Any chance for Air Assault in the future?

[Peter Cairns]

MikeyD,

But looked at the other way 9 years is almost exactly 3,300 days so that is only 1 a day, and how many of the 3,300 were to hostile ground fire as opposed to mechanical failure, collision or even destroyed on the ground.

Divide 3,300 in to 7 million hours and you get one lost every 2,000 flying hours. Working a 40 hr week with two weeks holiday you'd have a survival time of a year.

Peter.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

Sure, against a scattered insurgent force with few guided shoulder-launched SAMs. When your opponent has only AK-47s and RPG-7s to oppose you, Air Assault can make sense in certain situations.

But how many do you think would be planned in the "Hot" phase of a Syrian invasion? The Syrians have shoulder-launched SAMs coming out the yin-yang. True, many are older SA-7s and the like, but even these are effective enough against large, slow and low targets like a helicopter coming in for an insertion.

I can see the possibility of a large "air bridge"-type operation, where a signficiant ground force is vertically inserted somewhere deep inside Syria, but out of view of any Syrian forces. They did this in GWI, so I don't see why they couldn't in the CM:SF hypothetical. But hot insertions in the face of any significant ground opposition I find extremely unlikely. Even the venerable SA-7 has a range of over 3km against a target close to the ground. And the Syrians have a fair number of the much more capable SA-16 and the like.

Nevertheless, I'd love to see it in the game. But I can see how the additional amount of coding would be quite considerable -- you'd need to model all those shoulder-launched SAMs, for one thing. And they're not in the game at all at this point. And overall, there's a long list of other stuff I'd rather see first. On-map mortars, water, arty-delivered smoke, fortified buildings, bridges, etc. . .

Cheers,

YD

[vincere]

Without dobt helicoptors are vulnerable; but their qualities are still vitally important that they still, at times, provide close support even above urban areas and make hot-ish landings for casevac.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

Sure, against a scattered insurgent force with few guided shoulder-launched SAMs. When your opponent has only AK-47s and RPG-7s to oppose you, Air Assault can make sense in certain situations.

But how many do you think would be planned in the "Hot" phase of a Syrian invasion? The Syrians have shoulder-launched SAMs coming out the yin-yang. True, many are older SA-7s and the like, but even these are effective enough against large, slow and low targets like a helicopter coming in for an insertion.

I can see the possibility of a large "air bridge"-type operation, where a signficiant ground force is vertically inserted somewhere deep inside Syria, but out of view of any Syrian forces. They did this in GWI, so I don't see why they couldn't in the CM:SF hypothetical. But hot insertions in the face of any significant ground opposition I find extremely unlikely. Even the venerable SA-7 has a range of over 3km against a target close to the ground. And the Syrians have a fair number of the much more capable SA-16 and the like.

Nevertheless, I'd love to see it in the game. But I can see how the additional amount of coding would be quite considerable -- you'd need to model all those shoulder-launched SAMs, for one thing. And they're not in the game at all at this point. And overall, there's a long list of other stuff I'd rather see first. On-map mortars, water, arty-delivered smoke, fortified buildings, bridges, etc. . .

Cheers,

YD </font>

True, I was not arguing the point with MikeyD, just clarifying. As I said above, I can understand. Main reason for the initial inquiry was working on a Iraqi scenario.

[gibsonm]

Sure but air assaults are totally different to the classic "static line" jump which is what I thought people were after with the request for a parachute "doo dad" to scatter about a drop zone.

And a C-17 flying low, straight and level would make an even better high value target for a volley of SA-7 (and all the other GBAD that's out there - SA-16, ZSU-23/4, etc.).

[Sequoia]

For the parachute do-dad, just to clarify, I meant only for the WWII game. If they really wanted to get fancy, they could add an unmovable glider on the ground.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Sure but air assaults are totally different to the classic "static line" jump which is what I thought people were after with the request for a parachute "doo dad" to scatter about a drop zone.

And a C-17 flying low, straight and level would make an even better high value target for a volley of SA-7 (and all the other GBAD that's out there - SA-16, ZSU-23/4, etc.).

Have you ever watched a jump? Not like..one C-130 or C-17..but like..a company or battalion all jumping at once?

It's awe-inspiring. It's better when you're amongst them..those 10 seconds from exit to chute deployment are amazing.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm:

Sure but air assaults are totally different to the classic "static line" jump which is what I thought people were after with the request for a parachute "doo dad" to scatter about a drop zone.

