Oerjan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Should there be that much of a difference between Veteran and Elite
Is the difference between D10 and D12 much?
Also, those of you who are or have been para troopers - how much
> would a troop disperse using today's parachutes?
Is that relevant? Using a square rigged chute/airfoil, how much
closer to your target can you get today than in say 1945? Let's track that 200
years forwards.
> If the troop drops from orbit (ie, outside the atmosphere), I'd be
Using Drop caps? Why? Seems to me with either an airfoil with grav assist
(grav chute) or with a drop cap with fins, rocket motors, etc. that you could
probably arrive far more accurately than anything today. It seems to me we can
put a man on the moon where we want him, and we can land the space shuttle
remotely (the Russians could). I don't see why you can't put down 8 guys
within 100m area. (Given normal conditions).
> That's easy to explain: "The heavier they are, the harder they fall"
<g>
Heh.
> An armour suit which prevents you from being blown to bits or having
I'm not sure I'd agree. The Police have found that bulletproof vests make a
big difference in car crashes because the blunt trauma is dispersed. This
still applies in powered armour. Something designed to help you survive both
point hits an explosive concussions (and something which can stand the
stresses of an assault drop in the first place) probably can help you out with
an impact on the ground.
But, as always, YMMV.
> Regards,
/************************************************
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Well square rig chutes are inherently more manueveralble than their
I'm thinking a smaller chute area because you have a mini-grav pack
(which has a short lifespan, but means you get better control vs. wind and
need less silk area to slow you down. It also may lessen ground impacts
especially if you get a streamer and auger in).
> I have some doubts as to the accuracy of orbital drop vs atmospheric
It is a fair set of worries - it could be that the need to keep your
dropship moving determines the accuracy of your drop (a quick deployment from
a fast moving dropship or a slower deployment from one that feels less
threatened).
Anyway, each guy
> is in a coffin sized drop capsule with stubby wings. All the capsule
Mind you the 'squad egg carton dropship' makes perhaps almost more sense.
> I still think parachute assault is a viable alternative. Except that
Well, with a grav-pack decelerator/control, you'd be able to do LAELO
(Low Altitude Extremely Low Opening) drops. Maybe open at 100m, let the grav
pack decelerate you like a bungee as the chute took up some of the force too.
But the deceleration would be more gradual.
> Well I think the suit would work as long as it could absorb the shock.
Another thought - drop troops covered in spray-foam ablat material
that routes heat away from the soldier and absorbs impact. Removable by
running an electrical charge through the armour once landed. This gives you
extra cushioning on landing.
> The body armor helping when you fall helps but really it helps becuase
Maybe only FAST PA? Maybe Slow PA suffers the disadvantages of slow actuation.
Contrary OI method:
Drop caps to 500 feet, then small expandable combat glider wings. More
manoevreable than a chute, less chance of entanglement, good
control of landing. Or full grav decelerator - instead of a chute
that streams out on multiple lines above you, you have one line with
a grav-decelerator, and that line is bungee like. Deceleration is
graduated and gentle, and very little chance of entanglement allowing teams to
jump in very close together.
But again, maybe we should be keeping in mind the quality level of the gear.
Maybe that should factor in.
For chutes, this might be
Primitive - Chutes like state of the art today. No grav backup. You
hit hard when you land. Succeptible to entanglements. Not all that
manoevrable. Must open at least 400m.
Basic - Standard chutes (only somewhat manoevreable,
but no grav backup). Must open at least at 250m.
Enhanced - Standard chutes with grav assist. More manoevreable,
slightly less jarring. Must still open at 200m.
Superior - Small Chute with Enhanced Grav assist. Very Manoevreable,
reduced chance of entanglement, easier landing, can open as low as 150m.
Advanced - No Chute, Full Grav Declerator. Ultra Manoevreable,
minimal chance of entanglement, very easy landing (might even come in standing
without discomfort), can open as low as 75m. Very robust (failure incidence on
the order of 1 in 3000).
I have to think about quality levels for drop caps.
As an aside, even if we assume that there are equipment failures,
etc. Should you lose (on average) 8-10% of your para force on a plain
jane drop? That's what the current system would cause. Just from injuries in
flat plain terrain....
Tom.
/************************************************
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Also, those of you who are or have been para troopers - how much
Well square rig chutes are inherently more manueveralble than their round
cousins. But there is a reason why most conutntries still us ethe MC1d1 or
T10. encountering an entaglement on a square rigger is much more dangerous
than a round chute. And since you are looking to drop mass troops by chute you
are not looking for the troops to be able to steer that much in the air you
want the initial spot to be on the money so they don't haveto steer.
Entanglements are too dangerous. Of course things could chang in the future
but you still have an ingherently more dangerous design in the square rig for
mass drops.
> Using Drop caps? Why? Seems to me with either an airfoil with grav
I have some doubts as to the accuracy of orbital drop vs atmospheric drop
given the speed, compactness of formation required, and time in the air
exposure these guys have to work under Especially given mass
drop on the company/bn level) but I'll shelve those for a moment and go
under Tom's scenario:
Has anyone seen the intro to Quake2? It's pretty good and I think the way they
do their orbital drop is the best. The whole side of the drop ship is launch
tubes. All are spit out at once. (Remember, how high up the ship is even if it
travels 300 meters at 50 miles up that could
translate to kilometers of dispersion on the ground.) Anyway, each guy
is in a coffin sized drop capsule with stubby wings. All the capsule of a
given unit are ejected at once and down they go together. The capsules ahve
stubby wings and hopefully anticollision control. I imagibne this is similar
to what Tom's talking about. Once they land the thing pops open and there's
the guy!
