Artillery in Sci-Fi

[Simon_Jester]

Depending on the setting, a sufficient combination of shielding and ground based weapons can make planetary fortifications a credible threat to orbiting ships. I mean, think about it- any weapon that can be mounted on a spaceship can be mounted on a planet, and the planet has more room to pack larger power plants, defense generators, and so on into.

However, at that point you're talking about a fortified planet that cannot easily be threatened by a ground invasion, so that artillery becomes less necessary in that you can't get to the place to fight over it on land.

[Lord Revan]

Depending on the setting, a sufficient combination of shielding and ground based weapons can make planetary fortifications a credible threat to orbiting ships. I mean, think about it- any weapon that can be mounted on a spaceship can be mounted on a planet, and the planet has more room to pack larger power plants, defense generators, and so on into.

However, at that point you're talking about a fortified planet that cannot easily be threatened by a ground invasion, so that artillery becomes less necessary in that you can't get to the place to fight over it on land.

ignoring the fact that any counter orbit weaponary would be essentially artillery.

You can get into situation where the "fort" is strong enough to withstand bombardment but unable to stop you from landing thus causing land battle to be a nessesity or the fact that something as simple as ECM can give the defenders the ability to hide even large forces from orbital observation.

bare in mind that wars are most of the time about capturing an objective not indiscrimanate destruction.

[Sky Captain]

Depending on the setting, a sufficient combination of shielding and ground based weapons can make planetary fortifications a credible threat to orbiting ships. I mean, think about it- any weapon that can be mounted on a spaceship can be mounted on a planet, and the planet has more room to pack larger power plants, defense generators, and so on into.

However, at that point you're talking about a fortified planet that cannot easily be threatened by a ground invasion, so that artillery becomes less necessary in that you can't get to the place to fight over it on land.

I think that is the point to make it as hard as possible for enemy to land ground forces in the first place. Planetary missile bases and beam weapon batteries would be better investment of resources than large ground armies. Destroying enemy transport ships carrying ground invasion forces with surprise missile or laser attack is much easier than having them land and deploy ground forces causing prolonged and messy battle on the planet.

ignoring the fact that any counter orbit weaponary would be essentially artillery.

I'm not sure if anti space laser or missile silos would fall under artillery. Although some sort of railgun batteries certainly would be artillery.

[Lord Revan]

[quote="Sky Captain]

ignoring the fact that any counter orbit weaponary would be essentially artillery.

I'm not sure if anti space laser or missile silos would fall under artillery. Although some sort of railgun batteries certainly would be artillery.[/quote]
any planet based defenses would essentially be an outgrowth of Costal Artillery (which does include anti-ship missiles), well if want to be technical it would merger of AA-units and costal artillery but still in essence artillery, especially since the attacking ships would probably use ECM so barrage fire (AKA firing such a consentration of fire at rough area the enemies are that attackers think they're trapped in a Micheal Bay movie) is your best option to get them.

[Borgholio]

In Sci Fi universes where winner or looser is decided in space battle there is not much need for artillery type weapons. If enemy has destroyed anti space defenses and achieved space superiority then no amount of artillery is going to change that. Any obvious large concentrations of ground forces would quickly be destroyed by orbital bombardment. Best way to resist occupation may be insurgent style tactics using small highly mobile and dispersed forces. Basically make yourself enough PITA so the enemy decides that occupation is not worth the trouble.

The only reason we see an enemy fleet being able to quickly take control of the planet's orbital space is because only in a handful of series do we see any actually effective planetary defenses. A core world such as Earth, Kronos, or Cardassia should have defense system layered on top of defense system. If anything, destroying a fleet in orbit would be easier than attacking the planet surface itself. On a planet, you can have a large number of massive, shielded weapon platforms that dwarf anything on one of your ships. Then you could have smaller, mobile platforms where each one has the same firepower of a standard ship weapon...but you have half a million of them. Getting too close to a planet without a massive number of heavy ships on your side should be suicidal. That's not to mention being able to field tens or even hundreds of thousands of orbital or sub-orbital fighter and bomber craft. And that's only AFTER you've destroyed their defending fleet AND orbital defenses.

