Invading a planet from space is, to say the very least, problematic. Although many planets are given populations of perhaps a million or so inhabitants, I would imagine that strategically important locations could have populations of up to several billion.
During WW II, the United States was able to field a total military strength amounting to approximately 10% of its population. A planet with a billion inhabitants might be able to field a military strength of perhaps 100 million.
Additionally, a planet, while impossible to hide (at least with typical 23d and 24th century technology), would usually have a clear view of the surrounding space. Lacking superior stealth capability (as with the 23d century [TOS] Federation), an approaching force could be spotted by sensor outposts well in advance of arrival. A defending force of ships could easily be hidden in an asteroid field or on small moons within the system, and could perform hit-and-run attacks against an invading force. If sufficiently strong, a defending force could go head-to-head against an invader, reducing its strength prior to a ground assault. Surface installations and orbital defensive stations would further reduce an attacking force's strength.
Once in orbit, however, it seems an attacking force would have the advantage over surface-based defenses. They could use a wide variety of sensors to detect and target important ground-based installations. If the sole purpose of the invasion was to destroy the population of the planet, they could simply incinerate the surface with phaser fire and torpedoes.
If the objective is to occupy the planet and subdue the populace, however, the task is not so simple. If you sit up in orbit and simply blast any military formation you spot, you would still destroy significant amounts of the planet's eco-system. You could never be certain you had gotten all the combatants, and you'd still be stuck in orbit, without secure locations to send your forces to sieze control of the planet's infrastructure and resources.
Despite the advances in technology, even in the 23d and 24th century, you still need ground forces. My question is, what form do these forces take?
In our own time, a proper military force requires the following elements (and perhaps some more I've overlooked):
Let's discuss how each of these elements is implemented in the 23d and 24th century world as shown in Trek. Where an element's form has been superceded by technological advances, the function will very likely still remain, but will simply take a new form (example: horse cavalry has been superceded by tanks, helicopters, and mobile infantry).
--Baloo
------------------
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Come Hither and Yawn...
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited February 04, 2000).]
A 24th century Earth would probably import the majority of its food, such a world would probably surrender if cut off from resupply, rather then let a huge amount of its population die of starvation.
As I recall Betazed seemed to either surrender or fell extremely quickly during the Dominion war.
Another point is that even currently, the US military is developing a technology that can destroy a flying air-to-air style missile with a laser mounted on a 747 style plane.
In Star Trek, ships are fighting with phasers and other weapons at speeds probably at least half the speed of light(estimate). They can also hit targets with photon torpedos at FTL speeds. You realise that "small" miss at FTL speeds would mean a miss of hundreds if not thousands of kilometres. I think its a safe bet that a ship in orbit could easily destroy a 20km/h tank without even singing the grass underneath it.
So in the list:
1. Infantry: Obviously, we've seen infantry with "standard" uniforms, not very probable, but maybe phaser-style weapons are so powerful any armour would be useless unless they are on a Borg personal shield level?
2. Artillery: Easy target for starships, or even shuttles. Wouldn't it be easier just to "beam" a shell on top of the enemy instead of beaming down a gun to do the same thing?
3. Armour: Big f*ing target. Not likely
4. Anti-tank weapons: No Tanks....why anti-tank weapons?
5. Intellegence: Always useful, no argument
6. Air forces: Only useful for knocking down shuttles and other space to ground transports. Airfields are obvious targets so airplanes would have to be VTOL capable or something similar.
Major point:
ICBMs and battlefield nuclear weapons would be a large threat. They are capable of wiping out expensive armies in one blow if they don't have something that can knock them down mid-flight.
All in all, I think that warfare from space to the ground would be a moot point in most cases. Space superiority grants air superiority, air superiority grants victory in the oceans, a ground defending force could only hope to fight a holding action until reinforcements arrive in space.
------------------
No I'm Spartacus!
I think Starfleet probably has some sort of ground assault vehicles that we have not seen in use by, what I will call, their Marine Corps. We've heard of "hoppers" which I took to be some kind of troop transport ship like the ones seen in "Starship Troopers".
