StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I think it's that the Federation, by and large, is populated by people who are psychologically unsuited to a ground war.

I put it down to taking todays philosophy of "the ascendence of fires" way too far.

There is probably a sort of unoficial agreement among the AQ powers to surender as soon as you loose control of space, sort of eqivalent to the old fassioned tradition of surendering a fortress once the walls were breached. Both positions are completely unwinable for the defenders in the end. (And remember that some powers are completely willing to indescriminately bombard the surface.

Therefore the federation may never have needed a large army and just let it slip away. Not an amazingly smart decision, but understandable I think.

Also, most planets are not especially valuable in the short term, and so it might be sensible to just leave any stuborn enemy on the ground until the federation have won the war and the troops recieve orders to stand down from their new government.

Praxis wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:That won't do shit unless you're willing to cause massive civilian casualties. Suppose the enemy has invaded one of your planets? Are you going to bombard any target which is inhibiting your transporter signal? Blast the cities from space in order to clear out the invaders? Think about this for a moment.

Er, mike? Have you seen Insurrection? Fighters swooping down and blasting the inhibitors?

Yeah, by slowing down to a crawl and targeting the tiny devices from a range of a few hundred metres. If the defenders had any kind of AA weaponry at all instead of being limited to small-arms, they would have been shot down.

Even a manly officer would think twice before annihilating civilians en masse. Sorry, but even with transporters and orbital bombardment, you need fighting men on the ground.

Pinpoint phaser strikes. Star Trek things are good at hitting things, when they're not moving

Laser-guided bombs. By your logic, modern air forces can fight wars by themselves.

Like the Enterprise drilled a hole in rock. It took them two hours to reconfigure the phaser but once the phaser was ready they aimed and hit perfectly.

So? A modern LGB can hit a pinpoint target too; it hasn't made soldiers obsolete. Pull your head out of Rick Berman's ass and think.

How would you have planned the Iraq invasion? Use satellite photos to figure out where all the enemy troops are and then nuke them? Stop projecting tactics from "Command and Conquer: Generals" onto actual warfare.

If you could fire weapons like phasers configured to 'drilling mode' so they don't make massive megaton explosions, and moving too fast for people to get out of the way...yes.

Real-life experience proves your ignorant conjecture wrong.

With modern weapons, or photon torpedoes...no.

More bullshit. They have modern ground-penetrating weapons which can destroy a bunker without leveling the city. You're a good example of what happens when someone tries to evaluate Star Trek combat without knowing anything but Star Trek combat.

Patrick Ogaard wrote:Well, sure, to your puny human intellect. A Klingon warrior, on the other hand, might consider that to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After all, you can't disembowel an opponent with a cunning batleth stroke in honorable and prestige-providing close combat if the initial mortar barrage has already disemboweled and dismembered all likely candidates.

They couldn't disembowl someone with a bat'leth anyway. Bat'leths don't have sharp edges, as innumerable incidents in "Way of the Warrior" have proved.

I think Prozac hit on the BEST answer so far (though I'm not sure he meant to).

Also, most planets are not especially valuable in the short term, and so it might be sensible to just leave any stuborn enemy on the ground until the federation have won the war and the troops recieve orders to stand down from their new government.

If you sift out the non sequitur of a new government, he does note that if you have command of space you can simply bypass a planet AND leave the troops there effectively out of the war. The American Pacific Theater strategy adopted this theme after bloody battles in the Solomon Islands and instead focused on taking the islands only with strategic value (in this case it would be their location relative to flight time from Japan or a political target like the Philippines). However, an army is STILL needed to take the important islands, or planets in this case.

Furthermore, one would think that if the air/space superiority school of tactics was being taught without exception then I wonder why isn't anybody creating tactics to lessen the enemy's effectiveness?? Just off the top of my head, concepts like ground-to-orbit weaponry, GTO targeting disruption, pho torp and phaser resistant fortifications, and planetary energy shielding are things that you'd want your side to have. But none of the powers seem to have them or are even developing them (though I guess one never really knows what they are working on).

