www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:

SteveK wrote:*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?

Forum culture? It doesn't matter.

Captain Seafort wrote: 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.

When faced with the decisions about the proper allocation of military resources every single race encountered in Trek canon has reached a different conclusion than you. We must then choose between two schools of thought:

1. Those who are intimately familiar with the capabilities, technology and production capacity of the Star Trek universe (these are the hypothetical military leaders of every race we've seen in Trek)

2. Those who are only casually familiar with the capabilities, technology and production capacity of the Star Trek universe

They've spent their resources on Star ships: we know they can successfully defeat ground forces (Betazed and the Cardassian 11th order), therefore it works.

Rochey wrote: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 don't allege that the comparison was unfair or that the conclusions you reached were incorrect, just that they were irrelevant. What I mean is that it is improper to apply your conclusions to any scenario where those exact, specific conditions don't exist. To put it plainly, your conclusions don't show that if Star Fleet had their ships and their shuttles that modern forces would still be superior. Therefore, when considering a situation like in the thread (UFP vs modern Earth) your analysis does not demonstrate that UFP ground forces would be "curb-stomped".

Forum culture? It doesn't matter.

I'd have to disagree. It has nothing to do with culture. It has to do with some have studied in these matters and some of us have been involved in these matters on a first hand experience. This is of course vs your pretend world of bullshit. Take a guess which of these two sides would carry more value...

When faced with the decisions about the proper allocation of military resources every single race encountered in Trek canon has reached a different conclusion than you. We must then choose between two schools of thought:

1. Those who are intimately familiar with the capabilities, technology and production capacity of the Star Trek universe (these are the hypothetical military leaders of every race we've seen in Trek)

2. Those who are only casually familiar with the capabilities, technology and production capacity of the Star Trek universe

They've spent their resources on Star ships: we know they can successfully defeat ground forces (Betazed and the Cardassian 11th order), therefore it works.

What you have so many times failed to understand in any shape or form. Its not about what works. If they're all retards like you've said (or just like you) then it wouldn't be a shock that those at the tactics in play. Much like the mass charges of WW1. The point comes down to what may work vs what will work better!

I don't allege that the comparison was unfair or that the conclusions you reached were incorrect, just that they were irrelevant. What I mean is that it is improper to apply your conclusions to any scenario where those exact, specific conditions don't exist. To put it plainly, your conclusions don't show that if Star Fleet had their ships and their shuttles that modern forces would still be superior. Therefore, when considering a situation like in the thread (UFP vs modern Earth) your analysis does not demonstrate that UFP ground forces would be "curb-stomped".

Again you are so very OH SO VERY WRONG. The comparison you placed up was meant for one side to fail. Which, unless you're just cheating in a video game at home. Is entirely meaningless when you're trying to figure out the ability of and enemy army in the case of war by which anyone who has ever even crack a combat manual will tell you starts with the Application and Adaptation. The matter falls on taking the base line ability of yourself and your enemy to figure both your strengths and weaknesses after which you expand your thoughts into how to best apply your advantage and adapt to your weakness. From there you then begin to add on different factors such as supply and support.

Saying UFP ground forces vs US or UK groud forces is fair.
Saying Plate armored knights vs guys with nothing is just worthless.

Deepcrush wrote:

Forum culture? It doesn't matter.

I'd have to disagree. It has nothing to do with culture. It has to do with some have studied in these matters and some of us have been involved in these matters on a first hand experience. This is of course vs your pretend world of bullshit. Take a guess which of these two sides would carry more value...

We're talking about Star Trek, the whole conversation is pretend world bullshit.

Then again most war planning is pretend. But you still have to treat them like they are real.

Forum culture? It doesn't matter.

BS. It's not forum culture to let someone say things that are blatantly wrong. Assertions are always challenged here. That's what our forum culture is.

When faced with the decisions about the proper allocation of military resources every single race encountered in Trek canon has reached a different conclusion than you. We must then choose between two schools of thought:

1. Those who are intimately familiar with the capabilities, technology and production capacity of the Star Trek universe (these are the hypothetical military leaders of every race we've seen in Trek)

2. Those who are only casually familiar with the capabilities, technology and production capacity of the Star Trek universe

They've spent their resources on Star ships: we know they can successfully defeat ground forces (Betazed and the Cardassian 11th order), therefore it works.

Wow, thanks for completely ignoring everything we've ever said on this subject in favour of going "well, everyone does it, therefore it has to be the right answer!". That level of burrying your head in the sand is quite an achievement.

I don't allege that the comparison was unfair or that the conclusions you reached were incorrect, just that they were irrelevant. What I mean is that it is improper to apply your conclusions to any scenario where those exact, specific conditions don't exist. To put it plainly, your conclusions don't show that if Star Fleet had their ships and their shuttles that modern forces would still be superior. Therefore, when considering a situation like in the thread (UFP vs modern Earth) your analysis does not demonstrate that UFP ground forces would be "curb-stomped".

Again, congrats for managing to completely ignore all our points on this subject. We should get a medal for this guy, or something.

SteveK wrote:When faced with the decisions about the proper allocation of military resources every single race encountered in Trek canon has reached a different conclusion than you. We must then choose between two schools of thought:

1. Those who are intimately familiar with the capabilities, technology and production capacity of the Star Trek universe (these are the hypothetical military leaders of every race we've seen in Trek)

2. Those who are only casually familiar with the capabilities, technology and production capacity of the Star Trek universe

They've spent their resources on Star ships: we know they can successfully defeat ground forces (Betazed and the Cardassian 11th order), therefore it works.

