I have only found TWO such ships. The Kra'Vak To'Rok class Seeker Stealthy
Ship (FB2 p. 19) and the Assault Transport (FB p.42).
No ship in either of the Fleet Books are atmospherically streamlined and so
are likely to crash in an atmosphere (rules in More Thrust for atmospheric
entry).
Both of the examples above have Hanger Decks for small craft.
You may want to check the list archives at
http://www.warpfish.com/jhan/ft/Archive/ to look up discussion on
updates
needed to the Full Thrust/Dirtside cross over since the FT Construction
rules changed with FB1. I think that most will agree that the interface rules
in More Thrust need revised.
Last year I suggested that: Assault Landers could be built to a number of
sizes. The military doctrine of your forces would determine the size of Lander
used. You could invest in
an assault lander that drops an entire unit of 5 - Size 5 vehicles, but
it would seem to draw a lot of AA attention. I would suggest that you set a
house rule on the size that the Lander can accommodate. You could limit
Assault Landers to be a max of size 5. To determine the amount of capacity a
vehicle takes up, multiply the size * 8 (Dirtside p.12). Infantry may be IN an
APC that is in the Lander (ala Aliens) and the Lander would not have to pay
for the capacity to carry the infantry as it was already covered by the
capacity of the APC. Example: Size 5 (max) Assault lander has a capacity of
25. It devotes 9 of this to a HEL-3 fixed mount and 3 to a PDS system.
This
leaves 16 capacity points for it to carry. Thus it could carry 2 - size
1
APC with infantry mounted in the APCs; 1 - size 2 vehicles; 4 line
infantry elements without vehicle support; OR 2 Power Infantry elements. If
you needed to land a larger force, you would have to use multiple Assault
landers or a dropship (that requires a landing field). And I suggested 100 DS
capacity points = 1 FT mass rather than the More
Thrust 1 mass = 50 CS ~ 60 capacity points. So you could have 4 Size-5
Assault Landers per FT mass (and put 8 in a 3 mass hanger). So the To'Rok
could house 16 assault landers and the assault transport (FB p. 42) could
house 80 assault landers (but would probably use some drop ships to land
larger vehicles instead).
Anyway, just some ideas.
-----
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com
http://www.ftsr.org/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> And now, back to the topic of the post... Are there any ship designs
Mmm.
> What's the largest class of ship that can do atmospherical
> At 12:22 PM -0400 6/7/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
Why the limit? A full on Streamlined or semi Streamlined vessel would be
better on the logistics scale. (Witness the number of Army Vehicle Landing and
Vehicle Transport ships operated by the US.)
http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/aux_seal.htm
Amphib ops would be phased much like water borne amphib ops are.
1. Gain system superiority 2. Suppress orbital defense systems 3. Gain orbital
superiority 4. Suppress High altitude defenses
5. land small initial forces (small landers from size 1-5)
6. enlarge beachhead(s) 7. Suppress low altitude air defenses around beachhead
8. land medium sized follow on forces (med sized system landers size
10-25)
9. establish control of space port facilites or other large flat expanses
where larger craft could land
9. land larger logistics ships (size 25-50)
Around step 3 you've got the advantage of the gravity well working
for you in the bombardment sub-phase.
> would seem to draw a lot of AA attention. I would suggest that you set
effectively what is in More Thrust right? Why the change from 50 CS per mass
to 100?
> capacity of the APC. Example: Size 5 (max) Assault lander has a
This
> leaves 16 capacity points for it to carry. Thus it could carry 2 - size
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] Just a suggested limit. I suggested the limit, because anything
larger built using DS2 rules would have to be modular (and thus VERY
vulnerable) or built using FT rules. You would then have to develop a COMBAT
crossover beteen DS2 and SG2. Also, at some point, the mass would be great
enough to
_require_ some form of prepaired landing surface (concrete, plasteel,
durasphalt, whatever) to keep the landing craft from sinking into the ground.
It was more of a technical division in dropships, spliting those that needed a
landing surface from those that did not.
Looking up a C5 (at http://simviation.com/rinfolocc5.htm) it can
hold 2
Abhrams M1s (Size-3 Vehicle). So using my formula would require a
capacity
of 48; so it would take a minimum of a Size-10 lander to be
equivilent. The C5 takes 2,987m to take off from a runway. The page does not
indicate (and I do not know) if it can land on a grass strip.
