Jump troops

[McPerth]

After reviewing those threads Drop / Jump Troopers source material and Drop Capsules about jump troops and capsules, I'm wondering if jump capsules are really used in Traveller.

I know drop capsules are cool, and Starship Troopers is an entertaining book, but on it there's no counter-gravity, while in Traveller counter-gravity is usual tech.

I envision jump troops in Traveller assuming the role of WWII paratroopers, jumping (along with many dumies to fool defenses, as Heinlen described) in combat armor or battledress and with grav belts, instead of th drop capsules, to take a beachhead (spacehead?) and key points for the reinforcement troops to land and keep with the planet invasión, while grav armor and APC units take the role of WWII glider troops for more precision and support equipment landing.

Have drop capsules any advantage that will keep them in use in a grav dominated environement?

 

[HG_B]

Grag belt speed is pretty slow. Coming all the way from low orbit would make them nice targets for laser fire or, even high tech flak type weaponry.

 

[McPerth]

Well, that's only true if you have your grav belt on all the way down. Perhaps my comparison with WWII paratroopers was confusing, as I thought more in strategic comparison than in tactic one. The kind of jump I envision is more like HALO jump, turning on the grav belt at the lowest safe altitude, so lowering the time under flak fire.

IMHO, this, coupled with the dummies and fighters straffing those same flak batteries (after all, if you don't have orbital/interface supremacy the invasión is suicide anyway) would diminish the flak efficacy quite a lot.

 

[HG_B]

IMHO, this, coupled with the dummies and fighters straffing those same flak batteries (after all, if you don't have orbital/interface supremacy the invasión is suicide anyway) would diminish the flak efficacy quite a lot.

If you are already putting fighters down on the deck might as well land the troops via hypersonic, armoured landing craft . Much faster and safer than free falling men.

In other words, no reason for jump troops in mass except for the kewl factor.

 

[McPerth]

If you are already putting fighters down on the deck might as well land the troops via hypersonic, armoured landing craft . Much faster and safer than free falling men.

Agreed. I've already told about some of the troops descending in grav APCs. In any case, I'm not sure it would be quicker, as most those crafts (and even more if using shuttles) probably don't use free-fall in (more or less) straight line. And about safety, any kill would mean a squad (or more) killed, while in jump troops is one man killed (hence my comparison with glider troops, as, if the glider was destroyed, you lost all men aboard)

In other words, no reason for jump troops in mass except for the kewl factor.

There may be other factors (lack of cargo space, the augmented kills if a vehicle is hit, as told above, Budget, etc).

As an aside, IIRC, among all jump troops in IE and FFW, the only armored ones (and so assumed to land in vehicles) are the grav cavalry battalions from the 4518 regiment, all the rest being lift infantry.

 

[rancke]

Have drop capsules any advantage that will keep them in use in a grav dominated environement?

Evidently they do since they are still in use after 3000 years and more of grav technology.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

Evidently they do since they are still in use after 3000 years and more of grav technology.

Not so evidently, if you have not a single one to cite, aside from them being in canon (which I agree, at least they are cited in the description of the 6^th battalion of the 4518, both in JTAS 9 page 19 and SMC).

 

[Carlobrand]

...
Have drop capsules any advantage that will keep them in use in a grav dominated environement?

I'd say yes: speed of descent, reduced vulnerability to counterattack. Send a boat down, the boat gets hit, you lose everyone aboard. Send a platoon down, spread out, there's 40-some separate targets for the enemy to worry about - not to mention the little decoys - and they're all smaller targets than the boat, and collectively they're all cheaper than the boat. (I think; I forgot what source talks about cost.) Send 'em down in capsules and with grav belts, the capsules pop at low altitude and your platoon is making its way to objectives before the ground forces can say two words about it.

 

[rancke]

Not so evidently, if you have not a single one to cite, aside from them being in canon (which I agree, at least they are cited in the description of the 6^th battalion of the 4518, both in JTAS 9 page 19 and SMC).

If you're talking about jump troops, I most certainly do have evidence. Every marine unit is a jump unit, is it not? If you're talking about jump troops using drop capsules, you have a better argument, but there is still some evidence of drop capsules. There's the Kinunir, and there is, I believe, an article about drop capsules in one of the TDs.


Hans

 

[aramis]

If you're talking about jump troops, I most certainly do have evidence. Every marine unit is a jump unit, is it not? If you're talking about jump troops using drop capsules, you have a better argument, but there is still some evidence of drop capsules. There's the Kinunir, and there is, I believe, an article about drop capsules in one of the TDs.


Hans

No. FFW notes that jump troops can land. It does not extend this to marines, and marine units are not marked as jump troops. Only 1 of 46 Battalions is marked as Jump Troops. (None of the Marines in Invasion Earth are so marked.)

Multiple bits of explicit rules canon counter Loren's JTAS article.

 

[Vladika]

I would think Drop Capsules would be necessary:

Grave belt HALO attempted = burning up on atmospheric entry.

Grave belt decent = To much time coming down; vulnerable to everything from FLAK to small arms.

GCarrier = Air Raft for time to orbit. Wouldn't it be the same for coming down without burning up on atmospheric entry? If so it is vulnerable to FLAK.

Small-craft atmospheric entry is just fine as to speed but in a "Hot LZ" it is subject to loss of both craft and all aboard.

