Airborne(Parachute) deployment rules?

[Pietia]

Still needs weapons ;-) . And if you take an armed and armored bulldozer, you definitely get a tank (an engineering one)

 

[Hiromoon]

What do you think the blade is for? I'd say at least 2d10 vs anything in it's path...

 

[Valen is my name]

Cordas, unlike what you might believe, the Russians are not idiots

Actually they are when it comes to warfare. The BRIXMIS missions during the cold war discovered that the Russians had to place Officiers at nearly every road junction in East Germany to direct the Russian Army if they were going to invade the West otherwise the Russian Army would not have found its targets. This meant that if Russia did ever try to invade the SAS would find ways into East Germany and pick off the traffic directors, and it was reckoned that that alone would hold up the Russian Army for quite a long time.

There is also a report of a line of tanks travelling alond a road in East Germany suddenly stopping and several Officers getting out to read a map only to find out that they needed to turn around. As Ken Conner points out, if a British Officer got lost and had to do this he would have been demoted.

Both of these are from a book by Ken Conner called Ghost Force: The Secret History of the SAS, and it is about the SAS (which he was in) and also the BRIXMIS missions that he was part of, and he saw the above happen.

 

[Hiromoon]

Tee-hee.... some of the stories I've heard from a former Scout in the US Army on the border...

A large command structure had moved in across from their position, you know.. 1 high ranking officer and a veritable horde of command staff. Well, this usually marks a ramp up for war. Then they looked at the names of the officers. Seems some Russian General and his Harem moved in across the way.

 

[Pietia]

Actually they are when it comes to warfare. The BRIXMIS missions during the cold war discovered that the Russians had to place Officiers at nearly every road junction in East Germany to direct the Russian Army if they were going to invade the West otherwise the Russian Army would not have found its targets. This meant that if Russia did ever try to invade the SAS would find ways into East Germany and pick off the traffic directors, and it was reckoned that that alone would hold up the Russian Army for quite a long time.

Of course the British Army has no need for traffic controllers on friendly territory... Especially if they are going to move millions of troops quickly (oh, wait, the only time British Army was even close to having millions of troops they were used in frontal charges at HMGs...)...

There is also a report of a line of tanks travelling alond a road in East Germany suddenly stopping and several Officers getting out to read a map only to find out that they needed to turn around. As Ken Conner points out, if a British Officer got lost and had to do this he would have been demoted.

And the russian officers were probably demoted too... Or did Ken Conner read all personnel orders after that and knows for sure that they were not?

 

[Valen is my name]

The Russians required 'regulators' even if they just wanted to move a few troops, let alone an entire army.

And if the Russians did demote anyone who couldn't read a map the russian army would have had very very officers. The Russian army was about fourth rate and the Russian Army was not as dangerous as they were made out to be.

 

[Pietia]

Well, you may believe whatever you want to. The connection of what you believe with reality is another matter... I am not gonna argue with a person which knows Russian Army from books only - it is a waste of time...

 

[Hiromoon]

*yawns*

So anyway...

 

[Valen is my name]

if airborne troops are going to be used, and it is agreed that they have parachuted in and then 'tab' to the battle, as opposed to not parachuting into the area, like in the Falklands, how about a roll of the dice to see if they do accidentaly end up parachuting into the battlefield.

EG.

D10

1-9: Landings successful, enter from edge of the board.
10: Blownoff course or plane positioning wrong, parachute into the battle.

This would allow for instances like happened at Arnham where the Poles parachuted into a enemy held drop zone, or when the Americans overshot their drop zone on D-Day and lnded in a village full of German soldiers. Also could hapen if plane is off course accidentally or if they are blown off course. However, these are rare these days so the chances of it happening are 1 in 10.

 

[Mr Evil]

alternativly roll a D10 per modle, score = distance and point on top of the D10 shows diretion.

 

[DamageInc.]

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.

Well, I have seen several bulldozers here with the added up-armored upgrading kits and M240 mounts... no American vehicles are allowed outside a FOB or protected area without the up-armoring systems now, including contruction equipment and semi trucks owned b the military.

What I meant by Panama was that it was the only time the US has used airborne armor systems in an airborne capacity. As for the M60 series of MBT, if I recall correctly they were phased out due to a new concept of armor shapes that would help deflect rounds in addition to new armor making technologies, thus requiring a new chassis. I suppose there were a lot of reasons the M60 series was replaced though.

Armor is not a 'luxuary' item by any means. Although we did get caught under prepared with OIF, as soon as armor systems were available they were shipped and installed. When does one need the most armor, during the opening moments of a battle or later after DZs are secured? During the meeting and clearing phases of course.

