Mobilisation capacity of the Federation?

[Serafina]

If the Federation was ever forced in an all-out ground war (by someone who seriously wants to occupy their planets), how much and how quickly could they mobilise a huge ground-based army?

To set a target, lets assume they want at least 10 million soldiers able to use phaser rifles, take advantage of cover and are able to follow basic commands and tactics?

My guesstimate would be ~ 6 months: they are propabl pretty short on advisors, but they could propably take advantage of holodeck technology to give at least a basic training with holograms. Of course, they need time to programm them, produce weapons, uniforms etc. and need to ship all their forces together. So the soldiers should have around 3 or 4 months of training, the rest is lost to various delays.

Of course, thats only a guesstimate.

[tim31]

Guesses are frowned upon here with at least some data to back them up.

Training a army big enough to hold the line in single(or multiple) planets? Take more than six months. Think how long it took America to mobilize to take the fight to Europe; they created an army from practically nothing, and were having to send them in again a battle-hardened occupation force. Newer technology doesn't necessarily decrease the time it takes to train someone either.

[FedRebel]

If the Federation was ever forced in an all-out ground war (by someone who seriously wants to occupy their planets), how much and how quickly could they mobilise a huge ground-based army?

Never, There is no Federation Army, Starfleet Security is the only force available in the 24th Century

To set a target, lets assume they want at least 10 million soldiers able to use phaser rifles, take advantage of cover and are able to follow basic commands and tactics?

4 years of Starfleet Academy at a minimium

My guesstimate would be ~ 6 months:

Based on...

Of course, they need time to programm them, produce weapons, uniforms etc. and need to ship all their forces together. So the soldiers should have around 3 or 4 months of training, the rest is lost to various delays.

Based on...

Of course, thats only a guesstimate.

It's more like a wild "guesstimate"

The only 'mobilization' I'm aware of was the colony in TNG: "The Survivors", the elderly couple the Enterprise discovered told of the alien attack and how numerous colonists took up arms to try and fight the invaders

So the only defensive fighting forces that can be assembled on short notice to protect Federation territory are farmers with pitchforks

[montypython]

The most relevant sources for such things would be from DS9 episodes and related materials, Memory-Alpha has some materials too.

Most of the really interesting info tends to be from non-canon sources, so if you want to do something along the lines of a warfighting scenario, being a strict canonist isn't the best way to approach things.

[Uraniun235]

The problem would not be with finding bodies or arms. The real problem would be in getting those bodies and arms to the battlefield. Starfleet's biggest ship, the Galaxy class, can hold up to ~15,000 people as an emergency evacuation provision. An alternate-universe variant of that ship is rated for a mere several thousand troops.

If we assume (for the sake of big round numbers) that they can mod a Galaxy to transport 10,000 troops (and their assorted equipment) reliably, it would take 1,000 Galaxy-class starships (in a setting whose creator estimated that perhaps six such ships were around when TNG began, with another six spaceframes on option) to carry 10,000,000 troops and equipment.


Any mobilization to land such an army (which, by the way, will run into serious trouble as there will be absolutely nobody in the Federation with any experience in commanding an army of ten million men (lol or any army at all lol)) would need to factor in a severe lead-time for Starfleet to design, build, and shakedown the entire new fleet of starships necessary to transport all of those troops.


Given the logistics of interstellar travel in Star Trek, it becomes rapidly apparent that it would be far more efficient and effective for planets to organize, train, and arm their own ground forces, than to rely on an imported ground force from the Federation. Any place that lacks a sufficient population base to do so is probably not really worth occupying anyway, or would be occupied by a small enough force that Starfleet could handle.

Page 2 of this thread has some fun discussion along these lines.

[Aaron]

Kevin Smith hit the nail on the head, a force this size is going to need dedicated vessels that SF simply does not have.

Aside from that, as far as we know SF has very little experience with ground armies. Part of the reason why the US and Canada could create large armies from practically nothing (5000 men in our case) was because the military was designed to be expanded, with experienced officers and NCO's being portioned off into training cadres for newly mobilized reserve units. As far as we know, SF has no institutional knowledge in the form of said officers and NCO's, isn't designed to expand in this manner and doesn't have any literature on the subject (modern military's have a shitload of guides and manuals on how to do so).

Which means they'll likely have to go find a friendly power who has this knowledge so they can get a cadre. We're looking at years here, the Allies trained in Europe for the better part of three years before invading Europe and still suffered heavy casualties. I shudder to think what your "four month" boys are going to suffer, especially as someone intending to occupy a planet is probably going to have more then light infantry.

