Airborne(Parachute) deployment rules?
- Thread starter Armchair_Marine
- Start date
Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
Space Marine second edition had something similar for Marine Drop pods.
In Striker II (for Traveller:The New Era) orbital drops and parachute drops were handled using cardstock squares. Each square represented one figure. Those counters were placed on a ruler and the height of the ruler was determined by the fact if it was orbital drop or parachute drop.
Then you just flipped the ruler where you wanted and all the counters that stayed within the board had a chance to take part in the conflict. It got a bit more complicated than rest of the examples here but I would use the ruler and counters (instead of actual figures). That's what I was thinking for my Stargrunt II game a while back when I hadn't even heard about BFE.
BTW how the orbital drops are handled in SST? This could give some hints how to do it with BFE.
If the actual parachute landing is not that important I would just rule it that it was part of the fluff how the troopers got where they are (and maybe why they are without vehicular support)...
Then you just flipped the ruler where you wanted and all the counters that stayed within the board had a chance to take part in the conflict. It got a bit more complicated than rest of the examples here but I would use the ruler and counters (instead of actual figures). That's what I was thinking for my Stargrunt II game a while back when I hadn't even heard about BFE.
BTW how the orbital drops are handled in SST? This could give some hints how to do it with BFE.
If the actual parachute landing is not that important I would just rule it that it was part of the fluff how the troopers got where they are (and maybe why they are without vehicular support)...
Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
in SST, you can direct your drop pods to land pretty much anywhere on the board. The pods coint as air units with speed ratings, but they're so fast that unless you're playing on a very large board, you can effectively drop anywhere.
SnowDog said:
I assumed we were talking something like this for paratrooper deployment, actually. Which is why I was wondering how realistic it is to drop into a firefight. Even without popping your chute until you're near the ground, I thought you spent enough time floating in mid-air that you didn't want to be anywhere near organized troops when you came down. Otherwise, as you say, it's just another fancy army list with buffer troops and lighter vehicles.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
it depends on the altitude but typically they'd be in the air 15-25 seconds
paras would normally never jump into the kind of combat represented by BFEvo.
Having them as "move on from x edge, elite troops" works best
paras would normally never jump into the kind of combat represented by BFEvo.
Having them as "move on from x edge, elite troops" works best
Xorrandor - time spent floating in mid-air is not the most important factor here. Paratroopers have to jump from a big, slow and fragile thing called "transport aircraft". Usually the oponents on the ground have a lot of nasty weapons designed to hurt these things (and you simply cannot assume that they don't have them). This means that the paratroopers have to jump in a relatively safe zone (unless you want them to die even before they jump and lose your airlift resources at the same time). Guess what comes in handy when the troops have to move from the drop zone to area where they are actually needed ;-) .
Of course if the enemy air defenses are completely destroyed (suppressed is not enough), you may drop the troops from high altitude, safe from shoulder-launched SAM rockets and other small stuff (AA MGs, light AAA). This, however, gives the enemy troops more time to shoot your paratroopers in mid-air.
Of course if the enemy air defenses are completely destroyed (suppressed is not enough), you may drop the troops from high altitude, safe from shoulder-launched SAM rockets and other small stuff (AA MGs, light AAA). This, however, gives the enemy troops more time to shoot your paratroopers in mid-air.
DamageInc.
Mongoose
Pietia said:
Well you can insist on calling the Sheridan a tank if you like, however the official designation from the US military is as a ARV. I'm not going to dicker on the differences between a tank, MBT, IFV, APC. If all it takes to be a tank is having tracks and armor then I suppose a bulldozer would be a tank, wouldn't it. Don't forget the different battfield roles each vehicle is asked to carry out and designed for.
The Sheridan's weapons weren't inferior to the MGS, the MGS was slated for hainv an autoloading 105mm cannon. The M551 had a 152mm cannon that could fire a missile as well. They fit into two different roles on the battlefield. the MGS did have armor upgrade packages that coul dbe bolted on to increase or decrese the protection based on mission needs (when would you want less?)
DamageInc.
