Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 19:05:10 GMT
> I think you're right. The question is would the military buy the rigging gear
> for a specialized (rigged) pilot? It does have the advantages that you listed.
> I don't know how many crew members there would be. Since there's only one
> weapon, the crew may consist of driver and commander. Another thing that
> has to be considered is incedental duties (guard duty, kp, maintenance).
> That's one of the main considerations in the installation of auto-loaders
> for tank main guns. The US has a loader crew position. The former Soviets
> don't.

When you look at the millions it costs to train a fighter pilot, Y300,000
before bulk government discount is peanuts for the combat edge a Level 3
rig provides.

For MBTs, I think the commander-gunner-driver system is going to stay:
the commander needs to be head-out looking for threats, not peering through
a x12 scope. The gunner engages what he's told to, and the driver has the
full-time job of maximising cover while still keeping good fire positions.

Loading the main gun is a contentious issue: I would prefer having four men
to three, simply because of the long periods spent parked or in defence:
three men for guard is okay, two is trouble. And if the commander is off at
an O-group and the gunner is trying to scrounge more HESH rounds, the
poor driver has all the maintenance to do and the security of the tank to
ensure all on his lonesome.

Besides, the Russian autoloaders have a habit of shoving the gunner's arm
into the main gun, then closing the breech with hydraulically-assisted
force. Crunch.

Gurth's argument re. casualties is also spot on: having driver and commander
rigged, at least, provides redundancy in the case of casualties. The other
crew member(s) would at least have datajacks: again, the cost is trivial
compared to the benefits.

In my game the military makes extensive use of cybernetics, to bridge their
numbers gap. Considering the effect four cybertroops can have on a night
infiltration into a battalion position (NVA sappers squared) they need to.

> I think that they would probably have riggers for crew. Banshees are
> scouting vehicles, not infantry carriers. Any extra scouts carried
> would probably be standard troops. I can't see the military rigging
> all of their troops. It would be too expensive.

Expensive compared to what? You could put some really good 'ware (Boosted III,
cybereyes, smartlink) into a soldier for Y100,000 before the bulk discount
for wiring up a battalion at a time. If that means you need fewer troops, that
amounts to a *big* saving overall in salaries, training, food, vehicles...
Also it greatly increases their chance of surviving: vital to politicians :-)

If the enemy is non-cybered, you *own* the night. If they are wired up then
you had better be too...

> I don't think you'd use a Banshee to carry out covert insertions of special
> forces types. It would be like using a M3 scout vehicle to insert Rangers.
> Not very subtle. :)

Given the Banshee's speed you might: do a LAPES-type drop out of the back
so nobody's sure where the troops landed, if at all. The speed does change
the equation.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 2
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 12:03:20 +0200
>Expensive compared to what? You could put some really good 'ware (Boosted III,
>cybereyes, smartlink) into a soldier for Y100,000 before the bulk discount
>for wiring up a battalion at a time. If that means you need fewer troops, that
>amounts to a *big* saving overall in salaries, training, food, vehicles...
>Also it greatly increases their chance of surviving: vital to politicians :-)

Apart from humanitarian and/or political concerns, keeping soldiers alive
also reduces costs further because you don't have to train new soldiers to
replace the ones that got killed.

>If the enemy is non-cybered, you *own* the night. If they are wired up then
>you had better be too...

I don't think that is necessarily true. Loads of wars have been won by the
side that was less well-equipped than the other, because they believed in
what they were doing while the others weren't... Cyber can and will make a
difference, but I don't think that just _having_ cyber is enough to make you
win a war.

>Given the Banshee's speed you might: do a LAPES-type drop out of the back
>so nobody's sure where the troops landed, if at all. The speed does change
>the equation.

So you say use a Banshee for the things you today use helicopters for.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
No one wants you when you lose
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 3
From: WILLIAM FRIERSON <will1am@*****.ASU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 01:15:29 -0700
Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK (Paul Jonathan Adam) wrote:

>When you look at the millions it costs to train a fighter pilot, Y300,000
>before bulk government discount is peanuts for the combat edge a Level 3
>rig provides.

