of the continent where red force isn't, why not land there,
set up your supply base and use tactical transport to ferry in the heavy stuff
piecemeal. You are in orbit, so you've killed his spysats. How the hell does
he know you've landed there. While you are bringing in the heavy stuff and
your engineers are prepping some surface
fields for basic landing facilities, Red force is scouring the planet with
scouts trying to figure out where the hell you are. Natrually this is scenario
driven, you may not have the option of landing there, or you
need a faster tempo. Still it all depends.
> So.... A Brigade might be about 720 Mass.
The tactically deployable elements.
> THAT is a lot of mass. THAT is an asset worth killing for an enemy
> And Note I've ignored the ortillery aspects of things as well as the
Any Amphibious force is going to go in only once the oppsing naval forces have
been creamed from the area. If the naval battle goes badly, the amphibious
operation is always a no go. Look at Midway and the Falklands. both had a
naval battle in the offing. One (Midway) had it decided against the landing
forces, the japanese turned the amphibious force around. In the falklands the
Argies started to challenge the british navy with surface assests. A torpedo
shot solved that.
Sure, there will be some battles where the Red force gets close to your amphib
force but if he does, you are extremely stupid.
> And imagine the supply vessels - since the numbers above include but
I threw together a sample AK type ship.. 160 mass 2 thrust fragile hull 16
damage points 4 PDS 1 25 Mass Lander (for a modicom of transport) 70 tons
cargo space 1750 CS. (dump the lander and it shoots to 2500 CS)
Thats 116 size 3 vehicles stored in the hold. You basically have to start
pulling the once closest to the shuttle into it and start landing them. I'd
expect a containerized system could net you more cargo capacity due to
efficiency. But you don't containerize tanks, or would you?...
In the case of transport trucks, they'ed go on loaded. Some of the Cargo
space would make sense to use for temporary troops. Another thing to note is
that an auxillary ship isn't going to have the same crew compliment as a
military vessel. Some of that "space" would be fine for transient crew
like supply truck drivers and such.
> Local troops have a lot of place in this universe, as do lower tech
But you can just pound any large concentration of force from orbit. Which
means your localized resistance at your goal is most likely light. Which
makes your campaign easy. Militia don't create much of a speed bump to a
strong landing force. Remember Somalia. The Marines came in with a security
force and "took" that beach. The LCAC"s just came in and started burping
troops.
The big problem with defending a large planet is that you can't defend all the
key points. A highly mobile forcecan land anywhere it wants when
coming from orbit.
One also can't expect to have a 200,000 man army on every planet. How do
you keep that large an army supplied, let alone there in the first place? If
the Blue force has taken the orbit, he has you under observation. You
had better have a big supply cache. I'll bet that you don't have much in the
way of forces coming in to supply you whith his warships in orbit. If the
planet is occupied and blue force is taking it back, expect problems if the
population wants you gone too.
> defence. To assault say even one country on a major colony of 20
You'd have 4 MEU's for taking the landing field and securing it. Once that is
done you start looking at the purpose build transports. More akin to
freighters.
Now I think that if you were to build a purpose built craft that just carries
vehicles as cargo and gear as cargo, you'd use that for a sustained campaign.
You'd find your numbers (and sizes) for ships to get more reasonable. This
allows a denser load and makes the landing the
critical point of the campaign. Once you have the landing facilities, you can
start landing the larger transport craft that require specialized unloading
facilites.
Look at Andrew Toppan's page on the USN.
www.uss-salem.org/worldnav/usa/aux_seal.htm
These ships are much bigger and carry quite a bit more in the way of gear than
an assault ship does. They require hard cargo facilites. Some are RORO's like
those used to transport cars from Japan, others are converted Container ships.
These would be the follow on force to build your 8,000 man force to a 200,000
man force for taking an entire planet that wasn't lightly populated.
> The math bears out small forces in the GZG verse - with most battles
Most of the fights we have done have been pretty small. Iraq and Grenada
are the exceptions to the MEU exclusivity.
> conditions. There will be something to be said for having 10,000
150 Top of the line NAC forces would be used in a raid, if you camp the 10,000
troops on one objective, I doubt the IF force would do that. They
have to protect points all over a planet. Its probably a mostly agrarian
planet too. If it has any kind of industrial base, its going to be pretty
limited. If its focused, and the IF guy concentrates his forces, bomb his ass.
Thats why you have aerospace fighters.
2,000 Troops with first rate gear and air/ortillery support are another
thing entirely. I'd hate to be the 10,000 troop force sitting at the bottom of
that gravity well. Shit flows down hill fast when it comes from orbit.
A great post by Tom...(per SOP)
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> I went with 1 FB Mass = 25 CS (SG2).
I think we talked about this a while ago. Depends on the environment. Lets
say standard (non-arid non freezing environment.) water consumption
alone
on the ground should be about 2-3 gallons per day which translates to
16-24 pounds (somebody do the conversion). ( I wouldn't rely on
purifying your own for the first couple of days though that needs to be
planned for
in later days.) In arid operations this is probably 5-8 gallons (@ 8
pounds a gallon) if the guys are really moving. (Quart an hour just doing
nothing is standard doctrine). As far as rations go three squares (two in a
bind) all from ration packs can be sustained at least a week before some GI
kills somebody <grin>. An current MRE weights.025 pounds according to
FM7-70 but that seems a little light. I figure 3 MRE's plus pogey bait
and other supplements will come to 3 pounds a day. Other incidentals such as
meds (ala anti-malarial) bug juice, personal kit batteries and what not
should be another pound or two. So not including uniform and equipment, or
ammo that comes out to about 25 pounds of expendable per day. Then we have
to deal with ammo, at least 2-3 basic loads a day planned (some days
higher temp than others). I don't know what to say about ammo weight except it
probably won't change to much. Caseless ammo might go down a bit. NAC ammo
might be lighter but then they have to lug binary porpellant
too. Power guns require power cells. Lets go to FM 7-70 (light infantry
platoon and squad again)
M16A2 w/ 30rd mag , 2 ammo pouches with 6 mags or 30 rounds and 2
grenades weights 17 pounds. A grenadiers (M203) weight with ammo is 41.35
pounds, a SAW= 47.45 pounds and an M60=54.95 pounds (a Saw weights a bit over
20 pounds and M60 weight 23 so the rest is ammo about 25 pounds give or take
for a basic load. AN M16 weighs over 8 pounds with pouches so a basic
load w/ mags is 9 pounds. (includes 2 frags)
Figure the weight for future ammo about the same even if they carry more.