So just like in modern combat, just because an invading fleet destroys your fleet and your front-line shore defenses doesn't mean they've won yet. Artillery in massed numbers would still be able to inflict a lot of pain.

[biostem]

In Sci Fi universes where winner or looser is decided in space battle there is not much need for artillery type weapons. If enemy has destroyed anti space defenses and achieved space superiority then no amount of artillery is going to change that. Any obvious large concentrations of ground forces would quickly be destroyed by orbital bombardment. Best way to resist occupation may be insurgent style tactics using small highly mobile and dispersed forces. Basically make yourself enough PITA so the enemy decides that occupation is not worth the trouble.

The only reason we see an enemy fleet being able to quickly take control of the planet's orbital space is because only in a handful of series do we see any actually effective planetary defenses. A core world such as Earth, Kronos, or Cardassia should have defense system layered on top of defense system. If anything, destroying a fleet in orbit would be easier than attacking the planet surface itself. On a planet, you can have a large number of massive, shielded weapon platforms that dwarf anything on one of your ships. Then you could have smaller, mobile platforms where each one has the same firepower of a standard ship weapon...but you have half a million of them. Getting too close to a planet without a massive number of heavy ships on your side should be suicidal. That's not to mention being able to field tens or even hundreds of thousands of orbital or sub-orbital fighter and bomber craft. And that's only AFTER you've destroyed their defending fleet AND orbital defenses.

So just like in modern combat, just because an invading fleet destroys your fleet and your front-line shore defenses doesn't mean they've won yet. Artillery in massed numbers would still be able to inflict a lot of pain.

Y'know... now that you mention it - how awesome would it have been if, in First Contact, the engagement fleet broke off from the cube, it moves toward planet, and the next thing we see is this odd light coming from the planet's surface - only to realize a moment later that it is some skyscraper-sized phaser bank obliterating the cube. Now THAT's the kind of defense that I would have on my core world, (not to mention various defensive stations/satellites, and an auxiliary fortification on the moon).

[Borgholio]

Y'know... now that you mention it - how awesome would it have been if, in First Contact, the engagement fleet broke off from the cube, it moves toward planet, and the next thing we see is this odd light coming from the planet's surface - only to realize a moment later that it is some skyscraper-sized phaser bank obliterating the cube. Now THAT's the kind of defense that I would have on my core world, (not to mention various defensive stations/satellites, and an auxiliary fortification on the moon).

See that's exactly what I mean. A planet like Earth has plenty of room to build one or two of those per continent, with potentially hundreds of smaller installations too. Had the Feds actually thought about defense once in awhile, the Cube would have been annihilated before it even entered orbit.

[Adam Reynolds]

The biggest problem with that is that most of their really effective weapons seem to be line of sight, and with line of sight weapons there's a minimum ratio of manpower to space imposed by the need for individual units to support each other.

That is true, but units would still disperse to a similar scale to at least WW2 standards. Another factor that would negate this is that clone troopers(and in effect battle droids) have enclosing body armor that would reduce the lethality of weapons and thus the need for dispersion. There is also the factor that both groups are likely less reactive to survival than modern soldiers.

In the Gulf War there may only have been two soldiers per square kilometer of the theater of operations... but that is because the theater of operations got large, not because the armies got small. At any one time where the two sides were actually in combat, locally the ratio of manpower to space was much higher.

What has mostly happened is that conventional battles have gotten smaller and required less soldiers. When the US Army made its Thunder Runs into Baghdad in 2003, they were made with dozens of armored vehicles rather than the hundreds we would have seen in WW2.

Though admittedly a desert is a rather extreme example because it is so open and with so little cover.