Yeah, but the scary part is that the military uses a low-bid system. And
they tend to be behind the development cycle. Procurement is always
behind the technology curve, at least when you start getting down to
average tank driver. Pilots would get the rigging gear, I'm certain.
That's the premise behind some of the earliest "cyberpunk" stories
by Gibson and others.

[SNIP] [Much good stuff about crewing tanks]

I concur with the crew staying at 4. That's pretty much a standard among
NATO armies. And there are never enough people for guard duty, especially
in the winter at 02:30 in some West German forest :).

>Besides, the Russian autoloaders have a habit of shoving the gunner's arm
>into the main gun, then closing the breech with hydraulically-assisted
>force. Crunch.

The Russians have a whole different philosophy concerning how their units
fight. They pretty much use them like bullets, so the 3 man crew allows
them to field more tanks per unit. They don't worry about the incidentals
that the western armies do.

>Gurth's argument re. casualties is also spot on: having driver and commander
>rigged, at least, provides redundancy in the case of casualties. The other
>crew member(s) would at least have datajacks: again, the cost is trivial
>compared to the benefits.
>
>In my game the military makes extensive use of cybernetics, to bridge their
>numbers gap. Considering the effect four cybertroops can have on a night
>infiltration into a battalion position (NVA sappers squared) they need to.

Yeah, the datajack would be standard, but I don't know about full rigging
for every mechanized/armor trooper.

I tend to think of the militaries of SR as small, elite forces. The tip of
the spear type. Special Operations and small rapid deployment forces,
with armored brigades rather than divisions. The policies will determine
the force levels, but I think the large armies of the Cold War are a
thing of the past.

>Expensive compared to what? You could put some really good 'ware (Boosted III,
>cybereyes, smartlink) into a soldier for Y100,000 before the bulk discount
>for wiring up a battalion at a time. If that means you need fewer troops, that
>amounts to a *big* saving overall in salaries, training, food, vehicles...
>Also it greatly increases their chance of surviving: vital to politicians :-)

Of course, this would mean that enlistment lengths would increase greatly.
And they might disable the cyberware on termination of service. They don't
let you leave with wepaons and gear now, so I doubt they'd let you leave
with any really hot cyberware.

>If the enemy is non-cybered, you *own* the night. If they are wired up then
>you had better be too...

Well, there's also the inherent inertia of large bureaucracies (like armies)
to be overcome. The SAS and SF would probably love to get advantages like
that (if _they_ didn't think that it was a temperamental, never before tried
piece of hardware that was going to leave them high and dry when the balloon
goes up). It would take awhile before it became standard enough for all
soldiers to get chromed upon enlistment.

(For a good read about chromed soldiers and their problems try _Cobra_ by
Timothy Zahn. There's a good lesson of how society feels about having these
highly trained and enhanced guerilla fighters running around with abilities
intact).

>Given the Banshee's speed you might: do a LAPES-type drop out of the back
>so nobody's sure where the troops landed, if at all. The speed does change
>the equation.

The Banshee doesn't have that much room. And I think that I envision the
Banshee a little differently than everyone else does :). But that method
is used by the USMC with OV-10 Broncos. The plane flies at treetop level
occasionally climbing up steeply. The Marines fall out of the back with
specially rigged parachutes, that open immediately (no reserve chute).
The OV-10 does this pop-up several times during it's flight, so the exact
location of the drop is not known.

Later

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Frierson Internet: WILL1AM@*****.asu.edu
Message no. 4
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 08:17:16 BST
Military ewxperiments is probably half the reason that VCR's are a lot
less expensive than regular wires, but just as invasive (the other being
that you don;t ahve to reinforce (?) the body to surive such great forces).


Wow, being dropped out of the back of a screaming thunder-bird, perhaps
confusing to the enemy, but you better be a hard-ass to survive the shock
of hitting the gorund :-)

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 5
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 19:28:56 GMT
> Military ewxperiments is probably half the reason that VCR's are a lot
> less expensive than regular wires, but just as invasive (the other being
> that you don;t ahve to reinforce (?) the body to surive such great forces).

Yeah, I wonder if a VCR gives you increased G-tolerance? After all, a lot
of your sensor data is now coming in electronically, so blacking out isn't
so severe.

