Fed ground combat again

[Thorin]

We've never seen a phaser be swept across an area at all. It's possible that the beam somehow "sticks" to whatever it hits, preventing it from being moved, or something.

Pretty sure Sisko and Kira did it to look for changelings.

We know Starfleet are stupid, but actively looking for ways to make their weapons less effective by making them stick to their target while the shot is being fired?!

[Sionnach Glic]

Pretty sure Sisko and Kira did it to look for changelings.

Really? Okay then.

We know Starfleet are stupid, but actively looking for ways to make their weapons less effective by making them stick to their target while the shot is being fired?

Just look at the Type 2 phaser and ask yourself whether it's really that hard to believe.

[Thorin]

Designing something poorly is one thing, but actually actively seeking ways to make it worse?! Anyway, as I am pretty sure Sisko did sweep, it's pretty irrelevant, which brings us to the original, normal conclusion: Trek technology is good, personnel are woeful.

[SteveK]

With all due respect, I suggest you re-read my post. I wasn't commenting on the war-fighting ability of U.S forces without air or naval support, I was commenting on their war-fighting ability without projectile weapons. My point is that by eliminating the dominant weapon in a militaries arsenal is not conducive to relevant conclusions.

It depends on how likely the removal of said dominant weapons is in a combat situation. We've seen Fed troops in action twice - "Nor the Battle to the Strong..." and "The Siege of AR-558". In neither case was air or space support available, due to an effective blockade of the planet in question. The troops on the ground were therefore dependant on their own weaponry and training, and both proved singularly lacking.

Similar scenarios could be created for the removal of projectile weapons from modern forces. U.S Marines storm an island, both sides get cut off from support and run out of ammo and the combat goes to bayonets. In such a scenario, one would be absolutely correct to point out that their equipment is inferior to that used by 12th century knights, however that would be an irrelevant conclusion.

What massive losses of life have we seen in ground combat?

"The Siege of AR-558", as shown by the fact that the Feds suffered losses when faced with a depleted and disorganised opponent attacking through a choke point with no equipment other than their rifles.

I've seen the episode, but I wanted to know which massive losses we've seen. A few hundred, out of a war where millions were killed is a drop in the bucket. From a canon perspective, Star Trek universe wars are fought and won in space.

No, I read it. I choose to ignore the stupidity of the statement. The idea of comparing one ground force at its prime vs another ground force at its weakest point is meaningless to the debate.

You were removing rifles from riflemen while allowing Knights to keep their swords and armor. You took something and tried to stack it. Which will fail here since too many of us here know what we're talking about.

Ah ok, you read it, just didn't understand it. What I am pointing out is that you are comparing one military that relies primarily one ground combat (WWII Russians in the Stalingrad example) vs another that relies overwhelmingly on space technology. You then remove space technology and reach a valid, yet absolutely meaningless conclusion (as meaningless as the conclusion that medieval knights would beat U.S marines armed only with bayonets).

The Cardassian 11th order, half a million strong. Wiped out in short order by charging Klingons. That doesn't even count the losses that the klingons suffered.

There is some canon evidence to suggest that the Cardassians had the type of ground forces most of this forum would recommend (I think that Garek one mentioned that he was a Gul in the mechanized infantry--which while a lie would at least suggest that the person he was speaking to found it credible that there was such a think as a mechanized infantry in the Cardassian military), yet they were doomed once the Klingons established space superiority. Indeed, I seem to recall some dialogue where Gul Dukat became enraged when Weyoun wouldn't send ships to defend the planet. He realized that the entire military on the ground was SOL once the Klingons controlled the space around the planet.

Tell me, how do you plan on taking over a world, even one of only modern day Earth's strength, if you do not take part in ground assaults? That's right; you can't. Unless you plan on just wiping out all life on the planet and bombarding it into submission (something the UFP would never do), then you must be prepared to take part in ground campaigns.

That's a good question, yet we know that it has been done, by the same militaries that this forum is so ready to indict (the Dominion took over Betazed, the Klingons took over whatever planet the 11th order was on and I'm sure there are others).

When considering the state of ground forces in Star Trek I'd like the forum to consider the following. Which is more likely:

1. Every military leader in the known galaxy is a moron (with the exception of the Cardassians), and has failed to provide even the most basic vital equipment to their troops.

2. There is some facet of 24th century warfare that has changed dramatically from what we as 21st century people are used to, leading to ships in orbit being >>>troops on the ground.

Before the forum dismisses the second option as heresy I'd ask you to also consider the following:

What would the 12th century knight have said if you told him that future wars would be fought almost entirely with projectile weapons? Would he believe that an effective force could exists without preparing itself for mellee combat?

[Praeothmin]

as I am pretty sure Sisko did sweep

They did, both he and Kira used Phasers on widebeam, and swept a room with them, on their "find the changeling" training sessions.

