StarDestroyer.Net BBS

And a plantary shield would curtail that. Now I would agree that no defences would curtail a determined enemy, anything that cost them more to take your world has to be good for something.

In any war time is a luxury. Anything that buys you time and costs your enemy time is a good thing.

Prozac the Robert wrote:*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.

Yeah, because nobody in Star Trek has buildings, caves, tunnels, shelters, helmets ...

Oberleutnant wrote:

Aya wrote:Not sure if this means that the Federation does have an army, but is underfunded or not as glamorized as Starfleet or not.

AFAIK those Federation soldiers in "Nor the Battle to the Strong" were said to be part of Starfleet.

However, the one who pulled down Jake was said to be a Marine. He also acted like one...sort of.

Darth Wong wrote: Yeah, because nobody in Star Trek has buildings, caves, tunnels, shelters, helmets ...

Hmm, I doubt simple buildings would help, let alone helmets. The other stuff probably would protect you, but you can't really do anything from them. As soon as you come out to engage the enemy you get stunned.

Prozac the Robert wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Yeah, because nobody in Star Trek has buildings, caves, tunnels, shelters, helmets ...

Hmm, I doubt simple buildings would help,

Why not? They did the trick in "A Piece of the Action".

let alone helmets.

Again, why not? Do you think a stun beam is magic or something? If you put something between you and it, you don't get stunned.

The other stuff probably would protect you, but you can't really do anything from them.

Yes, the Allied soldiers landing on Omaha Beach laughed at the helpless Nazis in their pillboxes

As soon as you come out to engage the enemy you get stunned.

Have you ever taken a cursory glance at even the most basic fundamental concepts of warfare? And how precisely is the enemy walking around in your territory if the whole area is bathed in wide-beam stun, pray tell?

Patrick Ogaard wrote:About those ridiculous flour puff mortars, there is a possible face-saving explanation for their febbleness. That would be that the mortars in question are a Klingon weapon designed primarily for use against other Klingons. Klingons appear to have a basic predisposition toward charging into close combat once their dander is up, as all Klingons appear to have anger management issues, and the mortars might actually be a weapon designed to provoke such a reaction: aggravate the enemy until they are driven into the open combat that is the lifeblood of the musclebound goons.

Commander K'Brahn'Aghn: "It was a Glorious Battle, worthy of Song. I simply sent in wave after wave of my own men until the enemy ran out of ammunition. We will all meet in glory in Sto'vo'Kor. Qa'Pla!"

Darth Wong wrote:Have you ever taken a cursory glance at even the most basic fundamental concepts of warfare? And how precisely is the enemy walking around in your territory if the whole area is bathed in wide-beam stun, pray tell?

In such a situation if saidf enemy has places where the does not work and you then bean down what is going to happen to your men when the pop of of their hiding places? The moment you beam down you can no longer have The Wide Beam Stun of DOOM on anymore now can you?

Patrick Degan wrote:Commander K'Brahn'Aghn: "It was a Glorious Battle, worthy of Song. I simply sent in wave after wave of my own men until the enemy ran out of ammunition. We will all meet in glory in Sto'vo'Kor. Qa'Pla!"

Voice from the assembled men, waiting to die: "You suck!"

Isolder74 wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Have you ever taken a cursory glance at even the most basic fundamental concepts of warfare? And how precisely is the enemy walking around in your territory if the whole area is bathed in wide-beam stun, pray tell?

In such a situation if saidf enemy has places where the does not work and you then bean down what is going to happen to your men when the pop of of their hiding places? The moment you beam down you can no longer have The Wide Beam Stun of DOOM on anymore now can you?

I think you just agreed with him, since both of you are against the idea that Wide-Beam Stun is a panacea replacement for proper ground troops.

Kamakazie Sith wrote:

Oberleutnant wrote:AFAIK those Federation soldiers in "Nor the Battle to the Strong" were said to be part of Starfleet.

However, the one who pulled down Jake was said to be a Marine. He also acted like one...sort of.