Rifleman Basic load 12 pounds (added a few 20mm grenades for the GL) SAW Basic
load 26 pounds PPG Basic load 25 pounds
MLP=25-30 pounds? (Hey they're carrying 4 rockets.)
IAVR (fire and forget) 4.5 lbs. Smoke grenades 2.5 pounds Regular grenades
(extra) 2 pounds 60mm mortar rounds (1 each) 3.5 lbs
Batteries (2-3 lbs)
SO to keep an rifleman on ops for a day (without reliable water source) in a
temperate environment during variable tempo operations plan for: Water=20 lbs
Food=4 lbs Incidentals=2 pounds 3 basic loads ammo=36 pounds. Total=62 pounds
NOTE that this does not need to all be carried by the troop on the way in.
Some can be pushed forward with the company or platoon supply. The soldier
probably won't be carrying more than 2 MREs and 1.5 gallons of water and 2
basic loads if he knows the rest is coming down or prepo-ed elsewhere.
Carrying more than 33% of your body weight for extended periods will degrade
performance more and more every day. (though everybody does it) A 200 lb guy.
40 lbs of equipment uniform and weapon., 62 pounds of consumable per day.
A generic Squad would need Riflemen x 5=310 pounds SAWx1=77 pounds Squad
equipment (6 IAVRs, Commo batteries etc)=50 lbs Total= 440 lbs (rounded up) SO
a standard platoon (3 squads and an HQ with one PPG and MLP would need) 1800
pounds rounded up.
A week's supplies planning for whatever contingency is on the planet carried
by the transport for the platoon would be 12,600 pounds per platoon. Again
this is just hip pocket SWAG. I think that assault transports ought to carry
at least that much and then rely on supply ships with the fleet for extra
stuff.
> So, we have two approaches: 1 is to assume the quoted cargo space
I say factor in a week on the transport. It would be criminally irresponsible
to separate the two completely.
<snipped all the other good stuff>
A word about assault landers. I would never ever land anything bigger than a
platoon in one ship in any environment that was dangerous as per the reason's
TOM outlines above. One yahoo with a shoulder fired weapon who's been skipped
by sensors for whatever reason (remember each tech always has a counterbalance
to it) can ruin your whole expensive invasion! SO Chinook sized landers seem
the way to go. Nor do I buy them fulfilling dual roles ala the aliens ship.
They are too valuable. Have a dedicated fire support vehicle.
The exception of course would be you OUT ON THE FRINGE type of patrol ship
that carries an away team vessel with a platoon of marines. in that case it is
reasonable to roll it into one.
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Good post, but I have one problem with this:
likewise:).
> The population of the NAC capital, Albion, grew from zero to "almost
i can't argue with canon.
> and much or even most of this growth was due to immigration.
now hold your horses - where do you get this idea? i distinctly remember
the term 'carefully engineered population growth'. immigration would obviously
be the major factor to begin with, but population growth is
exponential; possibly even super-exponential, as as the population
increases, the planet will get better healthcare, agriculture, etc.
> Assuming that the equipment necessary to survive on an alien world is
Singapore currently has 700 000 000 gross tonnes of shipping go through it
each year; that's about 2 million tonnes a day. i would guess that this is
more than a brigade. i reckon that interstellar trade has to be on scales at
least equal to earthound trade (after all, it's worth fighting extremely
expensive wars over).
> So, either colony ships of this size or larger (which would most
i'd agree. i think that freighters, liners, transports, etc, must be far
larger than warships, which is very much at odds with the picture in FT.
i have to say the idea of 10 000 tonne space battleships never rang true with
me. ships in canon ft strike me as unfeasibly small.
tom
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Los wrote:
> A word about assault landers. I would never ever land anything bigger
I have to wonder what a yahoo with a shoulder fired weapon is going to do to
something the size of a LCH. Whooho, I made a 4 inch hole in the cargo bay!.
These things are going to have thrust out the wazoo to get off planet. They
are not your uncle's space shuttle. To seriously damage one, you'd have to hit
it with more than a LAW or LAD.
> a counterbalance to it) can ruin your whole expensive invasion! SO
Then why does the army have LCACs and LAAAV-7's with weapons? If the
vehicle has to go into a hot zone arm it. I'd hate to be an infantry platoon
with a LCAC bearing down on my beach. AGLs are not pretty when they open up
from a large fast and stabilized mount.
Even the Helos used in vietnam were armed some how. Though the slicks (UH1
with door gunners) were discreet from the gunships.
> At 6:33 PM -0400 9/23/99, Ryan M Gill wrote:
My last Striker II scenario had power armored troops in concealed
positions with semi-portable AA weapons (rockets and one-shot plasma
weapons) ambushing grav tanks. That yahoo may be packing some serious heat.
