Who CAN the Federation Ground Troops beat?

[Mr Bean]

I came up with more then three reason so pick the ones you like

[Kosh_The_Vorlon]

Sputnik sitting on the ground

[Anarchist Bunny]

What Piett seems to not understand is that there is extreme stratagizing in warfare, every detail counts, weather, tempature, land type, elevation, postioning. And a moving army vs a set up army is fighting at a disadvantage. The time it takes to set up artilery and what not is time that could cost an army that artilery and many lives in unsupported troops. And in urban warfare situations the feds are fucked. Urban warfare and fighting on the battlefield are greatly different. And the palastiens grew up in this enviroment. The greatest challege will be finding a place for all the corpses.

[Mr Bean]

Like I said the Mear fact we are talking about 1000 Federation troops VS 1000(roughly) Naeoplonic Troops and thinking the Naoplonic Troops have fair chance is the most distribing part

[Typhonis 1]

The rocket launchers the Palestinians would use would probobly be RPG-7s.

[Admiral Piett]

What Piett seems to not understand is that there is extreme stratagizing in warfare, every detail counts, weather, tempature, land type, elevation, postioning. And a moving army vs a set up army is fighting at a disadvantage. The time it takes to set up artilery and what not is time that could cost an army that artilery and many lives in unsupported troops. And in urban warfare situations the feds are fucked. Urban warfare and fighting on the battlefield are greatly different. And the palastiens grew up in this enviroment. The greatest challege will be finding a place for all the corpses.

If you had read the Napoleonic scenario you would know that I have specified weather,temperature,land type.On a side note I am well aware that these circumstances influence the outcome,of course not having military experience I cannot speak first hand but if you have a better understand of infantry tactics I will be glad to hear you.Note also that as far as I know a battalion of infantry would not typically have the advantage a 12ibs cannons battery(only brigades usually had them),thus it is already a gift that I am doing to the Napoleonic side.And I specfied also that the frenchs were advancing ALREADY LINED IN BATTLE FORMATION.And that the feds did not ambush them behind some rocks or other things.
Then ask yourself:how many chances typically would a Napoleonic era battalion against a battalion of people armed with modern assault rifles? Not many I would think.And since the federation assault rifle has a rate of fire comparable or superior to a semiautomatic weapon this is an enormous advantage over a musket.
Is it an unfair fight? Of course but for the obvious federation technological advantage in small arms(the phaser assault rifle with the shoulder stock seen in first contact,their communicators).
Then if one is so anxious to trash the federation troops that seriously thinks that an half a dozen of cavemen with sticks could wipe out one thousand of federals,well that is his opinion.I reiterate:they are poor troops and would lose against a modern army in most of the circumstances.In open grounds a single AT-AT could crush them all under its feet.But they are not so bad that they do not have a chance against napoleonic era troops.

[Cpt_Frank]

Cavalry will crush them.
They've got pistols, they've got sabers, and they're faster that the Feds.
The high rate of fire won't be of any use for the Feds once the Cavalry is near enough to slice thru their lines with the sabers.
The feds will have to flee, and if the enemy flees, the battle is won.

[Admiral Piett]

Cavalry is not unstoppable.Massed musket and artillery fire could stop it.Massed phaser rifle and grenade launcher fire should do the job in the same way.

[Darth Gojira]

Cavalry is not unstoppable.Massed musket and artillery fire could stop it.Massed phaser rifle and grenade launcher fire should do the job in the same way.

Are you suggesting that grenade launchers can duplicate artillery pieces?

[Admiral Piett]

Napoleonic cannons,yes,at least partly.
Read the the posts about the comparison in the previous pages.

[Admiral Piett]

The napoleonic era cannon I am speaking about is the french 12 ibs cannon.It is the most powerful cannon meant to be used on the battlefield,
larger guns exist but they are used only for sieges and fortresses.Its rate of fire is roughly one rounds every three minutes,since however we are speaking about veteran gunners I suppose that they could do a bit better.It can fire a cannon ball weighing 12ibs or a canister filled with musket's balls, deadly effective against the infantry at close range.
The cannon ball maximum range is reported to be 600 meters.
The cannon ball maximum effective range is reported to be 300 meters.
I am not sure but I think that the 300 meters figure refers to the cannon firing the ball so that it bounces over the ground,which reduces the range but it increases greatly the effectiviness against enemy troops,because with this trick the ball travels at man's height,crushing all the men it finds on its path.A greater range can be obtained by increasing elevation.This means however that the balls will fly well over the lines of enemy soldiers.And since it is a simple iron ball and not an explosive shell it will cause harm only to the people who are enough unlucky to be exactly on the impact point or very close to it.
The canister maximum range is reported to be 200 meters.It seems however that this figure is to be taken as the absolute maximum.This type of munition at close range can literally wipe out enemy troops with its spray of musket's balls.