Several advantages to planetary defense are obvious:
1.) A planet who can defend itself frees Starfleet ships and materials for other missions, greatly improving Starfleet's flexibility and offensive capability by filling the garrison role that the ships once played.
2.) A planet who can defend itself will at least buy Starfleet time to arrive to a beleaguered system and not a conquered one.
2b.) A planet who can defend itself doesn't have to wait for Starfleet to protect it. It's primary defense is right there.
3.) Planetary defense allows for forward listening posts/observation posts and supply depots without the need to build a spacestation and run the risk of losing one (and the thousands of manhours to build and crew it).

I'm sure there are more but those are the ones that just jump to mind. I'm afraid that Gil is correct and humanity just isn't capable of producing ground pounders anymore.

Oh, and Prozac...they didn't surrender a fortress when the walls were breached out of some gentleman's code...they surrendered because it's no longer feasible for the defending force to win.

Perhaps they never developed effective planetary defenses because of a variation upon the same argument presently being used against the development of an ABM system in real-life.

Here's a theory. Perhaps Starfleet doesn't maintain ground forces itself. It shifts the burden to local governments. Each member could provide ground units to defend their worlds and colonies, and in times of war, they recruit and train new units to augment those defenses and to provide offensive forces. After the war, the extra units disband and the members go home. Starfleet security might function like the Marines. A fleet comes into a system, Starfleet security personnel land and secure landing areas, then the regular infantry comes in to secure the planet.

Why would Starfleet not have its own regular infantry? Perhaps they decided it was a better use of their resources to secure their space with ships, and let the member worlds secure their planets with ground troops, rather than split their focus between the two. Infantry, artillery and armor(assuming they have all three) are cheap compared to starships and the personnel needed for them, so it's possible that they are within a member world's means to produce them for its own needs, and maybe produce a surplus for combat. Starfleet could potentially produce ground personnel, but to provide enough to secure all their worlds would cut deeply into their production of ships, so they chose to focus.

Armored Goldbar wrote:I think Prozac hit on the BEST answer so far (though I'm not sure he meant to).

If you sift out the non sequitur of a new government, he does note that if you have command of space you can simply bypass a planet AND leave the troops there effectively out of the war. The American Pacific Theater strategy adopted this theme after bloody battles in the Solomon Islands and instead focused on taking the islands only with strategic value (in this case it would be their location relative to flight time from Japan or a political target like the Philippines). However, an army is STILL needed to take the important islands, or planets in this case.

Heh, thanks. Yes I did mean that. The difference between ww2 and trek is that there is no real need to take out any planet but the enemy capital since unlike ww2 planes, starships never have to land. All the suport stuff is in space.

The 'non sequitur' is me saying that once the war is over all these troops will have to surender anyway. And most people will surrender when you have the ability to nuke their cities. It seems to me that the federation might have fought entire wars without having to deploy troops for anything but peacekeeping on planets that have surendered.

Furthermore, one would think that if the air/space superiority school of tactics was being taught without exception then I wonder why isn't anybody creating tactics to lessen the enemy's effectiveness?? Just off the top of my head, concepts like ground-to-orbit weaponry, GTO targeting disruption, pho torp and phaser resistant fortifications, and planetary energy shielding are things that you'd want your side to have. But none of the powers seem to have them or are even developing them (though I guess one never really knows what they are working on).

There is a good reason not to start using ground to orbit weaponry: the colateral damage that will inevitably occur when the enemy nukes it from orbit. It would be mostly useless anyway since it is incapable of evading enemy fire.

Fortresses would be the same. They can't be armoured sufficiently to protect them from a sustained bombardment, and the colateral damage could be immense.

Planetary shields are probably beyond the technology of the federation, although it's possible they just don't want to use them because the damage that would leak through while the enemy are forcing the shield down could be very bad for the people on the planet.

Oh, and Prozac...they didn't surrender a fortress when the walls were breached out of some gentleman's code...they surrendered because it's no longer feasible for the defending force to win.