> I have to wonder what a yahoo with a shoulder fired weapon is going to
woohoo! I put a 4" hole in an engine! or the cockpit, or a rocket pod, or into
the cargo bay (or troop compartment for an assault shuttle); say, what kind of
fuel do these things use?.... There's a wide range of damage results possible,
lets be suitably paranoid about ground fire. How many assault transports in
your initial wave will seriously hose you if you lose them. My list includes
all of your C3 assets, fire support units, your aid station (if landing one),
etc.
> a counterbalance to it) can ruin your whole expensive invasion! SO
I can agree with some dedicated fire support zooming about, but your
transports should have something to add to the suppressive fire. I'd say heavy
rocket pods and a dual purpose point defense gun (combining PDS and APSW roles
in DSII) at a minimum.
> Then why does the army have LCACs and LAAAV-7's with weapons? If the
The door mounted.50s were great for suppressive fire in hot LZs. I seriously
doubt too many direct hits resulted, but not much short of a tank or bunker
can slow a.50 round down. And in the fun with physics dept: how does a.50 cal
round compare in energy to an NVA regular. Hmmm, e=mv^2... the.50 is
relatively light, and moving very fast, whereas the NVA grunt is about 50kg
counting the AK47 and isn't
moving very fast... anyway :-)
I fully agree that anything that goes anywhere near any sort of ground
defenses should be adding at least some firepower to the tactical equation.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> I have to wonder what a yahoo with a shoulder fired weapon is going to
First off note I was talking about ASSAULT LANDERS not your run of the mill
interface trasnports or shuttles. Assault landers means ships to come in under
fire or into hot LZs.
Don't carry the LCH analogy too far! We're talking AIR landing not water
landing. Number one Marines don't drive LHA's up to contested landing
beachheads UNDER fire and run them aground. They carry all those little
helicopters and LVTPs full of squads and platoons to go in and secure the
scene. Even marine units today do not drive up whole battalions to contested
landings
they split the unuits into squad/ section or platoon sized elements.
There is a very good reason for that. Those big ships only come in when the
beachhead is relatively secure.
Ok picture this scene. Said Yahoo with shoulder fired launcher (oh by the way
a nuke warhead right now weighs in at under 60lbs so lets half that or quarter
it for a little micro nuke seeing we're talking 200 years from now lets fly
and vaporizes the back half of the lander a 1000 feet up.
Or picture this scene: Said yahoo with shoulder launcher fire his non nuclear
(but still much more powerful warhead than today) launcher at the lander as it
is coming down vertically on final approach, 100 feet (a few seconds up). The
missile seeks right to the right rear engine causing the thing to crash the
last 100 feet onto it's right rear side. The bigger the lander (company or
battalion) the heavier it is and the less able it is to sustain the shock of
loosing power at this last critical juncture.Sure only a few guys are killed
but half of them now have broken bones up to spinal injuries. Nor were all the
tanks and vehicles it was carrying designe dto eb dropped from 100 feet so
many are dnamaged. The unit inside is now combat ineffective while it sorts
itself out precisely when it needs to be hitting the ground running.
> > a counterbalance to it) can ruin your whole expensive invasion! SO
I do support using smaller weapons for defense, but you take an aliens type
lander with missiles and other heavy weapons that is made to hang around in a
high threat area and provide fire support.
> Even the Helos used in vietnam were armed some how. Though the slicks
But slicks were not designed to hang around and provide fire support for
infantry companies and that's my point. Big honking difference. Some hueys did
carry heavier ewapons (mini guns and rockets but thse were dedicated gunships.
Please read and understand my posts more carefully before responding. Thanks.
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Michael Llaneza wrote:
> My last Striker II scenario had power armored troops in concealed
And that position wasn't softend up by Ortillery for what reason?
> woohoo ! I put a 4" hole in an engine ! or the cockpit, or a rocket
The cockpit would be a problem, but if it was to an engine, then I'd think
there'd be sufficient power to affect a safe landing. This thing has enough
juice to get to orbit. Coming down is a whole lot easier.
> wide range of damage results possible, lets be suitably paranoid
I'm not saying any ground fire would be a non stopper, just that only the
heavy ground fire would.
Why are C3 assets coming in on the first wave? Same goes for hospitals.
> I can agree with some dedicated fire support zooming about, but your
Probably not a bad ide. The big lander that I have is a 25 mass lander. A
Class 1 beam isn't something to shrug at.
> The door mounted .50s were great for suppressive fire in hot LZs. I
Thought they used Door mounted M60s or the occasional 7.62 mini gun. An M2HB
would be a bear to fire in a door mount.
> seriously doubt too many direct hits resulted, but not much short of
heh, thats why the VC hated the M2HB.
> I fully agree that anything that goes anywhere near any sort of
Or a heavy escort. I don't see any kind of mass drop going in with out
some aerospace there for cover/supression.
I'm still trying to figure out how VTOLs are going to get down to the surface.
Truck them down in a big lander and assemble them or have some sort of
disposable system that chucks it out on the way to the
ground...?
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Los wrote:
> First off note I was talking about ASSAULT LANDERS not your run of the
Umm the over the horizon thing is new. They used to go in to hot beaches.
Remember IwoJima and all the other islands. LCPs, LCHs, and amtraks all went
in under fire.
However, in the planetarry assault mode, I can pick where ever I land, not
just over which beach I come in on. The "beach" shouldn't have much in the way
of assets. If it does, I probably will hose it with the first
wave. If not, it gets ortilleried unless danger close.
> Ok picture this scene. Said Yahoo with shoulder fired launcher (oh by
Nukes don't get any smaller due to physics. Also your guy fires a nuke 1000
feet up. How much lead is he carring around? I do not want to be anywhere
close to 1000 feet from any nuclear detonation.
> Or picture this scene: Said yahoo with shoulder launcher fire his non
Murphy will always strike. Don't not expect him to. However, don't pussy
foot around and never do the job because he may.
