Re: [Epic] IG and Planetary Assault Landings

From: Michael P. Lepisto <thagor_at_...>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 12:01:22 -0800

At 10:47 AM 12/31/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Logistics--again..slightly off topic post
>
>Michael P. Lepisto wrote:
>
>> of aircraft. Also the heavy divisions are able to sustain operations
>> longer without resupply than light divisions.
>> -Mike
>
> I kind of have to disagree with this, having some familiarity
>witthesubject. Light divisions require substantially less logistical
>support as heavy divisions and are able to sustain themselves in te
>field for as long if not longer than their heavy brothers. Of course, so
>many factors go into the equation, not the least of which are terrain,
>cliimate and enemy resistance and mission.
>
>As an aside, Ameriacan and British infantry, in general suffer, from a
>disease known as "heavy Ruck-itis". The common belief being that you
>have to carry a hundred pounds of gear to cover every possible
>contingency in the vent you won't get resupplied. This degrades
>manueverability and effectiveness in combat, no matter how studly your
>troops are.
>

I agree with this, that is why an MP fire team can delay or defeat a much
larger (in term of personnel) detachment. All the supplies are carried on
your vehicle (currently the HMMWV, but long live the Mutt I say). As such
one is not nearly as fatigued from lugging the gear all about.

>What we started to see at the JRTC (Joint Readiness Training Center--the
>light infantry cousin to the NTC at Ft Polk), is that the most
>successful battalions were the ones that mercilessly limited what
>soldiers were carrying ontheir backs. Several battalions have actually
>forvbidden rucks all together and had the soldiers survive with
>buttpacks and webgear.

I thought this was standard for the light infantry. I know that the 7ID,
when it still exsisted as a division, would always go into the field w/o
rucks. Not being a groundpounder (I was combat Military Police) I assumed
that all of the light guys did it this way.

> Thye put greater emphasis on a company-level
>logistics teams taht actually work. These units have been invariably the
>ones that performed very well against the elusive OPFOR down there.
>
>I guess that's why we seldom see IG models with rucksacks. Another
>future development would be actually functional environmental undersuits
>that would keep soldiers comfortable in various environments,
>eliminating teh need for bedrolls and sleeping bags etc. They've gone to
>this rather efficient logistical model! <grin> Actually it is good that
>logistics don't play much of a role in Epic40k battles, given the time
>scale and short duration of the battles. However a campaign game would
>need to cover them. Interesting stuff.
>Los
>

If logistics became part of Epic, most of the battles would never happen.
I worked with some ordance guys when I was in Korea in an attempt to figure
out how to supply the 2ID with their required ammunition, it was a
nightmare. Supplying the infantry and armor was no problem, but to meet
the artillery demand was a whole different ordeal.
Received on Sat Jan 03 1998 - 20:01:22 UTC