There are lots of examples of last stands in history. The reasons they were discouraged in this case wasn't just so that you would survive as a prisoner, but also so that the civilians in the town would not be killed in retalliation for killing the enemy when the battle is already lost.

I believe the same sort of thing applies in space warfare. Once you loose space you either give up, or get nuked from orbit, which not only kills you with out giving you any chance to fight back, but also kills millions of inocents.[/quote]

Prozac the Robert wrote:I believe the same sort of thing applies in space warfare. Once you loose space you either give up, or get nuked from orbit, which not only kills you with out giving you any chance to fight back, but also kills millions of inocents.

This would make sense except for the fact that Klingon shock troopers were used in order to invade Chin'toka (why would they want to use undisciplined screaming fanatics in this context?) and in "Reunification", the Romulans planned to invade Vulcan with 2000 men in unarmed transports, with the plan being to get their men "dug in" by the time Federation reinforcements arrived so that they'd be incapable of rooting them out.

Prozac the Robert wrote:There are lots of examples of last stands in history.

Name a last stand from a fortified position that succeeded.

I'll take apart the "shortcomings" in planetary defense later. I gotta run atm.

Armored Goldbar wrote:I think Prozac hit on the BEST answer so far (though I'm not sure he meant to).

Also, most planets are not especially valuable in the short term, and so it might be sensible to just leave any stuborn enemy on the ground until the federation have won the war and the troops recieve orders to stand down from their new government.

If you sift out the non sequitur of a new government, he does note that if you have command of space you can simply bypass a planet AND leave the troops there effectively out of the war. The American Pacific Theater strategy adopted this theme after bloody battles in the Solomon Islands and instead focused on taking the islands only with strategic value (in this case it would be their location relative to flight time from Japan or a political target like the Philippines). However, an army is STILL needed to take the important islands, or planets in this case.

Furthermore, one would think that if the air/space superiority school of tactics was being taught without exception then I wonder why isn't anybody creating tactics to lessen the enemy's effectiveness?? Just off the top of my head, concepts like ground-to-orbit weaponry, GTO targeting disruption, pho torp and phaser resistant fortifications, and planetary energy shielding are things that you'd want your side to have. But none of the powers seem to have them or are even developing them (though I guess one never really knows what they are working on).

Several advantages to planetary defense are obvious:
1.) A planet who can defend itself frees Starfleet ships and materials for other missions, greatly improving Starfleet's flexibility and offensive capability by filling the garrison role that the ships once played.

Which ships can be making raids on the enemy forcing them to weaken their attack force to pursue them increasing the chance of successfully defending the planet. A planet can have its own weapons factories to ensure that they have any weapons that they need for ground defense.

2.) A planet who can defend itself will at least buy Starfleet time to arrive to a beleaguered system and not a conquered one.

See Below. A Planet with a good layered defence should be able to stand until help arrives unless the enemy has a massive force.

2b.) A planet who can defend itself doesn't have to wait for Starfleet to protect it. It's primary defense is right there.

I see reason why planets can't have defense satilites. We know the Klingon were mentioned as using them in Cardassian space. If a starship can fire down to the surface I see no reason why a Phaser can't fire from the ground at space targets. On a planet size in not really a problem, neither is power. So a planet can have Phaser banks larger enough to cripple ships with one shot. The Aldeans did have a planetary sheild and cloaking tech so A planetary shield is not impossible with Star Trek Technology. Now the Aldeans had problem because they had theirs always on. As part of a planetary system defense that should not be a problem. With any seige its defender supplies vs attacker's supplies. I see it very hard that any invading starship force could starve a planet into submission.

3.) Planetary defense allows for forward listening posts/observation posts and supply depots without the need to build a spacestation and run the risk of losing one (and the thousands of manhours to build and crew it).

The Space station in my opinion is just one layer in a defence system. The reason I say this is by its nature is at most only cover half of the planet. A the station's path is always very predictible so it is rather easy for an enemy to keephis ships away from it.

I'm sure there are more but those are the ones that just jump to mind. I'm afraid that Gil is correct and humanity just isn't capable of producing ground pounders anymore.