> Amphib ops would be phased much like water borne amphib ops are.
[Bri} Assault Landers would fall under stage 5. Larger Dropships
would fall under stage 8 and later.
> >would seem to draw a lot of AA attention. I would suggest that you
[Bri] Well 3 things.
1) I changed the unit of measure CS is different than DS2 capacity (20cs ~
24capacity). 2) I misquoted More Thrust. It was 50cs to 1 FT mass for CARGO.
For a lander it is 10cs to 1 FT mass. And I should have said 25 capacity
points per mass (not 100). 3) To get a reasonable force to the planet took a
LARGE ship. Lets take the example from More Thrust: 1 platoon Hvy Tanks (size
4, 5 crew each) 2 platoons Medium Tanks (size 3, 4 crew each)
3 platoons Mechanized infantry in 4 MICVs (2 crew + 8 troops each)
1 battery of 3 SP Artillery vehicles (4 crew). 1 command platoon of 1 command
vehicle, 1 AA vehicle, 2 missile vehicles (total crew of 13) The tanks would
require 408cs. To fit that in one or more landers would take 81 a mass lander.
To put the lander in a bay (pretty usless otherwise) would take a 122 mass
bay. Plus you would need crew quarters for the crew of the tanks and infanty
so, 788cs = 16 mass of passenger space. A soapbubble transport (MD2, 2xPDS,
min hull) would mass 202 and cost 700. Using my method, the force takes 470
capacity points. The lander
would be Size-10 (800 capacity points) and have an FT mass of 32. The
passenger space would still be 16. So 24 mass for a cargo bay. Would give a
soapbubble transport of mass 80 and cost 236. For a planetary invasion of an
established world, you would
probably need 10x-100x this force. That would be make it much less
cost effective to transport a force.
[snip]
> --
- ---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
- ---
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOx//ttOVrCdNYgyBEQIq1wCdG+7kSpw4Ycix8xoisC9ED11EWpwAoOaL
M9tcDfr4G1Gi1gxusfeP+OR6
=NeRX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> At 6:27 PM -0400 6/7/01, Brian Bell wrote:
Oh, such things are far too big for an effective piece in a DS battle per say.
Even the Mass 5 craft end up being pretty damnably huge when you get down to
it. The Mass 25 super heavy assault lander seems right on the LCT size of
things. ie it gets carried into the system by a Deck Ship or what ever you
call the space equivalent, and then acts as one of the heavy lifters for orbit
to surface transport that you don't have the benefit of in an invasion mode
(that normally would be around to handle heavy cargo). Something more than a
lighter really in that it doesn't need additional hardware on the surface to
handle the off loading...
The really big ships (FTL in, assume orbit, land, offload return for another
helping) would never figure into combat. If your red force gets near there,
then its all over for the beachhead....
> beteen DS2 and SG2. Also, at some point, the mass would be great
Oh, aye. Definately. I'm of the opinion that the Size 5ers and maybe above to
say size 10 could land on softer ground, something with bedrock nearby would
be a good idea. Landing in the middle of the jungle would be bad. But, the
planet has to have some salt flats or some really flat land with a high ground
loading....if there is a space port or three, then great. Perfect place for a
battle. Land your platoon landers elsewhere and do an overland assault to the
port and perform a hot insertion of additional blue forces (can we say market
garden?). I played one of these with a buddy that did Air Force Security work
for 6 years...he loved the game...
> Looking up a C5 (at http://simviation.com/rinfolocc5.htm) it can
Hmm, according to MT, you can get two Size 3's into a mass 5 lander....
> of 48; so it would take a minimum of a Size-10 lander to be
C5's are strategic airlift. And they can take 3-4 Abrams if you don't
plan on flying far. The C-17 can take 2 (or is it one) and can do
rough field landings. C-17s are supposed to be tactical and
strategic. They replace the C-141 which was mostly strategic...
