Mobilisation capacity of the Federation?

[Uraniun235]

My impression is that the Federation relies heavily on fire support from Starfleet ships for ground operations. Since capital ship phasers have wide-angle stun setting that can disable crowds (or armies) in short order, that may not be such a bad idea. Unfortunately, it means that Federation ground tactics have degenerated, with effects visible in the series.

We've only seen one "ground operation" ever (that I can remember, at least) and it portrayed Starfleet as pathetically helpless in ground combat. I don't see how those tactics have degenerated when we have no prior proof of competence.


Is this something we can look at sticking next to "warp cores explode when you sneeze at them, lol" on the list of "things that have been beaten to death here so we don't really need to revisit them again"? Ignorant producers and the budget limitations of television have created an implausibly incompetent and incomplete Starfleet "ground force", and beating the topic to death again and again seems especially absurd given both the lack of effort put into it by the show's production team and the utter lack of screen time given to such operations.

I mean yeah for a versus scenario, it makes sense to go through it again, but is there really anything more to be said about Federation ground forces that has not already been said?

[Darth Wong]

It's not just the lack of screen time. It has been established over and over again that Klingons are the most feared infantry in the Alpha Quadrant, despite their well-established preference for blades over guns. It's not just the occasional freak incident or bizarre situation where they succeed due to terrain or poorly prepared enemies; they are consistently superior.

[Aaron]

My impression is that the Federation relies heavily on fire support from Starfleet ships for ground operations. Since capital ship phasers have wide-angle stun setting that can disable crowds (or armies) in short order, that may not be such a bad idea. Unfortunately, it means that Federation ground tactics have degenerated, with effects visible in the series.

We've only seen one "ground operation" ever (that I can remember, at least) and it portrayed Starfleet as pathetically helpless in ground combat. I don't see how those tactics have degenerated when we have no prior proof of competence.


Is this something we can look at sticking next to "warp cores explode when you sneeze at them, lol" on the list of "things that have been beaten to death here so we don't really need to revisit them again"? Ignorant producers and the budget limitations of television have created an implausibly incompetent and incomplete Starfleet "ground force", and beating the topic to death again and again seems especially absurd given both the lack of effort put into it by the show's production team and the utter lack of screen time given to such operations.

I mean yeah for a versus scenario, it makes sense to go through it again, but is there really anything more to be said about Federation ground forces that has not already been said?

Would you deny the Mess members the endless amusement of these threads?

Seriously though, these threads are far more interesting from the point of showing us who is woefully ignorant of what it takes to run a military then in re-hashing "lol ST sucks at Dakka Dakka". Basically what I'm getting at here is that the threads amusement value is high (for me anyways). It's also interesting to see to what extent people buy into the "future tech solves all" angle, with holographic Drill Instructors and what not.

[Batman]

HoloDIs only work in Holodecks and something tells me a couple dozen square kilometres of rough terrain (leave alone basebound Basic Training Facilicites) plus a handful of actual DIs likely come a lot cheaper than that Holodeck ,plus all that pesky terrain (AND the pesky DI) is still going to be there if someone (AGAIN) managed to fuck up the holomatrix.
Which I rather suspect was one of the points the Cpl was getting at

[Simon_Jester]

Good point about the weaknesses of holographic drill instructors. To make matters worse, to have an effective holo-DI you need someone who knows how a holo-DI is supposed to act in order to program it. And since the Federation doesn't have any real DIs to use as models, the whole idea is likely to go horribly awry, with all the holo-DIs being bad R. Lee Ermey parodies or something.

My impression is that the Federation relies heavily on fire support from Starfleet ships for ground operations. Since capital ship phasers have wide-angle stun setting that can disable crowds (or armies) in short order, that may not be such a bad idea. Unfortunately, it means that Federation ground tactics have degenerated, with effects visible in the series.

We've only seen one "ground operation" ever (that I can remember, at least) and it portrayed Starfleet as pathetically helpless in ground combat. I don't see how those tactics have degenerated when we have no prior proof of competence.

