firebugs

Air-drop ammunition

18 posts in this topic

I was thinking today that it would be cool to put parachute-drop ammunition from the Ju52's and C47's.  

 

For example, have 5 canisters (A bridge too far comes to mind) act like bombs in the Ju52 pilot's position that he can drop along with the troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this idea, however, when was the last time you expended all your para ammo before dying?

( "The case for the Prosecution rests, M'lud" )  <grin>

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is for satchels on FB busts, or resupplying units far out if you're a good enough aim, regardless of para or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a perfectly crap idea, pardon my French. It'd take us back to the days when endless lists of sappers meant no fb was safe, and an attack with perhaps 70 players involved could be forestalled by one sneaky bastage. A Very very very bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, fidd said:

That is a perfectly crap idea, pardon my French. It'd take us back to the days when endless lists of sappers meant no fb was safe, and an attack with perhaps 70 players involved could be forestalled by one sneaky bastage. A Very very very bad idea.

That is of course providing the paras can actually find the canisters the plane dropped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fidd said:

That is a perfectly crap idea, pardon my French. It'd take us back to the days when endless lists of sappers meant no fb was safe, and an attack with perhaps 70 players involved could be forestalled by one sneaky bastage. A Very very very bad idea.

If supply drop crate is able to be destroyed, then it shouldnt be a problem.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen, I'm with a 100% on supply-chutes for paras, however, absolutely NOT for this particular purpose, which is completely counter to practically everyone's interests.  It's a silly way for an attack to be hamstrung. At least with the current method, if the attackers don't dominate the ground around at least half the town, there's a chance a truck can get out and drop the FB. With what you're suggesting, they could have it stitched-up tighter than a gnat's sphincter and it'd still get dropped. Just daft. More "specials needs" than "special ops"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider, there are 1 or 2 satchels max per infantryman in a para unit.  So an FB bust would require absolutely nobody guarding and quite a bit of time, or a pretty substantial amount of teamwork.

 

One could argue invisibly transporting an entire brigade of infantry/supplies via one truck is pretty garbage.  I seriously doubt a parachuting ammo canister is going to be the end of FB's as we know them.  In my original context, I was thinking about empty FB's, but it applies to pretty much all applications of para units, towns without supply lines, etc...  Mostly a nifty little addition that won't have a huge impact on the game either way.  I think you're reaction is a lot overblown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've willfully overlooked the problems this would cause the great majority of players in the great majority of cases.

That said, I think "canisters" have some merit. I'd like to see them dropped alongside paras, whereafter if a single paratrooper visits 3 in turn, the center of the triangle formed forms an FMS for ground-spawnage of paras. If more that one para visits 3 c annisters, then you have more than one FMS in a similar area. The only wrinkle is that whilst I like this idea, I really don't want to see FB's being dropped during attacks on a routine basis which is exactly what it would lead to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said anything about FMS spawning.  If Para FMS is going to happen I think it should be via a towed glider that remains visible after the FMS is established.

The canisters are literally no different in principle than if someone coasts a truck in from the next town over with an engineer on board (and DOESN'T set up a FMS), whereby the engineers resupply at the truck (or if the truck leaves an ammo crate and despawns) in terms of FB's getting rooted from behind attack fronts.  Adding an ammo canister to the drop zone is by FAR not going to cause the "great majority" of para missions to be FB busts of active attacks.  

 

The difference is that the para mission would require more effort and more time because:

A) Paras don't have 4 satchels each.  To get the same HE effect on the FB requires 4x the personnel or 4x the time of 1 engineer. (I'm not up to date on what does what, but para riflemen have 1 HE and 1 HEAT, so those "4x"s could be "2x" if HEAT satchels damage FB's the same)

B ) the ammo can't be moved from where it's dropped, so if it's 800m from the drop zone to the target, that's a mile round trip to resupply that 1 or 2 satchel(s)

C) It's either going to take a massive number of paras to blow an FB in 1 shot (same as now), or slightly less than massive number of them if they can re-arm (assuming they live through the first assault), OR an entirely defenseless, empty FB, which is not the defender's fault if the attacker can't defend his stuff.

It's ridiculous to say an ammo canister is going to ruin even a minority of attacks because of having the FB blown out from under them.

 

Busting EMPTY Fb's is a sidebar conversation. Busting guarded FB's would be 99.8% as hopeless as it currently is.  There's a laundry list of more applicable scenarios, namely defending towns with no garrison/ground brigade, attacking large cities or towns with isolated CP's, etc...  Where paras are one of the main forces present.   Much more than replenishing a HE satchel, you're going to see mortarmen, lmg's, ATR's, etc... with a little more wind, IF they can get to the canister (not a trivial IF).  