[montypython]

The guys discussing these things on the fanfic discussion of 'A Thin Veneer' covered a number of salient points on this issue; Federation ground troops for example would be using troop transports like the London class or the more heavily armed Iwo Jima class transports. This stuff can be found on the Memory Beta site.

The thing is though, as ST has been mentioned over and over not to be a war-oriented series, expecting on-screen details of such things when it's not the focus of the series overall makes for rather poor presumptions. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence in many different ways.

[Aaron]

The guys discussing these things on the fanfic discussion of 'A Thin Veneer' covered a number of salient points on this issue; Federation ground troops for example would be using troop transports like the London class or the more heavily armed Iwo Jima class transports. This stuff can be found on the Memory Beta site.

The thing is though, as ST has been mentioned over and over not to be a war-oriented series, expecting on-screen details of such things when it's not the focus of the series overall makes for rather poor presumptions. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence in many different ways.

DS9 last 3-4 seasons concerned the Dominion and a war against them and when we saw troop ships, they where the generic one that everyone used. Hell AR-558 pretty much put the nail in the coffin.

[Stark]

WTF is a London or Iwo Jima class transport? How many troops do they carry? Where is the evidence?

From what I remember, the 'troop ships' seen onscreen are basically just cargo ships; not assault ships.

[Aaron]

WTF is a London or Iwo Jima class transport? How many troops do they carry? Where is the evidence?

From what I remember, the 'troop ships' seen onscreen are basically just cargo ships; not assault ships.

These are the ones I recall seeing in DS9. MA has them listed as freighters from Sons and Daughters but I remember similar ships being escorted by the Defiant and being called "troop ships".

[Stark]

Yeah, that's what I remember. Cargo container ships. Do we even know they're used for assaults and aren't just transport barges?

[Aaron]

Yeah, that's what I remember. Cargo container ships. Do we even know they're used for assaults and aren't just transport barges?

I just recall them being mentioned as "troop ships" or the like, nothing explicit it on there capabilities. But hey, if you rip out all the furnishings in a cruise liner and shove bunks in *presto* troop ship. So yeah, probably just a freighter with a hold full of bunks.

[Stark]

Then again, although then mention ground-based defences in ST, is there scope for opposed landings? I imagine the Feds would be likely to fight in space and if they win, be able to destroy the ground defences and simply land some distance away and assault on the ground.

I wonder if those ships physcially land or ferry troops down with shuttles or transporters?

[Coalition]

I wonder if those ships physcially land or ferry troops down with shuttles or transporters?

One stunt to pull would be to use the atmospheric and ground landing ships to serve as 'assault transports'. I.e. the Federation gets a bunch of Voyager type ships that can land on a planet, then they beam troops from ships in orbit to the Voyagers, and they leave Voyager. By linking transporter pads, they can reduce the effect of enemy and accidental jamming, and with the starship providing its own shield, the troops are protected while they form up.

Add in a cargo transporter for Argo-style buggies that get driven out the back of the cargo bay, and Federation forces can deploy troops much more rapidly than expected. With the starship providing better medical care, the survivors of the first few waves can be treated better when the defenders launch ionized mustard gas cannisters at them (ionized gasses to pass through shields, and mustard gas to kill/cripple troops).

Klingons would do the same with their Birds of Prey, though forming up into appropriate units wouldn't be as much of an issue.

That could be the Federation and Klingon version of assault boats, basically shuttles with transporter pads for troops. The ships in orbit launch dozens of them at the planet, then beam troops to the surviving shuttles. A Runabout with a cargo transporter would be used to deliver Argo style buggies to the planet.

Completely non-canon, though it seems to work with observed Federation technology. I'm sure problems can be found with it though.

[dragon]

Well they always keep them in a transporter buffer

As for training well the modern US army grunt receives 14 weeks of basic and AIT training, however there is a lot of wasted time in that with things such as Drill and Ceromony, marching alot of class room times, stuff that can be delt away with and saved for when they have more time. The officers and such though are going to need more though.

[Mr Bean]

Completely non-canon, though it seems to work with observed Federation technology. I'm sure problems can be found with it though.

The fact that everything and everyone stops transporters from working? In fact we have so many examples of so called "rare" minerals stopping transporters that we have to wonder if a simply cloudy day or a dust storm are enough to stop transporters.

[Bounty]

Completely non-canon, though it seems to work with observed Federation technology. I'm sure problems can be found with it though.