> I do support using smaller weapons for defense, but you take an aliens
It seemed an intersting concept.
> But slicks were not designed to hang around and provide fire support
Thanks.
Perhaps I was overstating things. I do think that the landers should have
weapons. It would seem that larger landers should have some heft weapons
to deal with what ever may rear its ugly head. Be it a Size 5 tank with a pair
of MDC4's.
Perhaps one can take an example from Vietnam and the riverine combat. LCVP's
with turrets and flame throwers. Some were turned into monitors. Pretty hefty
compared to what the vc trucked around typically.
The russian Pomornik class carries 2 SA-8 positions, 2 30mm AA, 2 140mm
bombardment Rocket Launchers.
> Even the Helos used in vietnam were armed some how. Though the slicks
> But slicks were not designed to hang around and provide fire support
Thanks.
> Los
If you read any of the many histories of the Vietnam War you will read of lots
of incidents of just that, Hueys with just door guns laying down suppressing
fire for troops on the ground, esp when there weren't enough
gunships to go around. So having your landing boats carry some decent
firepower to add to the general mayhem makes sense. It also makes some sense
in the economic sense too, since you've already bought the airframe to add
some firepower to it, rather than buy a new one. Also given the fact that
troops have a tendency to add guns to just about any vehicle they get there
hands on and you will probably have a LOT of guns to sweep the DZ.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> Umm the over the horizon thing is new. They used to go in to hot
While they beaches remained under some fire for days the initial waves went in
on small craft. Unless your space fleet has the money to throw away on loosing
large ships. Since the invasion timetables and resistance expected was way off
the charts (we had expected had after 60 days or areial bombardment and two
weeks of shore fire that the enemy had been suppressed sotrt of like you and
your ortillery thing) the Americans were forced into that desperate situation.
Not one that I would plan for as regualr SOP.
> > Ok picture this scene. Said Yahoo with shoulder fired launcher (oh
The ship is a thousand feet up, he can be miles away. Nor do nuclear weapons
HAVE to be in the high yeild range. I'm not an expert on nucelar weapons
construction but they have shrunk from the size of a VW bus to something I can
stick in a rucksack. No reason to supose they won't get smaller if necessity
demands it. Especially for subkiloton yield devices. There are plenty of
propellor heads on this list that can lay out the specifics if I'm wrong.
Also keep in mind that shoulder fired SAMs have small warheads and punch right
now only becasue they don't need larger warheads (as opposed to AT missles) so
there's no reason to assume as ship size or tougheness goes up that SAM
countermeasures won't follow suit.
> Murphy will always strike. Don't not expect him to. However, don't
ALways plan for Murphy. I learned that after the first day in the field. (not
that that will get rid of him!)
> Perhaps one can take an example from Vietnam and the riverine combat.
Note that normally when this was used a transport ship it was used primarily
as a special ops recovery vehicle which is a sort of a differnt genre of craft
and discussion.
There's a very simple tactical principle that has been learned the hard way.
When going into the assault (or the unknown) lead of with your smallest
tactical element. This way if it gets hit you don't lose too much and you can
react with your other forces. Send a company or battalion down onto a
contested landing in one big ship your deserve what you get. Corrolary to this
is that modern firepower requires dispersion. Again this flies in the fface of
using large landers for assault operations. BTW keep in mind you can deploy a
landing battalion landing force a lot quicker in many
platoon-sized landers than you can in one huge lander where they all
make lucrative targets.
Note that none of this flies in the face of having large landers available for
follow on reinforcements or bringing in heavier equipemnt to secure beacheads.
Actually all of this fits right exactly in line and compliments the marine
landing craft model you yourself mentioned in response to Tom's post so I
don't see why there should be the slightest disagreement between us.
Cheers...
"It also makes some sense in the economic sense too, since you've already
bought the airframe to add some firepower to it, rather than buy a new one."
I think specialist vehicles are better because they do require different
training organization and skill sets. BUT on a second point I like the idea of
using the same basic airframe but different modules of pods for your landing
craft (It's all about economics!) I like the idea of the airframe being able
to pick up different modules depending on the mission. (Sort of like
Thunderbird 2) It t he airframe is needed for a landing that's one module. If
it is needed to do an orbital drop (ala SST with tubes or what not) that's
another module or pod. If it just as to bring in a vehicle that's another pod.
It's it's going to do fire support or CAS then you have a specialist pod for
that. Makes it easy on construction back home.
Though personally once a force is on the ground and in a secure beachhead, I'd
just a soon use cheaper planetary based air support than incur the economic
cost of interface fighters.
Cheers...
> Tom Anderson wrote:
> > The population of the NAC capital, Albion, grew from zero to
Straight out of the canon. Quoting FT timeline, 2135 entry: "...Albion, which
now has a population almost as large as England thanks to massive immigration
and engineered population growth programmes."
The "one brigade-size transport a day" immigration only moves about 30
million people. The rest still have to be born on the planet (the
massive engineered population growth programmes); a 40% (20+ million)
increase in two generations or less is rather impressive :-/ The canon
timeline doesn't say whether or not 25+% of Albion's population are
children in 2135, but it'd pretty much have to be.
Also note that the 50 million level assumes that England's population doesn't
increase noticeably in the future, in spite of England being one of the few
places not direcly hit by warfare (which would make it a rather attractive
place to immigrate to).
> > Assuming that the equipment necessary to survive on an alien world
It sure is. But supertankers, large RORO ships etc aren't exactly
uncommon on Earth today - certainly not as uncommon as Thomas suggests
large FT freighters to be.
> > So, either colony ships of this size or larger (which would most
Either that, or one Mass can carry considerably more than 25 people in cryo.
