|
chitoryu12 posted:My initial idea for something like that would be an air defense system that can easily target atmospheric craft or slowly drifting parachutes, forcing airborne to exclusively perform HALO-style drops from orbit at high speed to slip through the flak and missiles. If you are going sci-fi, go sci-fi. Parabolic sub orbital troop insertion. Sci-fi loves using craft that punch into low earth orbit for transport. Now all you need is a method to deploy troops out of a semi stealthy (It wouldn't have to be full on stealth fighter because it's so loving high). The alternative solution is to give them jump packs and make them a mobile force. Or hell bring back gliders. An all wood construction stealth glider that's towed up to a countries borders. Or just make the jump craft too fast to be intercepted. The troopies are pushed out in capsules that ablate like crazy as they dump out of a jet doing mach 6 (Stolen from starship troopers).
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago The first one is queen d4-d8, then either pawn f8 promote to knight or bishop f5 depending on what he takes the queen with. Second one is trickier, you start with a queen move to a7, king moves to d5 to avoid mate, your queen moves to b6, then reguardless of what he does you have checkmate with either the pawn or knight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
I think I'm gonna go straight-up Mobile Infantry drop ships and power armor, actually. Have it fly just above the planet's atmosphere, methinks. Have the airborne soldiers do hard drops instead of para-drops. I guess "paratrooper" would be an archaic term, but it would be kept for tradition just like how "cavalry" refers to vehicle units instead of actual horses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:So it's been made clear to me based on the responses of all you wonderful people that the "airborne" as I know it is largely a relic of the past. I'm gonna have to go back to the drawing board again, and I think it'd be prudent to go to the fiction advice thread on Creative Convention for "what if" questions. Thanks for the info, though. I appreciate it. I honestly didn't get that impression; technology and capability advance that the mission narrowly defined as "jumps out of a plane with a big rear end chute" is mostly non-permissive but happens if albeit rare. So just invent a situation where that's no longer the case. For example Gundam usually pre-supposed that long range radars are too easily jammed, thus why all combat takes place at dog fighting ranges with giant robots. Just make a few decisions on what needs to change/exist and move on from there. HALO/low orbital jumps generally seems the most plausible with the least amount of rationalities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:And then they start talking about what it was all for. For some reason, revisionists have this urge to show that going to war was the morally right thing to do, and that Britain in particular faced the same kind of existential threat that had to be combated. Sheffield's Grauniad piece prefers to refer to "Britain", in rather the same way that "England" was widely used in 1915 to stand for either the UK or the Empire as a whole. It's extremely telling that his only reference to the Empire is as "Britain and its empire", as though the Empire were some gauche black-sheep distant Took cousin to Britain's respectable, reasonable Baggins family. Of course, he's happy to talk about the aggressive, militaristic, expansionist policies of the German Empire, without speculating how they might have come about in the first place... It's hard to argue that Imperial Germany wasn't a potentially existential threat to Britain, considering the naval arms race and the utter dependence of the British Isles on seaborne food imports.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:My initial idea for something like that would be an air defense system that can easily target atmospheric craft or slowly drifting parachutes, forcing airborne to exclusively perform HALO-style drops from orbit at high speed to slip through the flak and missiles. You can always go for a Halo ODST inspired drop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:The first one is queen d4-d8, then either pawn f8 promote to knight or bishop f5 depending on what he takes the queen with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:If you do queen d4-d8, cant black do Kg6 and get out of the trap? Pawn f8 promote to knight is checkmate if he does that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:If you do queen d4-d8, cant black do Kg6 and get out of the trap? Yeah, I think the actual solution is promote pawn to knight, black takes with queen, then move the bishop for mate
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Pawn f8 promote to knight is checkmate if he does that. Kxf6 , so not mate Edit: nvm, I got the scenarios mixed up in my head. I think your solution works too
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:If you do queen d4-d8, cant black do Kg6 and get out of the trap? Black losing their queen at that point may as well just resign. Edit: Yeah, promoting the pawn is the answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:Yeah, I think the actual solution is promote pawn to knight, black takes with queen, then move the bishop for mate No, king flees to g8 blackmongoose posted:Kxf6 , so not mate Nope, protected by the queen on d8
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Pawn f8 promote to knight is checkmate if he does that. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Military history thread: what if the queen was black and gay?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:No, king flees to g8 Yeah I realized after I went back and looked at it, this is why you shouldn't phone post chess solutions
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Black losing their queen at that point may as well just resign. Yes, but the puzzle is checkmate in 2, not advantage in 2 or checkmate generally (which is why promoting the pawn doesn't work)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Military history thread: what if the queen was black and gay? Pretty much like this, I should think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udSv6AAdxo4