The federation grenade laucher is a different thing.I do not know if it fires or can fire self propelled shells or it is a sort of railgun which fires dumb grenades(did Worf recoil wheen he fired it?).
In anyway the grenade's effects seems more or less similar to those of a Napoleonic cannon ball.
The range it si difficult to calculate.It would seem that the Son'as it was fired to were a couple of hundreds of meters away.Albeit this does not give us enough information about its maximum range I suspect,considered the nature of the weapon that this should be between 200-300 meters.
The rate of fire is difficult to judge.However it should be at least comparable to that of a modern rifle mounted grenade launcher.

[Mr Bean]

Acutal I don't think so on that last part now that I read it agian and just got done testing the America's Army Game
A rifle mounted Gernade Launcher there teaks rouglhy five seconds to reload
Somthing I know a Cannon can not do, Thats twenty to foutry seconds to reload one of those(Pounding packing, lifting shot in ext)

Even given fumbling eight seconds anyone who knew how could reload a rifle Launcher

Roughly giving them triple the ROF

[Admiral Piett]

We do not know the federation doctrine about grenade launcher.One grenade launcher every 50 people seems a reasonable rate to me.
Since the federals have one thousand of troops this means 20 grenade launchers.
They of course have not been designed to be artillery pieces but the napoleonic era cannons are so primitive and inefficient (except of course for their antipersonnel canisters) that the ST grenade launchers are a match for them.

[Admiral Piett]

We do not know the federation doctrine about grenade launcher.One grenade launcher every 50 people seems a reasonable rate to me.
Since the federals have one thousand of troops this means 20 grenade launchers.
They of course have not been designed to be artillery pieces but the napoleonic era cannons are so primitive and inefficient (except of course for their antipersonnel canisters) that the ST grenade launchers are a match for them.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

I think the Feds would die, unless they could use tricorders to locate Palestinians in buildings and then take them out with the grenade launchers. But, if those grenade launchers and phasers got into the wrong hands, or if the rocket launchers and AK-47s got in the wrong hands, that could significantly change the outcome of the battle. To me, it would be a random outcome if the Feds were able to use tricorders to locate the enemy.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

I think the Feds would die, unless they could use tricorders to locate Palestinians in buildings and then take them out with the grenade launchers. But, if those grenade launchers and phasers got into the wrong hands, or if the rocket launchers and AK-47s got in the wrong hands, that could significantly change the outcome of the battle. To me, it would be a random outcome if the Feds were able to use tricorders to locate the enemy.

[Mr Bean]

The Day of the Double Post?
IRG
Even if you know where the Enemy is does not change the fact he's 500 Feet outside your Range and sitting with a clear line of fire towards you

Furthermore The Palestinons have nearly ever advanatge they could want, What DONT they have? They have better Anti-personel weapons, Better Knowledge of War and the Battlefield, prehaps not better intellgance but would that matter much to the Red-Shirts?(Read American Revloutin and Marching Through Forests Wearing Red)

[Admiral Piett]

The main weapons,AK-47 and phaser assault rifle, are equivalent in range.If the palestinians are out of the range of the federation phaser rifles then even the federals are out of the range of palestinians weapons,unless they are using specialized sniper rifles(do they really have them?what types?).In effect I have not taken in consideration the important fact that trycorders should give them the ability to detect the enemies behind the walls and to avoid explosive traps.Also the type III phaser rifle,although useless beyond few meters, can blast through thin walls,which helps.
The palestinians on the other side are more,or much more, expert in this type of warfare and they are fighting in places they know very well,with a civilian population that would help them.
Thus it is more balanced than I thought originally,although in my opinion the Palestinian would still have a margin of advantage.
Much depends on trycorders abilities:can they discrminate from an human being carrying a rifle and a civilian?