> Wow, being dropped out of the back of a screaming thunder-bird, perhaps
> confusing to the enemy, but you better be a hard-ass to survive the shock
> of hitting the gorund :-)

LAPES means you get a parachute, you dope :-) Low Altitute Parachute
Extraction System. Stream the 'chute out the back of the Banshee and the
drag just yanks you out, then you come down normally. You see C-130s do it
to drop pallets of supplies at virtually zero feet.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 6
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 19:00:00 GMT
In message <199506131002.AA01392@***.xs4all.nl> Gurth writes:
> >If the enemy is non-cybered, you *own* the night. If they are wired up then
> >you had better be too...
>
> I don't think that is necessarily true. Loads of wars have been won by the
> side that was less well-equipped than the other, because they believed in
> what they were doing while the others weren't... Cyber can and will make a
> difference, but I don't think that just _having_ cyber is enough to make you
> win a war.

It's rather more a case of the Gulf War than Vietnam. Guerilla warfare will
still favour whoever secures popular support, with armament coming a distant
second in importance.

In a stand-up shooting war, though, non-cybered troops are slow and blind,
especially at night, compared to cybertroops. That is the effect.

And a guerilla war of a few companies of cybertroops against the Russian
Army could be real fun.
Hey - I think I just came up with a run! :-)

> >Given the Banshee's speed you might: do a LAPES-type drop out of the back
> >so nobody's sure where the troops landed, if at all. The speed does change
> >the equation.
>
> So you say use a Banshee for the things you today use helicopters for.

Yes and no. I see Banshees as being as protected as helicopters: able to
resist weapons without too much damage, not ignore them. For chrissakes
they *fly*! That limits the armour and weapons they can carry. Their speed
makes them valuable scout and light-attack assets: I think the Banshee is
to the 2050s what the Mil-24 Hind was to Afghanistan. Not invulnerable, but
very few people have the weapons to take one out.

You wouldn't use Banshees as APCs, but you might (copying Russian Hind tactics)
drop your four troops to sweep along difficult terrain: if they make contact
they take cover and cue the Banshee onto the targets. And it would be a good
way to insert or retrieve small teams.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 7
From: Jason Ustica <usticaj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 15:02:25 -0700
On Wed, 14 Jun 1995, Paul Jonathan Adam wrote:

> > Wow, being dropped out of the back of a screaming thunder-bird, perhaps
> > confusing to the enemy, but you better be a hard-ass to survive the shock
> > of hitting the gorund :-)
>
> LAPES means you get a parachute, you dope :-) Low Altitute Parachute
> Extraction System. Stream the 'chute out the back of the Banshee and the
> drag just yanks you out, then you come down normally. You see C-130s do it
> to drop pallets of supplies at virtually zero feet.

Yeah, but there's a difference between pallets of supplies and flesh and
bone. I've seen C-130s do the trick your talking about, and those pallets
hit HARD. I came to think that the parachute attached to the pallets wasn't to
slow them down, but to keep them from tumbling by providing drag when they hit
the ground.

I think you'd need some special protection to survive a jump at that
speed and altitude. Perhaps a armored pod of some kind? Maybe a coffin
like pod, with a ton of impact armor. Of course a coffin looking thing
wouldn't be too great for the morale of the troops using them :).

Any other suggestions?

-----------------------------------------------------
Jason Ustica | usticaj@****.com | Lancaster, CA
-----------------------------------------------------
Message no. 8
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 11:50:27 +0200
>Yeah, I wonder if a VCR gives you increased G-tolerance? After all, a lot
>of your sensor data is now coming in electronically, so blacking out isn't
>so severe.

I always though high-G blackouts were caused because your brain didn't get
enough oxygen... Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the reason you go unconcious
whether you've got a VCR or not.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
No one wants you when you lose
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 11:50:29 +0200
>Yeah, but there's a difference between pallets of supplies and flesh and
>bone. I've seen C-130s do the trick your talking about, and those pallets
>hit HARD. I came to think that the parachute attached to the pallets wasn't to
>slow them down, but to keep them from tumbling by providing drag when they hit
>the ground.

