Force Multipliers in Infantry Combat

[Renaissance Man]

Which brings us full circle -- why do this? One could get a similar effect by blanketing the planet in nukes. Same calculations apply. You lose one planet and gain the terror and hatred of the known galaxy, and the same technology is readily available to EVERYONE. The cost benefit analysis for this tactic is all out of whack. It would be prohibited de facto if not de jure based on it's low strategic value alone.

Biological weapons at least would leave the planet intact for future colonization or exploitation.

Once you denude a system of its defences, you totally own them -- ortillery, embargo, invasion, tribbles... it's your party. Drop a rock on them? Seems sorta pointless.

 

[flykiller]

Once you denude a system of its defences ....

even if a system is fully defended and the attacking force is inferior, most if not all of the destructive options you list are still executable. which is why, whether naval force is superior or inferior, planet busting is not an option, because no-one can defend against it. anyone that tried it would be hunted down and eliminated by everyone who could field a starship, out of self-defense.

hey, what do you know, an adventure seed.

 

[Renaissance Man]

even if a system is fully defended and the attacking force is inferior, most if not all of the destructive options you list are still executable.

Really? The way I'm imagining it right now, it would take awhile for a ship to accelerate a rock that fast. Couldn't it be intercepted by a beam or missile along the way? Where does it get the rock anyway -- wouldn't it have to go to an asteroid belt to find something suitable?

 

[flykiller]

Really?

(shrug) 'pends on your ruleset of course, 'specially sensors, but I think a simple long-range envelopment, forcing the defender to divide along multiple axes and allowing an inferior attacker to establish local superiority on at least one axis, would be sufficient.

 

[Renaissance Man]

I'll have to take your word for it. Regardless, it's a self-destructive choice for any sane government.

 

[tbeard1999]

After asserting that Vietnam is a poor model for a Traveller insurgency, for numerous reasons, it occurred to me that Vietnam was actually not an insurgency. Well, to be accurate, it wasn't just an insurgency. Rather, it was a unique (AFAIK) blend of insurgency and large scale conventional operations. Examples of the latter include any number of American operations, the battle of Dien Bien Phu, the Tet Offensive (and siege of Khe Sahn), numerous battalion and brigade sized operations, and of course, the fall of South Vietnam, which was a classic conventional campaign. Compare this to (say) Iraq, where insurgents seldom launch operations of more than a few dozen men.

After realizing this, it then occurred to me that a Vietnam-style conflict might make a very interesting Traveller campaign setting. There are, however, serious challenges to making such a conflict plausible in the 3I (not so challenging in my own Commonwealth Campaign). The main problem IMHO is neutralizing the massive reconaissance capabilities of a TL15 starfaring power. The reason the North Vietnamese were able to pull off numerous large scale conventional operations was the jungle canopy that effectively limited the US advantage in reconaissance. Had Vietnam been in the desert or on the plains, there would have been few (if any) such operations. Large enemy units would have been pulverized by airpower long before they could engage US forces.

I'd note that a grav-mobile army would be an excellent counter for semi-conventional insurgencies. They have the same mobility advantage as helicopter based forces, but the grav vehicles are *far* more suvivable.

So...how do we limit the Imperium's advantages in reconnaisance?

 

[The Oz]

So...how do we limit the Imperium's advantages in reconnaisance?

I'd say the best way (or at least one of the best ways) is to make the counter-insurgency forces not first-line Imperial Army/Marine units, but instead planetary or even mercenary troops, most likely on a lower-tech balkanized world where it's not possible to establish that orbital surveillance advantage.

Next-best might be to pick/design a world where that orbital surveillance is not as useful as it might be: a quadruple-canopy jungle planet, or maybe a world of interlinked continental cave complexes, or a world-city with little open ground.

 

[epicenter00]

So...how do we limit the Imperium's advantages in reconnaisance?

The same way that the US's options were limited during Vietnam: Political considerations.

Imagine the world is on the border between Zhodani and Imperial Space, or more likely, with one the Zhodani or Imperial-allied states along the borders. When hostilities ceased, both the Imperium and the Zhodani wanted to assure their smaller alliance partners that the primary belligerents wouldn't sweep in and crush them in a punitive invasion for their role in the war. So by treaty, the Zhodani and the Imperium are only allowed to have naval vessels in certain systems under fixed circumstances (perhaps by dtons, numbers, and how long they stay). Both sides are allowed to have naval vessels in a system on an alternating system (perhaps weekly or monthly) to ensure the terms of the treaty are being fulfilled. Perhaps even Low Orbit is controlled in such a fashion, to prevent problems with armed space defense satellites and deep meson gun designators being disguised as civilian satellites. Violations of the treaty of course, would lead to a war neither side wants (at that time).