Alas, it's been a while since I saw the episode, but I don't remember anyone being called a marine. Still, you might be 100% correct.

It doesn't really mean anything if he acted like one. Starfleet personnel are hardly homogenous: we've occasionally seen some exhibit proper military behaviour (Jellico), and even careful diplomats like Picard behave differently if the situation requires it (Starship Mine, First Contact).

Maybe those guys really were Starfleet marines? "Nor the Battle to the Strong" could've been so much more, too bad they wasted a great opportunity.

Darth Wong wrote:

Prozac the Robert wrote:Hmm, I doubt simple buildings would help,

Why not? They did the trick in "A Piece of the Action".

Appologies then. City fighting would still be horrible.

let alone helmets.

Again, why not? Do you think a stun beam is magic or something? If you put something between you and it, you don't get stunned.

It is obviously capable of going through some things, since a phaser beam can go through uniforms. Also, a stun beam doesn't have to hit your head and can stun you by hitting bit's not covered by armour. Men in the open will get stunned I believe.

The other stuff probably would protect you, but you can't really do anything from them.

Yes, the Allied soldiers landing on Omaha Beach laughed at the helpless Nazis in their pillboxes

And the federation are going to beam straight infront of a line of pillboxes with interlocking fields of fire. Perhaps not.

As soon as you come out to engage the enemy you get stunned.

Have you ever taken a cursory glance at even the most basic fundamental concepts of warfare?

Modern warfare doesn't involve building fortifications but is more concerned with mobility. The federation can pretty easily obliterate any large stationary fortifications, and the enemy cannot concentrate anywhere without being stunned.

And how precisely is the enemy walking around in your territory if the whole area is bathed in wide-beam stun, pray tell?

Step 1, stun everything, transport civilians somewhere where they aren't going to get blown up.
Step 2, blow up anything that inhibits transporters, repeat step 1.
Step 3, then send men down. In the area your troops are in, use stun beams as required. Keep stunning everywhere else to prevent enemy from concentrating forces.

Prozac the Robert, you are saying the Fed's have no need for a ground army as they will always be able to mass-stun any opposing ground force from orbit yes?
I cannot think of a single episode of Trek were this tactic is mentioned, used or even alluded to ( but if you can feel free to mention it). I'm not talking about stunning a handfull of enemies, I'm talking about stunning like a regiment of enemies, all in one fell swoop.

Think about it, if Starfleet could do this, the Siege of AR-558 (for example) would not have happened as once the Defiant arrived they would stunned all the Jemmies en-mass from orbit. We see little ground combat in DS9 and TNG, and we would see even less if this tactic was actually used.

Indeed it seems that in the TOS, ship phasers had stun settings. But does this automatically mean that one starship can stun everyone on a continent at once, for example? It might be that phasers set on stun lose power when set to sweep a wide area. What if your enemies are like the Marquis?, they don't wear uniforms and hide amoung civvies. Are Starfleet gonna stun them all from orbit. What if being stunned with a phaser is potentially leathal to some? then are Starfleet going to chance civilian casualties or not?

Starfleet may have the ability to stun some people from orbit, but I think that is the extent of it. I don't think the "we could stun them all from orbit!"
argument is why Starfleets ground forces are nearly none existant.

Prozac the Robert wrote:Appologies then. City fighting would still be horrible.

Indeed, hence you have not found an excuse to claim that the Federation does not need ground armies, unless your plan is to ignore cities.

It is obviously capable of going through some things, since a phaser beam can go through uniforms. Also, a stun beam doesn't have to hit your head and can stun you by hitting bit's not covered by armour. Men in the open will get stunned I believe.

Unless they're wearing helmets and shoulder pads and other such body armour that will protect them from a wide-beam burst from above, or they're using some kind of cover.

Yes, the Allied soldiers landing on Omaha Beach laughed at the helpless Nazis in their pillboxes

And the federation are going to beam straight infront of a line of pillboxes with interlocking fields of fire. Perhaps not.