Drop Capsules aren't the end all or be all but depending on the mission parameters they have their place, as do other methods, mission depending.

Do Drop Capsules exist? Logically: Yes. By OTU Canon: Yes. In YTU: Up to you...

 

[Cryton]

Grave belt HALO attempted = burning up on atmospheric entry.

Did you miss this by chance? there's mention in the article of personal heat shield jump technology...

http://www.space.com/17923-supersonic-skydive-space-jump-explained-infographic.html

If anything Grav Belt from orbit would take as long as an Air/Raft from orbit.

 

[Vladika]

Did you miss this by chance? there's mention in the article of personal heat shield jump technology...

http://www.space.com/17923-supersonic-skydive-space-jump-explained-infographic.html

Didn't miss it BUT 36,000 meters isn't anywhere near atmospheric entry.

If anything Grav Belt from orbit would take as long as an Air/Raft from orbit.

Agreed. The discussion from an earlier poster was for a HALO jump from orbit if I understood his intent correctly.

I did cover both possibilities though:

Grave belt HALO attempted = burning up on atmospheric entry.

Grave belt decent = To much time coming down; vulnerable to everything from FLAK to small arms.

 

[aramis]

GCarrier = Air Raft for time to orbit. Wouldn't it be the same for coming down without burning up on atmospheric entry? If so it is vulnerable to FLAK.

I think not...

The SS1/WK showed that atmospheric reentry need not be a fireball. It does require managing airspeed and shedding velocity to fall into atmosphere at a low relative airspeed.

The G-Carrier is, as drawn, fairly aerodynamic. It can dive in to the limits of its airframe speed. It pulls fewer terminal G's and more drag than a drop capsule, so it spends longer entering, but the air/raft, open as it is, has much more vulnerability to wind turbulence.

Provided it's not shedding orbital velocity by friction, (and why would it, with gravitic drives,) it's only dealing with the friction of its airspeed.

Mind you, ISS orbits at about 350km, and the Karman line is about 100km; effects are noticable at between 100 and 150 km...

So call even civil ones capable of landing in about 45 minutes from 150km suborbital space... with a skilled, capable, and attentive pilot.

 

[Vladika]

...capable of landing in about 45 minutes from 150km suborbital space... with a skilled, capable, and attentive pilot.

I still think that is an abundant time to destroy it before landing.

 

[Cryton]

Didn't miss it BUT 36,000 meters isn't anywhere near atmospheric entry.

Guess you did miss it. I was talking about the blurb on the page where it talks about Jumping from orbit, and that since the '60s, General Electric has proposed that an astronaut stranded in orbit could survive a fiery return through the atmosphere with nothing but a space suit and a personal heat shield shell packed with foam insulation.

Of course it also mentions how neither NASA nor the US Air Force wants to test the technology.

I also believe that these proposals and technologies were the base for the personal re-entry kits from JTAS, and the basis for the Drop Capsules, as well as having been used IIRC, in several Science Fiction novels.

~Rich

 

[rancke]

No. FFW notes that jump troops can land. It does not extend this to marines, and marine units are not marked as jump troops. Only 1 of 46 Battalions is marked as Jump Troops. (None of the Marines in Invasion Earth are so marked.)

That's not what McPerth told me:

In both FFW and IE all marines are jump trops (as said, 45 battalions).

About army, there are a total of 3930 battalions (among Imperial and Colonial), of which 100 (about 2.5%) are jump troops.

About mercenary, there are in total 65 battalions, of wich 5 (about 7.7%) are jump troops.

(Emphasis mine).

Multiple bits of explicit rules canon counter Loren's JTAS article.

What rules are invalidated by Loren's exposition about Imperial Marines in the OTU setting?


Hans

 

[Vladika]

Guess you did miss it. I was talking about the blurb on the page where it talks about Jumping from orbit, and that since the '60s, General Electric has proposed that an astronaut stranded in orbit could survive a fiery return through the atmosphere with nothing but a space suit and a personal heat shield shell packed with foam insulation.

Of course it also mentions how neither NASA nor the US Air Force wants to test the technology.

I also believe that these proposals and technologies were the base for the personal re-entry kits from JTAS, and the basis for the Drop Capsules, as well as having been used IIRC, in several Science Fiction novels.

~Rich

Thanks, I'll re-read it.

In addition to "neither NASA nor the US Air Force wants to test the technology" they sure didn't try it for either Space Shuttles that failed. At least in the Challenger accident it might have saved a few lives. (IIRC some of those astronauts were alive on the way down according to autopsies.)

Being an engineer I guess I prefer tested technology...Where is this generations Chuck Yeager?

 

[Cryton]

Thanks, I'll re-read it.

In addition to "neither NASA nor the US Air Force wants to test the technology" they sure didn't try it for either Space Shuttles that failed. At least in the Challenger accident it might have saved a few lives. (IIRC some of those astronauts were alive on the way down according to autopsies.)

Being an engineer I guess I prefer tested technology...Where is this generations Chuck Yeager?

The CT rules are in JTAS 11, pg 16-20. If that helps any.

~Rich

 

[Vladika]

The CT rules are in JTAS 11, pg 16-20. If that helps any.

~Rich

I remember that! Pretty cool if it would work. I can see the GE proposal for an astronaut "stranded in Earth orbit " (certain death) but really, would you want to be the first guy to test it?