Dumbo drop!

[Lightbringer]

Let me see if I am understanding this whole argument correctly.

Side "A" says if it can be done, then why not give it the capability?

Side "B" says that it is more trouble than it is worth, hence why it is not regularly done in real life. A big part of this is expense and damage to equipment.

If dropping an arseload of very heavy vehicles is realistically going to damage a significant portion of them (and possibly the airplanes involved as well). Then why not code that into the game? Sure you can airdrop that battalion of M-113s, but depending on the roughness of terrain, you end up with the unit at 25%-50% damaged. Add in some damage to the Airplane squadron as well.

Seems pretty simple and realistic to me. This way, if you really want to force your equipment to do things at the edge of it's limits, go ahead, you are the Supreme Commander. You just pay the realistic cost of your actions. The equipment/unit gets it's theoretical capability, and the player concerned with the realism of such actions gets his realism.

[Feltan]

Light,

True enough. I could easily live with that. Loose 1/4 to 1/2 of heavy armor in an airdrop (at least effectively -- needs to be sent back to depot for maintenance). In fact, most APC's could be paradropped if one was willing to take those losses up front.

Of course do that a couple of times, and assume it gets exposed to the press, and your virtual defense minister would make Rumsfeld look like a genius.

Regards,
Feltan

[Feltan]

BTW, the M8 is also airdroppable:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... m8-ags.htm

It sure is. It was designed to be, and to replace the M551 which was pulled out of service in the mid-90's with the expectation that the M8 would enter production. It didn't. I personally think killing that program, and the capability it would provide, was a big mistake.

Regards,
Feltan

[tkobo]

Okay, first off, theres a BIG difference between "theoretical" and capable.

Is the m-113 lvad certified or not ?

If it is, than why remove a capability the unit has because some people believe that doctrine is god.And doctrine says its "ineffective"

Oh and by the way, i like the idea of damage occuring during drops, AND i like the idea of increasing the existing penalties also for airdroped units and amphib crossing units .

What i DONT want to see for the game, is that the decisions made for it, end up getting dictated by someones idea of what is effective or not.Instead of what is confirmed possible or not.

Its FAR to much like how the US once started to drop dog fighting training for its pilots because the DOCTRINE that became embraced was that missiles would remove the NEED for dog fighting.

And lets not forget the m-113 was designed for the purpose of being airdroppable AND that when the testing(circa 2004) to see if the striker would also be certified for airdrops was started, m-113s were used in the early tests as surrogates for the stryker.

The whole Gavin crowd is based on the fact that the m-113 was designed under the "Airborne Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Family" program ,the reguirments outlined for said group of units was proposed and defined by said Gavin (general?).

Im also reminded of the strategy of placing units in a allies territory and than declaring war, so as to capture parts of the region automatically, and how that was handled in the game.
Was the ability to do so removed ? NO.Penalties were applied and added that discouraged it and limited its success.

I think thats the exact way to go here also.Adding a damage penalty is a good idea, increasing the existing penalties are good ideas.

Id also like to see training required for some units,so as to act as yet another penalty.

[Lightbringer]

Perhaps training could also reduce the damage levels? I'm not talking remove them, but a highly trained unit might be expected to avoid some of the mistakes a non trained unit would suffer damage from.

[Feltan]

Okay, first off, theres a BIG difference between "theoretical" and capable.

Is the m-113 lvad certified or not ?

It most certainly is certified. Certified for test drops in very controlled conditions. Just like the M2/M3 Bradley. And if someone had a notion to do so, the M1 Abrams could be certified for LVAD too -- in fact I am not sure it isn't.

But certified is tricky term. My wife's mini-van could be certified to travel 100 mph going down hill with the accelerator floored. Just because it is certified at 100 mph, does not mean she get can to the grocery strore and back at that speed. Certifying that an M113 can be loaded and delivered on an LVAD pallete is not the same as hundreds of them being deployed in a combat drop.

Listen, I am not so opposed to this that I am willing to fall on my sword over it. Rather, I assume that one of the constituencies the Goats hope to market 2020 to is the military. They should, the game has a lot going for it and it will appeal to professionals. However, as it stands, something like this wouldn't pass the laugh test among professionals. In fact, it might cause credibility issues -- like jeeze, if they got this wrong what else don't they understand.

Light, just keep in mind, the drop I previously discussed was rigged by some of the best riggers in the world -- if not the best, they sure get more practice than just about anyone else in the world. While it makes sense to assume training is a factor -- and it is -- all it takes is a medium sized rock in the wrong spot and an LVAD pallete skidding along at 150 mph will tip over and start the death roll.

So, how about this for a solution. The game starts with airdrop capable units limited to dismounted airborne infantry, airborne engineers, certain light artillery and anti-air guns, BMD's and M551's, and perhaps man portable anti-tank anti-air units. It should pretty much reflect reality when the game starts. Then we add a tech for "advanced airdrop capability." With that tech, anything you can put in a plane can be airdropped. I am going to say a tech like that should be in tech range of 110 to 115 and take about a year to research. I think a new tech, and the money and time devoted to it, would give a reasonable fig leaf to cover all the shortcomings of current capabilities.

Regards,
Feltan

[tkobo]

I could see it being relegated to a tech.

My first choice would still be to leave it designated and increase the penalties.
But it seemed easy to come across articles of new systems (especailly new parachutes) that are being implemented and tested that increase accuracy of a drop, safety of a drop, and improve altitide,weight and speed limits of the drops.
So a tech would kinda make sense.Its also seems like possibly the least complex solution.