As for humvees being more survivable than the Sheridan, the thin skinned are not, and that is what is currently being dropped in the US inventory. I have pretty much been overseas since the up armoreds became widely used so I don't know how they drop, but the chassis is already strained under the wieght of armor it wasn't designed for, so who knows what a heavy drop would be like with them. The problem with airborne armor is a matter of space, to fit on the transport aircraft, and weight. Only X amount of tons may be dropped in a heavy drop. I don't remember if Sheridans were heavy dropped, but I do know they were LAPESed from C130s.

The Stryker is not airborne capable. It is too big and too heavy. There have been a lot of experiments and to my knowledge, it hasn't passed anytihng workable yet. It is just a reworking of the LAV system anyway, butnicely done. Most crews do tend to like them although for the money we should have gotten more. As for wheels vs tracks, you should se ewhat an urban road looks like after months of tracked vehicles run over it vs tires. Tires are also easier to replace in the field and require less skilled maintenance. I crew both a M2 and a M1151 so trust me on this I'll replace a tire over breaking track any day.

And as for OMG, that was over 60 years ago. Doctrine and technology has changed quite a bit since then. While still not an impossible scenario, it is a highly unlikely one. AAmerican airborne troops were used very differently then than they are now. For examples of modern parachute insertions look up Panama, the 173rd in OIF, and 75th Rangers in OEF.

 

[Pietia]

What I meant by Panama was that it was the only time the US has used airborne armor systems in an airborne capacity. As for the M60 series of MBT, if I recall correctly they were phased out due to a new concept of armor shapes that would help deflect rounds in addition to new armor making technologies, thus requiring a new chassis. I suppose there were a lot of reasons the M60 series was replaced though.

M60A2 (I'm not talking about the other M60 variants) were phased out in a hurry, because their weapon system (almost identical to that on Sheridan, the gun differed a little bit) was VERY unreliable and inferior in anti-tank capabilities to 105mm gun variant.

Armor is not a 'luxuary' item by any means. Although we did get caught under prepared with OIF, as soon as armor systems were available they were shipped and installed. When does one need the most armor, during the opening moments of a battle or later after DZs are secured? During the meeting and clearing phases of course.

Yes, but if you are able to fly in a platoon with extra armor or two platoons without, the choice usually is obvious. More guns -> the enemy is wiped out faster -> lower losses.

As for humvees being more survivable than the Sheridan, the thin skinned are not, and that is what is currently being dropped in the US inventory. I have pretty much been overseas since the up armoreds became widely used so I don't know how they drop, but the chassis is already strained under the wieght of armor it wasn't designed for, so who knows what a heavy drop would be like with them. The problem with airborne armor is a matter of space, to fit on the transport aircraft, and weight. Only X amount of tons may be dropped in a heavy drop. I don't remember if Sheridans were heavy dropped, but I do know they were LAPESed from C130s.

Tracked vehicles are smaller and lighter than wheeled vehicles with comparable protection, weapons and carrying capacity.

The Stryker is not airborne capable. It is too big and too heavy. There have been a lot of experiments and to my knowledge, it hasn't passed anytihng workable yet. It is just a reworking of the LAV system anyway, butnicely done. Most crews do tend to like them although for the money we should have gotten more.

The Stryker has been successfully dropped from C-17 ;-) . It is too big and too heavy exactly because it is wheeled. M-113 has similar carrying capacity, slightly better armor protection in the basic configuration - and is roughly the size of a humvee, not a school bus...

As for wheels vs tracks, you should se ewhat an urban road looks like after months of tracked vehicles run over it vs tires.

Hm... Overglorified Military Police mentality detected... Army should prepare for combat, not for patrolling cities. BTW - vehicles equipped with modern tracks damage the roads less than wheeled vehicles able to perform the same mission. Band tracks don't damage the road, as no metallic components contact the road at any moment, tracked vehicle is lighter and - thanks to the way tracks work - the pressure per square whatever-you-choose is lower. Oh - and band tracks run silently...

Tires are also easier to replace in the field and require less skilled maintenance. I crew both a M2 and a M1151 so trust me on this I'll replace a tire over breaking track any day.

Tires are also much easier to damage and much more difficult to protect. With tracks you are far less likely to have to replace anything...

 

[SnowDog]

Valen:

Do you mean to roll for each individual model or the whole force?