------------------
"A gathering of Angels appeared above my head. They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said..." -Styx
Aban's Illustration www.thespeakeasy.com/alanfore
------------------
Madly posting so he can get 250
If the above is not the case, then how could there be any surface combat at all?
Science officer (SO): "Captain! There seems to be an enemy formation approaching our surface deployment!"Captain (C): "On screen! Magnify."
SO: "It appears to be a mix of personnel carriers and heavy support vehicles."
C: "How soon before they can threaten our units?"
SO: "One minute, thirty-two seconds!"
C: "Communications! Alert our units to the incoming threat."
Communications officer (CO): "Aye, sir!"
C: "Lock phasers on the lead elements."
Weapons Officer (WO): "Phasers locked! Ready to fire!"
CO: "Captain! Unable to raise the surface commander! They're using subspace interference generators!"
C: "Damn! Fire phasers!"
WO: "Phasers fired, sir!"
C: "Damage assessment?"
SO: "Four heavies destroyed. They are dispersing, but not retreating."
C: "Fire again!"
SO: "We can't establish a lock sir. They're emitting jammus particles."
C: "Compensate!"
SO: "I'm trying sir! They're oscillating the freem wavelengths and rotating the belzanwissels!"
C: "Can we risk a torpedo?"
SO: "They're too close to our units now. We'd damage our own as much as them."
Doesn't that sound plausible? If the defending forces have no reconnaissance capability other than the orbiting vessel, they're screwed.
Now we've had an example, I ask again: Just how are the units equipped? Speculate. Remember: just because you brought the biggest gun to the party doesn't mean you win the door prize. If you can't win except by destroying what you came to possess, why bother?
--Baloo
------------------
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Come Hither and Yawn...
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited February 04, 2000).]
Here's another question, though. Ship enters orbit to deploy troops. Why can't the planet have surface to orbit weapons, to combat the ship? Planetary assault is more complicated that we make it out to be.
------------------
"I see you have the ring. And that your Schwartz is as big as mine!
-Dark Helmet, Spaceballs
As for personal forcefields I really doubt they would be use in any large significant numbers. In the first episode the Borg showed up (Q Who?...can't remember) the appearance of personal shields was a major surprise...if Starfleet has access to them why would they be such a surprise that the Borg whould have them?
I think that you've overlooked something, surface combat seems to be almost an afterthought in Star Trek, standard uniformed ensigns battling it out with no armour.
Maybe there's a reason.....maybe combat "IS" an afterthought, one last way to thumb your nose at an opponent but rarely a deciding factor.
(Unless major castmemebers are involved, but thats another matter)
And as for jamming an opponent and getting close enough to friendly units that orbital fire cannot be used. I ask again, why land and risk units?
As for planetary assault, when's the last time a battle has been won with fortifications? The Maginot Line, D-Day, Sicily, Berlin, oh wait....those were losses. Just like Star Trek in Betazed, DS9 (In The Way of the Warrior) if reinforcements had not arrived), SOA, etc. I don't think static defences would be of much use when an attacking unit can use FTL tactics.
------------------
No I'm Spartacus!
In this game we get to see designs for Romulan , Klingon and Fed ground vehicles , the game also highlights the tactics these three powers use , for example the Klingons send a Squadron of Bird's of Prey to provide cover while a division of tanks and troops land on the planet.
Theres a huge number of screencaps at : http://www.interplay.com/stnewworlds/media.html
These caps do give a nice peek into what a planetary attack might look like.
------------------
"Marge .. Do you have other men in this House ? .. Radioactive men?"
~Homer "The Simpsons"
Jupiter Station , Starfleet Research & Development
First of all, I don't imagine that there is much in the way of heavy armor in Starfleet, for the following reasons. One, we know that a starship can hit ground targets with a large amount of accuracy and little if any damage to the surroundings. Kirk, for instance, would routinely call down phaser strikes on targets that he wasn't fifty feet away from. So I don't think that starships have to worry too much about hitting their own troops, save for the occasional melee. However, for that reason, it seems unlikely that troops would be kept very close together at all. 24th century technology would allow them to maintain unit cohesion at great distances. Hence, making it hard for a starship to effectively take out entire groups of soldiers at once. But armor, being larger, makes for a much more attractive target.
