Ground combat

[sunnyside]

This shows up in tangents in numerous threads, but according to the search function there hasn't been an actual thread on this.

As I see it there are two main areas of discussion that come up. First and I think simplest is the idiocity of how fights are conducted in general. Specifically that unless the plot needs it people can't find the "wide beam" settings on their weapons, nor can they remember to fire a shot powerful enough to take out a box that someone might be taking cover behind, and of course grenades are out of the question.

I can understand why writers have the fights be that way, but what miffs me off is that they never took the time to come up with a valid reason why. I think Dune is a good example of doing this right. Want to have a futuristic setting where people fight with knives? Personal shields that block everything else. Done. Were the writers worried they'd get sued or something if they put Dune like personal shields on people so you have to hit them with a longer duration blast as they use in the series instead of a wide beam or grenade? To much SFX cost to add glimmer effects of some kind to people?


The second issue is if there is a need for traditional ground forces in the Trek universe. I can understand the need for special forces type infantry if you want to take a facility intact as in DS9 or you only want to capture people instead of kill them as in insurection.

But I don't see a role for something like a tank or artillary. Whoever has a starship in orbit, or even an unaposed shuttlecraft over a city, controls the open field and has the option of wiping out pretty much any surface structure at a whim.

[Sionnach Glic]

First and I think simplest is the idiocity of how fights are conducted in general.

Writer stupidity. They have no idea of tactics, or how real combat happens.

The second issue is if there is a need for traditional ground forces in the Trek universe.

Yes. There is always a need for well armed and armoured infantry, armoured support, artilary, etc. While some universes may be at the level of advancement where vehicles are little more than large targets, Trek is not one of them.

But I don't see a role for something like a tank or artillary. Whoever has a starship in orbit, or even an unaposed shuttlecraft over a city, controls the open field and has the option of wiping out pretty much any surface structure at a whim.

Whoever has air superiority in modern combat has exactly the same advantages. Yet armoured units still remain. Aircraft, and by extension starships, could eat tanks for breakfast, with little fear of retribution. But what happens when the tank is sitting next to a school? What happens if an enemy motorpool is right next to a hospital? What happens when an enemy CP is in the middle of a densley populated city? What are you going to do there? Simply fire phasers and level the entire area, killing thousands of civilians? No, you can't. The only other option left is that of a ground assault, which is where things like tanks come in.
Also, what happens if you don't have space superiority? What happens if your ships are off engaging an enemy fleet on the edge of the system? What happens if the enemy times a ground attack to happen simultaneously with a spatial attack? When the spaceships are unable to intervene, tanks become the masters of the battlefield once again, and nothing that the Federation has in its ground arsenal can kill them.

[Duskofdead]

Writer stupidity. They have no idea of tactics, or how real combat happens.

I think some of them do, Moore for instance is ex-Navy. But I think in many cases writers take the budget into account. Either that or the original script is modified based on what the budget can accomodate. Even First Contact, with a big movie budget, had to skimp on the parts where the Borg were bombarding the planet. We should have been seeing rather larger explosions.

[Captain Seafort]

Regarding the lack of wide-beam phaser use in combat there's an easy answer - the inverse-square rule. A narrow beam that could punch througha rock wall wouldn't even tickle someone if spread over an area of dozens of square metres.

The packing-crate problem requires a bit of theorising, but it can be expained in terms of the effectiveness of the NDF-effect being linked to target density.

The need for "traditional" ground forces is better expressed as a need for infantry - the only force capable of taking and holding ground. Infantry are, however, are very slow,extremely vulnerable to HE and rapid-firing weapons, and can't get through decent fortifications (trenches, barbed wire, walls, etc) on their own. Therefore they assistance in the form of artillery, armour, air support and engineers to assist them. Then, both the infantry and their assistants require logistic support (both to supply them with food, fuel, ammunition, etc, and to repair their equipment). The result is the modern combined arms force that comprises a modern army.

[sunnyside]

Whoever has air superiority in modern combat has exactly the same advantages. Yet armoured units still remain. Aircraft, and by extension starships, could eat tanks for breakfast, with little fear of retribution. But what happens when the tank is sitting next to a school? What happens if an enemy motorpool is right next to a hospital? What happens when an enemy CP is in the middle of a densley populated city? What are you going to do there? Simply fire phasers and level the entire area, killing thousands of civilians? No, you can't. The only other option left is that of a ground assault, which is where things like tanks come in.
Also, what happens if you don't have space superiority? What happens if your ships are off engaging an enemy fleet on the edge of the system? What happens if the enemy times a ground attack to happen simultaneously with a spatial attack? When the spaceships are unable to intervene, tanks become the masters of the battlefield once again, and nothing that the Federation has in its ground arsenal can kill them.

While your early points are parts of why large ground forces are needed in modern times they don't apply to Trek so much due to the precision of phaser fire against non starship targets.

I suppose an area of discussion would be the effectiveness of Trek infantry weapons against tanks. Certainly an Abrams would go down to a standard hand phaser on a high setting. However I suppose with things like high density and ablative armor in theory vehicles that can resist small arms could be produced. I don't think we've ever seen anything like that though. But again if the tank is parked outside, as tanks are won't to do, a Peregrine could do the job better.

