Airborne(Parachute) deployment rules?

[DamageInc.]

* You guys had the Sheridan, but... it's not there anymore.

Yeah, I know. It's a shame that he died, came back, quit Earthforce, moved to Minbar and became President of the Galaxy and then finally died a second time. Ohhh, you mean the M551? Never mind. :wink:

Ah the Sheridan, it wasn't a trre tank you know, it was an armored recon vehicle. My first unit in the 82nd Abn used to field them, 3-73 Armor but they [hased out in the late 90's. Good vehicle all around but the armor was aluminum and barely stopped small arms. The MGS was never deployed but 8 were created to be shipped to the 82nd, cancelled right before they shipped.

 

[Pietia]

Ah the Sheridan, it wasn't a trre tank you know, it was an armored recon vehicle.

It had tracks, it had gun, it had armor - it was a tank ;-) . A light tank, but still tank. Some WWII tanks also had armor that barely stopped small arms rounds, nobody tried to call them "armored recon vehicles" or whatever...

 

[cordas]

Ah the Sheridan, it wasn't a trre tank you know, it was an armored recon vehicle.

It had tracks, it had gun, it had armor - it was a tank ;-) . A light tank, but still tank. Some WWII tanks also had armor that barely stopped small arms rounds, nobody tried to call them "armored recon vehicles" or whatever...

Armour that stops smalls arms fire for me would be good enough whether barely or not, of course I would want to make sure I avoided anything that could shoot bigger projectiles at me....

 

[DamageInc.]

Ah the Sheridan, it wasn't a trre tank you know, it was an armored recon vehicle.

It had tracks, it had gun, it had armor - it was a tank ;-) . A light tank, but still tank. Some WWII tanks also had armor that barely stopped small arms rounds, nobody tried to call them "armored recon vehicles" or whatever...

Nope, the M551 is and Armored Recon Vehicle. Just cause you have tracks, guns, and armor doesn't make you a tank. Look at the Bradley... us cav scouts hate being called 'tankers.'

Anyway, a one off scenario with airborne insertion might be the best way to go. Perhaps a company of 82nd Airborne, Rangers, or several AF teams are landing on a plateau that is impossible to reach with a lotrge ground force to root out a dug in enemy command cell, or maybe it's the only way to get troops in past a series of mine laced roads, canals, and muddy fields to cpature a small town with important people inside, as I have almost witnessed here so it's not too unprobable.

A land based army that is primarily infantry, from the 82nd Abn of course, would get me wet so to speak. Airborne insertions are a lot more accurate now days but are used in only certain circumstances so the missions would have to drive the deployment.

 

[DamageInc.]

Ah the Sheridan, it wasn't a trre tank you know, it was an armored recon vehicle.

It had tracks, it had gun, it had armor - it was a tank ;-) . A light tank, but still tank. Some WWII tanks also had armor that barely stopped small arms rounds, nobody tried to call them "armored recon vehicles" or whatever...

Armour that stops smalls arms fire for me would be good enough whether barely or not, of course I would want to make sure I avoided anything that could shoot bigger projectiles at me....

One of the reasons the M8AGS was cancelled was that it wasn't truely needed. It had a hard time taking on real armor with it's small main gun. It was intended to get into a hull down position and support and infantry advance against enemy infantry.

Man portable weapons like the Javelin and AT4 systems made it possible for infantry to tackle armor without the need for other tanks.

An airborne army that was mostly infantry but all self contained could be interesting to play, it would need to stay in cover and carefully advance.

 

[Pietia]

Nope, the M551 is and Armored Recon Vehicle. Just cause you have tracks, guns, and armor doesn't make you a tank. Look at the Bradley... us cav scouts hate being called 'tankers.'

Well, having tracks, guns and armor pretty much fits the basic definition of tank. If you look hard enough into history, you'll find out that even having large-caliber gun is not necessary (many early tanks were armed with MGs only) and troop-carrying capacity does not stop a vehicle from being a tank (e.g. some WWI tanks and Merkava ;-) ).
The fact that modern armies developed a lot of other names for tanks, based on the intended mission of said vehicle (including Main Battle Tank - what most people consider a "tank" right now), but the basic tank definition has not changed - and no amount of intra-service rivalry will change that...
BTW - you call M551 an "Armored Recon Vehicle". Its armament, armor and mobility is slightly inferior to XM8 ("Armored Gun System") which is slightly inferior to TAM (Tanque Argentino Mediano - Argentinian Medium Tank)... At which moment you stop hiding behind mission-based names to call vehicle a tank ? ;-)


As for the scenario-based approach, I agree. If you want airborne insertion, you need a scenario, which (among other things) will limit the availability of armor to the airborne force. Don't forget to include rules that will allow defenders on the ground to slaughter the airborne while they are still in the air, however - drops into hot LZ tend to end this way...