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:When I lived in Italy, the Venetian Nautical Museum had a Maiale (Pig) in the front hallway, I was always fascinated by them. quote:September 8, 1943: The new Badoglio government of Italy signed an armistice with the Allies. The Olterra was towed into Gibraltar, and the British found what had happened in it. Further attacks on Gibraltar using the new and larger replacement for the SLC (the Siluro San Bartolomeo type), and a planned raid on New York City were called off due to the Italian surrender. Operation Guido Trench_Rat fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Yes, but the puzzle is checkmate in 2, not advantage in 2 or checkmate generally (which is why promoting the pawn doesn't work) Black takes threatening bishop with black queen (only move avail), white pushes pawn and promotes to knight putting king in check. All the black kings moves are covered and queen is blocked from knight by remaining bishop. e: NM, the king can move up and left 1 to get out of check from knight. Push pawn and promote to knight putting king in check. black Queen takes white knight. White queen moves left one square putting king in check. Queen is protected, kings escape is blocked in all direction. Murgos fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:I think I'm gonna go straight-up Mobile Infantry drop ships and power armor, actually. Have it fly just above the planet's atmosphere, methinks. Have the airborne soldiers do hard drops instead of para-drops. I guess "paratrooper" would be an archaic term, but it would be kept for tradition just like how "cavalry" refers to vehicle units instead of actual horses. Drop troops are a much cooler term, and as for realism, hard sci fi people can stuff it. Plus, Mobile Infantry is crazy mobile, leaping over buildings and poo poo. Just relax and write poo poo! Also, Paras vs, Helos - helos are kind of succeptible to RPGs, 50cals and such and such. Plus, a big rear end helo convoy needs to cross a lot of space, full of enemy observers and such, and they have trouble with weather, altitude, etc. Meanwhile, you can surprise various Bumfuckistan militaries with your paras. The problem of paras, here, is trying to drop them on target and in cohesion. As far as firepower goes, you can have fast movers on call while Javelins will gently caress up any kind of bum tank that can be thrown at ya.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
nvm i'm retarded
Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Push pawn and promote to knight putting king in check. black Queen takes white knight. White queen moves left one square putting king in check. Queen is protected, kings escape is blocked in all direction. Left? That doesn't even check the king. Both the checks the queen has (down one, right one) are covered by the black knight so if the queen does those she dies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Push pawn and promote to knight putting king in check. black Queen takes white knight. White queen moves left one square putting king in check. Queen is protected, kings escape is blocked in all direction. Qc4 does not put the black King in check. nothing to seehere is clearly correct in the solutions for the puzzles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:I think I'm gonna go straight-up Mobile Infantry drop ships and power armor, actually. Have it fly just above the planet's atmosphere, methinks. Have the airborne soldiers do hard drops instead of para-drops. I guess "paratrooper" would be an archaic term, but it would be kept for tradition just like how "cavalry" refers to vehicle units instead of actual horses. If you want realism, go the Forever War route and have half your guys equipment be barely functional/have some crippling flaw that is nothing to worry about despite it being a common threat in the field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Also, Paras vs, Helos - helos are kind of succeptible to RPGs, 50cals and such and such. Plus, a big rear end helo convoy needs to cross a lot of space, full of enemy observers and such, and they have trouble with weather, altitude, etc. This was what I figured as well, it just seems that not being able to fly away again afterwards makes the circumstances where it would actually be useful, as opposed to just possible, pretty limited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:This is probably a stupid question, but has anyone ever tried to land a sizable force of troops jumping from high altitude and without static line? Is the combat weight just far too high for that sort of force when the chute finally opens? The idea of a battalion doing a HAHO insertion from many miles away sounds awesome to behold, but not useful. For SF, different ballgame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
The 82nd made a 'combat drop' during OIF into an already secured drop zone. The jump served no purpose other than to say 'hey we did it'.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:The 82nd made a 'combat drop' during OIF into an already secured drop zone. The jump served no purpose other than to say 'hey we did it'. Getting a badge is a purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
I don't want to open a can of worms, but I'm going to open a can of worms. I keep running into people in various threads on SA (TFR cold war, Paradox thread in Games, a couple others) saying things like don't start a TD doctrine derail. So, uh, what's the deal with tank destroyers and why do they bring up such heated opinions and long winded spergy arguments?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:38
|
|
Mortabis posted:I don't want to open a can of worms, but I'm going to open a can of worms. They don't, they're just something a lot of people hear about, ask questions about, and it gets tiresome for some folks to repeatedly talk about it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that it's a rule somewhere that you can't post about the VDV without linking this.