By comparison, those figures of ~3800 men per square kilometer of front you're getting for the American Civil War refer only to pitched battles fought between two armies that had more or less both agreed to meet and fight at a specific point. The equivalent in 20th century war would be something like the Somme battlefield in 1916 or Stalingrad... and I'm pretty sure the average was higher than 40 to 400 men per square kilometer on those battlefields.

The point is that the classic image of a pitched battle is no longer how wars are fought. And even in those battles there is far more dispersion. Look at the movie Gettysburg vs Saving Private Ryan, even the scenes on Omaha Beach show more dispersion than major battles in the ACW.

See that's exactly what I mean. A planet like Earth has plenty of room to build one or two of those per continent, with potentially hundreds of smaller installations too. Had the Feds actually thought about defense once in awhile, the Cube would have been annihilated before it even entered orbit.

That depends on the defensive strategy used. By this logic modern America should have a virtually impregnable defense grid of anti-ballistic missile and anti-aircraft weapons to defend against the possibility of attack. The world survived fifty years of nuclear deterrence without this by relying on the ability to destroy the enemy rather than the ability to defend against his attacks. Similar logic could work in a science fiction setting in which a mobile defense is preferred because it allows for the possibility of retaliation.

In the specific case of Star Trek, their power generation seems to rely on antimatter for starship caliber weapons. It is understandable that they would not want this on a planet's surface. Though it would make sense to see more in the way of orbital platforms(or STL only warships) that should be far easier to build and more survivable than starships given the lack of need for a warp drive.

Star Wars obviously has power generation(and even more impressively heat dispersion) technology that is safe enough for it to be used on a planet's surface, thus allowing weapons powerful enough to blow away capital ships, as shown brilliantly in ESB.

[Borgholio]

By this logic modern America should have a virtually impregnable defense grid of anti-ballistic missile and anti-aircraft weapons to defend against the possibility of attack.

We...actually kinda do. The amount of warning we'd have of an enemy fleet approaching our shores is more than enough time to intercept them with land-based attacks if they manage to get past our own fleet. Where are the "land based" weapons in ST?

In the specific case of Star Trek, their power generation seems to rely on antimatter for starship caliber weapons. It is understandable that they would not want this on a planet's surface.

Well in the TNG era the warp cores DO seem to blow up if you look at them wrong. But there's nothing saying you can't build a massive fusion reactor a mile under the surface of the planet to power a single massive phaser bank. Remember it doesn't have to power an entire starship complete with warp drive...just a skyscraper-sized phaser emitter and shields.

Star Wars obviously has power generation(and even more impressively heat dispersion) technology that is safe enough for it to be used on a planet's surface, thus allowing weapons powerful enough to blow away capital ships, as shown brilliantly in ESB.

Exactly...and that's not even a top-of-the-line model. A core world would have hundreds of those things per hemisphere. Add planetary shields and that's precisely why the Empire thought they would need a Death Star.

[Lord Revan]

In the specific case of Star Trek, their power generation seems to rely on antimatter for starship caliber weapons. It is understandable that they would not want this on a planet's surface.

Well in the TNG era the warp cores DO seem to blow up if you look at them wrong. But there's nothing saying you can't build a massive fusion reactor a mile under the surface of the planet to power a single massive phaser bank. Remember it doesn't have to power an entire starship complete with warp drive...just a skyscraper-sized phaser emitter and shields.

Also surface based generators or ones in space stations can be alot bigger then ones on Starships remember that DS9 in powered by fusion generators and could hold a fleet by itself.

Remember that ship reactors have to a certain power to mass ratio or they're not good enough.

[Adam Reynolds]

We...actually kinda do. The amount of warning we'd have of an enemy fleet approaching our shores is more than enough time to intercept them with land-based attacks if they manage to get past our own fleet. Where are the "land based" weapons in ST?

It is still based on the concept of mobile defense rather than fixed batteries. There aren't Harpoon or Patriot missiles lining the US coastline. The US Air Force and Navy would intercept the enemy with aircraft and warships away from US shores. This is also what Starfleet does. While they don't use planet based starships, there is little reason for that to make sense in any case (regardless of what the 2009 version showed*).