I mean that they have degenerated on the time scale of centuries. The degeneration probably began shortly after the invention of warp drive, and was clearly well advanced by the time of the original series.

The in-setting history of ground combat in Star Trek can be summarized as "Once upon a time, Earth produced good soldiers who make Klingons look like a bunch of amateurs. That was three or four hundred years ago." So "degenerated" is the right word, because Star Trek portrays a military descended from us... one that can't fight its way out of a paper bag in ground combat. Hence, degeneration.

Is this something we can look at sticking next to "warp cores explode when you sneeze at them, lol" on the list of "things that have been beaten to death here so we don't really need to revisit them again"? Ignorant producers and the budget limitations of television have created an implausibly incompetent and incomplete Starfleet "ground force", and beating the topic to death again and again seems especially absurd given both the lack of effort put into it by the show's production team and the utter lack of screen time given to such operations.

I mean yeah for a versus scenario, it makes sense to go through it again, but is there really anything more to be said about Federation ground forces that has not already been said?

I agree; and "the Federation is bad at ground combat" wasn't my point.

I'm not just saying that Starfleet is bad at ground combat (as the name might lead you to expect). I'm saying that Starfleet's entire strategic concept has a big hole in it where "ground combat" comes in. And because of that, when faced with a major war that required them to fight ground battles, the one thing they're not going to do is draft a huge ground army. They probably won't even think of it, because their model of how wars are fought revolves around building ships.

They might try to build specialized troopships that are optimized for ground attack (plenty of shuttle capacity, phasers designed for that "wide angle stun" feature, maybe some sort of mini-torpedoes suitable for air support of ground troops). But their focus will be on the ships, not the troops that go in them, and they're likely to try and make up for a lack of boots on the ground using their ships for support.

I'm not saying it would work, but I do think it's their most likely reaction to the threat. And it's not such an unreasonable strategy for an organization that is, frankly, much better at mobilizing spaceships than at mobilizing infantry divisions.

[Big Phil]

Who would be available to train a Federation army? Unlike Earth's militaries in WWI, WWII, or modern armies, the Federation has NOTHING to expand from. You might be able to draw a comparison between the Federation and America's Colonial army, but that Colonial army did come a society with a militia tradition and was able to draw upon trained soldiers from within the colonies and from Europe to train the army - the Federation will have none of that. They're going to be training an army after decades (possibly centuries) without one, with total imbeciles in charge of training. Hopefully TNG's Federation hasn't destroyed all copies of Sun Tzu's The Art of War, but I wouldn't be holding my breath on that one.

[lord Martiya]

They may ask the Klingon: in face of their infantry tactics, they're still competent enough to have mortars, and that's a lot better than whatever Federation still have. Obviously we'll have to see if the Klingon will accept the job...

[Mr Bean]

They may ask the Klingon: in face of their infantry tactics, they're still competent enough to have mortars, and that's a lot better than whatever Federation still have. Obviously we'll have to see if the Klingon will accept the job...

I think they would love the idea (At least as portrayed) to kick some Federation arse into shape. Heck they might get off it after so long of being looked down on for keeping their warrior traditions to have the Federation to come to them asking for help... Yeah they should love that.

[Bounty]

They may ask the Klingon: in face of their infantry tactics, they're still competent enough to have mortars, and that's a lot better than whatever Federation still have. Obviously we'll have to see if the Klingon will accept the job...

So have mortars = make great drill sergeants now?

Klingon military doctrine is so far removed from the Federation one I doubt either one would ask or accept to train the other (maybe that's why we saw no form of combined infantry training whatsoever when they were allies, hm?). The Klingon armed forces are essentially the peasant army of the Middle Ages dragged into the future. It's made up of masses of home-trained grunts lead by an officer caste that, at least up until two generations before DS9, was selected on breed and stock over actual ability. There appears to be very little in the way of actual training going on outside of the technical fields that would require it. We have seen sparring and drills, but always in an almost haphazard way. It's very much a "bring your own gun", militia sort of affair.