The fact that everything and everyone stops transporters from working? In fact we have so many examples of so called "rare" minerals stopping transporters that we have to wonder if a simply cloudy day or a dust storm are enough to stop transporters.

Classic misconception - "every third mineral" (not that even that is actually true) doesn't block transporters, they block transporter lock, ie the ability of the sensors to accurately scan the destination or the target for safe transport. That can be overcome by having dedicated pattern enhancers at the destination.

[Mr Bean]

Classic misconception - "every third mineral" (not that even that is actually true) doesn't block transporters, they block transporter lock, ie the ability of the sensors to accurately scan the destination or the target for safe transport. That can be overcome by having dedicated pattern enhancers at the destination.

Not having the entire TNG/DS9/Voyager lineup to compare with I'll cede the point for now

[Samuel]

Any reason they don't brute for solve it? Beam the whole area if you can get a person for sure.

[tim31]

Too much matter in the pattern buffer? Diminished signal to noise ratio from too much background crap?

[Bounty]

Or they risk beaming back a mixed rock/human/fabric/whatever soup if they beam without accurate sensor information. Like what happened in TMP.

[Aaron]

Then again, although then mention ground-based defences in ST, is there scope for opposed landings? I imagine the Feds would be likely to fight in space and if they win, be able to destroy the ground defences and simply land some distance away and assault on the ground.

I don't think there is and fighting for dominance in space seems more of Starfleet's style anyways. All of the ground actions we see in Trek are very small scale (2000 troops to take Vulcan?) and the largest mention of troops I recall (DS9) was only 30,000 which is only 10k more then Canada fields.

They probably only use them to take and hold important facilities and maybe police the populace around them. It's hard to see what else you can do with so little.

I wonder if those ships physcially land or ferry troops down with shuttles or transporters?

It's hard to make anything out on that model but there might be a shuttle bay between the engines.

[Knife]

They suffer from more an infrastructure problem than anything when it comes to making an army. They would have to invest with time and resources to make a leadership first, then some traing bases and doctrine to which to train to, then the actual equipment and first group of men who will be trained to be officers and NCO's, which would then turn around and train the bulk of the forces. Of course they'd need time to try and perfect doctrine and the equipment needed to do the role, plus as mentioned dedicated ships for that as well.

You are looking at years.

[Darth Wong]

As Knife alludes to above, I would tend to think that the first result of a massive overnight mobilization effort would be a very ineffective army, with lousy training and organization and poorly optimized equipment.

You couldn't even grow a damned furniture-making business to 10 times its size in six months without absolute chaos; why would you be able to do the same to the Federation's ground fighting forces?

[Simon_Jester]

As Knife alludes to above, I would tend to think that the first result of a massive overnight mobilization effort would be a very ineffective army, with lousy training and organization and poorly optimized equipment.

You couldn't even grow a damned furniture-making business to 10 times its size in six months without absolute chaos; why would you be able to do the same to the Federation's ground fighting forces?

Seconded.
_________

Then again, although then mention ground-based defences in ST, is there scope for opposed landings? I imagine the Feds would be likely to fight in space and if they win, be able to destroy the ground defences and simply land some distance away and assault on the ground.

I wonder if those ships physcially land or ferry troops down with shuttles or transporters?

I'd bet on transporters; there are a lot of advantages to a transporter strike when it's possible to launch one at all.

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.

So if the Federation had to mobilize to fight wars on planetary surfaces, they'd probably try to build up a smaller army but assemble more ships for close-in fire support of the troops. That plays to their strengths (they already know how to assemble and train a large fleet), rather than their weaknesses (they don't have a clue how to organize large ground forces, and their small unit tactics leave much to be desired).
________

As for training well the modern US army grunt receives 14 weeks of basic and AIT training, however there is a lot of wasted time in that with things such as Drill and Ceromony, marching alot of class room times, stuff that can be delt away with and saved for when they have more time. The officers and such though are going to need more though.

Point of order: That time is not wasted. It's spent pounding military discipline into the recruits. An army needs soldiers who will instinctively follow orders, even when they don't understand exactly why or the orders are likely to get them killed. Just teaching them to shoot is not enough to accomplish this. And while marching, ceremony, and classroom instruction may not be directly applicable to the battle, they are proven techniques for teaching an attitude that is applicable to the battle.

Think of it this way: if someone can't even walk in a straight line on parade without crashing into the guys to his left and right, do you really trust him with a gun watching your back?