Something else to consider is that shuttles provide a capability that modern armies simply do not have from similar craft. A chopper/Ospery can't really do well delivering troops when under fire, there just isn't a way to really armor those blades. And neither really gets going that fast in the air. Nor can they really slug it out with infantry at close range.

[Captain Seafort]

While your early points are parts of why large ground forces are needed in modern times they don't apply to Trek so much due to the precision of phaser fire against non starship targets.

Unless there's no starship in orbit, or it's busy supporting another unit. In which case you're screwed.

Certainly an Abrams would go down to a standard hand phaser on a high setting.

Would it? An Abrams' armour is a lot thicker than a packing crate.

However I suppose with things like high density and ablative armor in theory vehicles that can resist small arms could be produced. I don't think we've ever seen anything like that though.

We've seen precisly one packing crate succumb to phaser fire.

But again if the tank is parked outside, as tanks are won't to do, a Peregrine could do the job better.

A better job than what? The tank? Can a fighter stay on station, hovering, for hours? Can the commander talk directly to infantry he's supporting? Can it say hidden behind a hill, hull down and engine off, but ready to respond to trouble immediately? In counterinsurgency (such as Iraq today) can a bloke in a hovering fighter or shuttle chat to the locals? Can he hand chocolate, or pens, or paper to local kids? Can he yell at people without being an impersonal voice on a tannoy? A tank can do all these things.

Something else to consider is that shuttles provide a capability that modern armies simply do not have from similar craft. A chopper/Ospery can't really do well delivering troops when under fire, there just isn't a way to really armor those blades. And neither really gets going that fast in the air. Nor can they really slug it out with infantry at close range.

A shuttle would certainly be far more effective than a modern chopper, but in can't replace tanks, for all the reasons I explained above.

[sunnyside]

Unless there's no starship in orbit, or it's busy supporting another unit. In which case you're screwed.

And if nobody with a gun is around you'd do great with a unit of Norman knights. Doesn't mean we should be banging out plate armor instead of M16s.

What I mean is that it would seem you'd do better making shuttles instead of tanks, or another starship instead of a whole bunch of tanks to prevent the enemy getting space superiority in the first place. Especially since basic impulse engine technology seems "cheap".

Would it? An Abrams' armour is a lot thicker than a packing crate.

Well, obviously the character shooting the tank has to have a name and dialogue for it to work. Duh. (They've used phasers to take out buildings, tons of rock etc when they feel like it. )


Ok "Can a shuttlecraft"

stay on station, hovering, for hours?

Yes. Any indication they can't?


Can the commander talk directly to infantry he's supporting?

Pretty much. Though tied in with this issue is if infantry should be wandering around out in the open instead of being inside the shuttle until such time as they run into a building.

Can it say hidden behind a hill, hull down and engine off, but ready to respond to trouble immediately?

Yeah I think so. Though I forget if there is some start up time, but it isn't much.

In counterinsurgency (such as Iraq today) can a bloke in a hovering fighter or shuttle chat to the locals? Can he hand chocolate, or pens, or paper to local kids? Can he yell at people without being an impersonal voice on a tannoy?

If you open up the hatch or a door, sure. Though that carries many of the risks you get popping the hatch on a tank.

[Captain Seafort]

What I mean is that it would seem you'd do better making shuttles instead of tanks, or another starship instead of a whole bunch of tanks to prevent the enemy getting space superiority in the first place. Especially since basic impulse engine technology seems "cheap".

You're ignoring the second part of the point - "what if it's supporting another unit". Tanks can be built in vastly greater quantities than any starship, which allows them to be deployed in numbers in support of individual companies. Even if you parked dozens of starships around a planet they'd only be able to support armies or army groups.

They've used phasers to take out buildings, tons of rock etc when they feel like it.

No they haven't.

Ok "Can a shuttlecraft"

stay on station, hovering, for hours?

Yes. Any indication they can't?

We've never seen them do it, so it's not guaranteed, but it seems likely, so I'll conceed the point.

Can the commander talk directly to infantry he's supporting?

Pretty much.

Wrong. He can, presumably, talk to the commander of the unit he's supporting via radio, but he can't just have a chat with any of the infantrymen in the area by leaning out of his cupola.

Though tied in with this issue is if infantry should be wandering around out in the open instead of being inside the shuttle until such time as they run into a building.

The whole point of infantry is that they're boots on the ground, not merely a shock force to be sent in when there's trouble. Therefore they would be sitting in trenches (in the case of a full-scale war) or patrol the streets (in the case of a counterinsurgency). Not sitting in a shuttle waiting for something to happen.

Can it say hidden behind a hill, hull down and engine off, but ready to respond to trouble immediately?

Yeah I think so. Though I forget if there is some start up time, but it isn't much.

Eaxctly - start-up time. They have to turn the engine on, fly up over whatever feature they're using as cover, and then open fire. A tankie just has to press a button and there's a round on the way.