[Thorin]

So when faced with the remote chance of finding really a non-immediate life threatening being, they are able to machine gun. When faced with instant death, it's aim down the sights and shoot for a tenth of a second.

[Captain Seafort]

Similar scenarios could be created for the removal of projectile weapons from modern forces. U.S Marines storm an island, both sides get cut off from support and run out of ammo and the combat goes to bayonets. In such a scenario, one would be absolutely correct to point out that their equipment is inferior to that used by 12th century knights, however that would be an irrelevant conclusion.

It would be irrelevant, and an unfair test, because you'd be depriving one side of its standard-issue equipment while allowing the other side to retain theirs. The discussion is about the efficiency of a given army's organic equipment when deprived of its supporting elements - in the case of the 12th century army that would be siege equipment such as catapults, in the case of the US Marines it would be naval gunfire support and air cover, and in the case of Starfleet it's their starships.

I've seen the episode, but I wanted to know which massive losses we've seen. A few hundred, out of a war where millions were killed is a drop in the bucket. From a canon perspective, Star Trek universe wars are fought and won in space.

Certainly control of space is critical, but Trek wars, like all wars, are fought and won on the ground. That was true when cavemen were chucking rocks at each other, it remains true now, and it will remain until the technology is developed to allow the obliteration of all life on a planet, and people are willing to use it as a matter of routine. Regardless of the importance of the various supporting forces, be they artillery or starships, their role is to enable infantry to take possession of the enemy's real estate. At some point the infantry will have to engage and defeat the enemy, and may well at some point be cut off from their support. At that point their equipment and tactics will play a large role determine success or failure.

Ah ok, you read it, just didn't understand it. What I am pointing out is that you are comparing one military that relies primarily one ground combat (WWII Russians in the Stalingrad example) vs another that relies overwhelmingly on space technology. You then remove space technology and reach a valid, yet absolutely meaningless conclusion (as meaningless as the conclusion that medieval knights would beat U.S marines armed only with bayonets).

See above. Starships are a tremendous advantage, but they are in the end a supporting arm, not the be-all and end-all of warfare. Moreover, as has been demonstrated twice in canon, they aren't always around when they're needed, just as modern air or naval gunfire support isn't always around when it's needed.

There is some canon evidence to suggest that the Cardassians had the type of ground forces most of this forum would recommend (I think that Garek one mentioned that he was a Gul in the mechanized infantry--which while a lie would at least suggest that the person he was speaking to found it credible that there was such a think as a mechanized infantry in the Cardassian military), yet they were doomed once the Klingons established space superiority. Indeed, I seem to recall some dialogue where Gul Dukat became enraged when Weyoun wouldn't send ships to defend the planet. He realized that the entire military on the ground was SOL once the Klingons controlled the space around the planet.

Nitpick - it was Damar, not Dukat.

Yes, once the Cardassians were left with no cover, and susceptible to orbital bombardment they'd had it. Nonetheless, the battle did not end with the Klingons achieving space superiority, just as 1st Chin'toka didn't end with the neutralisation of the weapons platforms. Troops had to be sent down to take possession of the surface, and in both cases Dominion troops were able to hold out for a long time after the ground campaign began. Your complaint is analogous to stating that once a modern army is subjected to enemy air superiority is is guaranteed to loose. This is not so - air superiority confers a tremendous advantage, but troops still need to take possession of the ground, and as the NLF in Vietnam and the Iraqi insurgency proved, the side with air superiority can still loose.

That's a good question, yet we know that it has been done, by the same militaries that this forum is so ready to indict (the Dominion took over Betazed, the Klingons took over whatever planet the 11th order was on and I'm sure there are others).

See above - space superiority is a tremendous advantage, but it is not guaranteed to be present, and does not guarantee victory.

1. Every military leader in the known galaxy is a moron (with the exception of the Cardassians), and has failed to provide even the most basic vital equipment to their troops.

This is proven by canon

2. There is some facet of 24th century warfare that has changed dramatically from what we as 21st century people are used to, leading to ships in orbit being >>>troops on the ground.

It's true that warfare has changed dramatically, and ships in orbit are>>>troops on the ground. That doesn't mean that troops on the ground have ceased to be critical to the success or failure of a campaign.

What would the 12th century knight have said if you told him that future wars would be fought almost entirely with projectile weapons?

He'd probably have been astonished.

Would he believe that an effective force could exists without preparing itself for mellee combat?

No, and he'd be right. The only way to win a war is for the PBI to physically take possession of territory from an opponent using all the techniques and equipment at their disposal, including the Mk 1 Knuckle Sandwich.

[Sionnach Glic]

Similar scenarios could be created for the removal of projectile weapons from modern forces. U.S Marines storm an island, both sides get cut off from support and run out of ammo and the combat goes to bayonets. In such a scenario, one would be absolutely correct to point out that their equipment is inferior to that used by 12th century knights, however that would be an irrelevant conclusion.

In such a scenario, one would be absolutely correct to point out that medieval knights are better equipped for melee combat than modern day infantry. And that would be a correct conclusion.

When talking about which troops are better overall, however, removing the guns gives the knights an unfair advantage.

Similarly, we aren't talking about whether the USA has a better military than the UFP overall. We're talking about which has the best ground forces. In such a scenario, it's not unfair to remove things like starships or aircraft carriers. Why? Because they are not part of the ground forces. They are there to complement them, not as a part of them.

I've seen the episode, but I wanted to know which massive losses we've seen. A few hundred, out of a war where millions were killed is a drop in the bucket.

We don't need to see massive losses. That one instance, where a resuplied Federation garrison with massive defensive advantages was overrun by what amounted to an ill-disciplined mob with guns, is damning enough, and more than adequate to point out that the Redshirt Brigade is utterly useless.

From a canon perspective, Star Trek universe wars are fought and won in space.

Yes and no. Certainly, wiping out your enemy's starfleet and having complete orbital supremecy almost guarantees you victory. But how are you going to defeat your enemy if you can't destroy his forces on the ground? You can't, short of wiping out entire cities.

Orbital support has the same advantages and drawbacks as modern day air support. If you control the skies, you are almost gauranteed victory in warfare, as your enemy is exposed to your attacks everytime he leaves the safety of a city or hidden base. The same is true for orbital support.
But neither air nor orbital support can hold territory. They are utterly powerless to stop enemy forces massing in a city, or insurgents attacking your own barracks. They can't police captured cities. They can't hunt down guerrila forces. They can't sieze buildings or bases intact. They can't force an enemy out of a city or town. They can't capture enemy personel. They can't take over the enemy's manufacturing plants or sources of resources. They can't stop the enemy fortifying a city, or recruiting more troops.

And then there's also the possibility that you may not always have a starship in orbit. What if your ground troops have to invade without a warship providing support? What if your ships in orbit are drawn away to defend against an enemy incursion into the system? How do you defend against an enemy counter-attack if your ships aren't there?
You don't. You just watch your troops die, because there's nothing that can be done.

Having space under your complete control is a massive advantage, and one that cannot be overlooked. But to suggest that ground warfare is irrelevant is foolish to the extreme. Soldiers are needed now, they are needed in the 24th century, and they will continue to be needed. To say that because you can defeat any enemy in space you don't need to properly equip your ground troops just ensures that any attempted invasion will be a bloodbath, and quite possibly a failure against any moderately competant enemy. Hell, I'd put good money on modern day Earth being able to hold off an attempted Federation invasion.

Ah, ok, you read it, just didn't understand it. What I am pointing out is that you are comparing one military that relies primarily one ground combat (WWII Russians in the Stalingrad example) vs another that relies overwhelmingly on space technology. You then remove space technology and reach a valid, yet absolutely meaningless conclusion (as meaningless as the conclusion that medieval knights would beat U.S marines armed only with bayonets).

And we are pointing out that that over-reliance on starships has resulted in their ground forces being inferior to WWI era soldiers. That is simply unnaceptable. Starships cannot replace soldiers.

There is some canon evidence to suggest that the Cardassians had the type of ground forces most of this forum would recommend (I think that Garek one mentioned that he was a Gul in the mechanized infantry--which while a lie would at least suggest that the person he was speaking to found it credible that there was such a think as a mechanized infantry in the Cardassian military), yet they were doomed once the Klingons established space superiority. Indeed, I seem to recall some dialogue where Gul Dukat became enraged when Weyoun wouldn't send ships to defend the planet. He realized that the entire military on the ground was SOL once the Klingons controlled the space around the planet.

All we know about Cardie ground forces is that they have mechanised infantry. That's a long way away from being "the type of ground forces most of this forum would recommend", but it certainly puts them above all their neighbours in terms of ground combat.

And yes, as has been established, orbital supremecy is a massive advantage that cannot be overlooked. Does that mean that it's the only factor that is required to win a war? No, of course not.

That's a good question, yet we know that it has been done, by the same militaries that this forum is so ready to indict (the Dominion took over Betazed, the Klingons took over whatever planet the 11th order was on and I'm sure there are others).

Yes, against forces just as incompetant as they are. Saying "well, the neighbouring powers are just as dumb, so that excuses my idiocy" is, obviously, BS. When modern day third-world countries have a good chance of holding off an invasion by a superpower from the 24th century, something is very fucking wrong. That everyone else is also that terrible at it is not an excuse.

When considering the state of ground forces in Star Trek I'd like the forum to consider the following. Which is more likely:

1. Every military leader in the known galaxy is a moron (with the exception of the Cardassians), and has failed to provide even the most basic vital equipment to their troops.