Since the borders were fixed at the time of the signing of the treaty, there might be worlds, like Sword Worlds that are occupied by the Imperium that the Sword Worlders want back, but Imperial pride prevents them from giving the worlds back. So you'd have a situation where Sword Worlders might be fighting a guerrilla war, the Imperium is restricted by treaty from leaving warships over the target world to provide recon. The Sword Worlders themselves are supporting the rebels as best they can but are restricted in access to the world. The major support from the guerillas come from Zhodani "treaty compliance" naval units who are thought to drop off supplies to the insurgents on the worlds. Of course, the Zhodani can claim ignorance, since perhaps the Sword Worlders used a lot of Zhodani-made equipment during the war, so it's reasonable that they might still have lots left over. Everyone knows it's a sham, but you see, the Imperium is probably supporting insurgents on Zhodani (or allied) occupied worlds in the same way...

 

[aramis]

There is also the expense. If the insurgents don't target Imperial issues, only the extant local government, and make it clear that they intend to resume business as usual, the imperium is likely to back off, and let the locals settle it. If it starts to drag, aiding whichever side pledges the larger tax-share or other economic concessions.

Just because a world is in the Imperium doesn't mean it gets to call upon imperial intel in defense against local partizans.

 

[Duke Pellinor]

Yes, the allied occupation of Germany 63 years later can be viewed as a success. It started out with 1.6 MILLION (just American, not including British, Soviet, French and all other allied contingents) troops initially deployed in an area of about 138 square miles and pared down by 1948 to 38000 American troops to cover 27000 square miles. So for the bulk of three years there was almost a 1:20 ratio of occupier to civilian. It is very hard to make much trouble when there is one heavily armed cop for every 20 people. That's not 20 MEN but 20 people--men, women and children. By the end of those three years, the new government was firmly in control which is why the occupation became a constabulary in Bavaria. Remember, there was an attempt at an insurgency in Germany post WWII, it just didn't take.

As impressive as the size of the occupation was, the crucial element to me seems the absolute decisiveness of the victory that preceded it, possibly coupled with an overwhelming sense of relief that they had been defeated and thus found a way out.

...
And I would add that it is pointedly absurd to condemn nukes while explicitly targeting masses of civilians with other weapons.
...

and just as absurd to condemn using civilian shields or other "evil" devices of the "barbarians" when we happily obliterate entire cities or even national infrastructure where and when we deem it necessary.

...
2) I've seen a lot of posters on here going into conjecture that the 3I would be more successful in combat against insurgents than a modern democracy because the 3I doesn't have voters or a media that might disagree with the unpleasant things the troops (and those who sent in troops) and that because it's the 3I ordering such things, the insurgents wouldn't have a chance because there's no massive external power supporting them.

I don't entirely agree with these conclusions.

Me either, but for different reasons, what so manay of us seem to view as a weakness is in the long view actually a strength. Having the leadership open to civil/lower level military audit is actually a strength. Look at the difference between the quarrelsome Greeks and autocratic Persians or the Christians at Lepanto, arguing like cat and dog just before the engagements.

That bit about dissimilar tech levels is Bunk... just ask the British about the 1st Boer War.

Enough screaming zulu with spears can pin down a higher tech force until it runs out of supplies.

Those examples of Western failure occurred when the commanders ignored established doctrine, which was essentially forming up in a leaguer and relying on a strengthened position, and discipline. The men at Rourke's Drift were far more out numbered than those at Isalwandha and managed to drive off the human waves. On top of that, the Zulu "victories" were a lot like the example of Tet that keeps cropping up, they gutted the offensive capacity of the Zulu armies and precipitated their eventual defeat.

...

Finally, it can also be argued that the 3I wouldn't have insurgencies against it in reality, given how diffuse its power is. Most insurgencies wouldn't be against the TL14/15 military of the 3I itself. It'd be against the world governments. The goal of insurgents might not be to extract the 3I itself. They might be fighting to topple the local government. They know that the 3I is cynical enough that if they take over, the 3I will start talking to them instead of the (now former) world government. Even if the don't reach there, the insurgents want to be taken seriously enough so that the 3I intervenes and forces the world government to reform itself, include the insurgents into the power structure, or change the world from a single-government model to a balkanized state.

This is the crucial point which most of this thread seems to ignore. The Imperium does not govern worlds but the "space between the stars", how many insurgencies that are occurring across the 3I will even attract official 3I notice and intervention... they are purely local affairs.