In counterinsurgency (such as Iraq today) can a bloke in a hovering fighter or shuttle chat to the locals? Can he hand chocolate, or pens, or paper to local kids? Can he yell at people without being an impersonal voice on a tannoy?

If you open up the hatch or a door, sure. Though that carries many of the risks you get popping the hatch on a tank.

From how high up? This also involves taking the action of opening the door. With a tank, the commander will have his head sticking out of the turret most of the time - he can keep an eye on what's going on, and anyone who wants to talk can catch his attention fairly easily. This is not true of a shuttle hovering off the ground, with polarised windows.

[Mikey]

The other problem with shuttles is that while they can adequately perform some of those roles, they are certainly not optimized for it. Only a tank can do what a tank does as well as a tank. Likewise, you wouldn't use a tank to ferry dignitaries, move supplies, etc., even though you technically could.

[Captain Seafort]

Shuttles are best used in the same way as Hinds - get a section into a hot LZ and provide it with air support. They aren't APCs/IFVs, and they certainly aren't tanks.

[sunnyside]

You're ignoring the second part of the point - "what if it's supporting another unit". Tanks can be built in vastly greater quantities than any starship, which allows them to be deployed in numbers in support of individual companies. Even if you parked dozens of starships around a planet they'd only be able to support armies or army groups.

Shuttles, however, can be cranked out pretty cheaply. I would guess for the same weapons loadout and such maybe you could make two for a shuttle. Essentially I'm guesstimating it would take twice the resources to add the extra fusion reactor/impulse engines required to get the thing off the ground.

I'll leave it as a matter of discussion whether you'd be better off with a thousand or whatever impulse only shuttles or one proper starship. But they are for winning entirely different stages of a war.

No they haven't.

Off the top of my head I remember Kirk taking out a whole bunch of stone. And I remember data is a scene with a lesser civilization:

*pew* *guy falls down*
WOman: "You killed him!"
Data: "No that was a stun setting, he will be fine"
*fiddles with had phaser*
Data: "This is not"
*wastes some pretty huge structure some distance away*
Data: "And this is only a small hand weapon"

Wrong. He can, presumably, talk to the commander of the unit he's supporting via radio, but he can't just have a chat with any of the infantrymen in the area by leaning out of his cupola.

Well by combage, but if he really wants to he could come down and roll down a window or something.

Therefore they would be sitting in trenches (in the case of a full-scale war)

No. Debatably trench warfare is already a thing of the past. Something nations do to slow down how fast they lose. One you lose air superiority your forced into guerilla warfare mode.

But with the exceptionlly long range fusion powered weapons of Trek I think you'd need some technobably reason why trench warefare would be viable at all.

or patrol the streets (in the case of a counterinsurgency). Not sitting in a shuttle waiting for something to happen.

First you need a reason to put those boots on the ground instead of a hundred feet above it. Sensors beign so much better in Trek. But presuming you do a shuttle gives a lot more flexibility and a different angle of attack over a tank.

Eaxctly - start-up time. They have to turn the engine on, fly up over whatever feature they're using as cover, and then open fire. A tankie just has to press a button and there's a round on the way.

There isn't any reason why they wouldn't be armed with the same weaponry. Except maybe a shuttle might care to have some extra long range options. But they could carry the same load. No reason you couldn't have a turret on the shuttle either. Well, I guess except that complete coverage with phaser banks is easier.

Either way their time to fire need not be any different. I'd be a matter of whether there is some warm up time on impulse engines vs treads.

From how high up? This also involves taking the action of opening the door. With a tank, the commander will have his head sticking out of the turret most of the time - he can keep an eye on what's going on, and anyone who wants to talk can catch his attention fairly easily. This is not true of a shuttle hovering off the ground, with polarised windows.

From however high you want to be I would suppose. And agian with the better sensors you'd think it'd be fairly easy to get ahold of a slowly traveling shuttle type thing. It could then come down if it feels like it.


@Mikey I feel like the only role that the tank seems to get getting some traction for is as a public relations vehicle that can take a hit better than an argo.

But there is a problem with tanks in a counterinsurgency though . And that is they're forced to roll along the ground. Meaning you have to travel along known paths risking ambush, risking explosives, and you're also closer to potential threats with weapons that might care about range.

And if the shit does go down you don't have the option to push a button and be out of there or come back around and try to outrange the infantry weapons.

[Thorin]

Put it this way in regards to tanks and shuttles - a shuttle could do anything a tank could do - but then can fly aswell. They can be made practically identical but one has the ability to fly, too. Seems a big case against tanks altogether.

[Teaos]

I think the lack of ground army in trek can be explained by the fact that there has been little need for one for so long.

The Federation never takes over a planet by force. Its just no what they do.

They figure they can stop any assult in space through ship to ship combat so they only need the normal security personal.

[Thorin]

I still find it absurd that the Romulans thought they could take over a planet of probably 10 billion with 3000 soldiers. You couldn't even take over Ireland with that.

Okay, okay, yeah - I was exagerating with the last bit.

[Teaos]

At the time Earth is rather soft. I doubt there would be many if any weapons layign around. If they managed to land their troops at the government areas and the academy they could do a okay job of holding the planet hostage.