Randall said:
"Best laid plans of mice and men..."
I figure, no matter how sophisticated the landing gear, the defensive/AA
gear will be just as sophisticated. So, net affect is cancellation, and thus
human error equates spread. Or, another way to look at it is, if you want as
many forces as possible to make it to the ground, then you need to spread them
out, and make things very truly random, in order to not be singled out...
Unfortunately that means a random landing.
[Tomb] Okay, for an opposed landing on a world with a good ADE net yes,
I can see that. For a landing on a low or zero ADE colony or outpost, no. If
we can target cruise missiles NOW so they'll fly through a window without
touching the drapes (which is possible, though requires perfect conditions and
a big window), then I'm sure 200 years from now, we can set a lander pod on a
specific terrain feature very exactly. Less so if the drop is rushed due to
enemy fire. But an unopposed landing ought to
let you insert your force fairly close together. Remember, null-grav
packs for meteoric entry may in fact not have the "chute" that a parachute
does, thus removing one of the major tangling risks of close landings.
On a side note, I really love the insertion from the Final Fantasy
movie...
[Tomb] And how far apart do you think they landed? Typical deviations
for a squad of 8 guys in SG tend to see about a 12-13" radial scatter.
That translates to 120-130m. not a lot maybe in some senses, but a long
way in other senses.
> On 6-Jun-02 at 16:30, Tomb (tomb@dreammechanics.com) wrote:
> [Tomb] Okay, for an opposed landing on a world with a good ADE net
Why would you bother with a dangerous orbital drop when you can
send in air/space transports if it is going to be unoppposed?
> Tomb wrote:
> [snip my stuff]
I beleive the proper term for an unopposed landing is training.
More to the point, I beleive the cliche "Train as you will fight, fight as you
have trained" applies... If it's worth dropping troops in, it's going to be
hot. Even if high
command thinks/believes it's not, it's not unlikely that they're wrong,
and even a "cold" zone could have hidden assets, snipers, etc.
Otherwise, if you're unopposed, why waste the probably
disposable/one-time
use equipment when you can land the dropship, or send them in in smaller
craft for a short repel/low-level quick insertion technique. I'm
picturing Aliens here, where the dropship came down, dropped them and
equipment off then went patrolling.
That having been said, unopposed etc drops could end in perfect placement.
Still, equipment failure, human error, panic, changing circumstances, weather,
etc... All of these could effect even an unopposed drop.
> On a side note, I really love the insertion from the Final Fantasy
They landed almost shoulder to shoulder, and given the ballastic path they
took we could compute that with todays equipment. Like I said, I liked it,
thought it was neat and pretty, but also noted it was a movie where
bad-luck
only happens when it's wanted and never when it's not wanted.
Rand.
> --- Randall L Joiner <rljoiner@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I beleive the proper term for an unopposed landing
See: Falklands 1982.
Inchon also more or less counts as an unopposed landing.
> command thinks/believes it's not, it's not unlikely
Snipers cannot shoot down landers.
> --- Randall Joiner <rljoiner@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > command thinks/believes it's not, it's not
Presuming your landers are armored, physics.
> Seems to me that one of the laws of warfare (and
Dadum-ching!
This is now the second Princess Bride reference in the past 30 days...
> Snipers cannot shoot down landers.
well, by the time you have something capable of shooting down a lander, I
don't think you qualify as a "sniper" any more.
> This is now the second Princess Bride reference in the
The most important of which is, of course, never get involved in a land war in
Asia...
> > I beleive the proper term for an unopposed landing
Attempt at humor...
> > command thinks/believes it's not, it's not unlikely
Says who?
Seems to me that one of the laws of warfare (and ironically science as well) I
picked up over the years can be boiled down to: "Inconceivable!" "I do not
think that word means what you think it means..."
Or, another way to put it:
One man's can't is another mans can. (woman/alien/it/fuzzy whatever)
Rand.
> >>>Snipers cannot shoot down landers.
I agree, but if they have something similar to hyper-velocity missiles
from the StarFire novels, they could make it really rough...
> > >Snipers cannot shoot down landers.
So you're saying you can armor a dropship or drop-pod to such a degree
that I can't come up with a single man weapon that can't cause the
aformentioned equipment severe problems? (Severe problems generally being
lethal in a
balistic descent from space.)
> > Seems to me that one of the laws of warfare (and
And there's a problem there? Great movie, great to quote from...:)
And one quote apropos to the conversation: "Have fun stormin the castle!"
"think it will work" "It'll take a miracle"
> At 09:57 PM 6/8/2002 -0400, you wrote:
Granted you start losing the term "sniper" as it means today when you apply it
to tomorrow's toys, and when you start aiming at vehicles... Hence the "etc"
in my initial comment about hidden assests. A spec force of some sort,
carrying a tactical nuke with instructions to plant it under the suspected
landing zone.
Or a few engineers who lay a few landing zones out that look good, til you
land on them.
> > This is now the second Princess Bride reference in the
Never mess with a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha