Carrier

[Mikey]

I tend to agree - no matter whether the "right" kind of personnel were used for AR-558, the need for "boots on the ground" there was apparent. That, of course, begs the question: that would have been the perfect scenario for fighters, so weren't there any there?

[Captain Seafort]

They probably either couldn't get there, or couldn't remain on-station due to Jem'Hadar interference - the Defiant was forced to withdraw by a JH attack, so what chance has a fighter got? Of course, this begs the question of why the Jem'Hadar themselves weren't using fighter support, if they had that degree of space superiority. The likely answer to both questions is that the situation in space was finely balanced enough that neither side could maintain an atmospheric presence long enough yo provide proper air support. They were therefore limited to quick in-and-out sorties to reinforce the troops on the ground.

Regarding the nature and origin of the Starfleet forces at AR-558, whether they were typical Fed ground forces, or whether they were simply put in there because of army overstretch is irrelevent. The problem isn't that they weren't specifically trained as ground troops, but that they were woefully underequipped. A modern company-sized force would have GPMGs at the very least, even if it were only a scratch force landed from a warship.

[Duskofdead]

Didn't they admit they were underequipped? It was a siege, and ships and relief supplies couldn't get through. I don't think we were seeing Trek ground combat "at its finest."

[Captain Seafort]

They were undersupplied, but the lack of jimpies is something that betrays a fundamental flaw in the basic equipment of Federation troops - if they'd had them to start with and lost them due to damage, getting replacements would have been their number one priority.

Indeed, the assumption that the troops there were unrepresentative of Fed ground forces is being extremely charitable towards the Feds. Chin'toka was their only foothold in Cardassian space, and it would be expected that if proper soldiers were anywhere they would be there. A company would, therefore, have had mortars and anti-armour weapons in addition to the jimpies, even if they were limited to their organic weaponry. At full strength they would also have had armour, engineers, artillery, attack helicopters, fixed wing ground attack aircraft, and signals and medical personnel attached.

[Duskofdead]

My bad, I was confusing the planet the Klingons were attacking with the Defiant's crew defending against Jem'Hadar.

[KuvahMagh]

Indeed, the assumption that the troops there were unrepresentative of Fed ground forces is being extremely charitable towards the Feds. Chin'toka was their only foothold in Cardassian space, and it would be expected that if proper soldiers were anywhere they would be there. A company would, therefore, have had mortars and anti-armour weapons in addition to the jimpies, even if they were limited to their organic weaponry. At full strength they would also have had armour, engineers, artillery, attack helicopters, fixed wing ground attack aircraft, and signals and medical personnel attached.

Star Trek and Starfleet in particular don't seem to be representative of the 20th/21st Century Navy/Army/Air Force, they seem more, from what I have seen, to represent the 18th Century Napoleonic Great Britain. A tremendously powerful Navy employing in the range of 160,000 on its ships while its Army maintained a strength much lower. The Army replied heavily on the Navy for its operations and capabilities.

This is the way I see Trek with Starfleet providing heavy support to any Ground Troops. Until the Klingon Conflict and the Dominion War this arrangement probably worked enough to be continued. In fact prior to these events the only Ground conflicts referenced during TNG that I recall are the Tellarians who "won numerous ground engagements" and the Cardassian Border Wars. It makes sense that given the extremely large resources which would be required to actually capture a planet that the Federation at least would follow the Royal Navy strategy of simply Blocking a coast, or in this case a Planet/System rather than sending in large numbers of troops.

Any Ground Force would probably be small and used for a specific objective or mission, in other words to separate 2 small factions on a planet bent on killing the other. I agree that the troops were horribly under equipped for the task assigned to them but the idea that a Federation Army would be nearly identical in structure/equipment to present day forces is shortsighted. Simply put, with the vast amount of space involved they would not have as great a need for this type of Army as we currently do.

[sunnyside]

First maybe a mod should split this off into it's own AR-558 thread

Now I don't remember things that great but.

1. Was a lot of the fighting outside? It could have just been cramped quarters but I remember a vague impression it might have been more indoor.

2. The whole point of the fight on both sides was over a communication array. Perhapse that's why they were somewhat limited in their options as heavy weaponry might damage what they hope to win.