Regards,
In a message dated 9/23/99 8:35:26 PM Central Daylight Time,
los@cris.com writes:
<<
The ship is a thousand feet up, he can be miles away. Nor do nuclear weapons
HAVE to be in the high yeild range. I'm not an expert on nucelar weapons
construction but they have shrunk from the size of a VW bus to something I can
stick in a rucksack. No reason to supose they won't get smaller if necessity
demands it. Especially for subkiloton yield devices. There are plenty of
propellor heads on this list that can lay out the specifics if I'm wrong.
> [quoted text omitted]
If you are dealing with a fission device using plutonium or U-235 you
MUST have sufficient material to create a critical mass or you get a fizzle at
best (kind a China syndrome thing on a very small scale). In sufficent mass,
no fission. Minimum mass pretty much dictates you're not going to get any
lighter than these things already are. No shoulder launch missile is likely to
get that heavy fora warhead, are they?
In a message dated 9/23/99 8:35:26 PM Central Daylight Time,
los@cris.com writes:
<<
There's a very simple tactical principle that has been learned the hard way.
When going into the assault (or the unknown) lead of with your smallest
tactical element. This way if it gets hit you don't lose too much and you can
react with your other forces. Send a company or battalion down onto a
contested landing in one big ship your deserve what you get. Corrolary to this
is that modern firepower requires dispersion. Again this flies in the fface of
using large landers for assault operations. BTW keep in mind you can deploy a
landing battalion landing force a lot quicker in many
platoon-sized landers than you can in one huge lander where they all
make lucrative target >>
Absolutely! Big landers would only come down when the landing zone is very
secure, they would also need harder pads to land on in all likelihood.
> At 8:04 PM -0400 9/23/99, Ryan M Gill wrote:
It takes an awful lot of softening to get all the power armor out of biphase
carbide bunkers. And the environment that creates in't real friendly to
sensors (heat, possibly radiation, dust, the odd firestorm...) The Japanese in
WWII endured hours of bombardment sitting behind a couple of meters of coral,
concrete and steel; and so did plenty of other nations. The island war analogy
does force me to concede that a BB could hit a machine gun nest with a 14"
shell, 5 feet was the estimated accuracy from one example I recall. Ortillery
is likely to be much more accurate, and significantly more powerful than 2000
lbs of HE.
And a good justification of using historical analogies is that offense will
eventually catch up with the defence, or vice versa depending on your initial
conditions. Mobility, detection and communications are not in any form of
dynamic balance as offense and defense are and so their relative capabilities
increase as we project into the future. [draft idea, comments welcome]
I've also found concealed PA troopers somewhat useful against grav armor on
the march. A coordinated SAM launch from a platoon of PA can seriously mess
with even heavy armor. It's very possible to create vehicles in DSII that are
almost immune to missile fire. This is one of the reasons that paying for them
makes sense. Even if you only get a few hits the tanks will have their
formation busted up; the PA might even have been able to single out command or
support vehicles. And rooting them out of dense terrain could take a while.
This is a candidate for a con game if I ever run one.
> woohoo ! I put a 4" hole in an engine ! or the cockpit, or a rocket
okay, so it might not get back up then. And while I'm as happy about designing
redundant capacity into systems, sometimes you can't squeeze it into your
constraints. Maybe a morale check for any trooper who sees an engine streaming
smoke and flame and a skill check for the pilot?
> > wide range of damage results possible, lets be suitably paranoid
Light ground fire sucks, heavy ground fire Very Bad?
> Why are C3 assets coming in on the first wave? Same goes for hospitals.
They're in there as an er, ah, uh, well, assume you've missed one yahoo during
the initial phases and he pops a SAM into something in a
follow-on wave. I'll mutate my point into an adminition to be
generally paranoid about your most critical assets. I was just listing useful
and important units off the top of my head, which
isn't how I plan my own assaults :-)
> > I can agree with some dedicated fire support zooming about, but your
A
> Class 1 beam isn't something to shrug at.
> The door mounted .50s were great for suppressive fire in hot LZs. I
on reflection, I think the M2HB is from elsewhere; I swear I've heard of 'em
used as door mounts, it'd be worth wrestling a bear in an urban LZ. Of course,
there's precious little in your average (terrestrial) jungle to slow down even
a 7.62.
> > seriously doubt too many direct hits resulted, but not much short of
some armies use that caliber as a sniper round. The sights are calibrated out
farther even than my old Enfield (2km, it's actually doing indirect fire, you
could shoot over a hill at the angle need for 2km)
> I fully agree that anything that goes anywhere near any sort of
Not with me planning it! Or in it! The big lesson from WWII for opposed
landings: more firepower delivered with greater precision, closer coordination
and better timing.
> I'm still trying to figure out how VTOLs are going to get down to the
Drop them in robot landers (chutes with retros and a small brain
maybe) along with the semi-essential supplies. Food, water, ammo and
medical supplies land behind armor. I've just gotten through a novel set in
the Stalingrad Pocket, don't EVER run out of those.
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Los wrote:
> While they beaches remained under some fire for days the initial waves
There were some kind of heavy landing craft to get the Funnies in at Gold Juno
and Sword Beaches. Some had problems. Some were unable to make it in close
enough and ended up having the DD Tanks founder on the way in. I think its
Cornealus Ryan's book that has pictures of LCM's beached and wrecked on one of
the british beaches.
> The ship is a thousand feet up, he can be miles away. Nor do nuclear
Especially for
> subkiloton yield devices. There are plenty of propellor heads on this
The "backpack" nukes are still pretty hefty. Davy Crocket had a fairly small
warhead, but was pretty low range. The firers had to jump into cover to be out
of the rad zone when it poped.