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
Voice of James Earl Jones: "We are the [insert name of invading people here]! We have destroyed your satellite system and over one hundred ships are poised to crush any resistance! Surrender and we will be merciful! Resist and be destroyed!"As the last syllable of that message fades into the ether, sixty ships of the invading fleet are vaporized by lances of energy originating from the surface.
Voice of Don Knotts: "Oh yeah? You and what army? If you want this planet so bad, then come and get us!"
Now what does the commander of that particular fleet do if his mission is to enslave the population and capture the resources and infrastructure of the planet in as close to serviceable condition as possible? Does he just blow it to kingdom come as a warning to others? Does he turn around and go home? What if there's another fleet coming to the rescue? How long can they maintain their blockade? How can he be sure he knows the location of all surface batteries and destroy them should they open fire?
The reason you need to land troops is to ensure that you actually control the area you plan to occupy. I'd imagine it isn't always possible to destroy a surface installation from orbit, at least, not with a single shot. After all, you can have HUGE shield generators and power supplies on a planet. You could have multiple installations, all unmanned, which are intended to fire just a few times before the orbiting vessels can generate effective counterbattery fire. You KNOW it's hard to hide an orbiting ship. How difficult is it to conceal a phaser battery or photon torpedo launch facility when you have an entire world to hide it on? How difficult is it to create a decoy installation that is the 23d/24th century equivalent of artfully painted wood and canvas?
Keep tearing at it folks. We really don't know anything except that almost anything is possible. Anything except that surface combat is obsolete. It's difficult as hell, but it's never been an easy task, and probably never will be.
--Baloo
------------------
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Come Hither and Yawn...
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited February 05, 2000).]
------------------
"To start, press any key. Where's the 'any' key?
-Homer Jay Simpson
And here are all the thumbnails:
http://www.interplay.com/stnewworlds/media.html#ss
------------------
"Si vis pacem, para bellum." (If you want peace, prepare for war)
- Vegetius
Prakesh's Star Trek Site
I'm guessing with a planet like Cardassia Prime, Romulus, and even earth you need a force of over 20 million troops. I guess the Federation can amass a ground force of 10-100 billion troops.
I beleive project "Thor" considered this use, with merely crowbar-sized projectiles. Fairly small mass + Lots of KI = lots of damage, with no attendant radioactivity.
Of course, the elephant-aliens in Footfall also dropped a good-sized meteor or comet in the Indian Ocean, the effects of which were global and wiped out a lot of potential defenders.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
Star Wars: Is probably the most similar to what Baloo is theorizing. Orbital bombardment can be devastating but an overwhelming ground force is still needed. (Walkers, support Starfighters, troops, large cannons, etc. )
B5: I missed many episodes (stupid TV stations) but the Centauri employed mass drivers which pretty much forced Narn to surrender to avoid too many casualities.
Isaac Asimov's Foundation: It is hinted that Trantor (the major capital planet) doesn't have sufficient food production at all. All an attacker had to do was cut off food for a short time to produce a victory.
------------------
No I'm Spartacus!
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
------------------
Obviously you refuse to cooperate with me. Obviously you have no discipline to kepp the mouth shut. Obviously you don't. Let's try it that way, then you might get the hint. How many more minutes are we going to waste asking you not to talk? How many more!?!
Remotely-piloted vehicles are the next-closest thing to what you are describing, and since they are machines (though extremely advanced and complex ones) they are subject to countermeasures.
--Baloo
------------------
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Come Hither and Yawn...
I have to nitpick military stuff when I catch it.
------------------
Navigator-"Heading, Sir?"
Kirk-"Out there...somewhere...out thatta-way."--Star Trek: TMP
------------------
Navigator-"Heading, Sir?"
