Modern Earth vs Tripods (1898 War of the Worlds book)

[Archinist]

The martians are finally advanced enough to invade earth, they think, as they see 1898 earth through their telescopes. But little do they know that a ROB has actually painted over the telescope's lens with highly realistic moving images of what 1898 earth used to look like, and in actual fact the earth is in 2016. The martians are very excited and very confident for their victory.

They arrive the same places they did in the 1898 novel, NO SHIELDS, but this time they are immune to bacteria! Oh no! They also have amazing flying machines which fly through the air like a bird, unlike anything humanity has ever witnessed!

What happens now?

[Borgholio]

No contest. Even back in the 50's people knew the old tripods would be no match for them, which is why they came up with the shields in the first place. A tripod would be an easy target for a Patton tank, let alone an Abrams. Then of course there are things such as TOW missiles that can be carried by a single infantryman and could easily blast a hole clean through a tripod.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

No contest. Even back in the 50's people knew the old tripods would be no match for them, which is why they came up with the shields in the first place. A tripod would be an easy target for a Patton tank, let alone an Abrams. Then of course there are things such as TOW missiles that can be carried by a single infantryman and could easily blast a hole clean through a tripod.

You're thinking of the Javelin, which is the US Armed Forces' current man-portable ATGM system. But, the point is still valid. Without shields, the tripods are easy meat for Earth's combined military forces.

And, outside their machines, the Martians will be extremely vunerable to Earth's higher gravity(Mars' gravity is 38% of Earth's), and easily disposed of.

[Archinist]

1898's earth military was completely wiped out with the martians only taking 2 or 3 casualties, sometimes 4 depending on how the Thunder Child was section was supposed to be read. They could also slice throw meters of steel with relative ease, meaning they could one-shot any tank or boat out today, and could probably use their rays to destroy missiles easily.

Plus they had Flying Machines which could fly, and the 1890s earth seemed quite awed by the fact that the martians had discovered the secret of flight. Modern earth might be slightly less amazed, but they would still be a threat, since their Flying Machines could pick martians up and transport them all over the globe.

[Bernkastel]

"Modern earth might be slightly less amazed"

You certainly know how to understate things. There would be no amazement at all.

Also, a modern military has vastly more firepower and combat ability than that of 1898 earth. As already noted, shields were added to them because even 1950's era tech could clobber the Martians, especially with nukes in the mix. Also, as already noted, the destructive power of military forces has only increased since then.

You really should think about stopping these, at least for a while, Perhaps you could also consider consulting someone about these scenarios before you post them, so that you could improve what you you put forward? I mean, this scenario is incredibly one-sided. I will say that your OP is much better than usual, so thanks for doing that.

[Archinist]

"Modern earth might be slightly less amazed"

You certainly know how to understate things. There would be no amazement at all.

Also, a modern military has vastly more firepower and combat ability than that of 1898 earth. As already noted, shields were added to them because even 1950's era tech could clobber the Martians, especially with nukes in the mix.

There would still be some amazement, as the flying machines seem to take off using very advanced thrusters.

Still, there would be at least 100 tripods, are modern armies really that much more powerful, especially as the 1890's tripods probably weren't taking things too seriously.

Oh, and there is the black smoke, which is highly toxic gas that kills anyone in contact with it.

[Bernkastel]

Yes, they are. Cruise missiles and other long range munitions could easily kill them all. As pointed out by others, even man-portable munitions could potentially kill a tripod. It really is a one sided contest. Sorry, but there's nothing more to it.

[Archinist]

Yes, they are. Cruise missiles and other long range munitions could easily kill them all.

Um, what is the range and accuracy of missiles and artillery? Can they hit fast moving targets? What about small targets? I thought artillery generally missed a lot and was only in massed artillery fire against a densely packed enemy.

[Borgholio]

1898's earth military was completely wiped out with the martians only taking 2 or 3 casualties, sometimes 4 depending on how the Thunder Child was section was supposed to be read.

1898's Earth military had horse-drawn field guns and Maxim-style machine guns. Their tactics still involved masses of infantry in static positions. We would be able to do much the same as the Martians if it was us vs them.