The physics prevent the fissables from getting too small. Your ancilliary bits
get smaller, but you still have a hefty chunk of some of the densest metal
known and some lead to keep your DNA in the right place.
> Note that normally when this was used a transport ship it was used
I'm actually talking about the smaller LCM's, not the LST's. Those were used
as Tenders and Depot ships.
> There's a very simple tactical principle that has been learned the
I was never advocating throwing it all in on one lander. Send it in on a
bunch of little ones and a few medium ones. Get your lz "secure" and start
bringing in the heavies. I have to point out that lack of armour can hurt very
quickly in any kind of engagement. A strong point that can
deal with red force strong points is very important. Some must be there in the
first waves, otherwise you get the problems like those had on the
american beaches compared to how quickly the funnies dealt with the germans on
the Brit beaches in Normandy.
> Actually all of this fits right exactly in line and compliments the
I do think we are arguing half full/half empty...
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Michael Llaneza wrote:
> It takes an awful lot of softening to get all the power armor out of
ok so he gets one lucky shot. We dismantle his armour and sacrifice him to
appease Murphy.
One question again (I'm ful of them aren't I), why am I dropping my forces
where there are bunkers hiding power armour when I have a whole planet to
choose from?
> firestorm...) The Japanese in WWII endured hours of bombardment
And when the endured hours of bombardment, they were mostly an annoyance
to the crews building the airfields by that point. The marines didnt' like
them because they had to go hunt the 50 japanese left on the island
by then. Usually the japanese had been without supplies for months. In some
islands the japanses fell prey to the head hunters and the marines...
> feet was the estimated accuracy from one example I recall. Ortillery
Your guy in the bunker better use a land line and some pretty nicely shielded
commo gear if he chats with anyone...
> And a good justification of using historical analogies is that
Armour alwys gets bit in an ambush. The question is do they bite back once
they orient? If the force has the right gear and doctrine they do.
> Light ground fire sucks, heavy ground fire Very Bad ?
Pretty much. I'd rather have small arms coming up at me than heavy AAA or
THAD.
> >Why are C3 assets coming in on the first wave? Same goes for
Which is why you have backups. You don't have two C4I tracks why?
I'm reminded of a WWII picture of a barge load of ambulances. It looked like
one good push would send the lot over the side. >
> on reflection, I think the M2HB is from elsewhere; I swear I've heard
7.62 out of an M14 will cut a tree down. A SAW will take down a bunch of
trees. A MiniGun....well.......
> some armies use that caliber as a sniper round. The sights are
The first use of.50 as a sniuper round was off an M2HB that had a rigged
trigger to do single shots. The user was a nut at a fire base that didn't like
the VC waving at them 1 click away on the next hill.
.50 BMG us really an "anti-material" round. Not really for "personell"
sniper work..."not really"...There are a bunch of really nice.50 rifles
out there. Barret was the first big maker, Later came the Marine requested
McMillan Brothers.50 tactical rifle. There are Auto Loaders, bolt action
single shots, and all those in between (5 or 10 round mags).
Range is generally 1000 yards for a man sized target. Further for material.
> Not with me planning it ! Or in it ! The big lesson from WWII for
The bigger lesson is be where he don't expect you...
> Drop them in robot landers (chutes with retros and a small brain
Crewed or uncrewed?
> On 24-Sep-99 at 01:24, Popeyesays@aol.com (Popeyesays@aol.com) wrote:
Who says fission? Obviously we have gravitics, all you have to do is compress
the hydrogen enough and it goes boom.
> At 4:13 AM -0400 9/24/99, Ryan M Gill wrote:
he would have been expecting that :-) He still won't like it
> One question again (I'm ful of them aren't I), why am I dropping my
To save the travel time from a remote landing site? To get into a strategic
area before they can finalize their defences? Lucky guess on the defender's
part? Madmen plan on a scorched earth, er colony, policy and you need to land
a decapitation strike (think Star Vikings (GDW) unless it makes you ill, then
we'll forget I mentioned it). The GM's scenario says so? High command is in a
strategic hurry? It can happen, it might not.
You want to avoid groundfire by hitting 'em where they aren't, sometimes you
can, sometimes you guess wrong and sometimes you hit a unit on field
exercises. Since we're speaking in generalities it's not going to be easy to
speak in detailed terms.
> > firestorm...) The Japanese in WWII endured hours of bombardment
Okinawa took weeks to clear with ample fire support and a couple of US
divisions on the island. Mostly the 'starving survivors' were on the bypassed
islands. The defenders always got chewed up, early assaults like Tarawa had
ineffective bombardment phases and the infantry had to do the dirty work,
later the bombardment helped more. Never did a major opposed assault end up
with 50 dazed defenders on shore. There were plenty of unopposed landings or
ones with minimal opposition
Speaking of island metaphors and landings in remote areas; perhaps a major
installation that can't be heavily bombarded is on an island and a concealed
approach march is out of the question.
> > feet was the estimated accuracy from one example I recall. Ortillery
de rigeur today, let alone in the GZG future history
> Not with me planning it ! Or in it ! The big lesson from WWII for
that goes for defenders too...
> Drop them in robot landers (chutes with retros and a small brain
I'd guess uncrewed (rough ride down), but that wants more detail than we've
got.
I have a spare copy of Cerberus (TFG #1), which covers a planetary invasion
with highly mobile attacking and defending forces. It might do for a campaign
structure. Fast GEV or Grav vehicles would fit right in.
> Ok picture this scene. Said Yahoo with shoulder fired launcher (oh by
I'd imagine that one of the more radical IF might not worry about that too
much.
;-)
Mk
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Michael Llaneza wrote:
> he would have been expecting that :-) He still won't like it
All the guys that have to get trips to the chiropractor don't like blown
disks either...They are hopping mad....owowow, er, limping mad...