Of course that doesn't explain why they wouldn't use better small arms. Though again we know there are other fire options and things they could have used with the phasers but didn't.

I'm thinking it's just stupid Trek writers.

[Captain Seafort]

Star Trek and Starfleet in particular don't seem to be representative of the 20th/21st Century Navy/Army/Air Force, they seem more, from what I have seen, to represent the 18th Century Napoleonic Great Britain. A tremendously powerful Navy employing in the range of 160,000 on its ships while its Army maintained a strength much lower. The Army replied heavily on the Navy for its operations and capabilities.

I see the similarities in emphasis, but the 17th/18th century British army was far better equipped than Stafleet's - it had exceptionally well-trained infantry (including riflemen, unlike most armies), heavy and light cavalry, artillery, and engineers. Starfleet only has infantry, and poorly equipped infantry at that - I'd take the Baker rifle over the TNG type III phaser any day.

I agree that the troops were horribly under equipped for the task assigned to them but the idea that a Federation Army would be nearly identical in structure/equipment to present day forces is shortsighted. Simply put, with the vast amount of space involved they would not have as great a need for this type of Army as we currently do.

The only difference between Trek and current technology that would require a significant change of emphasis in force structure is the transporter - which can be blocked by moderately powerful ECM. Even the requirement for space superiority is little different in practice from the current requirement for air superiority.

While the pre-eminence of space warfare would change the nature of warfare at the strategic and operational levels, at the tactical level on the surface there's no obvious change in an army's requirements beyond those stated above.

[KuvahMagh]

Agreed, what I am saying though is that Starfleet has gone through this period where it hasn't needed a large army with Armour, Strike Aircraft, Heavy Weapons so it hasn't produced them. Call it stupid, call it allocation of resources but that seems to be the situation.

Also, to the analogy with the 17/18th Century, I wasn't comparing the individual units so much as the strategy used.

[Duskofdead]

Agreed, what I am saying though is that Starfleet has gone through this period where it hasn't needed a large army with Armour, Strike Aircraft, Heavy Weapons so it hasn't produced them. Call it stupid, call it allocation of resources but that seems to be the situation.

Also, to the analogy with the 17/18th Century, I wasn't comparing the individual units so much as the strategy used.

All of those things seem to be regarded as both offensive and militaristic, as well. Starfleet does employ orbital and planetary defense systems (as alluded to when Betazed was conquered, and when Earth was attacked by both the Borg and the Breen) but nothing implies they maintain voluminous standing armies, artillery, armored ground and air superiority units, etc. Certainly they have equipment that can be, to some degree, used in this purpose, at least defensively. But if you don't plan to go around conquering planets with ground forces and your primary defense is to make sure it never comes down to a question of ground superiority then massive, 24th-century sophisticated ground-dedicated military assets seem secondary at best.

Although the Dominion War somewhat stepped outside of this convention, in part because the Dominion utterly didn't care about losing troops, it seems that for the most part the major powers don't heavily invest in the concept of ground warfare as well because any superiority you gain on land is pointless if you lose the battle in space.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

see the similarities in emphasis, but the 17th/18th century British army was far better equipped than Stafleet's

Didn't the british army lose a war to their own colonies in the 18th century?

[Tsukiyumi]

Didn't the british army lose a war to their own colonies in the 18th century?

I seem to recall something along those lines happening, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

[Captain Seafort]

Although the Dominion War somewhat stepped outside of this convention, in part because the Dominion utterly didn't care about losing troops, it seems that for the most part the major powers don't heavily invest in the concept of ground warfare as well because any superiority you gain on land is pointless if you lose the battle in space.

Starships can only blow stuff up. To take and hold territory you need infantry. Ultimately, all armed forces, including navies and air forces, are supporting arms to that core requirement.

[Captain Seafort]

Didn't the british army lose a war to their own colonies in the 18th century?

Not at all. I recall one in the 1770s-1780s when we lost to the French for once, but no colonial defeats.

[Tsukiyumi]

No defeats, but no victories either. A pair in the "draw" column for both countries...

I'd say we should take a rain-check on any rematch for the forseeable future.