TL12+ Mechanized Warfare
- Thread starter Jame
- Start date
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Hello Jame,
My idea would be similar to todays combined arms with gravitic vehicles replacing tracked and wheeled vehicles. Troops in Battle Armor.
My idea would be similar to todays combined arms with gravitic vehicles replacing tracked and wheeled vehicles. Troops in Battle Armor.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Ships in orbit providing C3, artillery support and logistics.
Smallcraft/grav vehicles providing the transportation and heavy assault vehicles (combining the rolls of MBT, APC, Air Superiority Fighter and attack helicopter).
BattleDress/Combat armour providing the heavy infantry assault units, with more lightly armoured support troops for follow-up operations or special operations.
Lots and lots of small, grav powered drones for everything from recon to fire support to frontal assault (a lot of the front line "MBT" grav vehicles and BattleDress suits should be remote controlled with expert robot back-up).
All of course IMHO and YMMV
Smallcraft/grav vehicles providing the transportation and heavy assault vehicles (combining the rolls of MBT, APC, Air Superiority Fighter and attack helicopter).
BattleDress/Combat armour providing the heavy infantry assault units, with more lightly armoured support troops for follow-up operations or special operations.
Lots and lots of small, grav powered drones for everything from recon to fire support to frontal assault (a lot of the front line "MBT" grav vehicles and BattleDress suits should be remote controlled with expert robot back-up).
All of course IMHO and YMMV
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Tactics are very dependent on weapons, both yours and the enemy's, so it's hard to say more about them without knowing more about who's fighting. In general tactics consists of shooting before you are shot, and higher TLs just make that more and more important: yes, TL-14 troops in battledress are pretty tough to kill, but a PGMP-14 will do the job, or a blast from a battlefield meson accelerator.
Those recon drones that Sigg mentioned are the key to winning the tactical battle at high TLs: you use them to see and to prevent the enemy from seeing. It's worth diverting some of your own firepower to kill the enemy recon effort, as long as you don't give away too much info by doing so, which is why you'd use drones to do this. Modern warfare calls this the "recon/counter-recon" battle and it's said to be where the battle is really won or lost.
Satellites and spacecraft can help with the recon battle, but they can also be killed. I would expect that most "serious" ground combat in a TRAVELLER universe will occur where control of a star system (especially the close orbital space around the world in question) is undetermined. If one side has space superiority (and the ships to exploit it) then the other side had better not try to fight any kind of "conventional" ground battle because the first side will be dropping ortillery on their heads.
Strategy (the art of moving forces to the places where they will then fight) is likely to be much faster and more mobile, thanks to grav vehicles and spacecraft. If neither side has control of the orbital space around a world, you could see both sides using shuttles and assault craft to drop troops anywhere in enemy territory, or to swiftly move from one theatre to another. What today's strategists call the "deep battle," where combat occurs all though enemy territory and not just along a front line, would be even more predominant.
The best way to fight the "deep battle", specially on a planetary scale, would probably be to have a plethora of small (say battalion-sized) units that are all-around capable, spread out far enough apart to avoid all being caught by one enemy attack but close enough to use their mobility to assist or evade as needed.
Napoleon tried to form his armies into what he called a "battalion carre," a net of smaller self-sufficent units, tied together with constant patrols, that would move into enemy territory. He thought of it as like a net (the patrols) with rocks (the units) fastened to it. If the "net" struck anything, the "rocks" would wrap around and crush the object from all directions, and then spread out and begin moving again.
I can see this idea being applied with smaller and smaller units as mobility and firepower increase. The recon drones (plus satellites, patrols and whatever other sensors you have) form the "net" and battalions, companies, and maybe even platoons form the "rocks." They spread out, find an enemy, smash together to crush that enemy, and then quickly spread out again before they become targets themselves.
One way to beat this strategy would be to attack the "net" itself, which is that "recon/counter-recon" battle I talked about earlier.
One difference between Napoleon's "battalion carre" and a TL-14 one would be that last item on your list: logistics. Spreading his units out actually helped Napoleon to supply them since they could forage (that is, steal) food from a wider area, especially food for the horses. Ammunition was not that big a problem back them.
