 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Case

|
 |
The backlash starts here
Feb 2000 time: 15:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Straybow
The idea of air transport units is not good. |
Whatever their limitations, they sure beat the current airports, what whith their unlimited range and zero turnaround time.
quote: Transport aircraft have never been effective at moving full scale fighting units, only supplies. |
Urm, you may want to read up on your military history - as early as the 1930s air transport was moving entire military units and keeping them sustained through tough combat. In WW2 the Burma campaign was nearly totally dependant on air supply, with entire infantry divisions being moved and sustained by air transport alone.
quote: In the Berlin Airlift nearly the entire US WWII air transport fleet was diverted to the task, and they were able to keep the city just above starvation level. |
A key lesson learnt in the Berlin Airlift was that the Allies existing transports were too small. Hence, the development of the C-130 and thier ilk, each of which can carry the loads of several C-47s or C-54s.
quote: Today, a C5 or C17 can only lift one MBT, so it would take 700+ flights to move an armored division. Then consider all the supplies needed for extended combat (especially fuel) and airlifting becomes dreadfully inadequate. |
Read up on the US Army's new Stryker Brigades - they're intended to be able to deploy a full brigade to anywhere in the world in 72 hours and be kept supplied by air transport alone. Given the recent performance of US Air Transport in Afganistan (where everything is moved by air), it's perfectly feasible for military campaigns to be sustained by aircraft alone.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|