Pietia:

I guess that you know the Russians better than any of us. For all I know you might have been in service and practiced with Russians. If that is the case your input is very welcome.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Russians are stupid. It's a cultural (both civilian and military) thing. To me it seems like they don't much value a human life not even that of their own troopers. "Off you go, to the meatgrinder" Their human wave attacks are so legendary. Of course it's an easy tactic and with such a huge population you can get away doing it.

Granted, I have not followed their tactics recently but I doubt that they have chanced that much. So, there is no stupidity behind those actions but authoritarian and certain degree of cruelty that is inherited from way back.

Please, correct me if I am wrong.

 

[cordas]

When it comes to war a load of doctrines go out the window and are replaced by new ones, and that cry of we will never do that again rapidly gets forgoten when the guns start to fire.

If an army commander thinks airborne troops will be great for achieving such and such goal they will be used, and if it means dropping into enemy teritory then the idea is speed is key, dropping miles away from enemy positions just means that by the time the troops get there they will meet a prepared force, dropping a field away (or on top) with the right circumstances might be the "best" option....

 

[SnowDog]

And let's not forget that this is after all a game. Would parachute drops make an interesting scenario or not? If it would, as I think, then there should be some rules for it.

One such scenario might be to drop your troops to an area, take hold of certain key location(s) and hold it/them for x rounds. Next scenario or maybe the extension of it would include ordinary forces to arrive and maybe the paras' job would be to cover their approach.

 

[Pietia]

SnowDog - I have not trained with Russians, I am too young for that (we parted our ways with them while I still was in the basic school). I, however, have lived close to a Russian military base, knew many Russian officers personally (many people in my family are or were professional soldiers) and I still know many people which - at some point in time studied, trained or served together with them. I've learned to respect them, most of the russian officers are as competent as you would expect a western officer to be... I studied Russian army, history, equipment and tactics to know my enemy.
The russian mindset is different to the western one, that's true. Individual soldier's life is not as important to the decision-makers as it is in western countries. Civilian lives are even less important - the counter-terrorist actions in the last few years may serve as an example. It is getting the job done, keeping whatever the authorities consider a military secret and upholding the image of "strong government" that counts, other concerns are secondary - but that is the result of orders coming from the civilian government, rather than institution-wide stupidity in the military.

 

[The Old Soldier]

wouldn't go so far as to say that Russians are stupid. It's a cultural (both civilian and military) thing. To me it seems like they don't much value a human life not even that of their own troopers. "Off you go, to the meatgrinder" Their human wave attacks are so legendary. Of course it's an easy tactic and with such a huge population you can get away doing it.

Pietia does not need me to defend his position. BUT, I just have to chime in here and say WTF!?! Seems your opinion is based more on bias that has been spoon fed to the western world, than on truths. While the human wave attacks did take place in WW2. It was more out of neccessity than doctrine. Desperate measures, for desperate times. The same could be said of ANY nation. The walking into the killing fields of MG fire during the 1st World War by Britain. The, they are expendable idealism, used by all governments around the world. Grant's Tactics to defeat the South by attrition during the American Civil War. The list is endless.

 

[SnowDog]

I understood Pietia's statement to actually confirm what I said. I didn't attack his view of things. We have been fighting the Russians (and more recently Soviets) quite a lot so what I wrote was not just from the western propaganda rather from our own propaganda and history (even history books are hardly ever totally objective, I know that).

I know that WWI was fought with modern weapons using centuries old tactics, hence the results. In WWII, especially during Winter War they outnumbered us so badly in manpower, ammunition and weaponry that I don't see the why "they didn't have a choice" but send their men to certain death. Their casualties were about 10 times larger than ours, fortunately. Finland was and still is a small country, we can't afford to loose men in attacks like that.

I admit that there were probably similar situations from our side as well but it was not a main doctrine.

So this is my basis for writing what I wrote. I don't know if you, Old Soldier understand my standing now any better. Besides if I didn't misunderstand Pietia's last post we were pretty much on the same line of thinking

 

[Valen is my name]

Valen:
Do you mean to roll for each individual model or the whole force?

i meant for the entire parachuting force, or at least all the men that came out of the same aircraft, but if there were several aircraft it is likely that either all or none would be off course unless one got seperated somehow.

Are gliders used anymore? Maybe they will be used again in the future to carry out surprise attacks like the attack on Pegasus Bridge on D-day. Some targets need to be taken quickly before the enemy can destroy them, and it is easier to take these targets from gliders than parachuting because there is noo engine noise to alert the enemy. I think gliders would be an interesting tactic to use, and is probably safer than parachuting into a field next to the enemy. Would only happen at night though. Are there night-fighting rules?

 

[emperorpenguin]

gliders were less safe than parachuting!