Have you read my story .Spacewolf in the Fanfics section. I haven't gotten into it yet but you will like my army

Planetary shields are probably beyond the technology of the federation, although it's possible they just don't want to use them because the damage that would leak through while the enemy are forcing the shield down could be very bad for the people on the planet

Planetary shields maybe within the grasp of Federation technology. In the Voyeger episode "Workforce" the planet Quarrel which is somewhat less advanced than Federation (Two of their cruisers were nailed by a single photon torpedo) had a planetary shield. The Federation if they try hard might be able to develop planetary shielding.

evilcat4000 wrote:Planetary shields maybe within the grasp of Federation technology. In the Voyeger episode "Workforce" the planet Quarrel which is somewhat less advanced than Federation (Two of their cruisers were nailed by a single photon torpedo) had a planetary shield. The Federation if they try hard might be able to develop planetary shielding.

What can it do? If all it can resist is one photon torpedo, then the shield ain't worth building.

Gil Hamilton wrote: They couldn't disembowl someone with a bat'leth anyway. Bat'leths don't have sharp edges, as innumerable incidents in "Way of the Warrior" have proved.

Those were obviously the safety bat'leths issued to members of the Imperial Junior Warrior Patrol, Close Assault Detachment. There are multiple references to decapitations by means of the bat'leth, something that requires a sharp, sturdy edge. There are, however, no apparent canon instances of a bat'leth actually being shown as having a sharp edge. Stuff happens.

The weapon that could -- and more or less has -- in canon disembowel a target is the d'k tahg, the honor knife, but that just isn't as 'kewl' as the bat'leth and thus not as suited to hyperbole.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:

evilcat4000 wrote:Planetary shields maybe within the grasp of Federation technology. In the Voyeger episode "Workforce" the planet Quarrel which is somewhat less advanced than Federation (Two of their cruisers were nailed by a single photon torpedo) had a planetary shield. The Federation if they try hard might be able to develop planetary shielding.

What can it do? If all it can resist is one photon torpedo, then the shield ain't worth building.

Their starship shields were weak but their planetary shield was quite strong. Voyeger did not even attempt orbital bombardment since the shield was so powerful.

evilcat4000 wrote:Their starship shields were weak but their planetary shield was quite strong. Voyeger did not even attempt orbital bombardment since the shield was so powerful.

Sounds like it might defend against one ship. For those aliens, then, it'd probably be a shield of some value for it'd stop a fleet of those little vessels they have. But to the Feds, such a shield is VERY barely pass the absolute minimum for it to be worth something - Lower Limit thinking says that it can stop the attack of one second-tier Fed ship.

Patrick Ogaard wrote:Those were obviously the safety bat'leths issued to members of the Imperial Junior Warrior Patrol, Close Assault Detachment. There are multiple references to decapitations by means of the bat'leth, something that requires a sharp, sturdy edge. There are, however, no apparent canon instances of a bat'leth actually being shown as having a sharp edge. Stuff happens.

The weapon that could -- and more or less has -- in canon disembowel a target is the d'k tahg, the honor knife, but that just isn't as 'kewl' as the bat'leth and thus not as suited to hyperbole.

That's the thing. They say that you can decapitate someone with a bat'leth, but that doesn't mean it's true. They say alot of things in StarTrek. Show me a bat'leth actually drawing blood with it's edge, and we'll have someone. But we see dozens of incidents throughout StarTrek of bat'leths striking someone and being unable to cut them. Fake blood isn't that expensive, you know, and and deep cut appliances aren't all that hard to apply.

We've actually seen Klingon weapons draw blood, but none of them where bat'leths. For instance, that goofy knife that a Klingon poked Kira with during "Way of the Warrior" drew a bit of blood, though he probably would have gotten more had the Klingon actually thrust it in, rather than lightly jabbing her with the tip.

I have seen to lines of thought as far as Land Warfare and Star Trek:
1. That if we do not see it, it does not exist.
2. That the Federation is not stupid and if the technolgy existed in teh past, then Trek should have it.

