Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Surface Warfare in the 23d & 24th Century...
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jh: [QB] Okay, first of all there is at least one small problem in every discussion of planet occupation so far: That is, it is not dictated that the planet be heavily occupied by a civilian population. Certainly many of the islands in the Pacific during WWII were not heavily occupied but their strategic importance was not lessened by that. War is like real estate; location, location, location. 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. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3