There were trials back with the C-17 was having all sorts of problems
out in Witchita and Seattle. I was working for Lockmart at the time
and we did an unsolicited bid on a C-5D (A and B were in inventory
with the Airforce). It was faster, cheaper, more common and flew
farther than the C-17 with more. Lockheed even got the Air Force to
do tests on Paratrooper drops out of the C5 and I think even tried some LAPES
drops. The interesting mods were a Glass cockpit, a cargo rack above the main
hold for more pallets (not stacked tall), twice
the load of the C-5A/B models and all using the new fancy engines
developed for the 777, just 4 of them vs the 2 on the 777. Bloody huge high
bypass turbofans. It was especially nice in that it was common with something
like 60% of the parts already used by the
C-5A/B models too.
> [Bri] Well 3 things.
Don't carry the landers on the ship that can carry a Mechanized Taskforce (its
a coy short of a Btn I think...).
Split larger landers into separate forces. Use size 5 landers (4 of them) for
the platoon size landings. If you really have to take a bigger red force,
you're going to have far more than one Amphib ship on hand. A whole slew of
assets are going to be needed. One Marine Amphib (Real USMC) group carries
something like 1 tank company around with them. Most everything is air
portable (heavy lift Helos). The same should be for Space navies. Full on Army
landings are going to be mixed up big time with the Marines. Look through the
Haze grey site at all of the Prepositioning and Amphibious operations ships
the US has.
One class of ship that shouldn't be overlooked is a Barge carrying Logistics
ship. Essentially a space version of a LASH barge carrier.
Think Huge containers that you pre-load. The ship picks up 2 or 4 of
these. FTLs to the invasion area, dumps those in something like an hour, then
zips off for more. If there are empties, it picks them up. Loading and
unloading is handled by logistics guys in orbit using other specialized ships
and craft. The cargo elements could even be sub containers inside the main
ones.
> Using my method, the force takes 470 capacity points. The lander
I'd rather go with a smaller lander and move fewer in more trips. One lander
is a bit heavy. You could also go with a vessel that doesn't land its own
troops, rather it relies on other things you bring on Deck Ships...
> For a planetary invasion of an established world, you would
Depends on what is Dirtside. You've got Orbital bombardment working for you.
Add to that many of the operations in the canon history talk about single
divisions defending outlying worlds. That means you need 3x the force power,
multipliers help...what is Orbital Bombardment's force Multiplier? I dunno....
> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] Exactly my point. But you still have to get the initial forces
down somehow. And I would entrust airpower to completely remove ground forces
from expected landing zones (unless you use nukes). So the role of the Assault
Lander comes in to play. Has some armor to protect against the lone
guerilla with a GMS/P-AA. Can land on a grass strip (most likely VTOL,
but small enough not to have to worry about ground pressure). Can be fit into
a relatively small ship for insertion. And can deliver some advanced troops
and/or armor (that will be used to take the airfield so the _real_
dropships can land the major forces).
> >beteen DS2 and SG2. Also, at some point, the mass would be great
[Bri] Hmm...Yes and No. A FT Mass 5 lander, yes. A Size-5 lander, no. A
Size-5 lander has a maximum of 25 capacity points. Each Size-3 tank
takes 24 capacity points (8x size to get the capacity size needed to hold a
vehicle -
DS p.12).
> >of 48; so it would take a minimum of a Size-10 lander to be
[Bri] I agree. I was using the example from More Thrust and Jon's
descriptions.
> Split larger landers into separate forces. Use size 5 landers (4 of
[Bri] Agreed. But more landers means less effecient use of the internal
storage of the landers. I.e. using the MT method a 120cs lander can hold 10
Size-3 tanks, but 3 40cs landers can only hold 9.
> A whole slew of assets are going to be needed. One Marine
[Bri] Agreed. But equipment that is designed for insertion is usually
lighter (in mass, size, and power) than equipment not designed for insertion.
I am somewhat confused by your example and how it relates, however. If you are
equating the Helos with Landers, they you are back to the question of 'how
many eggs to put in one basket' (or how big of a lander do you want that will,
potentially be subject to hostile fire). If not, then you also need to
transport the Helos (or equivilent) to a safe landing spot and have them move
the equipment.
[snip good stuff]
> > Using my method, the force takes 470 capacity points. The lander
[Bri] Agreed. I used one ship for simplicity. Any force leader that
would put all his eggs in one basket should be drummed out of the service.