> To save the travel time from a remote landing site ? To get into a
Ahh plot device....I see. GM fiat.
> Okinawa took weeks to clear with ample fire support and a couple of
Okinawa is pretty damn big too, Look on a map, its bigger than the usual
specs that the islands were.
> the bypassed islands. The defenders always got chewed up, early
No but then the major assaults also had tanks and aircraft and all hell to
rain down on the japanese. The job of digging people out of fortifications can
be rough (assuming they aren't french, in which case they act like sullen
rabbits). I recall that a number of engagements found us troops bulldozing the
entrances of the tunnels and leaving the japanese there to rot (they had to
die first though).
> Speaking of island metaphors and landings in remote areas; perhaps a
more GM Fiat.
> >Your guy in the bunker better use a land line and some pretty nicely
British DF gear is nasty. Orbital listening posts can pick up long range
LF and HF transmissions. I'd hate to think how sensative systems would be 200
years in the future.
> that goes for defenders too...
true, but the guys doing the assault are in orbit. High ground is everything.
well mostly everything.
> I'd guess uncrewed (rough ride down), but that wants more detail than
I'd like to think there would be a way to get a helo down with out having the
load masters bundle in into a shuttle and tote it down to the surface, un
bundle it and turn it over to the Aviation mechanics to get in flying order
again.
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Phillip Pournelle wrote:
> Actually Marines don't drive ships and there are good reasons for
As a
> former gator frieghter driver, I must say that we generally don't want
There were lots of organizational things I didn't like about aliens.
The entire troop compliment went down to planet side with noone on the ship.
This made for getting additional support from the ship difficult when the APC
bought it.
The Ship had all sorts of weapons, none were ever used to support the op.
The use of just one of the two landers when the ship had the capacity for more
troops to use the additional assault shuttle.
The helter skelterness of the op.
The dumbass Lt that led the whole op.
The act of leaving the entire battle ship when there was a big bug on board.
Surely there are internal defensive systems that could be used...
> land in a heavily opposed area. In fact, the advantage of an
And the advantage of an over the horizon amphibious force is that they can't
respond to your force quickly enough.
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> If you are dealing with a fission device using plutonium or U-235 you
Even in Power armor? I bet PA heavyweapons already weigh big.
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Los wrote:
> Even in Power armor? I bet PA heavyweapons already weigh big.
How many reloads are you going to carry? Each warhead is 51 lbs. Add the
motor and guidance.
Also, my big question with Battle field nukes, a single grunt with a nuke
isn't the greatest idea in my mind. Battalion is pretty tight with copper
heads, how do you think they'd be about handing out a nuke to every other
trooper.
Remember, the davy crocket was devised in the age where it was seen that
Nukes were a great idea for construction project demolitions. That attitude is
very dead.
> > feet was the estimated accuracy from one example I recall. Ortillery
See I assume the opposite. Land based fire support will be more accurate than
Ortillery. (though not necessarily more powerful) Just the nature of the
beast. It's very easy to overestimate the effectiveness of firepower. (even
precision directed and guided) A mistake that has been made in all of history
right up to a few months ago.
> Your guy in the bunker better use a land line and some pretty nicely
Assume that is standard SOP.
> .50 BMG us really an "anti-material" round. Not really for "personell"
BTW I recently fired a barrets at a weapons train up in Virginia. Quite an
experience. I was hitting man sized targets ouit to 1200m single shot (my
previous record with 7.62mm M24 was 900.) One problem with eth barrets. It's
too freaking heavy to be of much use in any but the most unusual circumsances.
(too bad I don't have PA.) It was almost as much fun as watching one dragon
round go ballistic ansd seeing the other explode at minimum safe arming
distance (under 65m)
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> British DF gear is nasty. Orbital listening posts can pick up long
Actually speaking from experience as a Special Operations Communications
Sergeant, it is ridiculously easy to defeat DF if you know what you are doing
EVEN with todays technology.
DF success assumes the broadcaster is using either omindirectional or
bidirectional transmission (and bi directional requires DF stations to be
within the broadcast arc_. Narrow beam directed transmissions exits both
with HF (used in conjunction with terrain masking) SATCOM, as well as more
esoteric but nearly unmentionable pinpoint IR and laser comms. operator
proficiency has a lot to do with it's success. This is proven stuff that has
been in real world operations from some time. Hell even in Vietnam before some
of this SF teams operating in North Vietnam could use the old balloon launched
time delay transmission device. Note that I'm only telling you what I can not
everything there is.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Los wrote:
WHat you don't think standard SG PA can't carry a 4 round Nuke MLP like it's a
wooden broom? Ever see one of those figures?
> Also, my big question with Battle field nukes, a single grunt with a
You seem to completely rooted in historical analogy. Battalions used to be
pretty analy tight with night vision goggles too back in the early eighties.
Now ten years later every private in the 82d is issued a pair. It's useful up
to a point but how about thinking on future operations and the physical
environment of future equipment and technology along with these analogies? Who
cares how many PA guys carry nukes or what. At least in our little GZG SG2
universe, power armor troops are considered elite expensive assets. Second why
assume every nuke is this huge yield weapon. It only has to be more powerful
than a conventional equivalent. I'd see these things as being clean and low
yield..3 kiloton or less. Enough to ruin something's day. ANd if people are
going to cruise around in unsecured territory and hug landers sure a small
nuke would be worth a battalion of invaders. Obviously this is driven by
political issues also, but then again given the cleanliness of nukes or some
other cleaner high yield (antimatter?) weaponry, maybe not.
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> Remember, the davy crocket was devised in the age where it was seen
Thankfully.