[Mr Bean]

Much depends on trycorders abilities:can they discrminate from an human being carrying a rifle and a civilian?

Knowing Star Treck the Tricorders can be re-configured to scan for gunnoius type metals

Sure they can scan for Heat Sources but thats not that useful when you use a typical sniper tatic of getting on da roof, Sure you know where he is and that puts you a little better off but you have to go through the building(Likley he has friends) Induring Sniper Fire on the Way up from surronding Buildings and the simple fact an AK-47 is a much supiror weapon in ROF, Accurasy, Range and Durability than the avarage Phaser
That and the fact the typical Palsteninan gun-man does not go to the bathroom without a gernade or two tilts the odds even more so
That and Phasers give away thier postions alot worse than Guns do

[Admiral Piett]

Also we should not overestimate the Palestinian experience.While the federals should not have more than very few hours of training in urban warfare at the best we(I,at least) do not really know how much experience the palestinians really have.Their formal training probably leaves something to be desired.And after several years of relative peace their experience has probably rusted,maybe only the older fighters have real combat experience.The younger members may need a bit more time to gain experience.Neverthless fighting at home is an huge advantage.

[Admiral Piett]

the simple fact an AK-47 is a much supiror weapon in ROF, Accurasy, Range and Durability than the avarage Phaser

Rate of fire,yes.However if the US Army has replaced the full automatic mode of the M 16 with the three shots burst I think that they probably have a good reason to do so.
Accuracy?Range? Well the AK-47 is not designed for long range combat,it is an assault rifle,like the federation phaser assault rifle is(i am referring to the federation phaser assault rifle seen in first contact,with shoulder stock and optical sight).
When I have nominated the type III phaser rifle I was suggesting that several of them would be available but the majority of federation troops, the 80%, would still be armed with phaser assault rifles.
Durability?We do not really know.However the AK-47 uses moving parts to function,while an energy weapon should not use them,thus making probably the federation phaser rifle more reliable.In theory.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

against palestinians feds are hoplessly lost, besides s significant advantage in weapons-ie a modern rocket weapon is far more powerful than worfs pittiful gun, and assault rifle delivers rounds quicker, and sniper rifles outrage anything in the feds arsenal. as well as tatics in building to building combat which i doubt the feds have any training in. and how long has it been since feds dealt with bullet wonds? and couple centuries i think. molotovs would burn the poor fellas, and grenades woudl kill em with shrapnel through there all powerful jammies.and i dont need none of that "wide spread beam" nonsense, they woudl use the same straight, slow, short range, often non-lethal beam as always.

i would feel sorry for the feddy buckaroos that think they could handle that mess

[Darth Gojira]

The napoleonic era cannon I am speaking about is the french 12 ibs cannon.It is the most powerful cannon meant to be used on the battlefield,
larger guns exist but they are used only for sieges and fortresses.Its rate of fire is roughly one rounds every three minutes,since however we are speaking about veteran gunners I suppose that they could do a bit better.It can fire a cannon ball weighing 12ibs or a canister filled with musket's balls, deadly effective against the infantry at close range.
The cannon ball maximum range is reported to be 600 meters.
The cannon ball maximum effective range is reported to be 300 meters.
I am not sure but I think that the 300 meters figure refers to the cannon firing the ball so that it bounces over the ground,which reduces the range but it increases greatly the effectiviness against enemy troops,because with this trick the ball travels at man's height,crushing all the men it finds on its path.A greater range can be obtained by increasing elevation.This means however that the balls will fly well over the lines of enemy soldiers.And since it is a simple iron ball and not an explosive shell it will cause harm only to the people who are enough unlucky to be exactly on the impact point or very close to it.
The canister maximum range is reported to be 200 meters.It seems however that this figure is to be taken as the absolute maximum.This type of munition at close range can literally wipe out enemy troops with its spray of musket's balls.

The federation grenade laucher is a different thing.I do not know if it fires or can fire self propelled shells or it is a sort of railgun which fires dumb grenades(did Worf recoil wheen he fired it?).
In anyway the grenade's effects seems more or less similar to those of a Napoleonic cannon ball.
The range it si difficult to calculate.It would seem that the Son'as it was fired to were a couple of hundreds of meters away.Albeit this does not give us enough information about its maximum range I suspect,considered the nature of the weapon that this should be between 200-300 meters.
The rate of fire is difficult to judge.However it should be at least comparable to that of a modern rifle mounted grenade launcher.