 

There's no willful disregard.  I've thought about it much more than I should have and still can't come to anywhere near the conclusion you have.  The more I think about it the more I wonder if you're not just trolling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think where we differ is that I see any game mechanic that compels protracted "guarding" is something to be strenuously avoided. I feel as strongly about the ammo-crate/coasting truck (from a different town) as I do about the suggestion that paras be able to rearm with satchels at or near an fb, for precisely the same reason, that they both compel FB guarding. Virtually no-one enjoys doing it, so why on earth would you want to introduce yet another method of attacking FB's that would increase the number of failed attacks?

Not trolling in the least, I just think it, (and the current relative ease of dropping FB's) is a manifestly bad idea. I oppose on principle, anything that adds "guard duty", or provides a back-door method by a small band of players to forestall an attack in progress by dozens, even hundreds of players. If I had my way no linked FB would be destroyable once an AO was placed, unless a counter AO was placed. This would lead to some FB's being invulnerable and some not, but it shouldn't be beyond the wit of CRS to code it so tbat which are which were obvious on the map.I agree with you about glider FMS's, nothing would please me more as an ex-glider pilot myself, although with the caveat that their use not materially add to "guard duties" (EDIT: "at FB's") ; I also think that their capacity, in terms of total troops spawnable should be finite and limited to roughly that of a depot, but not resupplying. (I feel the same about FMS's) 

Edited by fidd
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 8:44 AM, fidd said:

I think you've willfully overlooked the problems this would cause the great majority of players in the great majority of cases.

That said, I think "canisters" have some merit. I'd like to see them dropped alongside paras, whereafter if a single paratrooper visits 3 in turn, the center of the triangle formed forms an FMS for ground-spawnage of paras. If more that one para visits 3 c annisters, then you have more than one FMS in a similar area. The only wrinkle is that whilst I like this idea, I really don't want to see FB's being dropped during attacks on a routine basis which is exactly what it would lead to.

German canisters...improved design, used first for Crete. Remember that for most of their jump-usage period, German paratroops jumped with a sidearm and a knife, because the rate of descent resulting from their small-diameter, fast-fall chutes resulted in a tactically disabling injury rate (ankle/knee/leg breakages) when they jumped with primary weapons and ammo. So, German troopers had to get to a canister before they could fight.  FJ003-07L.jpg

200pounds.jpg

The crush cylinder is down, the chute pack is up:

700kg.jpg

Canisters on Crete:

FJ20A1.jpg

Fallshirmjagerdropcanisterresizedpi.jpg

cretecart.jpg

Every canister was marked with the squad it belonged to. A given stick of troopers might have three or four canisters. It was critically important that they know which one to find and open first.

Troopers arriving at the plane would pack their own canister with their personal weapons and gear just before boarding. 

crete_german_loading.jpg

First German design, used in Norway and Netherlands. No impact cushion or crush structure resulted in lots of broken weapons.

bettercontainer.jpg

paracontainer.jpg

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A French canister. Leather construction with horsehair impact pads. 

French1940container_with_MG.jpg

This canister would appropriately be compared to the German uncushioned one shown above. At the start of WWII, the French had the most advanced paratroop equipment and technology in the world. They however were far behind in tactical doctrine and readiness to use it. Of course, French development stopped in 1940.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mid- to late-war British canister:

restoredBritcle13yj.jpg

A similar though custom-configured canister to carry a British "Welbike" paratrooper motorscooter. Very effective mobility tool, as long as you had the tactical discipline to not ride it into an ambush, or otherwise beyond your tactical knowledge of enemy locations. 

BritWelbike.jpg

f6da2ac31e93aa502a4f392463c57c2e--hollan

Early to mid war British use of various sizes of wicker carriers:

Whicker-panniers-740x446.jpg

Whicker-Basket-air-despatch-740x585.jpg

tumblr_ow3xpoTpC11rwiivfo1_500.jpg

In 1940, the British were substantially behind in both paratroop tactical doctrine and paratroop equipment. They had nothing ready to go in 1940; the game providing them with troopers for T0 is unrealistic. They worked in 1941-42 to catch up.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

German troops loading up for Crete. Note no primary weapons, grenades, MG ammo belts, bags with mortar rounds...none of the heavy stuff that equipped infantrymen carry into combat.

crete_german_para2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do i get the feeling this is something that will fall out of the sky and kill me rather than help me in any way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the British and Germans rapidly developed bomb-shackle canister mounts for delivery by planes better equipped to survive in not-entirely-friendly airspace than their trooper-drop aircraft:

Container-e1417995110959-740x582.jpg

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.