 

[cordas]

As for the scenario-based approach, I agree. If you want airborne insertion, you need a scenario, which (among other things) will limit the availability of armor to the airborne force. Don't forget to include rules that will allow defenders on the ground to slaughter the airborne while they are still in the air, however - drops into hot LZ tend to end this way...

You mean like my sugestions above If MGP do do a full para force, then it will need a number of different scenario's rather than just one. Otherwise it would be a very dull force to own. I think my rules would also work for adding para units into existing forces, giving them a nice feel without breaking the game. Yes there is a chance they will get slaughtered in the air, but there is also a chance that they will be able to do some serious damage. Sort of like teleporting terminators in 40K, they can be suicidal and wasted in a flash, but I have also seen a number of games where they where the winning unit.

As for the M551, it could be that the armed forces just felt they didn't need another ARV, afterall they already have a fair few. Yes its ability to be air dropped would be nice, but if their military stratergies don't involve doing hot combat drops then its rather redundant, or they think actually specialist armed infantry units can do the role we want the M551 better and cheaper....

It appears the Chinese and Russians have a slightly different take on this and have support vehicles that count as armour that can be air dropped.

 

[Pietia]

The armed forces didn't "feel" that they don't need another ARV. The airborne was promised that when M551 will be retired, a new vehicle will be available (and it was, unfortunately the budget cuts killed the XM8 programme).
The Russians and Chinese learned a lesson that US already managed to forget - sadly, as the lesson was paid for in American, British and Polish blood in WWII. What is the lesson? Airborne infantry, just like any other infantry needs support vehicles. They need them to move - advance if possible, retreat if necessary. They need them to fight - vehicles allow them to carry heavier firepower and more supplies. They need their protection - while light airborne vehicles die when fired upon by MBT guns, they at least protect against small arms. Without those vehicles airborne units have no real mobility after fulfilling their initial mission, and their only real option is to dig in and pray really hard for some heavier unit to reach them (as we've seen in Operation Market-Garden those prayers are not always successful).
What's more - airborne vehicles allow the airborne to keep up with other forces even when they're not dropped, but advance with the rest of the army.

 

[Armchair_Marine]

Being that BFE is in the near future, really we could use something nifty like this as the future of paratroops (special forces style)-

or

COOOBRAAAA!!!

 

[Daddy Dragon]

Rules-wise, I'd pull an idea from Avalon Hill's old, original Starship Troopers wargame. It would basically work like this:

1) Randomly determine which direction the wind is blowing (or use the direction designated by the scenario).
2) Line your infantry unit up in a straight line, each 1 inch apart.
3) Your opponent rolls 2d6 for each figure in the unit and moves it that many inches downwind. If doubles are rolled, they may roll an additional d6 and add it to the result.
4) Any figure that ends up off board is automatically lost.
5) The owning player then rolls 1d6 and moves the figure that many inches in any direction they choose.
6) Units which land in trees, ruins or other such terrain take a 1d6 DD.
7) The unit may take no other actions the turn it is deployed.
8) If any member of the unit is out of command, the entire unit may take only move actions in the direction of the unit leader, taking no other actions until they are back in command. They may only take a move action as a reaction until they have re-established themselves as in command.


YMMV,
Larry

 

[cordas]

Very indepth system there DD, and nice, but I feel its maybe a bit to much for evo, as evo is supposed to be a quick, rough and ready system.

 

[Xorrandor]

The Russians and Chinese learned a lesson that US already managed to forget - sadly, as the lesson was paid for in American, British and Polish blood in WWII. What is the lesson? Airborne infantry, just like any other infantry needs support vehicles.

I thought the lesson Americans had learned since then is that jumping out of an airplane is no longer a good way to deploy troops. If you stop deploying troops by dropping them out of planes, you don't need to develop vehicles to support your non-existent paratroopers.