Well in the TNG era the warp cores DO seem to blow up if you look at them wrong. But there's nothing saying you can't build a massive fusion reactor a mile under the surface of the planet to power a single massive phaser bank. Remember it doesn't have to power an entire starship complete with warp drive...just a skyscraper-sized phaser emitter and shields.

It is likely possible, but the Federation isn't the type to do it. And ST shields seem to lack the ability to produce full scale planetary shields. Combine this with the fact that the UFP is unlikely to consider risking their worlds to planetary bombardment worth it. Given that the Romulans considered it possible to capture Vulcan with only 2000 soldiers, if Starfleet loses in space, the planet beneath is considered lost.

Also surface based generators or ones in space stations can be alot bigger then ones on Starships remember that DS9 in powered by fusion generators and could hold a fleet by itself.

Remember that ship reactors have to a certain power to mass ratio or they're not good enough.

Didn't know that about DS9. I guess that does rather defeat that point of mine.

* That scene of Kirk watching the Enterprise being built would have been cooler if the ship were in orbit and he were watching it through a telescope. It would also show a greater degree of intelligence. Not that it would have redeemed the character development.

[Borgholio]

It is still based on the concept of mobile defense rather than fixed batteries. There aren't Harpoon or Patriot missiles lining the US coastline. The US Air Force and Navy would intercept the enemy with aircraft and warships away from US shores. This is also what Starfleet does. While they don't use planet based starships, there is little reason for that to make sense in any case (regardless of what the 2009 version showed*).

Sure but if we had any reason to think an enemy was coming for us, we most certainly would roll out the missile batteries and place them on the beaches. Also the Air Force is land based. If our fleet lost, we would be far from defenseless. And rest assured that if there WAS a fixed battery we could place in Nebraska that could defend the entire continental US...I'm sure one would be built.

It is likely possible, but the Federation isn't the type to do it.

Which goes back to the OP's question as to why we don't see them. In the Feds case, it's not that they CAN'T build effective planetary defenses...it's that they WON'T.

[Lord Revan]

It is still based on the concept of mobile defense rather than fixed batteries. There aren't Harpoon or Patriot missiles lining the US coastline. The US Air Force and Navy would intercept the enemy with aircraft and warships away from US shores. This is also what Starfleet does. While they don't use planet based starships, there is little reason for that to make sense in any case (regardless of what the 2009 version showed*).

Sure but if we had any reason to think an enemy was coming for us, we most certainly would roll out the missile batteries and place them on the beaches. Also the Air Force is land based. If our fleet lost, we would be far from defenseless. And rest assured that if there WAS a fixed battery we could place in Nebraska that could defend the entire continental US...I'm sure one would be built.

actually I'm pretty sure that there was fixed positions that have decommished (Finland had fixed cannon mounts for costal defense when I was in service but those weren't considered that effective and the primary focus was on mobile units due everyone and their dog knowing where those fixed positions are).

[Sky Captain]

Y'know... now that you mention it - how awesome would it have been if, in First Contact, the engagement fleet broke off from the cube, it moves toward planet, and the next thing we see is this odd light coming from the planet's surface - only to realize a moment later that it is some skyscraper-sized phaser bank obliterating the cube. Now THAT's the kind of defense that I would have on my core world, (not to mention various defensive stations/satellites, and an auxiliary fortification on the moon).

See that's exactly what I mean. A planet like Earth has plenty of room to build one or two of those per continent, with potentially hundreds of smaller installations too. Had the Feds actually thought about defense once in awhile, the Cube would have been annihilated before it even entered orbit.

One reason why mobile space fleet and orbital weapon platforms could be preferable to fixed ground positions is because of colletaral damage. A hevily fortified planet would require massive firepower to defeat causing huge civilian casualities and possibly wreck entire biosphere if required firepower is high enough. A fleet could intercept enemy fleet far from planet with much less chance for massivle colletaral damage.