They could also slice throw meters of steel with relative ease, meaning they could one-shot any tank or boat out today, and could probably use their rays to destroy missiles easily.

Incorrect. They were never stated to have cut through meters of steel. The Thunderchild was a torpedo-ram, a predecessor of the destroyer. Destroyers have very little armor, and it still took several hits with the heat-ray to destroy the ship. A 50's era battleship will laugh off a heat-ray while the 16" guns are being zeroed in on the target. A modern warship won't even be visible to the tripod...it would launch a cruise missile from well over the horizon.

A tank would be hard to hit with the kinds of tactics we use today, such as hiding all but the turret behind a hill and sniping with the main gun. Even if the tank was destroyed by the tripod, we never send tanks out alone. There would be several other tanks in the group that would have already started shooting at the tripod. An old 1890's style field gun was able to smash a hole in a tripod with a single hit. Having several modern battle tanks with far greater range and accuracy all shooting at the same time? Bad day for the tripods. Even trading a couple tanks for a single tripod is a good deal since they only land three tripods at a time.

It is also improbable that they would be able to destroy missiles with the heat-ray. They do not demonstrate pinpoint targeting capabilities in the novel. They would need to see the missile incoming from several miles away, then target it and hit it with the heat ray. Since they only have one heat-ray per machine, they would not be able to stop a flight of missiles if we fire several at once.

Plus they had Flying Machines which could fly

No, they had ONE flying machine. We never see more than one. Plus, this machine can move about the speed of a blimp...and we were successfully shooting down blimps since the first world war.

Modern earth might be slightly less amazed, but they would still be a threat, since their Flying Machines could pick martians up and transport them all over the globe.

They would not be a threat. A flying machine with the speed of a blimp, carrying a machine underneath it, trying to cross the Atlantic? Can you say target practice?

There would still be some amazement, as the flying machines seem to take off using very advanced thrusters.

You mean like we've been doing with VTOL for decades now?

Still, there would be at least 100 tripods, are modern armies really that much more powerful, especially as the 1890's tripods probably weren't taking things too seriously.

Yes. At best, a tripod has the combat capability of two main battle tanks. Show me an army that can take over the world with only 200 tanks.

Oh, and there is the black smoke, which is highly toxic gas that kills anyone in contact with it.

Poison gas. We've been trained to deal with that since World War 1. Not a threat.

Um, what is the range and accuracy of missiles and artillery?

Tanks can accurately hit out to several miles. Actual artillery can hit over the horizon with pinpoint accuracy if they use spotters. Missiles can hit within inches of the target and at ranges of a couple hundred miles in the case of Tomahawks. Javelins will be only a few miles but they can be deployed in massive numbers by individual solders.

Can they hit fast moving targets?

Cruise missiles, maybe not. Anti-armor missiles, definitely. Modern anti-tank missiles are specifically designed to hit tanks that could be moving at high speed across the battlefield. They can track the target using any one of several methods including laser guidance, camera (optical) guidance, or steering with remote control.

I thought artillery generally missed a lot and was only in massed artillery fire against a densely packed enemy.

You're thinking in terms of World War 1 / 2 artillery. Modern guns can have GPS guided shells. Combine that with spotters who use laser rangefinders and GPS to precisely pinpoint the target, modern artillery can hit anything dumb enough to stand still for more than a minute.

[Darth Tanner]

1898's earth military was completely wiped out with the martians only taking 2 or 3 casualties

The British army was routed, not the worlds. Also the Thunderchild alone took down two tripod. If a steam powered torpedo boat can take down two of them what do you think modern smart munitions will do?

I thought artillery generally missed a lot and was only in massed artillery fire against a densely packed enemy.

just out of interest have you
a) been living in a cave with no access to modern communication
b) just been released onto the internet by a mad scientist
c) just been born

I refuse to believe you have not seen nose camera footage of a missile taking out individual cars/buildings.. we have thought major televised wars with them very recently.

as the flying machines seem to take off using very advanced thrusters.

Oh my god they have 1950s VTOL technology!