Ah, thank you. But does it show any recoil, which is critical for judging weapon firepower. If not, is it energy based?(Probably not, it's a grenade launcher)

[CmdrWilkens]

Sorry its been a while since I've posted but in general response to Adm. peitt's scenario I would like to present some gerneal observations and my conclusoins about such.

1) The Federation has never had a gorund commander, that I'm aware of, incharge of so large a formaiton. While communicaiton may be possible amongst his/her disperesed elements the Feds haev never demonstrated effectie use of a headquarters unit for directing a battle. They have a SEVERE disadvantage in tactical situations in that no commander remains behind the lines (on the ground) in order to direct action against an enemy's advance.

2) Those grenade launchers while perhaps having greater range than the phasers (most likely the case) show no signs of causing more damage than a tiny explosive charge and their sighting device in not conducive to actions against targets more than 330 yds/300 m distant, in other words they are outranged by the French 12 lbs guns.

3) Those 12 lbs firing common ball rounds have the tendency to chew through infantry and cause limbs to fly off. The impact of normal shells is absolutely grotesque on an order that the Feds have never seen before.

4) A competent Napoleonic commander (French in your case though I prefer the Brits of 1810 as they had already established the Green Jackets, riflemen) would use his calvary as a flanking unti while his troops and cannon controlled the main battleground, while the Feds may see this action (those who are using their tricorders instead of firing and dying) they will be singularly incapable of shifting their lines to face against such a manuever, see point 1 above.

5) While it may be fairly assumed that the weaponry of the napoleonic troops and Federaiton troops is of about similair range the French of the era are a highly disciplined army used to taking and giving casualties in the most horrific of ways (these men marched in formation straight into the teeth of loaded cannon). The Feds on the other hand display the untested innaccuracies of raw recruits. Standard tactics for them appears to be a sort of duck, cover, and shoot without aiming style that works in close quarters but means they have very little experience with amnuever over open ground. thus between the battle hardened troops of the French and the Feds largely untested group the later will break first and even still might not close to effective range given their normal modus operendi and its inapplicability here, we must remember that fed personnel seem to be trained largely for starship defense with cover readily availabl;e it is more than likely that those who are not vetrans of the Dominion War will freeze and be incapable of crosing opn ground in the face of cannon and musket fire.

6) The calvary, as previously mentioned, should easily be able to flank the Feds and charge in at such speed as to render appropriate response irrelevant at which point I highly doubt the Feds will not panick when suddenly overrun by charging warhorses carrying armed troops busily decapitating their enemies, frankly I repeat my asserion that the Feds have never seen combat like Napoleonic-era combat and they do not have the range, training, or coordination to be able to engage the French, in your scenario, under terms that would remove the chance of them suffering the harsher realities of 1810 warfare.

[Admiral Piett]

2) Those grenade launchers while perhaps having greater range than the phasers (most likely the case) show no signs of causing more damage than a tiny explosive charge and their sighting device in not conducive to actions against targets more than 330 yds/300 m distant, in other words they are outranged by the French 12 lbs guns.

From a theoretical point of view the Napoleonic cannon outranges the grenade launcher.But doing so it loses its effectiviness:the effects of long range fire against people are minimal,especially with such a small number of cannons.
Remeber also that the phaser assault rifle has a substantially greater rate of fire than the musket(the standard weapon for ALL the non èlite units of the time).
In an episode of the TNG they beamed down the majority of the starship's crew(they left the medical officer in command of the ship,so I think they had beamed down at least 700 people) on a planet, occupied by a few individualized borgs,for a search and rescue mission.They appeared to have a sort of small field headquarters,with some of the officers, computers,tables.
Thus they have at least a vague idea about how to cohordinate a few hundreds of men on the ground.The problem is that cohordinating them for a true battle is a different history.
The rest of you points are valid.They know Napoleonic tactics but probably the soldiers do not have the skills required for that type of warfare.However their weapons have a much greater rate of fire.Thus the french commander would need all his tactical skills to overcome the technological inferiority of his troops.