The U.S. Marines did tests like dropping LAV-25s out of the back of a C-130,
I believe. I know for sure Russian paratroops drop similar vehicles by
rocket-parachute-thingies (normal parachute keeps the rate of descent down,
and a few meters above the ground a rocket booster cuts in to slow you down
much more). OK, that's not LAPES, but those ASU-85 _are_ (were?) dropped
with crew in them...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
No one wants you when you lose
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 10
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 18:08:43 GMT
In message <Pine.SV4.3.91.950614145403.10164A-100000@*****>
SHADOWRN@*****.nic.surfnet.nl writes:
> > LAPES means you get a parachute, you dope :-) Low Altitute Parachute
> > Extraction System.

> Yeah, but there's a difference between pallets of supplies and flesh and
> bone. I've seen C-130s do the trick your talking about, and those pallets
> hit HARD. I came to think that the parachute attached to the pallets wasn't to
> slow them down, but to keep them from tumbling by providing drag when they hit
> the ground.
>
> I think you'd need some special protection to survive a jump at that
> speed and altitude. Perhaps a armored pod of some kind? Maybe a coffin
> like pod, with a ton of impact armor. Of course a coffin looking thing
> wouldn't be too great for the morale of the troops using them :).

Depends on the 'chute and a few other things. Maybe use a parafoil rather
than a 'chute, so instead of just falling you can steer a little, turn
airspeed into altitude for a few seconds, and get a softer landing?

Anyway, "the future technology solves the problem" :-) It's such a cool
image I'm assuming they get it working

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 11
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 23:48:34 GMT
> I always though high-G blackouts were caused because your brain didn't get
> enough oxygen... Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the reason you go unconcious
> whether you've got a VCR or not.

There are two effects: "blackout" where your vision loses colour, tunnels
down, and then disappears: and "G-LOC" which is the genuine loss of
consciousness. G-LOC is a training effect, and training, grunting (isometric
muscle exercise of some sort) and G-suits help: the same effects delay
blackout, but direct neural sensor feed would probably help too.

Synthacardium would probably be worth an extra G of tolerance per level,
and doubtless other mods (extra one-way valves in blood vessels?) could
improve your G-tolerance. That's probably factored into the easier Handling
rolls, though.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 12
From: WILLIAM FRIERSON <will1am@*****.ASU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 03:01:42 -0700
sommers@*****.umich.edu (Alex van der Kleut) wrote:

>Right now the border between Canada and the US or between Mexicao and
>the US is fairly pourous. Why? Because they are so huge. To much perimeter for to few
people and tech. In 2055 with
>the continent split up so much, that requirement is quadrupled, if not

Well, the Mexican border patrolling has been stepped up, and monitoring has
been supplied by the military. This is to interdict drugs, and as a result
it has become less porous.

>more. It would be too expensive to have the entier boredr between Siox
>and UCAS patrolled, under survelliance and mined. That means they patrol
>certain heavily used corridors and rely on spot checks and informants for
>the rest. Human intuition and decision making. And that can be bought off.
>Besides, what do you think the rigger etiquette is for? That's how you
>find out where the wholes in the perimeter are for the week.

Well, the UCAS has a much smaller border than the US does, meaning less
money for more coverage. And the profit margin would have to be very high
to support Banshee-equipped smugglers. Drug runners buy small civil air-
craft and ditch them once they get close to the US. A Banshee costs so
much that you would do everything in your power to safeguard it.

What happens today when an armored vehcile comes driving down the road, or
driving over the horizon? It usually attracts attention. Unless the
vehicles are very common. Which means there's a lot of them, either driven
by the government or by smugglers. If the latter, then soon the government
will be there, because of the activity.

And then there's the speed factor (2/3rds that of a fighter aircraft). That's
well over the speed of sound. The Banshee doesn't look that streamlined, and
it would make a hell of a racket and kick up a _lot_ of dust and debris.
That would not be very stealthy either. Put up UAV's or low Earth orbit
satellites with IR cameras and anything moving that fast near sea level
will definitely build up a heat signature, easily visible. With real-time
signal processing, your Banshee would be spotted right off.

As an aside, someone mentioned the Defense survey in this week's Economist.
I have read most of it and it is great. It talks about how the
Information Age will affect warfare. It is really worth a look see. There
was a net address given (I went to the library and read it). Ideas are
bouncing around in my head, and they're generating all kinds of scenarios.