So how are they going to take dug-in defenders then? Magic? Or do you figure their big plan is just to avoid any defending military forces?

Have you ever taken a cursory glance at even the most basic fundamental concepts of warfare?

Modern warfare doesn't involve building fortifications but is more concerned with mobility.

Ah yes, of course. No one makes foxholes any more

The federation can pretty easily obliterate any large stationary fortifications, and the enemy cannot concentrate anywhere without being stunned.

We're not talking about big fortresses, moron. All you need to protect yourself from a wide-beam stun is a piece of fucking plywood over you! Any cave, shelter, dwelling, structure, or vehicle will do. Are you really this dense? How much of the defender force do you seriously expect to incapacitate with this tactic?

And how precisely is the enemy walking around in your territory if the whole area is bathed in wide-beam stun, pray tell?

Step 1, stun everything, transport civilians somewhere where they aren't going to get blown up.

Oh yes, just stun everyone and then use the new "transport millions of people instantly" technology which they've never demonstrated anywhere in the show and which flies in the face of precedent.

Step 2, blow up anything that inhibits transporters, repeat step 1.

So level the cities? Take down every large electrical transformer or unusual ore deposit on the surface?

Step 3, then send men down. In the area your troops are in, use stun beams as required. Keep stunning everywhere else to prevent enemy from concentrating forces.

You're a moron. This tactic assumes that the enemy will not take cover when you have achieved space superiority, not to mention assuming that transport countermeasures are necessarily always-on devices which can be detected from orbit and assuming that you can transport millions of civilians instantly. Despite your earlier statement, it is abundantly clear that you do not understand anything about warfare. To assume that the enemy will not expect and prepare for your actions is the ultimate conceivable stupidity in warfare.

Stofsk wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote:Commander K'Brahn'Aghn: "It was a Glorious Battle, worthy of Song. I simply sent in wave after wave of my own men until the enemy ran out of ammunition. We will all meet in glory in Sto'vo'Kor. Qa'Pla!"

Voice from the assembled men, waiting to die: "You suck!"

voice of survivor" It was Nuts I tell you .Those biker wannabes just ran at us screaming there heads off.All we had to do was aim and fire...Hell ammo was no problem.Idiots didnt think to stop the supply service from doing there job.Sure we lost a lot of weapons due to overheating but all in all we did our jobs against the 'Fuzzy Wuzzy'"

Dirty Harry wrote:Prozac the Robert, you are saying the Fed's have no need for a ground army as they will always be able to mass-stun any opposing ground force from orbit yes?
I cannot think of a single episode of Trek were this tactic is mentioned, used or even alluded to ( but if you can feel free to mention it). I'm not talking about stunning a handfull of enemies, I'm talking about stunning like a regiment of enemies, all in one fell swoop.

Think about it, if Starfleet could do this, the Siege of AR-558 (for example) would not have happened as once the Defiant arrived they would stunned all the Jemmies en-mass from orbit. We see little ground combat in DS9 and TNG, and we would see even less if this tactic was actually used.

Indeed it seems that in the TOS, ship phasers had stun settings. But does this automatically mean that one starship can stun everyone on a continent at once, for example? It might be that phasers set on stun lose power when set to sweep a wide area. What if your enemies are like the Marquis?, they don't wear uniforms and hide amoung civvies. Are Starfleet gonna stun them all from orbit. What if being stunned with a phaser is potentially leathal to some? then are Starfleet going to chance civilian casualties or not?

Starfleet may have the ability to stun some people from orbit, but I think that is the extent of it. I don't think the "we could stun them all from orbit!"
argument is why Starfleets ground forces are nearly none existant.

Not necessarily mass stun, but in 'A Matter of Time' we see the Enterprise is capable of making pinpoint strikes and some rather large craters on the planets surface.

Easily enough to melt a bunker, or transport inhibitor, or group of enemies, from orbit.