 

[aramis]

Any that affect supplies will get immediate attention.
Any that get the local Noble's attention, as well.

The local "Landed"-Noble-on-scene gets to make the decisions on which side to back. So long as the supplies arrive on time, and the Noble gets to send forward the taxes, fine. If the local gov't decides not to send forward the imperial tax, the noble sends word, and the navy arrives with the marines to dismantle local government.

If the LNoS notes that the Insurgents are preventing the collection of the taxation items, lord help them... the Marines arrive to "collect"... possibly assisting the local government, possibly ignoring them; in either case, the locals better provide the workforce once the marines have eradicated the opposition.

If either side starts to weapons of mass destruction, or massive civilian targeting, the LNoS is going to also invoke the IN/IM presence... and assault whichever side chose to do so, possibly both.

Landed Nobles are the Emperor's eyes on scene. If they are drastically wrong, they wind up retired to a red zone. If they go right, they never get noticed. If they go wrong and the noble then TURNS them to go Right... He's likely to get Noticed.

 

[Icosahedron]

As impressive as the size of the occupation was, the crucial element to me seems the absolute decisiveness of the victory that preceded it, possibly coupled with an overwhelming sense of relief that they had been defeated and thus found a way out.

IMHO, this was equally true of Iraq, the difference was the lack of that 1:20 ratio afterward.
Consequently, the power vacuum was filled by insurgents instead of occupation forces.

Important: Always complete the course of treatment, do not stop taking the tablets when you begin to feel better...

 

[tbeard1999]

...and just as absurd to condemn using civilian shields or other "evil" devices of the "barbarians" when we happily obliterate entire cities or even national infrastructure where and when we deem it necessary.

<shrug>

Who's this "we" you're talking about?

 

[tbeard1999]

...The Imperium does not govern worlds but the "space between the stars", how many insurgencies that are occurring across the 3I will even attract official 3I notice and intervention... they are purely local affairs.

Probably so, but I note that in the primary canon example of an insurgency (the Ine Givar on Efate), Imperial forces apparently did get heavily involved:

"What we have on Efate is a local, very minor situation. We're handling it with local forces and a few mercenary contingents. If it were serious, we could commit army or marine assets. We have some very potent assets in this subsector, but we haven't felt the need to commit them. This is not a serious situation,", he reported.

...

Reliable sources in the defense establishment have admitted in private that the Imperial Army's 1197th Separate Light Infantry Brigade has been engaged in counter-insurgency operations in the Vandere district of Kormoron (Efate's northern continent) for the last eight months.

...

The small brushfire war that has sputtered off and on for several years on this frontier world has, within the last week, came suddenly alive. New ships are arriving in orbit daily, and Down Franklin Starport, for many months nearly empty, is now choked with a steady flow of marines and army troopers disgorged from busy fleet shuttles.

Yesterday Colonel Eitan Rahbaan, public relations officer for the newly formed Forty-Third (Provisional) Frontier Army explained in a press conference the reason for the sudden build-up and the general plan of action. The continuing protracted nature of the insurgency action on Efate had been a mounting drain on manpower resources, and had begun to sap the morale of indigenous troops. As a result, the decision was made to concentrate maximum effort to end the conflict in the shortest possible time.

Maximum effort is the only way to describe the amazing build-up that has taken place literally overnight. Already official circulars list eleven brigade-sized Imperial formations deployed on-planet, in addition to four brigades that apparently were here previously. Even now, large transports are off-loading the heavy vehicles of the well-equipped and hard-hitting 317 Air-Mechanized Brigade, and rumor has it that the build-up is still not complete.

This reporter admits to being overwhelmed by this truly impressive show of force. One can only wonder how long the stubborn but indifferently equipped insurgents on this world can hold out against the ultra-modern juggernaut Army Vice-Marshal Lord Calavan, commander of the 43rd Provisional Army, is preparing to unleash on it? Days? Hours? --JTAS news releases 1106-1107.

The last entry was written about 3 1/2 months before the Fifth Frontier War started.

 

[mike wightman]

I don't know if I mentioned it upthread or in another topic, but go read Peter F Hamilton's Fallen Dragon.

It is probably my favourite book of his and has some really nice ideas for how a high tech insurgency may operate against a slightly higher TL invading force.

Probably more useful in a 2300 game than a CT based setting though.

 

[tbeard1999]

I don't know if I mentioned it upthread or in another topic, but go read Peter F Hamilton's Fallen Dragon.

It is probably my favourite book of his and has some really nice ideas for how a high tech insurgency may operate against a slightly higher TL invading force.

Probably more useful in a 2300 game than a CT based setting though.