[Draken]

I could see it being relegated to a tech.

My first choice would still be to leave it designated and increase the penalties.
But it seemed easy to come across articles of new systems (especailly new parachutes) that are being implemented and tested that increase accuracy of a drop, safety of a drop, and improve altitide,weight and speed limits of the drops.
So a tech would kinda make sense.Its also seems like possibly the least complex solution.

Perhaps we should include the weight of the unit in the equation. Futher advance in the "airdrop" tech level will allow you to paradrop heavier units and reduce the damage done during the landing...

But, since "tech" relates more to the equipment I would like to see also the training. So in order to paradrop an unit you need the necesary tech level and the necesary training...

[Jan]

i don't know the details (who do?) but i heard that in the age of warsaw pact, soviet troops trained regulary to airdrop ifv ready to fight, with crews in it.

They done some full scale live exercices in the baltic area (i've been told by spetz that it was in their plan to invade Denmark by a combined air/sea invasion). They done one in particulary bad weather, it was a "successfull demonstration of soviet courage and efficiency". By the way, they accepted an higher casuality rate than any democracy will ever do (i've been told about 40-50%).

To be back to ingame considerations, i'm ok with the argument that if the hardware is designed to be airdropped, then it should be in game BUT along a system to make the player think twice before doing something that would cause his political death in any democratic society.

cheers,

Jan

[red]

Do retro rockets work at all? I could see that being researched in 2020-230 to improve survivability.

[Lightbringer]

all it takes is a medium sized rock in the wrong spot....

Or tree, or house, or creek bed.... The human body is a bit more adaptable when it comes to landing conditions.

along a system to make the player think twice before doing something that would cause his political death in any democratic society.

Well, I guess the cost of any such operation in casualties and equipment would have to be aimed at the player himself, not his democratic political future. The whole societal model in 2010...and one would assume 2020, is very totalitarian. You would have to do much worse than lose a few tens of thousands of troops during a massive air assault to really get the people angry at you, and if you do, so what? You click the little "dictatorship" button and move along. You don't even get a partisan unit to bug your police forces. I guess I should vent these observations in a different thread.

I would go along with the combo platter as mentioned here. Training+new Tech+Damage= Airdropping armored infantry vehicles. I'll still spend the money to have several stacks of M-113s with dedicated 747s (complete with escort INTs) waiting to drop them. It makes a very nice emergency force to stop breakthroughs by the AI or push that undermanned attack over the edge of victory. Lord help the AI if I can start training better vehicle/units to do the same thing.

[Feltan]

i don't know the details (who do?) but i heard that in the age of warsaw pact, soviet troops trained regulary to airdrop ifv ready to fight, with crews in it.

They done some full scale live exercices in the baltic area (i've been told by spetz that it was in their plan to invade Denmark by a combined air/sea invasion). They done one in particulary bad weather, it was a "successfull demonstration of soviet courage and efficiency". By the way, they accepted an higher casuality rate than any democracy will ever do (i've been told about 40-50%)....

You are correct on all counts. The BMD could be dropped with the crew inside. The delivery means for the BMD, due to its relatively light weight, was different than an LVAD pallete delivery. I don't believe this was done often in practice, but it could be done and was doctrinal -- if not unpopular with the troops.

Regards,
Feltan

[Jan]

i'm going a bit offtopic but if SR2010/2020 so totalitarian, why do we still have democratic and monarchic system ingame?

if the player do things that may hurt his approval rating (either civilian or military), he must be penalized. It would hurt the gameplay to turn SR in a "All Mighty Simulator"

[Feltan]

Do retro rockets work at all? I could see that being researched in 2020-230 to improve survivability.

The LVAD pallete has retro-rockets -- it is the main mechanism to slow down a drop. The parachutes on an LVAD perform two functions: drag the pallete out of the back of the aircraft, and stabilize the pallete during free fall (so it doesn't roll or go in nose first). The rockets act as the brake.

I've witnessed this done -- although in an actual drop they send the equipment in first because someone is likely to get killed if equipment comes in second. In theory, a C-130 comes in low and slow. A humdred feet off the deck with the back ramp down. For all the world, it looks like the aircraft is giving birth as a proportionally huge pallete is dragged out by the parachutes (like a drag racer slowing down). The pallete & cargo, slowed by the rockets hits the LZ and skids along until friction/gravity bring it a stop. The pallete is actually a collapsible sled which is destroyed by design during delivery. That is Low Velocity Air Drop (LVAD) in a nutshell.

It usually works. When they used LVAD to delivery a platoon of M551 in support of the invasion of Panama, the DZ was an airstrip. The palletes all succussfully delivered -- no obstructions or dips in terrain on an airstrip.

However, a lot can go wrong. Turbulence can cause the pallete to cant to an angle as it comes out of the plane, the rockets can misfire or not be proportional to one another, or the previously mentioned obstructions on the ground. A pallete with a vehicle strapped to it barrel rolling at 150 mph is not something you want to be in front of!

Right now, the C-130 aircraft is the primary delivery platform. I am not aware of C-17's or C-5's ever doing this -- but I suppose they could or have done it & I just don't know about it.

Regards,
Feltan

[tkobo]

A bunch of aircraft do it, c-17(dropped alot in afganistan this way),c-5,c-141, are examples that come to mind.