Praxis wrote:Not necessarily mass stun, but in 'A Matter of Time' we see the Enterprise is capable of making pinpoint strikes and some rather large craters on the planets surface.

Easily enough to melt a bunker, or transport inhibitor, or group of enemies, from orbit.

Only if you don't mind indescriminate kiliing od Civies!

For the Fedeartion that is VERY hard to justify

Isolder74 wrote:Only if you don't mind indescriminate kiliing od Civies!

While phaser strikes would have their fair share of civilian casualties as 'collateral damage' I have to ask, how would what Praxis describe as 'pin-point phaser strikes' cause "Indescriminate killing of civies!" as you say? You make it sound like they're going to carpet bomb the place back into the stone age.

For the Fedeartion that is VERY hard to justify

Why? The only time I recall anyone getting irate at the possibility of civilian casualties is Sisko in that stupid season 4 DS9 episode "Rules of Engagement." ADM. Jameson had no qualms about selling Starfleet weaponry to the Mordanian factions, including Karnas's enemies in "Too short a season" - that resulted in a decades long civil war. There's also Picard's and other E-D command staff's wanton dereliction of duty by putting civilians at risk everytime there's a combat encounter by not separating the saucer section (which, in turn, is a policy approved by starfleet command!).

Stofsk wrote:

For the Fedeartion that is VERY hard to justify

Why? The only time I recall anyone getting irate at the possibility of civilian casualties is Sisko in that stupid season 4 DS9 episode "Rules of Engagement." ADM. Jameson had no qualms about selling Starfleet weaponry to the Mordanian factions, including Karnas's enemies in "Too short a season" - that resulted in a decades long civil war. There's also Picard's and other E-D command staff's wanton dereliction of duty by putting civilians at risk everytime there's a combat encounter by not separating the saucer section (which, in turn, is a policy approved by starfleet command!).

In theory a saucer separation would protect civillians, but separating the saucer section from the warp drive results in it getting less shield power, and makes the civillians even easier pickings. It also decreases the firepower avalible, since the Galaxy's biggest phaser arrays will also go underpowered.

Matt Huang wrote:In theory a saucer separation would protect civillians,

In practice not having civilians aboard at all would protect them.

but separating the saucer section from the warp drive results in it getting less shield power, and makes the civillians even easier pickings. It also decreases the firepower avalible, since the Galaxy's biggest phaser arrays will also go underpowered.

That wasn't the point I was making. The notion that SFC is 'squeamish' about civilian lives is rendered moot given they regularly put them in harm's way on their frontline battleships or even crummy Mirandas like Sisko's Saratoga - yes, they knew they were going to fight the borg, but didn't evacuate their civilians before the confrontation - and they don't even HAVE a saucer separation maneuver! At least for the TNG period SFC seems like it couldn't care less about the plight of civilians. DS9 seems to show a major restructuring around the point of the Dominion War, and there were signs that the writers were tired of the idiotic notion of putting civvies onboard warships).

They're also willing to leave Federation colonies behind in treaties of convenience (The Maquis). Once again, they've shown NO regard for civilians and their plight.

Patrick Degan wrote:Commander K'Brahn'Aghn: "It was a Glorious Battle, worthy of Song. I simply sent in wave after wave of my own men until the enemy ran out of ammunition. We will all meet in glory in Sto'vo'Kor. Qa'Pla!"

The Klingon version of Zap Brannagan?

Vympel wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote:Commander K'Brahn'Aghn: "It was a Glorious Battle, worthy of Song. I simply sent in wave after wave of my own men until the enemy ran out of ammunition. We will all meet in glory in Sto'vo'Kor. Qa'Pla!"

The Klingon version of Zap Brannagan?

From what we observed of Klingon boarding tactics in the DS9 episode "The Way Of The Warrior (2)", can anybody really tell the difference?

Transporting civilians: Doesn't have to be done instantly. Can take as long as nescesary.