Darth Wong wrote:This would make sense except for the fact that Klingon shock troopers were used in order to invade Chin'toka (why would they want to use undisciplined screaming fanatics in this context?) and in "Reunification", the Romulans planned to invade Vulcan with 2000 men in unarmed transports, with the plan being to get their men "dug in" by the time Federation reinforcements arrived so that they'd be incapable of rooting them out.

And it was suh a nice idea. Vulcan might be a special case, since the romulans know that the federation can't bombard vulcan, but I can't explain away the other one.

Armored Goldbar wrote:

Prozac the Robert wrote:There are lots of examples of last stands in history.

Name a last stand from a fortified position that succeeded.

They don't succeed, thats why they are famous last stands. But thats not why they weren't fought.

Darth Wong wrote: Yeah, by slowing down to a crawl and targeting the tiny devices from a range of a few hundred metres. If the defenders had any kind of AA weaponry at all instead of being limited to small-arms, they would have been shot down.

Yes, *but* those fighters were trying (at that point in time) to avoid any civilian casualties to protect the Federation alliance.
If they hadn't, they would have been blasting away sloppily and hitting the civilians.

Laser-guided bombs. By your logic, modern air forces can fight wars by themselves.

Not at all. Modern day men can hide inside caves (Osama bin Laden?), and you can't find them, OR reach them with bombs.
With a starship in orbit you can drill through the mountains and kill them. And the sensors can find them no matter where they hide.

So? A modern LGB can hit a pinpoint target too; it hasn't made soldiers obsolete. Pull your head out of Rick Berman's ass and think.

See above. The Federation still needs its 'security officers', but the ability to pound guys from orbit accurately, through obstacles, might remove the need for a dedicated army.

How would you have planned the Iraq invasion? Use satellite photos to figure out where all the enemy troops are and then nuke them? Stop projecting tactics from "Command and Conquer: Generals" onto actual warfare.

If I had phasers on an orbital starship, that wouldn't wipe out the environment like a nuke or take out civilians like a nuke, and could drill through mountainsides, yes. With modern equipment, no way.

Real-life experience proves your ignorant conjecture wrong.

We don't have sensors that can pinpoint the exact location of someone inside a mountain, or weapons that can drill through the mountain without wiping out civilians in the area.

Additionally, there is transporters...

While this doesn't make armed forces useless, it means the Federation can do with its army of 'security officers' instead of a dedicated army.

And of course, it'd be absolutely useless on anyone with some kind of shield.

Therefore the federation may never have needed a large army and just let it slip away. Not an amazingly smart decision, but understandable I think.

They should at least have some form of shipboard Marines. As it stands, they hardly have a prayer of repelling boarders if the boarding party is anywhere near competent. Fortunately for them, this isn't a problem in Trek, seemingly. But if one of the other powers got their shit together and boarded a starship with actual troops, the starship would be thoroughly screwed.

It's a vague possibility that with the high level of automation seen in trek, its possible to capture a world, at least an advanced and therefore probably signifigant world, by controlling all that automation. I know it sounds dumb, but bear with me here.

Remember that TNG ep where Dr. Sung activated Data's homing device? Data gained control of the main computer and effectively took over the ship. I know it wouldn't be that easy on a planet, but still, imagine if you could control every food replicator on a given world or something? The people had better swear loyalty to their new overlords if they want to eat.

Also, let's not forget that, in the days of TOS at least, shipboard phasers had stun settings. This makes defensive troops pretty useless if the enemy has complete dominance of space. You could just stun the shit out of everybody and seperate the soldiers from the civies while they're all zonked out. Same principal works for a dampening field. Stun everyone, then send a shuttle down with somebody to turn it off.

*Slaps forehead* I'd forgotten about stunning from orbit. Now I really can't see any way for an army on the ground to stand up to a ship in orbit, even by hiding amongst civilians.

And yet the trek powers have been seen to deploy troops against troops on the ground. I'm voting for stupidity by writers, unless someone else can rationalise things.