LeadSled fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I don't want to open a can of worms, but I'm going to open a can of worms. WWII US tank doctrine gets a lot of people very mad and furiously discussing some war like WWII, but fought on a featureless plain in a vacuum by individual tanks that drowns out better posting about early modern knitted nosebags.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Long story short their effectiveness was limited because the doctrine regarding their use was fundamentally flawed and made no sense. They were great when they got to fight tanks but they were almost never in the right place at the right time, and they were pretty poor against infantry (which is what most tanks are used for) compared to normal tanks. The derails come from people sperging about armour and gun velocities and other video game bullshit that has little to do with winning battles in the real world. They were intended to be held back and used as a concentrated anti-tank unit but it turned out you never really knew where the enemy tanks were and by the time you got the TD's organised and in position the situation had changed; like many things in war, it turns out having something half-assed at the right place and time is a lot better than having the perfect tool wandering around in your rear areas doing not much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
You've seen all the arguments about it in this thread? This good thread where most people are to some extent informed and put some effort into posting about such things? Now imagine seeing those arguments over and over again for years with white-noise drowning everything out. Its not bad here, but when GBS used to have a history thread...
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Eej posted:You can always go for a Halo ODST inspired drop. That was my initial thought, but then I remembered this. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Libluini posted:To be fair, I liked his books about Union-soldiers transported to another world full of carnivorous aliens, cultivating the occasionally arriving humans as meat source. The series got repetitive too, but there was at least some progress overall with the brave American soldiers building a new civilization while killing a shitload of aliens. That one was actually one William Forstchen. Who also co-wrote a book about the Nazis invading the US in 1947 with the help of Newt Gingrich.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Are they also doing resupply, casualty evacuation, and close air support over these huge ranges too? Because there was another French parachute operation in the past where they didn't quite think this stuff through and then it turns out the enemy they dropped into the middle of *did* have artillery after all! That's from Keegan's Face of Battle when he talks specifically about that. Hey Gal can correct me here but Face was pretty big in milhist historiography at the time in that it focused on men and morale and the psychological experience of battle and not sperging about flanks and shell velocity or even logistical backbone. He discusses, for instance, how the fighting in the houses at Waterloo were much more brutal than the fighting in the fields, how routs start from the back of a fight and not the front, how otherwise disciplined forces have a tendency to go absolutely slaughter happy when chasing retreating enemies, that sort of stuff. Anyway he discusses 'helping trapped comrades' as one of the great motivators: relieving Bastogne, that sort of deal, and discusses airdrops in the context of generals deliberately cultivating that idea. He explicitly lists Arnhem and Dien Bien Phu as times when that went badly awry, of course, but yeah, he basically insinuated that the French were more or less challenging their regular ground troops to pick up their game and fight north to relieve the paras.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:03
|
|
LeadSled posted:I'm pretty sure that it's a rule somewhere that you can't post about the VDV without linking this. Soaring domes of rainbow peace~
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:I think I'm gonna go straight-up Mobile Infantry drop ships and power armor, actually. Have it fly just above the planet's atmosphere, methinks. Have the airborne soldiers do hard drops instead of para-drops. I guess "paratrooper" would be an archaic term, but it would be kept for tradition just like how "cavalry" refers to vehicle units instead of actual horses. Unless your power armor is made of magic, this will never work. In order to have your guys not turn to goo inside their suits, you're going to need to slow down somehow. Propulsive landing would work, but you're going to need to it over a long period of time to spread the g-load, and then your guys are going to be just as vulnerable to counter fire in the period where they're decelerating to safe speeds, and in very complicated drop pods to boot. You might as well just run some sort of SEAD mission from orbit, and then land troops in more conventional landing craft, assuming you need to at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:56
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:Soaring domes of rainbow peace~ Great Russia has never lacked Irony.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:57
|
|