Just look at a soldier like Martok, arguably one of the best the Klingons have at their disposal. Ignored for command because of the farm he was born on, languishing as a grunt until he hit a million-in-one chance of proving himself in battle, and then clawing his way up the ranks based more on grit and luck than any sort of formal career advancement programme. It probably makes for some fiercely determined officers, at the cost of dozens of competent ones, but it's hardly the sort of template that would lend itself well to being turned into a formal training programme.

Compare to the Federation's training, which is strictly egalitarian in terms of admittance, merit-based even outside of combat operations (even peacetime Klingon promotions appear to happen only because of the higher ranks dying, voluntarily or not), and very much based on the idea that the recruit comes in as a blank slate with all training provided in-house.

Klingons training Starfleet personnel would be a short-lived freakshow. The Klingons do what they do because that's what works for them from their cultural background. They're feared not because they are super-efficient stealth killers but because they come in and act like berserk drunken brawlers with guns and big scary knives. It's got to be a wildly successful method of keeping the small fish inside and outside the Empire pacified, but it's not something you can, or would want to, "train" into another army, I'd think.

[Samuel]

Who would be available to train a Federation army? Unlike Earth's militaries in WWI, WWII, or modern armies, the Federation has NOTHING to expand from. You might be able to draw a comparison between the Federation and America's Colonial army, but that Colonial army did come a society with a militia tradition and was able to draw upon trained soldiers from within the colonies and from Europe to train the army - the Federation will have none of that. They're going to be training an army after decades (possibly centuries) without one, with total imbeciles in charge of training. Hopefully TNG's Federation hasn't destroyed all copies of Sun Tzu's The Art of War, but I wouldn't be holding my breath on that one.

Riker mentions Sun Tzu in the first Ferengi episode as a model of wisdom, so they still have his book around.

How would you try to get the military back up to... basic? The easiest way is probably to dump people in the holodeck and have them fight battles and between which they get to request different equipment and train and practice. I'm not sure if that would work though.

[Knife]

As laughable as the super soldiers in one TNG episode were, one prospective Fed applicant seems to have had some sort of military ground forces which the Feds could use as a basis or templet to modify to their liking. There are plenty of one hit wonder races inside and around the Feds to draw upon without using the cheesy space vikings.

[Samuel]

As laughable as the super soldiers in one TNG episode were, one prospective Fed applicant seems to have had some sort of military ground forces which the Feds could use as a basis or templet to modify to their liking. There are plenty of one hit wonder races inside and around the Feds to draw upon without using the cheesy space vikings.

Or they could simply use the Jem Hadar and throw them at the problem until it dies.

[Simon_Jester]

Since the Jem'Hadar are one of the more plausible things for the Federation to need ten million infantrymen to fight in the first place, that might not be such a reliable strategy.

I think I agree: Klingon drill instructors are a bad idea, though I concede that they may be the best available.
________

Samuel, I think you're right about the holodeck being a good place to start. On the other hand, live-fire exercises have some real selling points (you can conduct them over areas larger than any holodeck), especially when you can set phasers to stun.

[Bounty]

No, they won't. History is hardly dead in forgotten in Trekverse, there's bound to be masses of instructional materials and handbooks on tactics and training from pretty much every era since Roman times. Training an army will never start from scratch; you won't tell me there are zero historical societies or, hell, unarmed militias doing pretend-army-stuff like they do today. Even if it's inaccurate and a bit broken it's still a base to quickly reconstruct usable training regimes and practice routines.

And don't tell me "but the feddies don't do that stuff cause it's violent!!!" - Bashir and O'Brien re-enacted the Battle of Britain in their off time, there's definitely an interest, and where there's an interest there's people with the time and skill to reconstruct it to the finest detail.