Correct. They are stupid. You don't even need to make comparisons to modern day armies to figure that out; just look at the guns that Starfleet issues. The Type 2 phaser is the worst designs for a weapon I've ever seen. Only an idiot could ever come up with such a gun. It was only around the time of FC that they started building inteligent guns (the assault-rifle phaser thing).
That Klingon and Jem'hadar troops frequently charge into close combat is also further indicative of worthless tactics.

2. There is some facet of 24th century warfare that has changed dramatically from what we as 21st century people are used to, leading to ships in orbit being >>>troops on the ground.

Of course things have changed, and of course starship support is highly important. But as I've pointed out, starships are not the be-all end-all of ground warfare.

What would the 12th century knight have said if you told him that future wars would be fought almost entirely with projectile weapons?

He'd probably be pretty shocked. Even more so at the idea of big metal monsters with huge building-destroying weapons impervious to most forms of attack available to infantry. Did the tank make the infantryman obsolete? No. Of course not. Why? Because there are some things that tanks can't do. Just as there are some things that starships can't do. In both cases, infantry is neccesitated by the limits of these devices.

[Bryan Moore]

B.Mo. = Confused! Was this a split off and then re-merged thread?

[Teaos]

Probably.

[Deepcrush]

There are a couple of these threads going around. Most of whats being said has been said before. Minus some new meaningless blabber.

It comes down to "truely how stupid" is the UFP for ground combat. The answer is very stupid. That's the short and sweet of it.

[Sionnach Glic]

And yet again, the thread is split.

[SteveK]

Similar scenarios could be created for the removal of projectile weapons from modern forces. U.S Marines storm an island, both sides get cut off from support and run out of ammo and the combat goes to bayonets. In such a scenario, one would be absolutely correct to point out that their equipment is inferior to that used by 12th century knights, however that would be an irrelevant conclusion.

It would be irrelevant, and an unfair test, because you'd be depriving one side of its standard-issue equipment while allowing the other side to retain theirs. The discussion is about the efficiency of a given army's organic equipment when deprived of its supporting elements - in the case of the 12th century army that would be siege equipment such as catapults, in the case of the US Marines it would be naval gunfire support and air cover, and in the case of Starfleet it's their starships.

*emphasis mine* Yes indeed, that was the discussion. I've made no comment on the validity of the conclusions that the vocal portion of this forum have drawn, I've simply stated that the discussion is irrelevant, for the simple reason that the balance of power has shifted so overwhelmingly (in the Star Trek universe) in favor of the "supporting elements" that removing them leads to an obvious irrelevant conclusion.

1. Every military leader in the known galaxy is a moron (with the exception of the Cardassians), and has failed to provide even the most basic vital equipment to their troops.

This is proven by canon

No, it isn't. What is proven by canon is that they don't have certain equipment--your estimation of the effectiveness or importance of their ground forces without that equipment is your opinion.

[Sionnach Glic]

Any time you'd care to adress my post, that's be great.

[Captain Seafort]

*emphasis mine* Yes indeed, that was the discussion. I've made no comment on the validity of the conclusions that the vocal portion of this forum have drawn, I've simply stated that the discussion is irrelevant, for the simple reason that the balance of power has shifted so overwhelmingly (in the Star Trek universe) in favor of the "supporting elements" that removing them leads to an obvious irrelevant conclusion.

If it's so obvious then why are you one of the few (if not only) person in this thread calling it obvious? Yes, there has been a massive shift away from properly equipped infantry towards the supporting arms - this is the crux of the problem. A unit can be deprived of its supporting arms, as has been shown time and again both historically and in Star Trek canon.

Moreover there are cases when supporting arms are useless. If you want to destroy a city, PTs are fine. If you want to capture a city, you need well-equipped infantry, able to move through it street-by-street and house-by-house, identifying who are the enemy and who are the civilians caught in the crossfire. You need to have the firepower to break into houses and clear out rooms without flattening the thing. You need to have the weapons available to put down sustained suppressive fire on enemy positions to allow your infantry to cross open areas. You need to have heavy firepower on hand to deal with more serious problems immediately, not in five minutes time when your starship has worked its way down the priority list to your unit.

In occupation or counterinsurgency situations, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, there are different problems. You need to move huge amounts of stuff around, in volumes a single starship's transporters simply couldn't handle, and which require protection - again, with firepower on hand now, not in five minutes. You need to be able to patrol streets and countryside looking for troublemakers - a starship's sensors can, at best, only tell you were a person is, not what he's doing or whether he looks dodgy. These patrols need to be protected (i.e. APC/IFV mounted,) and to have the firepower available to deal with any trouble they run into.

A starship is no more effective in these situations than a modern ground attack aircraft. It's bigger, better armed, can cover a much wider area, and probably has a better reaction time, but it still has its limitations.