Mongoose
Pietia said:
This is true as well, however in the American military, airborne capable vehicles was settled on being lightly armored and wheeled. The need for a tracked vehicle, while present, wasn't overriding enough to finish the programs. Humvees with TOW systems were deignated tank/bunker busters, while M 2 .50 humvees provided basic infantry support against infantry and light vehicles. LMTVs were used for troop and supply transport once on the ground.
This being said, part of the reason the Army settled this way was due to prblems finding a vehicle that was light enough, powerful enough, and survivable enough to be useful, and the fact that Panama was the only time airborne armor was ever used and with the changing roles of airbrone forces, the support elements are not needed nearly as much.
American airborne forces are prepared to hump it out on foot like any regular infantry, however they are also supposed to be used as a combined arms unit with armor ready to push in to meet them or air assault/airborne units moving up to resupply. Like it has been said, the airborne are used to open a dor to allow C130 and C17 aircraft landing fields to bring in heavier equipment, and to be a rapidly deployable unit. Many units in the American military are transistioning into that role however. Airborne units remain in the military however not because we intend to use them, but may need them and not have them at some point.
Airborne training itself is not a waste of time as it helps to install discipline and build agression. Airborne trained soldiers tend to fight harder. This is partly because of conditioning and partly pride but whatever the reason, it works.
Bulldozer is not a tank - it does have tracks but not weapons and armor ;-) .
Panama was not the only time airdeployable armor was used - M551 were the first US tanks in the Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield operation. They didn't have to fight, but they were there.
As for the "not inferior" weapons on Sheridan - the 152mm gun and Shilelagh missile were less capable than 105mm gun, at least US Army believed so when they quickly phased out the M60A2 after investing so much money into research...
"Protection based on mission needs" - you're military, you should understand this. Add-on armor has to be flown in just like everything else. If you have limited airlift assets, you fly in the more important things first and luxury items like extra protection later. So it is not that you'd "want less"- you simply cannot have more ATM.
As for vehicles light enough, powerful enough and survivable enough - practically all vehicles tested as possible Sheridan successors were more powerful and survivable than Humvees, and roughly as heavy as Sheridan (counts as light enough, for sure). They were also lighter, more survivable and powerful than the new expensive PoS called Stryker the US Army is so fond of (and they were available 10 years earlier...). Oh and as for the "need for a tracked vehicle, while present, wasn't overriding enough" part - I guess that guys making these decisions haven't seen how the thing called "road" looks like in many countries...
As for "combined arms" and "armor ready to push in to meet them" - three words: "Operation Market-Garden". I guess that US Army expects to always fight with third-world countries with equipment and doctrine three generations behind their own... If at some moment they will have to fight against an equal or almost-equal opponent, you'll see history repeat itself.
Panama was not the only time airdeployable armor was used - M551 were the first US tanks in the Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield operation. They didn't have to fight, but they were there.
As for the "not inferior" weapons on Sheridan - the 152mm gun and Shilelagh missile were less capable than 105mm gun, at least US Army believed so when they quickly phased out the M60A2 after investing so much money into research...
"Protection based on mission needs" - you're military, you should understand this. Add-on armor has to be flown in just like everything else. If you have limited airlift assets, you fly in the more important things first and luxury items like extra protection later. So it is not that you'd "want less"- you simply cannot have more ATM.
As for vehicles light enough, powerful enough and survivable enough - practically all vehicles tested as possible Sheridan successors were more powerful and survivable than Humvees, and roughly as heavy as Sheridan (counts as light enough, for sure). They were also lighter, more survivable and powerful than the new expensive PoS called Stryker the US Army is so fond of (and they were available 10 years earlier...). Oh and as for the "need for a tracked vehicle, while present, wasn't overriding enough" part - I guess that guys making these decisions haven't seen how the thing called "road" looks like in many countries...
As for "combined arms" and "armor ready to push in to meet them" - three words: "Operation Market-Garden". I guess that US Army expects to always fight with third-world countries with equipment and doctrine three generations behind their own... If at some moment they will have to fight against an equal or almost-equal opponent, you'll see history repeat itself.