I still think parachute assault is a viable alternative. Except that in the
future guys drop from very low height or from medium height by fast movers but
have a VERY low opening and stabalizing system. (Chute pops at 150 meters or
less). We have something similar in operation today called LALO (Low Altitude
Low opening) and limits exposure of the trops, plus ensures that they are all
on target. Of course with with a drop that low the system HAS to be very
reliable becuas ethere is no reaction time for malfunctions. In that case it
would be LANO (Low altitude No Opening).
We're gonna see both the Tom orbital drop method and the LALO method in
upcoming Rot hafen chapters. So these discussions are very useful to me.
> > That's easy to explain: "The heavier they are, the harder they fall"
Well I think the suit would work as long as it could absorb the shock. The
body armor helping when you fall helps but really it helps becuase if you get
jabbed by something when you fall it absorbs that shock or damage. If you can
fall in your PA and it right's itself on hands and knees like a cat and
absorbs the fall, then that would be good. Fall on your back off a two story
building and you internal organs are going to be damaged by teh sudden stop.
In fact you know what kills a lot of jumpers when they plunge in with a total
malfunction?
Answer: A number of things. But one that almost always happens in a fatal
plunge is that the heart (and other organs) is ripped right off it's
"moorings" (Hey I ain't a doc but I have been the company safety officer).
This tears the a aorta right from the heart (or actually visa versa). Even if
the guys doesn't smash his head in and break all his bones, this internal
damage in unavoidable. So I guess it depends on how far you fall in your PA.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Oerjan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > If the troop drops from orbit (ie, outside the atmosphere), I'd be
But the rules you're talking of doesn't use drop capsules! A drop capsule is a
vehicle, albeit small and unpowered, and is therefore IMO covered by
the rules for landing vehicles on the previous page (50) - use them
instead, if you want drop capsules rather than individual jumps!
OK, the drop caps are VL only - Vertical Landing, no Take-Off possible
<g>
Regards,
> Los wrote:
> Has anyone seen the intro to Quake2? It's pretty good and I think the
I am actually from a Traveller background, so my obital insertions look like
this:
Ship has a LOT of capsules it spits out. Some are troopers, some are
cargo, some are PAD Supression Missles (radar-homing, etc), and some are
nothing but decoy dispensers. This capsules enter the atmosphere, then at a
certain level spit out our Friendly Neighborhood Drop Trooper.
Plus a half-dozen pieces of shell each of which are supposed to have the
same radar/IR/other sensor signature as the FNDT[tm]. Now, FNDT is of
course wearing powered armor. He's also got a wee little Contra-gravity
generator on him which nullifies 99% of his weight. This leaves him
light enough to be driven by two battery-operated ducted propellors.
And he just sorta propells himself to the DZ. Of course, he's also got a
backup physical parachute.
> I still think parachute assault is a viable alternative. Except that
For non-PA troopers. Of course, mass drops aren't possible in a modern
ADA environment (ducks flying bricks from various Airborne). It's a
little bit silly to think that a formation of 200 C-130s is going to
survive in modern air combat, especially if you don't assume that the good
guys will always have 100% air supremacy. So you'd see them for
SOF operations (where you can send one or two MC-130s with all the
gee-whiz neato ECM equipment and NOE stuff) or 'gunboat diplomacy'
operations against low-tech trash troops (Hey, let's invade Haiti! They
don't have a working anti-aircraft gun on the island, much less a SAM!).
> time for malfunctions. In that case it would be LANO (Low altitude No
Also spelled "OOPS".
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Los wrote:
<snips interesting background>
> a backup physical parachute.
SOunds like more or less standard stuff.good.
> > I still think parachute assault is a viable alternative. Except that
> For non-PA troopers. Of course, mass drops aren't possible in a
Local Air superiority is a requirement for any conventional airborne or air
assault operation. Since not every war either in the past, now, or in the
future is going to be one where local air superioruity "cannot" be
established. (Does that make sense?) There will always be a role for rapidly
deployable bn sized or larger verticle envelopment.
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Los wrote:
Of course, there not really any need to do division sized drops. And even
today there's not a single country that could pull one of, including the
Russians. Brigade is about as high as anyone does. But so what? We couldn't
land a division of Marines in one fell swoop either. Are you suggesting that
there's no need for airborne forces any more or in the future? Seems to me
it'll be a capability that it'll be around for a long time. (Except in Canada
<g>) Hence the topic of this discussion.
> > <Q: What hangs under a chicken' ass? A: A nasty leg>
Guess I'll have to tell all the guys in my company (shit for that matter in
all of Special Forces, etc) that their knees aren't supposed to work....
> John M. Atkinson
How old is he? Must be about 70 or 80.
> Los wrote:
> Local Air superiority is a requirement for any conventional airborne
Of course--but it looks like the best options will be relatively small
tactical stuff like the Soviets did in WWII rather than Arnhem-style
nonsense. And in counter-insurgency airborne deployment might make a
useful way of getting your response forces from A to B.
> <Q: What hangs under a chicken' ass? A: A nasty leg>
Q: How many people who were on jump status for more than 5 years have I met
with knees which still work 100%?
A: None
[quoted original message omitted]
Oerjan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
In this instance, I was talking about the break-away individual drop
cap - launch in the cap, decelerate through two or three stages with
ECM, chaff, etc. then the capsule blows out and you're dropping like a
standard entry.
I think accuracy is feasible. I'll bet no one really foresaw the ability to
guide a bomb down a smokestack back in 1797. Can we really forsee the tech
advancements in 200 years? I know we can't and aren't trying to, I'm just
figuring that the way that an airdropped unit arrives on board seems to be a
recipe for getting it killed before it
can re-org. This might be intentional, but I'd like to think that in
2185 it may well be possible to enter a little bit tighter (so it might only
take one a single turn to regroup).
Tom.
/************************************************