[Big Phil]

Consider this, however. It took the United States five years to train an army of approximately 10 million men during WWII, and they started with an army designed to be expanded. The Russians took slightly less time, maybe four years, because they were less picky about who they conscripted and built numbers faster.

To think that the Federation, effectively starting from scratch, could build an army, including all of its logistical requirements, in anything less than five years is simply ridiculous. They appear to lack even basic combat doctrine - Federation personnel certainly don't demonstrate any particular knowledge of camouflage, flanking maneuvers, grenades, suppressing fire, combined arms tactics, or other basic infantry tactics - and will have to begin teaching these without anyone knowing how to do it in reality. Then they'll have to figure out how to supply all of these green soldiers they've trained, they'll have to figure out how to supply them, how to use them effectively, and they'll have to accept the massive casualties that will be suffered initially when unprepared soldiers get massacred by their slightly less incompetent opponents.

[lord Martiya]

So have mortars = make great drill sergeants now?

No, but it prove that they have more competence than the Federation in ground warfare.

[Bounty]

So have mortars = make great drill sergeants now?

No, but it prove that they have more competence than the Federation in ground warfare.

It proves that they have mortars. It's an indicator that they are a bit more dedicated to ground warfare, but I don't see the direct correlation to competence and I definitely don't see how one piece of equipment means they'll make for great instructors.

[Aaron]

It proves that they have mortars. It's an indicator that they are a bit more dedicated to ground warfare, but I don't see the direct correlation to competence and I definitely don't see how one piece of equipment means they'll make for great instructors.

All it proves is a Klingon somewhere knows what they are. WWI troops built them themselves, so it's quite possible that only the Klingons on that particular planet had them.

Consider this, however. It took the United States five years to train an army of approximately 10 million men during WWII, and they started with an army designed to be expanded. The Russians took slightly less time, maybe four years, because they were less picky about who they conscripted and built numbers faster.

To think that the Federation, effectively starting from scratch, could build an army, including all of its logistical requirements, in anything less than five years is simply ridiculous. They appear to lack even basic combat doctrine - Federation personnel certainly don't demonstrate any particular knowledge of camouflage, flanking maneuvers, grenades, suppressing fire, combined arms tactics, or other basic infantry tactics - and will have to begin teaching these without anyone knowing how to do it in reality. Then they'll have to figure out how to supply all of these green soldiers they've trained, they'll have to figure out how to supply them, how to use them effectively, and they'll have to accept the massive casualties that will be suffered initially when unprepared soldiers get massacred by their slightly less incompetent opponents.

I've been thinking about this and a great example would be Iraq and Afghanistan's armies. Both had to be rebuilt from scratch and in Afghanistan we're going on seven years and they still have a pretty useless military. Last I heard they were only being trusted to guard secure areas with a very few battalions in actual combat. It's not inconceivable that in year ten their still no good.

I'm going with the idea that any Federation Army is going to be ten years or more before they can take the field, even if all their kit, doctrine and ships are started at the same time.

[tim31]

Aaron, the Australian 1st Mentoring-Recontruction Task Force in Afghanistan has been working hard with the ANA to try and bring their organization up to spec; while they make competent fighters, their logistics is spotty and even getting something as simple as a roster of who is assigned where has been patchy to non-existant. 1-MRTF will remain dedicated to showing the locals how to operate like a professional army, not just the killing and dying part(which they are well versed in). Of course, I read this all in Contact magazine, have not been able to actually ask anyone who was/is on the ground their off-record opinion of the ANA.

[Knife]

Aaron, the Australian 1st Mentoring-Recontruction Task Force in Afghanistan has been working hard with the ANA to try and bring their organization up to spec; while they make competent fighters, their logistics is spotty and even getting something as simple as a roster of who is assigned where has been patchy to non-existant. 1-MRTF will remain dedicated to showing the locals how to operate like a professional army, not just the killing and dying part(which they are well versed in). Of course, I read this all in Contact magazine, have not been able to actually ask anyone who was/is on the ground their off-record opinion of the ANA.