That's one thing that SERIOUSLY dates some older (50's - 60's) science
fiction - really really casual mention of 'atomics' or nuclear
demolitions... even the original 'Starship Troopers' book suffers from
this...
I've read stuff that indicates that using nukes to 'dig' spherical underground
water reseviors was seriously considered by various people, in
the US and the USSR. Scary stuff - this is all from before the notion of
lingering radioactivity was around...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Brian Burger wrote:
> I've read stuff that indicates that using nukes to 'dig' spherical
The russians _did_ use nukes for massive construction projects. One of
the reasons they have such an environmental crisis on their hands. There
is a lake where the Soviets dumped waste into. No sheilding or anything.
Just raw fissables into it. It has all sorts of isotopes dissolved into the
water. If you stand by the water for 10 minutes sans a suit, you get
a lethal dose. Not the greatest thing...
You get to play with all the fun toys:( Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
Ain't it the truth! I asked Los an off-the-list question on behalf of
a coworker of mine regarding weapons recoil. Los sent me a list of weapons
he's fired, ranked unscientifically in increasing order of recoil. It was a
long list, but the davy crockett was not on there.
Jon
> Michael Brown wrote:
Quite an
> experience. I was hitting man sized targets ouit to 1200m single shot
> Ok picture this scene. Said Yahoo with shoulder fired
Mk replied: I'd imagine that one of the more radical IF might not worry about
that too much.
To which I add: Allahu akbar! (****BOOM****) = 1 more glorious martyr among
the houris, plus a lot of (briefly but thoroughly) upset assault troops.
Certain Islamic nations, present day real world, are teaching their kids in
school that they too can aspire to be martyrs, and it's really the best thing
that the kids can do. Let's say this programming only "takes" on 5% of the
kids...there's still no shortage of people willing to drive a truck bomb. I
don't see the Islamics as having any problem at all with sacrificing a ghazi
and a launcher to knock out a lander.
> Jon Davis wrote:
> Ain't it the truth! I asked Los an off-the-list question on behalf of
BTW that was just a few samples... <grin>
ON another note all this talk of planetary invasions I would be remiss if I
did not remind people of this piece of fiction: (this chapter covers the first
assault landing)
http://www.concentric.net/~Los/ft/rhafen8a.htm
or this (earlier) piece:
http://www.concentric.net/~Los/40k/Gowda/gowda3.htm
Cheers...
Los
> Michael Brown wrote:
Quite an
> > experience. I was hitting man sized targets ouit to 1200m single
But I bet the M68 (105L60) was not on the list.
"Gunner, SABOT, TANK!"
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> Michael Brown wrote:
> But I bet the M68 (105L60) was not on the list.
That's correct. I've spent most of my life getting around by LPC (leather
personnel carrier) though my few times in AFVs have been great experiences...
> Brian Burger wrote:
> I've read stuff that indicates that using nukes to 'dig' spherical
Are you kidding, I've known competant engineers who still think nukes for some
construction projects are desirable and LESS environmentally damaging than the
alternatives.
Nuclear power and explosives are avoided not because they are more dangerous
than the alternatives, they are avoided because the public has replaced the
word demon with the word nuclear.
I would be willing to bet that if the US were invaded by hordes of slavering,
BEMs that the US public would be more than happy to see tac-nukes on US
soil.
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Michael Brown wrote:
> But I bet the M68 (105L60) was not on the list.
To which I must respond..."UP!"
and you say "FIRE!"
And I finish with "*BOOOOM!*-ON THEWAYYYY!!!"
Also the Russians have been dumping off their north coast the same nuclear
material. Very bad!
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
There
> is a lake where the Soviets dumped waste into. No sheilding or
One major problem of the bombardment of Tarawa was that a large number of
rounds from the ship were armor piercing, many not exploding but just sinking
into the soft coral.
> Michael Llaneza wrote:
In
> >some islands the japanses fell prey to the head hunters and the
Ortillery
> >> is likely to be much more accurate, and significantly more powerful
http://www.cryptonym.com/hottopics/msft-nsa.html
Technically that's ON THE WA"BOOM"Y!
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
Actually, the Soviets USED nukes for underground resivors... They seem to do
ok until they collapse and all that nasty stuff gets into the water supply.
There
are areas of some city where particular types of birth defects are "normal."
It is true tragedy.
IAS
> David wrote:
> Also the Russians have been dumping off their north coast the same
There
> > is a lake where the Soviets dumped waste into. No sheilding or
first up, i apologise for the delay.
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Tom Anderson wrote:
in
> 35
"...Albion,
> which now has a population almost as large as England thanks to
right; i was unhappy about the 'most' in the 'much or even most', but i think
i'm just being picky about words. i am in agreement with you.
> The "one brigade-size transport a day" immigration only moves about 30
that's probably true!
2099 - population 0
2135 - population 60 million
now, my maths has gone downhill a *long* way, but i reckon i can calculusify
this one; i won't give details, because i think they're horribly flawed. with
immigration at a moderate 1 million a year (just
over 2500 a day), growth of 7 children per family in a 30-year
generation and no death, we get a population of about 61 million after 36
years. how many are children i don't know, but i should imagine that it's a
lot. of course, this model assumes that people are having those children
smoothly over their entire lifespan, which is of course not the case. anyway,
of those 61 million, 36 million (58%) are immigrants. i stand corrected.
in any case, it looks suspiciously as though St St St Jon did some fairly
careful calculating when he picked these numbers; well, with all the
orders we send him, he has plenty of envelope backs to work on 8-).
> Also note that the 50 million level assumes that England's population
it would also, i imagine, become rather hard to immigrate to. i can't
believe there would be immigration on a significant (1-5 million) scale.
nonetheless, anything can happen in the next half century.
> > > Assuming that the equipment necessary to survive on an alien world