> > For a planetary invasion of an established world, you would
[Bri] Agreed. If you are attacking a small colony (Hadley's Hope), you
might not need much (but you might have to prepare for guerilla warefare). If
you
are attacking a self-sustaining colony, you will want enough of a force
to deal with the local militia. If you are attacking a colony with a military
base, you will want a good deal more. If you are attacking a
long-established colony, you will want a good size force. If you are
attacking a major world, you will want more than you can get. Up to this point
orbital bombardment has been an option (subject to political considerations).
If you are on a mission to remove an occupying force, orbital bombardment may
not be an option. Also, heavy weapons near heavy population centers may not be
an option. The timeframe of the mission also effects force selection. I.e. if
you have taken the system, but do not have the space assets to hold it against
an expected counter attack, the number and kinds of forces dropped will be
different than if you expect to be able to hold the system for a prolonged
period of time. If the mission is to obtain a specific asset or assets and
depart, the force selection and landing method might vary. The mission and
what you face will have a profound effect on what forces you need to insert.
> --
My comments above are marked by [Bri]
As I said, I see at least 2 types of landers needed: 1) An Assault Lander to
land a small force where there is some chance of enemy activity. This type
should be built using the DS2 construction method, so that combat results are
easy to apply. I could see such a lander being in a DS2 or SG2 game (if the
opposition had no or limited air defence). In a DS2 game, partisans are hiding
in nearby woods and hills. Air recon did not detect them. Unfortunatly, they
do not have AA weapons. The first lander comes in and lands. Tha partisans
come out of the wood work. The landing
player must now decide what to do with the other 2-5 landers. If they do
not land them, they are out numbered. If they land them, they are subject to
GMS/P fire. Also, if they do not land, they will not be able to take the
spaceport on schedule (and unarmored landers will be facing a hostile
landing). In SG2 set the board up with some clear area on each end. The
defending player can set up anywhere on the board using counters (including
dummy counters). The defenders may not move until the first lander is down (do
not want to draw supporting ortillery). They must stop the landing forces
(which will outnumber them if all land) from reaching either road
(each runs the short lengh of the table about 1/3 of the way from the
end of the table). The attackers may spend 3 ortillery makers once the
defending forces attack (but not within 8" of either the roads or the landing
zones). 2) A Dropship to land larger forces in a secured area. These landers
could be abstracted or built using MT or Modified MT rules. These should not
be in a scenario except as a target while landed. They would be too big (and
therefore too easy to hit) while landing for a DS2 or SG2 game.
---
> At 8:49 AM -0400 6/8/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
I'd be inserting teams by smallish landers as well. Is the Boxcar capable as a
lander?
> [Bri] Hmm...Yes and No. A FT Mass 5 lander, yes. A Size-5 lander, no. A
Oh, yes. I was thinking FT 'Mass' you are talking DS 'size'. A Size 5 lander
is more like an AAV7. A Mass 5 lander is more like an LCAC.
> [Bri] Agreed. But more landers means less effecient use of the internal
But then you suffer from all your eggs in one basket syndrome...
> > A whole slew of assets are going to be needed. One Marine
Well, there are tactical aircraft that are really small. I equate the helo's
to Dirtside size craft. Larger landers are more akin to the ships boats
measured in FT masses....
> [Bri] Agreed. If you are attacking a small colony (Hadley's Hope), you
One advantage of orbital insertions is that it's far and above the concept of
"over the horizon" assaults. You can pick where ever you want that the red
force isn't Planets are bloody big. Assuming you can land on the other side of
a continent, then you could road march over, better yet perform a series of
Air hops. (remember how the Imperials got under the Rebel defensive shields on
Hoth?)
> orbital bombardment may not be an option. Also, heavy weapons near
Given the nic precise nature of ground artillery, once you're down, you can
take bounding leaps to the objective and given better mobility, out maneuver
your red force folks.
> My comments above are marked by [Bri]
One advantage of the Mass 5 landers is they're much bigger and harder
to destroy. You may hurt that LST with your GMS/p, but he's going to
disgorge a world of hurt on you when those doors open. I also have to wonder
what sort of weapons a Mass 5 Lander would have for close in defense...perhaps
a few HELs, pop guns in the FT scale, bloody bad
for partisans with a GMS/L or P.