In real life similar example could be heavily fortified city. It would be very difficult or even impossible to invade it without causing widespread destruction and civilian casualities.

It really depends on a setting. If widespread planetary destruction and civilian casualities are acceptable then there would be heavily fortified planets. If not then space warships that can intercept enemy in open space would be preferable and if defenders loose space battle they surrender.

[Borgholio]

If not then space warships that can intercept enemy in open space would be preferable and if defenders loose space battle they surrender.

I don't know anybody but the Feds who would have a defense philosophy such as that. "Let's put all our faith in one defensive strategy and just surrender if it doesn't work out." I mean sure, civilian casualties are bad, but if the enemy's goal is to capture the world, then surely making it as difficult to capture as possible would help deter invasion in the first place?

[Sky Captain]

If not then space warships that can intercept enemy in open space would be preferable and if defenders loose space battle they surrender.

I don't know anybody but the Feds who would have a defense philosophy such as that. "Let's put all our faith in one defensive strategy and just surrender if it doesn't work out." I mean sure, civilian casualties are bad, but if the enemy's goal is to capture the world, then surely making it as difficult to capture as possible would help deter invasion in the first place?

If enemy want the planet intact and defenders have made sure that destroying all defense systems to land invasion force means that planet is turned into radioactive wasteland then it could be valid strategy as long as enemy act rationally.

[Simon_Jester]

If not then space warships that can intercept enemy in open space would be preferable and if defenders loose space battle they surrender.

I don't know anybody but the Feds who would have a defense philosophy such as that. "Let's put all our faith in one defensive strategy and just surrender if it doesn't work out." I mean sure, civilian casualties are bad, but if the enemy's goal is to capture the world, then surely making it as difficult to capture as possible would help deter invasion in the first place?

What if the cost of building a heavily equipped land army to defend all your colonies, all the time eats into the cost of your space forces and decreases your ability to defend planets from space?

Sometimes, specialization pays off- a nation can legitimately wind up wasting a lot of money on costly military assets that do little to directly strengthen its ability to win the wars it is most likely to fight. That can be a fatal disadvantage.

Or it may not, but the point is that the debate is not one-sided. Spending virtually all your resources on having the strongest possible space-based defense, and directing your planets to surrender or evacuate if it looks like they can't be defended by the space fleet, has the advantage of concentrating all your effort on the one strategy most likely to protect your worlds from harm.

Any other strategy based on ground-based resistance may help you resist in wartime... but it inevitably results in situations where you fail to win the battle in space, and have to accept painful collateral damage from the enemy's decision to attack or bomb you on the ground.

[Borgholio]

If enemy want the planet intact and defenders have made sure that destroying all defense systems to land invasion force means that planet is turned into radioactive wasteland then it could be valid strategy as long as enemy act rationally.

Even if they don't act rationally, having heavy defenses will still make it harder to turn the planet into a radioactive wasteland. So either way, making your world a tough nut to crack is going to be a good idea.

What if the cost of building a heavily equipped land army to defend all your colonies, all the time eats into the cost of your space forces and decreases your ability to defend planets from space?

Are the costs of planet-side defenses that much higher as to mean they can't build them at the same time as a starfleet? I would think that land-based defenses would in fact be cheaper to build than a starship...

[Bedlam]

Are the costs of planet-side defenses that much higher as to mean they can't build them at the same time as a starfleet? I would think that land-based defenses would in fact be cheaper to build than a starship...

Probably, although that spaceship can defend any one of a hundred planets as needed where as your planetary defence can only defend the planet its built on. Obviously you have to choose have to split your spending between the two.

[SAMAS]

It's not so much that orbital fire makes artillery obsolete as artillery bombardment goes orbital.

But let's talk about settings where militarized spaceflight is not a thing.

[Batman]

Which settings would those be? In the ones that made it to TV/the movies/ video games militarized spaceflight very much 'is' a thing.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm, are there any settings that rely entirely on gates or portals that are located on the surface of planets?