And a C-17 flying low, straight and level would make an even better high value target for a volley of SA-7 (and all the other GBAD that's out there - SA-16, ZSU-23/4, etc.).

Have you ever watched a jump? Not like..one C-130 or C-17..but like..a company or battalion all jumping at once?

It's awe-inspiring. It's better when you're amongst them..those 10 seconds from exit to chute deployment are amazing. </font>Last jump I did before I got out was a night jump in a low ceiling; the planes were just barely inside the clouds at 800 feet, and when I landed (crashed) and looked up, all I could see was balls of roaring light moving through the clouds with parachutes falling from them.

Wish I had brought a camera.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm:

Sure but air assaults are totally different to the classic "static line" jump which is what I thought people were after with the request for a parachute "doo dad" to scatter about a drop zone.

And a C-17 flying low, straight and level would make an even better high value target for a volley of SA-7 (and all the other GBAD that's out there - SA-16, ZSU-23/4, etc.).

Have you ever watched a jump? Not like..one C-130 or C-17..but like..a company or battalion all jumping at once?

It's awe-inspiring. It's better when you're amongst them..those 10 seconds from exit to chute deployment are amazing. </font>

[Clavicula_Nox]

Last jump I did before I got out was a night jump in a low ceiling; the planes were just barely inside the clouds at 800 feet, and when I landed (crashed) and looked up, all I could see was balls of roaring light moving through the clouds with parachutes falling from them.

Nothing like a night jump with full combat, mass tac.

Originally posted by gibsonm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm:

Sure but air assaults are totally different to the classic "static line" jump which is what I thought people were after with the request for a parachute "doo dad" to scatter about a drop zone.

And a C-17 flying low, straight and level would make an even better high value target for a volley of SA-7 (and all the other GBAD that's out there - SA-16, ZSU-23/4, etc.).

Have you ever watched a jump? Not like..one C-130 or C-17..but like..a company or battalion all jumping at once?

It's awe-inspiring. It's better when you're amongst them..those 10 seconds from exit to chute deployment are amazing. </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

Of course being on the LZ looses all its appeal when the RTO's lowering line breaks and a ruck with SINCGARS and extra batteries and all his crap comes flying at your head!

I prefer sliding down a rope or even hanging under a chopper to leaping out of a perfectly good airplane.

[Huntarr]

HA! too funny, SgtM

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:

Of course being on the LZ looses all its appeal when the RTO's lowering line breaks and a ruck with SINCGARS and extra batteries and all his crap comes flying at your head!

I prefer sliding down a rope or even hanging under a chopper to leaping out of a perfectly good airplane.

Blasphemy!

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

HA! too funny, SgtM

... snip ...

Bah! Since when did they use ALICE packs? I'd imagine something along of the lines of one of those gourmet coffee makers bolted to the side...

[Clavicula_Nox]

Saying the Air Force uses(d) ALICE packs is like saying they take their M16A2s out of those carrying cases while deployed.

[MikeyD]

Is Huntarr actually getting funnier or am I simply getting used to him? A couple times this week I laughed out loud (alone in my work cubicle) when I unexpectedly scrolled down to one of his cartoons. That's something when even a middle-aged civvie gets the punchline! :cool:

[Huntarr]

awwww MikeyD love you man ..... remember just because we're holding hands doesn't mean we're gonna be takin long warm showers together till the wee hours of the morning.

I'm simply inspired by what everyone else writes in their threads, their the genius.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

that just confirms my opinion that marines are nuts...I bet they are enjoying being dangled from a rope hundreds of feet up in the air!

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Definitely a no-go on simulating the actual "dropping" part of airborne forces. Way too much effort needed to get those things to work. We're not even going to touch this with a 10' pole for WW2, just like we didn't for CMx1.

within the scope portrayed by CM, whether in a modern, ww2 or Vietnam game (hint, hint), troops can be already on the board at the beginning of the scenario, no need to show the actual landing...although it would be nice to see...

[Huntarr]

Sgt, nuts maybe but we were born for this s@#$

[SgtMuhammed]

You need a bunch of German farmers staring up at you with a WTF look on their faces.

It is a lot of fun though.

[ChrisND]

The baby in the back looks like a cyclops.

[Sgt Joch]

I know the Corps is thrifty, but can't they afford one rope per man?

[SgtMuhammed]

That's all the Navy will give them.

[Clavicula_Nox]

The Army isn't too keen on giving them much, either. Besides, SPIES is ours.