Strongly defended positions: Bomb 'em from orbit if they refuse to surrender. If that isn't an option, just starve them out, and zap/transport out any patrols or scouts they send out. They are effectively useless unless they are right on top of somewhere the federation really wants, and even then the feds can probably wait them out.

Cities: Cut off their power and food suplies, prommise not to kill civilians who leave. If it's not working fast enough, start taking pot shots at transport inhibitors.

Large concentrations of enemy forces: Stun 'em or kill 'em, depending on your preference and their level of protection.

Protective gear: I'm not convinced a peice of plywood would protect a soldier from a starship phaser, even if it is set on stun. Helmets and sholder pads are not enough if the soldiers plan to walk or move their arms around.

We're not talking about big fortresses, moron. All you need to protect yourself from a wide-beam stun is a piece of fucking plywood over you! Any cave, shelter, dwelling, structure, or vehicle will do. Are you really this dense? How much of the defender force do you seriously expect to incapacitate with this tactic?

I think they would rapidly demoralise the enemy, and make it very hard for them to do things like scout, obtain supplies or enjoy any form of outdoor recreation. If nothing else you could completely wreck the planet's economy. After a while there would be shortages of fuel and amunition.

I still think most planets would just surrender as soon as they lost control of space though.

If they don't surrender after all of this stuff, some men will need deploying, but they still have a massive advantage due to ships in orbit. They can get immensly accurate artillery support, they will know exactly where the enemy armies are, and if they get surounded they can just leave the way they came, and beam down somewhere else. The area they were occupyuing could then be flattened if it would be helpful, and the enemy would be out of position and have wasted precious fuel anyway if not.

Praxis wrote:
Not necessarily mass stun, but in 'A Matter of Time' we see the Enterprise is capable of making pinpoint strikes and some rather large craters on the planets surface.

Easily enough to melt a bunker, or transport inhibitor, or group of enemies, from orbit.

So what? Nothing on earth built by man exists that the USAF can't destroy, indeed not too much exists that the USAF couldn't destroy with a single aircraft and even a single bomb 90% of the time. Using aircraft today we can do anything from vaporize a city to hunting down an individual man and killing him with a burst of 30mm gunfire. We have drones that can loiter over a single house for days on end and wait for someone to leave. But despite all that, and despite enemies which have little capability to counter such attacks the US hasn't won in Afghanistan or Iraq and it failed to destroy the Serb Army in Kosvo. Commanding the ultimate high ground is a huge advantage, but unless you intend to utterly destroy all aspects of your enemy, it alone cannot ensure victory.

Prozac the Robert wrote:Transporting civilians: Doesn't have to be done instantly. Can take as long as nescesary.

And meanwhile the campaign which you have launched will continue to consume resources at an extremely high rate; your troops of all types will become exhausted, your shipping will require maintenance. If you have the luxury of unlimited time in a campaign, then it can only be against the weakest of enemies. In real life against a decent enemy you need to defeat him, you cannot simply wait for the enemy to throw in the towel. You must finish one battle so you can move onto the next planet, and then the one after that until he is completely defeated. Take too long doing that and you might find your fleet is suddenly outnumbered and under attack since you enemy has taken that luxury of time to rebuild.

Strongly defended positions: Bomb 'em from orbit if they refuse to surrender. If that isn't an option, just starve them out, and zap/transport out any patrols or scouts they send out.

See the abovce.

They are effectively useless unless they are right on top of somewhere the federation really wants, and even then the feds can probably wait them out.

If the enemy is denying you the surface then his ground force is being effective. If you don't even want the world then any attack is simply a waste of resources, and those ships parked in orbit waiting to shoot at anything which moves out of cover ought to be redeployed. You might notice that in WW2 when the US bypassed islands it didn't leave a ring of warships around them firing constantly. It simply destroyed there ability to strike back by air or sea and moved on.

Cities: Cut off their power and food suplies, prommise not to kill civilians who leave. If it's not working fast enough, start taking pot shots at transport inhibitors.