I'll run it down. My campaign is a TL12-ish setting (though starship Book II drives and computers through TL 15 are available), so it might be very useful.

 

[Duke Pellinor]

IMHO, this was equally true of Iraq, the difference was the lack of that 1:20 ratio afterward.
Consequently, the power vacuum was filled by insurgents instead of occupation forces.

Important: Always complete the course of treatment, do not stop taking the tablets when you begin to feel better...

This post has had mean thinking the last few days, you raise an excellent point. My feeling is that the insurgency is apparently so strong for two reasons:
i) The governing classes weren't integrated into the post conflict reorganisation like they were in Germany, and you know how the old saying goes "if you aren't a part of the solution...".
ii) The rest of the insurgency is composed of people who don't perceive themselves as being defeated but rather separate from a regime they hated almost as much as what replaced it. They are outsiders with a different agenda (their perverted version of Islam) and not supporters of just another third/second world dictator.

<shrug>

Who's this "we" you're talking about?

Us, westerners. Is there a single person on this forum that does not perceive themselves as a Westerner? I favour Victor Davis Hanson's theories on these issues as summed up in "Carnage and Culture", it is really worth a good read, and then re-read, but then with your particular interests I doubt that you have not come across him yet.

Probably so, but I note that in the primary canon example of an insurgency (the Ine Givar on Efate), Imperial forces apparently did get heavily involved:
...

Absolutely, that is what they are for but my understanding leads me to believe that it is more the exception that the rule.

Cheers!

 

[tbeard1999]

Us, westerners. Is there a single person on this forum that does not perceive themselves as a Westerner? I favour Victor Davis Hanson's theories on these issues as summed up in "Carnage and Culture", it is really worth a good read, and then re-read, but then with your particular interests I doubt that you have not come across him yet.

You appear to be drawing moral equivalency between Islamist savages like Bin Laden and any nation whose troops cause collateral damage. You do this by apparently implying that collateral damage is the same as "happily obliterat[ing] entire cities or even national infrastructure where and when we deem it necessary..."

Since even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and being tripped over, I'm not interested in debating this point. Life's too short. (Assuming, of course, that this is what you intended to insinuate).

 

[Duke Pellinor]

That is not the point that I was making, and I for one am not interested in bitter polemics, I actually regret making the point earlier as I know it is a sort of hot button issue for many people that can easily lead to argument where it is not intended or desired.

That said, it would be hard to call the civilian casualties of area bombing in WWII collateral damage, civilians were targeted at least by the British in Western Europe (including my father's home town... an occupied allied nation that unfortunately had an engineering capacity) and a similar policy was carried out with regard to Japan. It may have been necessary, we will never really know, but it encapsulates our way of warfare quite well.

I can't put forward the argument as well as Hanson, and he can hardly be called an apologist for atrocity or a self hating Westerner. It is just a fact about the way we fight, gentle in peace and terrifying in war. My point is that these terms [barbarian, etc] are a matter of perspective and at the end of the day we choose tactics and strategies that we think are effective, none of which are very attractive or civilised when we consider the impact of shrapnel on flesh and bone.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

A note on the FFW.

Probably so, but I note that in the primary canon example of an insurgency (the Ine Givar on Efate), Imperial forces apparently did get heavily involved:

"What we have on Efate is a local, very minor situation. We're handling it with local forces and a few mercenary contingents. If it were serious, we could commit army or marine assets. We have some very potent assets in this subsector, but we haven't felt the need to commit them. This is not a serious situation,", he reported.....

This reporter admits to being overwhelmed by this truly impressive show of force. One can only wonder how long the stubborn but indifferently equipped insurgents on this world can hold out against the ultra-modern juggernaut Army Vice-Marshal Lord Calavan, commander of the 43rd Provisional Army, is preparing to unleash on it? Days? Hours? --JTAS news releases 1106-1107.

The last entry was written about 3 1/2 months before the Fifth Frontier War started.

See this is a beautiful example of what we like to call a cover. As in a cover for the build up to the FFW, which Intelligence had pointed out to the powers that be was coming and that leads us here:

"How exactly are we going to build up our forces and not have the Outworld Coalition notice that we noticed their build ups and troop and logistic movements?"
"Well, My Lord there is that annoying little insurgency on Efate..."
"Hmmm, good show, Wilson. Get it done and be sure to let the local TAS News reporter get all the info they 'need'."
"Yes, your Lordship, right away."

And next thing you know the Imperium is helping the local government stamp out an insurgency, a good work and meanwhile what can the Zho and Sword Worlders say without tipping their hands. Not saying it's what happened (that might be Treason ) just it sure seems like a good way to kill two birds with one stone....