Later

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Frierson Internet: WILL1AM@*****.asu.edu
Message no. 13
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:11:39 BST
> LAPES means you get a parachute, you dope :-) Low Altitute Parachute
> Extraction System. Stream the 'chute out the back of the Banshee and the
> drag just yanks you out, then you come down normally. You see C-130s do it
> to drop pallets of supplies at virtually zero feet.


Hey, I knew there was a parachute involved, I know about HILO stuff, etc.
I still figure the shock is pretty hard on most people, not something
to do if you're not trained in it...

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 14
From: Charles Morris <MistrOrnge@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 13:15:19 -0400
Actually the unconsciousness caused by heavy G forces is caused by stasis of
blood in the brain. Example when you fill a glass half way up with water and
quickly move it upwards and then sharply down the water will for a moment
stay at the top of the glass. Without a constantly circulating blood supply
the brain quickly shuts down. I run medical air evacuation missions for the
Air National Guard so I'm supposed to know these silly things.
MistrOrnge
Message no. 15
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 19:40:47 GMT
In message <950616131255_96220016@***.com> SHADOWRN@*****.nic.surfnet.nl writes:
> Actually the unconsciousness caused by heavy G forces is caused by stasis of
> blood in the brain...<explanation and credentials snipped>

Thanks. Okay, so have a couple of pumps fitted to boost circulation through
the brain? Again, I think it would cover some of the rigger advantages on
handling rolls (you can sustain 7G, your non-rigged opponent is greying out
at five) if that was the case. It would make sense to try and address that
limit: at the moment, the limit in aircraft is what the pilot can take.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 16
From: WILLIAM FRIERSON <will1am@*****.ASU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 04:06:56 -0700
Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK (Paul Jonathan Adam) wrote:
>Yes and no. I see Banshees as being as protected as helicopters: able to
>resist weapons without too much damage, not ignore them. For chrissakes
>they *fly*! That limits the armour and weapons they can carry. Their speed
>makes them valuable scout and light-attack assets: I think the Banshee is
>to the 2050s what the Mil-24 Hind was to Afghanistan. Not invulnerable, but
>very few people have the weapons to take one out.

I never really understood the thing about Hinds. A lot of my fellow soldiers
and later, NCO's, seemed to be in awe of the Hind. Small arms won't knock
one down (probably), but a .50 cal will, and damn near every vehicle in
the battalion had a .50. I mean, if you're there, and the Hind is there,
it's going to be shooting at you anyway. His sensors are probably better
than yours. What have you got to lose? Rotor hubs are pretty damn vulnerable.

The Afghan rebels at first thought that the Hind was invulnerable. They
would run. Then they learned that stopping and blending in made them
very hard to spot. And in many cases, they were shooting _down_ onto the
Hinds from the mountain sides. Pretty easy to knock down that way. And
once they got the Stingers, wel, that was all she wrote.

Later

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Frierson Internet: WILL1AM@*****.asu.edu
Message no. 17
From: Jonathan Hurley <JHURLEY1@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigged Banshee Drivers
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 16:50:22 -0500
> > LAPES means you get a parachute, you dope :-) Low Altitute Parachute
> > Extraction System. Stream the 'chute out the back of the Banshee and the
> > drag just yanks you out, then you come down normally. You see C-130s do it
> > to drop pallets of supplies at virtually zero feet.
>
One trick I did w/ LAPES (this was during a scenario where UCAS SpecFor
was coming in to clean up. Long story) was to have the Banshees LAPES
out of the aircraft, and light off their lift engines while falling
free. It seemed to me a real balls-to-the-wall kind of thing to do, only
used when standard methods of insertion are insufficient, and the nearest
point you can stage armor from is too far away. Sort of a HALO for
AFVs. The image I got was these Cargo craft going over at around 40 or
50 thousand feet or so, the Banshees LAPES (all right, the Low Altitude
part is a misnomer, but still), start their engines, and then idle them
for as long as possible, and do as hard a deceleration program as
possible to prevent sudden impact syndrome:-) Hows that for close ari
support.

It's the next thing to dropping grav tanks from orbit! (ObRL Reference)

With a little planning, I can even see PC's using this kind of technique
with civilian LAVs. MAybe not often, but sometimes

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Rigged Banshee Drivers, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!