This boils down to "It's their universe, so we have no basis to critique them on it." In other words, we can't discuss it. Why bother posting here, then? The purpose of this forum isn't for fictional characters to discuss issues, it's for us to discuss them; and the most proper way of doing that is with the knowledge that we have.

You guys have to be careful now. You're using grown up speak... and that's just not fair to someone who's only time around grown up speak is when mommy and daddy do da yelling an da screaming. So please, in all fairness, dumb it down all little... for the children...

Mikey wrote:

SteveK wrote:When faced with the decisions about the proper allocation of military resources every single race encountered in Trek canon has reached a different conclusion than you. We must then choose between two schools of thought:

1. Those who are intimately familiar with the capabilities, technology and production capacity of the Star Trek universe (these are the hypothetical military leaders of every race we've seen in Trek)

2. Those who are only casually familiar with the capabilities, technology and production capacity of the Star Trek universe

They've spent their resources on Star ships: we know they can successfully defeat ground forces (Betazed and the Cardassian 11th order), therefore it works.

This boils down to "It's their universe, so we have no basis to critique them on it." In other words, we can't discuss it. Why bother posting here, then? The purpose of this forum isn't for fictional characters to discuss issues, it's for us to discuss them; and the most proper way of doing that is with the knowledge that we have.

Not at all, what it means is that we should look for a better explanation of what we see on screen than "They're stupid!".

The way I imagine it the leaders of the various races carefully considered the tactical ability and costs associated with the various sorts of equipment and decided that they get more utility out of (for example) 2 starships rather than 1000 hypothetical tank-like vehicles. Perhaps they considered that for whoever controls the space around a planet that any ground force, however well equipped, are sitting ducks, and came to the conclusion (based on their extensive expertise and experience) that their best chance of victory in war comes from maximizing their space power.

Or the entire galaxy is stupid.

Personally, I find the former theory more persuasive and, if I'm being honest, much more interesting. Your mileage may vary.

The thing is that we can stay "everyone is just that stupid". Just look at the tactics used in the first World War. The fact is that the factions out of the 24th don't seem to have a lot of experience in ground warfare. This is likely because, like you have said, they may not feel a need for it. The problem is that as we have seen on dozens of eps. There is in fact a strong need for well trained and well equipped ground troops.

"They decided" based on what factors, specifically? How exactly does space superiority negate the need for boots on the ground or facilitate occupation? Saying that "they decided for reasons we can't know" is just another way of saying "I maintain my position w/out support so we can't discuss it."

Mikey wrote: Saying that "they decided for reasons we can't know" is just another way of saying "I maintain my position w/out support so we can't discuss it."

That isn't what I said.

SteveK wrote:Perhaps they considered that for whoever controls the space around a planet that any ground force, however well equipped, are sitting ducks, and came to the conclusion (based on their extensive expertise and experience) that their best chance of victory in war comes from maximizing their space power.

You can, of course, keep your "Everyone is stupid" theory.

SteveK wrote:...You can, of course, keep your "Everyone is stupid" theory.

Well, that's hardly a theory.


Wait, are we still talking about 'Trek, or reality?

I read what you said. I repeat - what specific factors led to the conclusion that spaceships preclude the need for boots on the ground? If you can't or won't provide them, then your assertion is empty.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

SteveK wrote:...You can, of course, keep your "Everyone is stupid" theory.

Well, that's hardly a theory.


Wait, are we still talking about 'Trek, or reality?

I'm going with both since you can apply it to both and it's still true.

Deepcrush wrote:The thing is that we can stay "everyone is just that stupid". Just look at the tactics used in the first World War. The fact is that the factions out of the 24th don't seem to have a lot of experience in ground warfare. This is likely because, like you have said, they may not feel a need for it. The problem is that as we have seen on dozens of eps. There is in fact a strong need for well trained and well equipped ground troops.

The armies of WW1, even at their worst in 1915, were still far superior to anything we've seen from the Feds - they had helmets, proper rifles (that wouldn't break if used to hit a Reman over the head ), lots of automatic weapons, and lots of artillery.

SteveK wrote:The way I imagine it the leaders of the various races carefully considered the tactical ability and costs associated with the various sorts of equipment and decided that they get more utility out of (for example) 2 starships rather than 1000 hypothetical tank-like vehicles. Perhaps they considered that for whoever controls the space around a planet that any ground force, however well equipped, are sitting ducks, and came to the conclusion (based on their extensive expertise and experience) that their best chance of victory in war comes from maximizing their space power.

This is, effectively, the same thing as saying "they're stupid", as it shows the same sort of mentality of those who thought the war in Kosovo could be won through air power alone. Both are vital supporting arms, but they are only supporting arms to the infantry. As for the issue between tanks and starships, tanks can observe the situation from close range while being immune to many of the weapons infantry have to take cover from, giving senior commanders a much better sensor platform, and provide support to infantry without flattening buildings (as a starship or air strike would have to), has a much better reaction time (see enemy, shoot enemy, instead of see enemy, radio to starship, have starship calculate exact location of enemy, set weapons so they don't take out their own troops as well, shoot enemy, by which time said enemy could have either scarpered or killed some of your troops). Most importantly, 1000 tanks can be in 1000 places at once. Two starships can only be in two places.