Oh, and there is the black smoke, which is highly toxic gas that kills anyone in contact with it.

Oh my god what ever will we do against chemical warfare from the 1910's! Perhaps soldiers could but on their gas masks, like the British army couldnt in the original invasion of 1898 and thus led to their rout.

are modern armies really that much more powerful

What do you think? The US alone could launch ten nuclear ICBMs at each tripod and still have enough to destroy the rest of the world.

[Iroscato]

Guys, don't bother. He tried this exact thread on SB.com and was basically laughed out of the thread in that. He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

[Zwinmar]

Oh, you mean the harrier? while seeing them take off is extremely cool it is old tech at this point.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Yes, they are. Cruise missiles and other long range munitions could easily kill them all.

Um, what is the range and accuracy of missiles and artillery? Can they hit fast moving targets? What about small targets? I thought artillery generally missed a lot and was only in massed artillery fire against a densely packed enemy.

Yes, they can hit fast-moving targets, which your Martian fliers won't be, because they were built for Mars' gravity and atmosphere(both considerably less than Earth's), so they have to expend more energy to overcome both a heavier gravity and a denser atmosphere.

Even without base bleed or rocket-assisted propulsion, a 16" US naval rifle could hurl a ton of steel 26 miles. Modern guided missiles have a range of hundreds of miles, and modern 155mm artillery, with base-bleed and RAP, can range out to approximately twenty miles(11 without RAP)*.

Also, you have improved communications, radar, centralized fire direction, laser guidance, and the like, which makes modern artillery more accurate than its 19th and early-mid 20th-century cousins.

*Based on the US M109 self-propelled gun.

There would be several other tanks in the group that would have already started shooting at the tripod.

And, infantry as well.

[Archinist]

Well, I guess the modern military would win quite easily then.

But isn't 2 M1A2s for each tripod a bit excessive? Couldn't a bradley or a marine with a javelin take care of it? I doubt a tripod could take out a single Abrams if the crew were competent.

As for the thrusters, didn't they have some sort of gravity/magnet thrusters? I don't recall the narrator mentioning any blades or turbines.

[bilateralrope]

As for the thrusters, didn't they have some sort of gravity/magnet thrusters? I don't recall the narrator mentioning any blades or turbines.

That's something to worry about after the war. First kill it, then have scientists go through the debris to see if they can reverse engineer anything useful.

[Iroscato]

What about a modern-day Earth vs the Martians from the 50's movie? Since we've established the '98 lot would be resoundingly roflstomped, let's amp things up a bit...

[Khaat]

What about a modern-day Earth vs the Martians from the 50's movie? Since we've established the '98 lot would be resoundingly roflstomped, let's amp things up a bit...

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... it=tripods
This, plus 60 years of weapons development.

[Darth Tanner]

What about a modern-day Earth vs the Martians from the 50's movie? Since we've established the '98 lot would be resoundingly roflstomped, let's amp things up a bit...

In that case we are the ones that are fucked. The shields were unbroken by nuclear attack so our ability to attack them has not improved since, the only option would be if they have a vulnerability to something like EMP, laser based weapons or sonic attacks that the 1950s lacked but seeing as they were immune to a nuclear explosion then thats unlikely as they would need to defende against those as part of that.

Only other option would be if something like a Tsar bomb or rail gun assault which they never had access to in the 50s would be more effective... maybe a sustained bombardment by ICBMs in an attempt to overload the shield but from what we saw that isnt going to work.

Of course they still like to leave their ships so if we could bathe them in chemical weapons or anthrax we might get them that way if normal disease is ruled out as per the OP.

I don't rembember if it was tried in the film but burying a nuke or other high explosives and detonating when the ship is above it would also be worth a shot, the shield was described as an umbrella.

[Archinist]

What about modern 2005 tripods, though? They physically ate humans, so I'd imagine our suicide bombers should be able to take care of them.

What if the 50s martians were only immune to low-grade nuclear weapons, and were vulnerable to kinetic weapons, though still required a great magnitude of them to penetrate?

[Borgholio]

What about a modern-day Earth vs the Martians from the 50's movie? Since we've established the '98 lot would be resoundingly roflstomped, let's amp things up a bit...