Kirk-"Out there...somewhere...out thatta-way."--Star Trek: TMP
I agree with the esteemed Baloo that ground combat will continue to be necessary to hold ground during the 23rd and 24th centuries. However, attempting to invade a heavily industrialized, densely populated planet, like Earth, and invading and occupying a largely or completely uninhabited planet garrisoned with nonindigenous troops are two different things. Obviously, what you do depends largely on your goals in each case. If you want to subdue an inhabited planet or prevent them from making trouble off world you can bomb or burn them into submission by taking out few big cities, but this, of course, is not in the Federation play book. What the Feds would probably do in this case would be to establish orbital control, blockade the planet, and wait it out. This would result in the fewest civilian casualties. Any surface batteries firing either phasers or torpedoes at orbiting Fed ships could be taken out from orbit after their shields had been cracked. The orbiting ships would, of course, be shielded as well. Specialized heavily armed �monitors� or �arsenal ships� could be used for bombardment. Of course, the orbit of the planet would have to be swept for any stealthed (ie, cloaked) phaser platforms, mines, or ships. The number of men in uniform would be irrelevant unless you actually wanted to engage them in combat.
If you wanted to actually expell or subdue hostile troops you might try to shell them from orbit, but there are many places to hide on a planet. They could be deep underground, behind heavy shielding, or cloaked. If you do try orbital bombardment, doing so will also be easier if you have control of orbit and nearby space, as above. In World War II, all successful US amphibious landings, either in Europe or the Pacific, required air superiority or supremecy. However, pre-landing bombardment wasn�t always successful in subduing the defenders.
Getting down: Another trick is how to get down to the surface for fighting or maybe for rescuing hostages, spying, or stealing stuff. As countless episodes have shown, beaming down is the statistically safest form of transportation, perhaps because there are so many times where they don�t even try it because of interference from ion storms, radiation, magnetic rocks, scary animals, etc. Therefore, transport would be pretty easy to stop using phaser fire, shields (planetary or local), orbital gun platforms, and mines (stealthed but activated to emit radiation when a transport beam is detected), or even suspended metal particles. In particular, standard orbits (geosynchronous?) would be particularly well defended. If you go to a lower orbit, the distance for transport is less, but the speed relative to the beam-down point is higher and you are easier to hit from the ground. A higher orbit would be safer from ground fire but increases the distance for transport and the relative speed. Also, what about the inability to transport while shielded?
Therefore, you might want to maintain a mechanical landing capability, ie, flying down your troops in landing craft or shooting them down in little capsules, as in the book �Starship Troopers.� You�d want to protect the capsules or ships by using lots of drones, chaff, and decoys and heavy ECM to confuse any defenders.
Our boys in uniform: If I were sending down troops I�d put them in some kind of armored suit, both to give them a livable environment and to protect them against shrapnel, etc. Even if they weren�t any good against phasers, suits are still a good idea: after all, modern helmets don�t protect against bullets, but soldiers still wear them to protect their heads against other things. As long as you have suits you might also like to add some waldos to augment muscular strength (both for physical tasks and to carry heavier weapons), sensors, night vision, personal energetic shielding, ECM, etc. Maybe even personal flight capability.
Regarding fighting drones or robots, I suspect the Fed might have some sort of taboo against ones that could kill, maybe because of Asimov�s laws. You could, however, have drones remotely controlled by operators up in orbit. That might be somewhat more kosher. But, as Baloo points out, the link could be jammed.
Heavy weapons: I think with antigrav technology, the distinction between tank, artillery, and aircraft may vanish. I envision some sort of heavily armored and shielded land speeder, like in Star Wars, that could carry some troops and some guns and bombs heavier than a man can carry. I�d load them up with ECM and energetic shielding to hide them and protect them if they are hit. I can�t see any real use for tracked, wheeled, or legged vehicles other than they�d look cool. Armor and big guns are a must: If they had used any sort of armor in Starship Troopers (the movie) or any guns bigger than a machine gun the bugs could�ve have done any damage.
Angels on your shoulder: I would think that having a ship or ships in orbit is a must for any assault landing. They can give you intelligence and fire support and beam you out of trouble in a hurry. They can also chase away any thing in orbit that wants to bother your troops. I would also set up a whole bunch of satellites to make communications easier. If you could designate targets for destruction or pick up with a laser (like they do now) or some sort of signal emitter you could have pinpoint accuracy.
