StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm obviously a member of the US Army. I'm also an infantryman and veteran in the war in Iraq. I say this not to brag, but so you know that I'm not just talking. At the battle of Geonosis I believe they used sound military strategy throughout that engagement.

First, AT-TE: I see these as the SW equivalent of the US Bradley IFV & CFV (I was a gunner on the IFV for a yaer and in a mech unit for two and a half). In the infantry role their job is to support ground troops, and that is it. We use the Bradley in this capacity to lay down a solid base of fire, and deal with targets that standard infantry would have a hard time with. Also most vehicle mounted weapons have a much greater range than small arms. So they stay behind the infantry providing support and only occasionally moving ahead or away from those troopers assigned to them. This increases the squads ability to both deal with "hard targets" (i.e. tanks and bunkers), as well as increasing their range and mobility. I believe this is why we never saw them move ahead of the troops, as opposed to the idea that it was simply from unfamiliarity with their gear.

Next, trooper tactics: we see clonetroopers simply walking forward toward their enemy rather than taking cover and returning fire. I believe a possible explanation is in the fact there was little to no cover in the area we see fighting taking place. Modern US military tactics state that if you are out in the open in order to effectively engage the enemy you run forward for three to five seconds then drop to your belly fire at the enemy stand up and repeat. However it was not, and still is not, always been like that. In WW1 soldiers were taught to rush the enemy while firing, and a friend of mine states he was taught to do the same while in basic training for the US Navy. While this strikes some as rather silly (myself included) it is still a valid tactic against human targets, since most peoples first reaction to hostile fire is to seek cover. Now granted this is less effective against a droid for obvious reasons, it is not that much of a stretch to think that when the GAR was first being set up that the Kaminoans might not have been aware of who or what the clonetroopers would be facing. So they may have trained the clones to fight an organic foe rather than a mechanical one. If there is some EU evidence that shows otherwise I apologize. I'm not as well versed on the EU as some. In closing I wish to thank you for your time and effort in reading this bit of ramblikg from me.

Sincerely,
David Gates
SGT US Army

First, AT-TE: I see these as the SW equivalent of the US Bradley IFV & CFV (I was a gunner on the IFV for a yaer and in a mech unit for two and a half). In the infantry role their job is to support ground troops, and that is it. We use the Bradley in this capacity to lay down a solid base of fire, and deal with targets that standard infantry would have a hard time with. Also most vehicle mounted weapons have a much greater range than small arms. So they stay behind the infantry providing support and only occasionally moving ahead or away from those troopers assigned to them. This increases the squads ability to both deal with "hard targets" (i.e. tanks and bunkers), as well as increasing their range and mobility. I believe this is why we never saw them move ahead of the troops, as opposed to the idea that it was simply from unfamiliarity with their gear.

I believe a possible explanation is in the fact there was little to no cover in the area we see fighting taking place.

In WW1 soldiers were taught to rush the enemy while firing, and a friend of mine states he was taught to do the same while in basic training for the US Navy.

While this strikes some as rather silly (myself included) it is still a valid tactic against human targets, since most peoples first reaction to hostile fire is to seek cover.

FTeik wrote:Would crouching low in flat terrain even help them? Considering, that they're fighting droids?

Darth Wong wrote:I don't think he was actually arguing that this tactic was superior to the conventional tactic; he actually described it as "rather silly". He seems to be saying only that it's possible that someone might have trained them that way without necessarily being an idiot. Given their armour and high-powered weapons, the psychological warfare tactic might work better against an organic opponent. Of course, one would hope that negative experiences in the field would force a re-evaluation of these tactics, but we see problems with their tactics even in ROTS. Another possible explanation is that they have some kind of Spartan warrior code. A lot of historical "warrior's codes" were quite unproductive from a strict logical tactical sense.

Star Wars Fan wrote:oh. I htought the clonetroopers formed some sort of formation (i saw it in the Star Wars unofficial encyclopedia) whick allowed them to win even though they were outnumbered at least 10 to 1. that is likely, also

No. As I recall, the GAR won because they were able to catch the droid army completely off guard, while much of the CIS heavy weaponry was still in storage or being loaded onto TF core ships. The leadership was pretty disorganized as well. In any event, the Clone Army didn't stay on the ground very long, just long enough to rescue the Jedi and destroy a few key core ships. Then they withdrew, allowing the Republic fleet to BDZ the planet.

The Original Nex wrote:Since when did the Republic BDZ Geonosis?

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:

In WW1 soldiers were taught to rush the enemy while firing, and a friend of mine states he was taught to do the same while in basic training for the US Navy.

I understand that they changed from WWI tactics after they were getting murdered using them in the field...

Lord Sabre Ace wrote:

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:

In WW1 soldiers were taught to rush the enemy while firing, and a friend of mine states he was taught to do the same while in basic training for the US Navy.

I understand that they changed from WWI tactics after they were getting murdered using them in the field...

The Germans pioneered squad-based tactics during WWI. They changed the method of advance from massive bayonet-charges to several-man squads led by an NCO.

Interestingly enough, the elite German soldiers trained to use squad-based tactics were called Stormtroopers.

Darth Wong wrote:Another possibility is that the terrain between the clones and the droid army was slightly crowned, so they had to stand up in order to get a clear line of sight to the enemy. But then you'd expect them to get down when the enemy closes the distance.

I keep thinking of the Kashyyk battle, however. In that case, they set up elevated firing positions, trenches, and were bringing their armour to the beach, so it seems that they understand what to do. But when the wookies get up and start charging like demented Zulus, the clones follow them. That's why I wonder about the "Spartan warrior code" possibility.

The Original Nex wrote:Since when did the Republic BDZ Geonosis?

Qwerty 42 wrote: Minor nitpick, but as far as I know (feel free to correct me), bayonet charges were seriously outdated by WWI. During Gettysburg, the bayonet charge that let the Union hold Little Round Top was considered a last ditch effort after they'd already practically run out of ammunition, and this was 50 years before WWI.

Lucas used the name in reference to the German stormtroopers, IIRC.

dragon wrote:When he mention how the Army teaches the 3 to 5 second rushes he forgot to add that its slowly bieng fazed out. For the last year my unit which is a signal unit have been teaching us to fight as the special forces fight. This is always moving foward while firing especially if you are in an open area.

Lord Sabre Ace wrote:

Qwerty 42 wrote: Minor nitpick, but as far as I know (feel free to correct me), bayonet charges were seriously outdated by WWI. During Gettysburg, the bayonet charge that let the Union hold Little Round Top was considered a last ditch effort after they'd already practically run out of ammunition, and this was 50 years before WWI.

Bayonets were still in wide use in WWI, WWII, and beyond. Generals and other staff loved the bayonet charge. They thought it was reminiscent of the "romantic and honorable" days of warfare.

Bayonet charges led to large massacres on the attacking side. 58,000 British soldiers died in the bayonet charge at Somme.

Isolder74 wrote:One of the main problems with the battle of the Somme was the fact that Generals on both sides assumed that artillery wouls destroy all defenses that would slow down their troops. The Charges had fixed bayonets but they also were expected to make use of their rifles. In taking a trench the only weapon really good for doing so was the bayonet. The Sub machine gun was only the other real alternitive.

Sadly the only way to take a trench was to get men into it.