Wouldn't change much. The shields of the Martian machines from the 50's movie prove to be invincible. In the thread linked to by Khaat, I did an analysis of their shields and it would seem that the only way to get through them was from underneath. Aside from railguns or lasers, our modern weapons would prove to be just as ineffective since they're mainly just more accurate versions of the stuff they had in the 50's. One point I brought up was that we don't know if the 200kt atomic bomb attack was a direct hit or not. So it's possible a direct precision hit by a nuclear cruise missile or ICBM might do it...but that's a lot of collateral damage to take out a single machine.

What about modern 2005 tripods, though? They physically ate humans, so I'd imagine our suicide bombers should be able to take care of them.

They had shields too and were invincible to outside attack. They in fact DID damage one by using a belt of grenades from the inside, but they weren't able to destroy them wholesale until their shields went down.

What if the 50s martians were only immune to low-grade nuclear weapons, and were vulnerable to kinetic weapons, though still required a great magnitude of them to penetrate?

That is certainly possible, but we don't have a whole lot of railguns sitting around since they're still experimental. We would have to rush them into production and there's still no guarantee they would work. The best bet would be precision strikes with nuclear cruise missiles or traps laid out in front of the machines.

[NecronLord]

We don't have Tsar Bombas or railguns either. And unless the shielded aliens are blisteringly incompetent in a way none of the films have made them, we're not getting either of them because the infastructure to build and install such weapons would be among their primary targets.

[Archinist]

We don't have Tsar Bombas or railguns either. And unless the shielded aliens are blisteringly incompetent in a way none of the films have made them, we're not getting either of them because the infastructure to build and install such weapons would be among their primary targets.

We could start producing some Tsar Bombas, and railguns do exist in prototypes, so it's not like they're completely out of our depth or anything.

And, how would the martians actually know the exact locations of railgun/high capacity nuclear weaponry plants? I doubt most civilians know that, weren't the martians just following a rough map?

[Iroscato]

We don't have Tsar Bombas or railguns either. And unless the shielded aliens are blisteringly incompetent in a way none of the films have made them, we're not getting either of them because the infastructure to build and install such weapons would be among their primary targets.

We could start producing some Tsar Bombas, and railguns do exist in prototypes, so it's not like they're completely out of our depth or anything.

And, how would the martians actually know the exact locations of railgun/high capacity nuclear weaponry plants? I doubt most civilians know that, weren't the martians just following a rough map?

But how long would it take to assemble a nuke in the 50 megaton range like the Tsar, when the planet is in a state of total war against the invaders? By the time we've got one (or several) ready, the battle could already be essentially over. And even then, there's no guarantee they'd work.

[Archinist]

We don't have Tsar Bombas or railguns either. And unless the shielded aliens are blisteringly incompetent in a way none of the films have made them, we're not getting either of them because the infastructure to build and install such weapons would be among their primary targets.

We could start producing some Tsar Bombas, and railguns do exist in prototypes, so it's not like they're completely out of our depth or anything.

And, how would the martians actually know the exact locations of railgun/high capacity nuclear weaponry plants? I doubt most civilians know that, weren't the martians just following a rough map?

But how long would it take to assemble a nuke in the 50 megaton range like the Tsar, when the planet is in a state of total war against the invaders? By the time we've got one (or several) ready, the battle could already be essentially over. And even then, there's no guarantee they'd work.

What about multiple direct hits from smaller nuclear bombs, such as 5 or 10 megatons, similar to that tactic that Starfleet used in Star Destroyers Rampant against the Stay Destroyer which proved effective. Aren't the tripods also quite slow, and travel a bit slower than a car? It would take them a while to *thoroughly* destroy all core infrastructures.

The 2005 tripods should be relatively easy, once we figure out how to kill them, since there are plenty of suicide bombers who would gladly defend lay down their own life for the survival of humanity.

[Elheru Aran]

...are you actually referencing *fanfiction*?

Also, just how quick do you think cars go? Tripods are, what, 30-50 ft tall. They've got long enough legs that their basic gait would be pretty quick in open country.