Great Plan. Once more you utterly fail to grasp the importance of time in warfare. So what do you do when a natural ore in the ground blocks you from transporting out defenders in the sewers and the hostile population gives them food? Wait for them all the die of old age?

Large concentrations of enemy forces: Stun 'em or kill 'em, depending on your preference and their level of protection.

I'm sure your enemy will be cooperative and will fail to disperse its forces in the absence of an effective defence, just unlike every remotely competent military organization in history.

Protective gear: I'm not convinced a peice of plywood would protect a soldier from a starship phaser, even if it is set on stun. Helmets and sholder pads are not enough if the soldiers plan to walk or move their arms around.

Your personal opinions on such things have already been shown to be lacking.

I think they would rapidly demoralise the enemy, and make it very hard for them to do things like scout, obtain supplies or enjoy any form of outdoor recreation.

A demoralized enemy can still lift his rifle and gun down a bunch of pajama clad morons, which is what matters. Lowering your enemies moral through bombardment is only become relevant if its also combine with the shock effect of a ground campaign to force him to move. But your 'brilliant' planning is utterly devoid of that.

If nothing else you could completely wreck the planet's economy. After a while there would be shortages of fuel and amunition.

No there won't be, because your forcing your enemy to remain static, which means they have little need to expend fuel or ammunition. The fact that with the Federation's technology level you could easily get energy in the form of deuterium extracted from water makes easy anyway, will your plan now involve removing the planet's water table via transporter?

I still think most planets would just surrender as soon as they lost control of space though.

Perhapes, but that would depend on a vast number of factors. You still need to be prepared to deal with those worlds that don't surrender, and in a realistic timeframe.

If they don't surrender after all of this stuff, some men will need deploying, but they still have a massive advantage due to ships in orbit. They can get immensly accurate artillery support, they will know exactly where the enemy armies are, and if they get surounded they can just leave the way they came, and beam down somewhere else.

So your planning is once more based on perfect intelligence and a single infallible tactic? I'm not surprised.

The area they were occupyuing could then be flattened if it would be helpful, and the enemy would be out of position and have wasted precious fuel anyway if not.

What you forget is you're the attacker; the enemy is already defending what he considered important. If your forces arrive to attack on the ground then the enemy simply needs to occupy his firing positions, which is probably going to involve little more then scurrying out of a tunnel, into a basement and manning a firing position. Then he switches on one of the sensor jammer's you've stowed away and massacre the unprepared assault force which was deployed on the assumption it could be instantly withdrawn (Remember certain events in 1993 in Somalia?)

It doesn't matter what the Federation parks in orbit, there still is no substitute for a large, well equipped ground force, even if its job generally just involves garrisoning a planet that surrendered once its orbital defenses where destroyed.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
So what? Nothing on earth built by man exists that the USAF can't destroy, indeed not too much exists that the USAF couldn't destroy with a single aircraft and even a single bomb 90% of the time. Using aircraft today we can do anything from vaporize a city to hunting down an individual man and killing him with a burst of 30mm gunfire. We have drones that can loiter over a single house for days on end and wait for someone to leave. But despite all that, and despite enemies which have little capability to counter such attacks the US hasn't won in Afghanistan or Iraq and it failed to destroy the Serb Army in Kosvo. Commanding the ultimate high ground is a huge advantage, but unless you intend to utterly destroy all aspects of your enemy, it alone cannot ensure victory.

Maybe because we couldn't FIND the target?
Federation sensors could likely pinpoint Bin Laden's location, then nuke him, if it were in modern day Earth. Just scan for life forms in mountains...all hidden bases show up...fire phasers!

The reality is, modern day armies can't AFFORD the kind of money they'd need to fire one missle at every cluster of soldier in the enemy army. That'd take millions of missles. Trillions of dollars. With phasers, on the other hand, the ship can just start melting enemy lines indiscriminantly. They can't hide, just run.


The Federation still needs a ground force, but not neccessarily an army.