And regardless of whether paratroopers are or are not being phased out, they just don't belong on this scale of game. This is a tactical game, while airborne deployment is a strategic tool.

 

[cordas]

I am not sure that the US (or UK for that matter) are phasing out paratroops, more just changing the role of them, in a similar manner to the role of marines was changed during WW2.

I think the wests view of paras is that they are elite forces trained to be very resourceful and able to fight with minimum support when required, they are meant to be a rapid deployment force that gets flown to safe zones near where ever they are needed to fight, rahter than troops who jump out of airplanes and go in fighting (which it is what the Chinese and possibly the Russians are planning to use them for).

However I would prefer paras in BF:Evo to be closer to the 2nd idea where they parachute in and go in fighting, as it would make them distinctly different to any other force or unit already in the game.

 

[Hiromoon]

Actually it's more of a shift in doctrine. Typically we drop our Paratroopers into an area with light vehicle and equipment, and after they seize something like an Airfield or even an area flat enough where Combat Controllers can lay out an airfield, heavier equipment can get brought in. Beyond that, the US's two division level Airborne units have their own aviation brigades (Air Assault and Attack Helicopter) assets.

 

[Pietia]

Cordas - if you're going to fly in troops and heavy equipment to a safe zone, you don't really need paratroopers (mech infantry is enough) and any time and money spent on their parachute training is wasted and could be better used elsewhere.
The Russian (and Chinese) view of paras is very similar to the western one - they are resourceful, elite troops which can do more with less. The difference is simple - they don't make their troops to do with less, they instead recognize the fact that elite troops with decent equipment can do even more than without it. For example - paratroops with airborne fighting vehicles don't really have to go into combat with enemy's line units (although they can). They may be better used as a hit and run force, causing havoc behind his lines more effectively than small special forces units. This would be difficult to do without the afvs (hit and run and the normal human walking speed don't really mix)

What is the point of having a division-sized formation which has to rely on help from other formations to perform anything more than a single assault to seize an airfield?

 

[cordas]

I dunno, the reports I have seen say that the UK may well be loosing its paras..... The units will still exist and they will be a rapid deployment elite force, having them as Elite makes sense as they may find themselves opperating without full support. The question is then why equip them with air dropable vehicles if they won't be air dropped themselves.....

As for the Russians and Chinese if they are producing those vehicles as the chinese are then I see no reason why MGP shouldn't release them with those forces paratroops, if they choose to release paratroops. Until it was brought to my attention in this topic I didn't realise the Chinese already had an AFV that they can air drop in service. However it should be noted that it isn't a MBT, and I have seen nothing so far to say the Chinese do have an air dropable MBT. Although the Russians may have.... however thats just rumours as far as I am aware, but as we don't even have a Russian force yet its accademic at the moment.

 

[Hiromoon]

Well, technically anything's airdroppable....

It all depends on if you want it in one piece after it reaches the ground.

 

[Neil]

Hi Cordas

The tank used by the Russians for the glider experiment was a T60. A light tank armed with a 20mm gun that normally wieghed around 6 tons (A T34 is around 30 tons). Even then for the glider test they stripped all non essential parts and gave it a reduced load of fuel to reduce wieght.

The biggest problem with the tow was that the plane did not have enough power and released the glider early due to over heating engines. The glider it self flew well and landed and the tank was driven back. The idea was abandoned due to the lack of a good enough tow aircraft.

http://www.answers.com/topic/antonov-a-40

Neil

 

[Pietia]

However it should be noted that it isn't a MBT, and I have seen nothing so far to say the Chinese do have an air dropable MBT. Although the Russians may have.... however thats just rumours as far as I am aware, but as we don't even have a Russian force yet its accademic at the moment.

Air droppable MBT? Now that would be difficult (if you wanted airdroppable MBT able to drive away after the drop of course ). Russians, however, have 2S25 - light tank based on the BMP-3 chassis, armed with 125mm tank gun (the same they use on MBTs). It is both airdroppable and amphibious... The Chinese use airdroppable IFVs, similar to the Russian BMD-3.

 

[Mr Evil]

years ago we had some para rules for them we used paper squares 1" x 1" and droped them from 3-4 feet above the table, where they landed was where the guys landed, if they landed in woods or such the guy took a test to see if he got killed or not. was fun and simple.