Still amounts to the very same thing Aarron said, just sounds nicer to the Afgans. The Feds COULD throw something together in a year or two and those men and women would die horribly in an engagement, sure the Feds would learn all sorts of lessons on how to do stuff and how not to do stuff but it would still amount to not having a honest to god fighting force for years after, when they learned a bunch of important and costly lessons.

[ray245]

Which brings up this question on how did the humans started the process of demilitarising the army after WW3 or after first contact?

It's weird to see almost every race or species in Star Treks forgetting the need for a decent ground forces once they expand into space.

[Knife]

Which brings up this question on how did the humans started the process of demilitarising the army after WW3 or after first contact?

It's weird to see almost every race or species in Star Treks forgetting the need for a decent ground forces once they expand into space.

Seems they count more on space superiority than ground forces. Control the space/orbit from enemy ships and you don't have to worry about ground forces.

[Uraniun235]

Still amounts to the very same thing Aarron said, just sounds nicer to the Afgans. The Feds COULD throw something together in a year or two and those men and women would die horribly in an engagement, sure the Feds would learn all sorts of lessons on how to do stuff and how not to do stuff but it would still amount to not having a honest to god fighting force for years after, when they learned a bunch of important and costly lessons.

On the other hand, any of the existing Trek forces they faced would run into the same issues.

Which brings up this question on how did the humans started the process of demilitarising the army after WW3 or after first contact?

It's weird to see almost every race or species in Star Treks forgetting the need for a decent ground forces once they expand into space.

Have you seen their fleet sizes? The carrying capacity of their ships? There's no way they should be able to land any significant occupation force with the ships they have in inventory. Any planet that isn't some podunk worthless colony (that wouldn't warrant invasion and occupation anyway) should be able to field an army that has far more men, heavier armor, and superior knowledge of the terrain than any other Trek invader.

[Aaron]

On the other hand, any of the existing Trek forces they faced would run into the same issues.

True enough but if time is not a factor (the OP didn't really specify) then the Federation may as well take the time to train it's men to a high standard, there will be a better return on the costs of raising the army thanks to them hopefully dominating the enemy. As well as better PR, seeing as there won't be a massive stream of casualties coming home.

For Tim; sorry about not responding but Knife pretty much covered it.

[Simon_Jester]

Have you seen their fleet sizes? The carrying capacity of their ships? There's no way they should be able to land any significant occupation force with the ships they have in inventory. Any planet that isn't some podunk worthless colony (that wouldn't warrant invasion and occupation anyway) should be able to field an army that has far more men, heavier armor, and superior knowledge of the terrain than any other Trek invader.

You're right.

The only significant equalizer the invader has is space supremacy, and that's a big deal in Star Trek. Every ship carries large numbers of torpedoes in the mid-to-high megaton range. And they mount phasers that can be used as high-precision ground bombardment weapons or as wide-angle antipersonnel weapons that are safe enough to use for crowd control.

Relative to any ground force without the heavy antiship weapons it would take to fight back, a Trek starship in orbit is devastatingly powerful. It doesn't justify letting the ground forces atrophy, but it does explain it. Starfleet can get away with landing a party of naval infantry with poor training because if they run into anything they can't handle, the ship is available for fire support most of the time. If the ship isn't available they lose, and they'd be far better off with a competent force of Starfleet "Marines," but it's a low-order enough necessity that a starfaring power can survive without it so long as their space force remains effective. And without a good space force, it hardly matters how good their ground troops are in any case.
_______

Moreover, it seems that most habitable worlds in Star Trek are either uninhabited or occupied by primitives. In either case, the incentive to fight ground wars against enemies that force you to keep good tactics is low.

Again, this doesn't mean they will never need good ground tactics; they do need them, quite often (and don't have them). But it does make good ground tactics a bit more of an "optional" thing and less of a "vital to national survival" thing.