Pietia said:
Its very unlikely that a Western power would risk doing that kind of air drop. However the Chinese and Russians (and other forces) don't follow Western military practice, they have in the past and will in the future draw up their own doctrines.
Air drops into combat situations have worked in the past, just read up on the campaign for Crete..... The 1st wave came in as a suprise, the following troops had an "easier" time in their landings because the troops on the ground where already involved in fighting and didn't have the time to sopend looking at the skies..... Yes air superiority is a must, but that is easily acheivable by any of the major world powers if they set their minds to it. Do it just before dawn and you will have a certain element of suprise, more so if the enemy is robbed of radar and such.
Western para units coming on from a random board edge fits with what they do, but what is the difference between them and any other elite unit? Just a special rule that allows them to come on from a board edge not owned by their faction. Very exciting...
Para units for the PLA (and Russians when they become a faction) could be used far more aggresively, and give each faction a distinct feeling. Also.... The EFTF are going to different sub-factions because of the different national forces, the US is more than likely going to have the Army as well as the USMC, the MEA have militia and Goverment forces the PLA currently only have regular forces..... PLA airborne is a possibility to introduce a very different faction into the game with some cool new rules and special abilites if MGP want to.
Cordas, unlike what you might believe, the Russians are not idiots and you'll NEVER see a drop into hot LZ made by Russian unit (unless their intel will screw up seriously and they'll consider hot LZ to be safe). Any drop made by the Russian (or PLA) forces would be made at a safe distance from the combat zone, with heavy air support "just in case". After all they don't have to drop on enemy heads - they may drive to battle.
Drops in combat situations in the past were possible, because the anti-aircraft weapons were (relatively) much less efficient than those used today. A single Stinger may easily kill or seriously damage a C-130 and screw up the day for the 64 paratroopers it carries - and such kill requires much less luck than killing a Junkers with AA gun, acquiring the Stinger (or equivalent) is also easier than acquiring a heavy AA gun in the past. Remember, also, that such drops always resulted in huge casualties among the paras (on Crete one of the German parachute battalions suffered 66% KIA during the first day, some others were wiped out to the last man). Casualties that were considered "acceptable" during WWII, but would not be acceptable now. Tactics which worked in the past don't have to work now (some people have problems with accepting the fact, the first halves of both WWI and WWII may serve as a good example).
Drops in combat situations in the past were possible, because the anti-aircraft weapons were (relatively) much less efficient than those used today. A single Stinger may easily kill or seriously damage a C-130 and screw up the day for the 64 paratroopers it carries - and such kill requires much less luck than killing a Junkers with AA gun, acquiring the Stinger (or equivalent) is also easier than acquiring a heavy AA gun in the past. Remember, also, that such drops always resulted in huge casualties among the paras (on Crete one of the German parachute battalions suffered 66% KIA during the first day, some others were wiped out to the last man). Casualties that were considered "acceptable" during WWII, but would not be acceptable now. Tactics which worked in the past don't have to work now (some people have problems with accepting the fact, the first halves of both WWI and WWII may serve as a good example).
One way to do this is that using the Striker II like system just determines your actual forces since some of the paras could drift away for long enough time that they can't get to the first combat that awaits them. Others might have been injured or even killed by hitting trees or even drowning.
Of course you can make some sort of table and just roll how many paras made it but where's the fun in that?
Then just deploy the remaining (present and capable) forces normally. They might have some sort of element of surprise on their side so maybe they can be deployed more freely and they are a tough bunch to act as a bridge head or stormtroopers.
Will they be used in future like they were used in WWII, I don't know. But if it would create a cool scenario I would go for it and use rules something like these.
Of course you can make some sort of table and just roll how many paras made it but where's the fun in that?
Then just deploy the remaining (present and capable) forces normally. They might have some sort of element of surprise on their side so maybe they can be deployed more freely and they are a tough bunch to act as a bridge head or stormtroopers.
Will they be used in future like they were used in WWII, I don't know. But if it would create a cool scenario I would go for it and use rules something like these.