If enemy want the planet intact and defenders have made sure that destroying all defense systems to land invasion force means that planet is turned into radioactive wasteland then it could be valid strategy as long as enemy act rationally.

Even if they don't act rationally, having heavy defenses will still make it harder to turn the planet into a radioactive wasteland. So either way, making your world a tough nut to crack is going to be a good idea.

The only class of defenses that actually DO make it harder to wreck a planetary ecosystem are those capable of physically deflecting or absorbing fire aimed at the planet, or of very rapidly shooting down the starships. Infantry and tanks and artillery pieces aren't going to help with that. Batteries of surface-to-orbit missiles can, planetary shields can, and so on. But just piling up ground troops isn't going to cut it.

So if you actually want to prevent such ruination rather than actively encourage your enemy to re-enact the extinction of the dinosaurs in your backyard, you need to invest in a very specific subset of ground-based weapons systems. Sort of like spending all your 'army' budget on coastal fortifications in real life.

What if the cost of building a heavily equipped land army to defend all your colonies, all the time eats into the cost of your space forces and decreases your ability to defend planets from space?

Are the costs of planet-side defenses that much higher as to mean they can't build them at the same time as a starfleet? I would think that land-based defenses would in fact be cheaper to build than a starship...

It depends. Do you only have to defend a single location? Or do you have to defend hundreds or thousands of locations all over a planet? How many soldiers would be needed to man adequate defenses and garrisons for the planet Earth, if we seriously expected Earth to come under attack by an enemy capable of shipping armies and militarized spacecraft across interstellar distances? How many batteries of offensive and defensive weapons would you want, given that a planet is so valuable that the enemy might well be willing to sacrifice many of their strongest ships just to capture or wreck a single one of your valuable planets?

How do the costs of manpower compare to the costs of equipment? From ancient to modern times, in general, the biggest single cost of maintaining a large military establishment that needs to be ready at all times is paying and training your troops. Land-based military forces are likely to consume more manpower than space-based forces of equivalent firepower, although that may level back out when you factor in the cost of the spacecraft's basing establishment.

Also, you may need far more total firepower and resources to provide an adequate land defense on every threatened planet than you need to provide an adequate space defense that can be moved around to cover whichever threats seem most urgent.

[Sky Captain]

Yeah, the more star systems to defend and larger the attacking force may be the more attractive space fleet becomes over massive fixed defense systems in every star system. Especially if FTL is fast enough to enable rapid response to threats. In some cases where both parties control thousands of star systems attacking force may be amassed using resources from most of those systems. Think Achultani from Dahak trilogy. It just would not be practical to construct fixed defense system in every star system to reliably deal with attacking forces of that scale. A fleet of similar scale may be only option to deal with that kind of enemy forces.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I would imagine it also depends on the amount of warning you'll get. If you'll have, say, a day's warning and that's enough time to move your fleet to defend the planet in question, and you can usually count on having enough warning, then space fleets become more attractive. Thi is mostly likely the case in Star Trek, as even when faced with a Borg incursion, they had enough time to muster fleets to fight it. When the Dominion knew the Federation was coming to re-take DS9, they had enough warning to get their superior fleet in position.

But if you can't count on having much warning, then suddenly fixed defences become much more important. This is probably the case in Star Wars, where you can travel across the galaxy in days. Now you're reinforcement fleets can travel just as fast, but if you only get a few hour notice, you need something ont he planet to at least hold back the attacker long enough for your reinforcements to arrive.

[Purple]

Another thing to consider when thinking of these things is the average firepower required of starship based weapons. A proper space warship is not likely to carry specialized weapon mounts for supporting ground forces. Instead it is likely to rely on the same weapons it uses to shoot other warships with. And if those are strong enough using them to shoot ground targets might incur unacceptable collateral damage to things you want to capture. Thus making the prospect of using air-space fighters or actually landing artillery much more enticing.