------------------
When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
------------------
"Si vis pacem, para bellum." (If you want peace, prepare for war)
- Vegetius
Prakesh's Star Trek Site
Our efforts must be aimed at explaining how ground combat in DS9 style is possible even though we have for decades been told that single big starships can handle everything. We must preserve the strength of the capital ship while giving the grunt a niche as well. We must also make sure we don't make DS9 ground combat *too* attractive, so that it would be inconsistent to show more mechanized fighting in the future as budgets and technology allow.
I think it solves many things if one simply assumes that strong opponents have powerful jamming tech that negates the sensor advantages of the capital ships, and makes transporters less useful. That's two main points taken care of. The rest is fine-tuning.
The lack of army mechanization could be just an illusion, since we saw so little of ground combat, especially in open terrain. I'm sure future episodes will feature "flying APCs" or militarized shuttles very soon, while mech armor will follow only when CGI gets better and cheaper. The lack of personal or squad-sized shields is a greater problem. Perhaps shields are cumbersome, difficult to hide from sensors, and never sufficiently strong to withstand heavy weaponry, so they are used as little as possible and only when the unit has already been spotted and is being shelled?
Currently, one could argue that ground troops are only used in small numbers in the few cases where starships fail, explaining why the units we see are so lightly armed and protected and of poor mobility. But in the future, such a view might be too limiting. Perhaps it's best to assume that we simply missed the heavy gear in the less than half a dozen ground combat episodes.
Timo Saloniemi
If a planet is unoccupied for whatever reasons (poor resources, poor environment) but is strategically located it will be necessary to control that planet, or at least that system during a conflict. If the planet has no intrinsic value itself the system would do. If it does have value obviously it would have to be occupied. However, without a civilian population it seems unlikely that a siege (as many have recommended) would do a hell of a lot of good. It might drive out the original occupiers but that could take more time than you're willing to spend.
In such situations, then, what elements would be necessary for field operations? It seems that orbiting ships would be the logical substitute for the artillery. They can perform the function and there is no higher ground... Beyond that we have the question of armor. IMO the development and deployment of 'armor' as we think of it seems unlikely. First of all because the way we tend to think of it is as a ground based machine. Why would you use that when a modified shuttle would be far more effective, more maneuverable, and have a greater range? Variations on that shuttle would also provided troop transport, in addition to being able to achieve space orbit and evacuate the troops. Standard armor wouldn't be able to do that, not only that but you'd have to leave it behind.
Air power is yet again only a variation on this theme, perhaps the fighters that we've seen in some DS9 eps, etc. But clearly the ideal of armor is mobile, rugged, firepower. One type of ship with slightly different modifications would fill that role nicely.
Surface warfare in the 24th century then, would probably be dominated by small engagements of ground troops using superior weapons (note: actual engagements themselves would involve relatively low numbers, though those involved in a single campaign as for a planet might be larger). It is doubtful that given the methods of transportation available specific cities would be valued for rail or road connections. Instead vertical corridors to and from the surface to the most mineral rich areas, or the most heavily industrialized, or whatever, would be the most important. Small garrisons holding the perimeter of these areas, protected by the artillery orbiting them, and with an extendable reach of transporters and vehicles would be able in theory to hold the fort for an extended period of time.
Any significant attack with the hopes of dislodging them would have to begin in space with the removal of the ships. Ground troops could then be landed (though probably not in tremendous force - 500K for a single planet? as in the Chintaka system, and probably scattered at that) and begin the assault. Gaining a weapons edge would be top priority; knocking out the most mobile units and shrinking the defensable position of the garrison to just the reach of the men within (including any vertical reach provided by shields or transporters) then reduction of the men by assault, siege, or bombardment. The last option being viable only when not seeking to protect some installation.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
------------------
Proverbs for Paranoids, 3: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
------------------
Dane
"...and there was war in heaven..." The Bible, Revelation 12:7
http://members.tripod.com/~SMR4124/tdv.html
------------------
"Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.