With really high-TL armies the problem is fuel/power. Those battledress have to use some kind of power source, and they need to be resupplied. Same with the vehicles. The fuel may be plain old hydrogen, but you still have to have it. Plus you need spare parts, maybe life support (on a vacuum world, for instance), resupply of drones and missiles, etc, etc, etc. Getting all this to units that might literally be spread out all over an entire planet would be tricky. Good communications and computers would help you track who is where needing what, but you still have to deliver it. This might well be another use for drone vehicles like Sigg mentioned, delivering the groceries to the units without risking any men.
Those recon drones that Sigg mentioned are the key to winning the tactical battle at high TLs: you use them to see and to prevent the enemy from seeing. It's worth diverting some of your own firepower to kill the enemy recon effort, as long as you don't give away too much info by doing so, which is why you'd use drones to do this. Modern warfare calls this the "recon/counter-recon" battle and it's said to be where the battle is really won or lost.
Satellites and spacecraft can help with the recon battle, but they can also be killed. I would expect that most "serious" ground combat in a TRAVELLER universe will occur where control of a star system (especially the close orbital space around the world in question) is undetermined. If one side has space superiority (and the ships to exploit it) then the other side had better not try to fight any kind of "conventional" ground battle because the first side will be dropping ortillery on their heads.
Strategy (the art of moving forces to the places where they will then fight) is likely to be much faster and more mobile, thanks to grav vehicles and spacecraft. If neither side has control of the orbital space around a world, you could see both sides using shuttles and assault craft to drop troops anywhere in enemy territory, or to swiftly move from one theatre to another. What today's strategists call the "deep battle," where combat occurs all though enemy territory and not just along a front line, would be even more predominant.
The best way to fight the "deep battle", specially on a planetary scale, would probably be to have a plethora of small (say battalion-sized) units that are all-around capable, spread out far enough apart to avoid all being caught by one enemy attack but close enough to use their mobility to assist or evade as needed.
Napoleon tried to form his armies into what he called a "battalion carre," a net of smaller self-sufficent units, tied together with constant patrols, that would move into enemy territory. He thought of it as like a net (the patrols) with rocks (the units) fastened to it. If the "net" struck anything, the "rocks" would wrap around and crush the object from all directions, and then spread out and begin moving again.
I can see this idea being applied with smaller and smaller units as mobility and firepower increase. The recon drones (plus satellites, patrols and whatever other sensors you have) form the "net" and battalions, companies, and maybe even platoons form the "rocks." They spread out, find an enemy, smash together to crush that enemy, and then quickly spread out again before they become targets themselves.
One way to beat this strategy would be to attack the "net" itself, which is that "recon/counter-recon" battle I talked about earlier.
One difference between Napoleon's "battalion carre" and a TL-14 one would be that last item on your list: logistics. Spreading his units out actually helped Napoleon to supply them since they could forage (that is, steal) food from a wider area, especially food for the horses. Ammunition was not that big a problem back them.
With really high-TL armies the problem is fuel/power. Those battledress have to use some kind of power source, and they need to be resupplied. Same with the vehicles. The fuel may be plain old hydrogen, but you still have to have it. Plus you need spare parts, maybe life support (on a vacuum world, for instance), resupply of drones and missiles, etc, etc, etc. Getting all this to units that might literally be spread out all over an entire planet would be tricky. Good communications and computers would help you track who is where needing what, but you still have to deliver it. This might well be another use for drone vehicles like Sigg mentioned, delivering the groceries to the units without risking any men.
IMTU, Gravitic craft replace not only tracked and wheeled AFV's APC's and IFV's, but also combat and transport helos, light striker aircraft, and light utility vehicles. All this around TL 13.
more IMTU details:
The roles of APC and HC (helo, cargo) become merged into a machine as versatile as either. THey can go surface to orbit, and often near mach. This is the grav APC.
Attack helos and light tanks become merged into grav tanks; again, massive mobility, good air-to-ground capability, and often exquisite sensor packages.
Motorbikes become replaced with grav belts and/or grav bikes for scout and recon work, TL dependant. Many grav scouts get augmented with jet engines for massive speed bursts.
Many transport aircraft gain gravitic lift augmentation; this ups thier maximum load, and increases maneuveraility; it is a marginal unladen improvement.
Fighter aircraft merge with light tanks... becoming light grav tanks and/or grav assault speeders. often equipped with aerodynamic maneuver systems, and aircraft-style exterior munitions add-ons, and as often with jet or rocket secondary thrust systems.
Infantry beomce more and more defensive and/or urban oriented in use modes: until battle dress gains augmentations, it is bulky and uncomfortable, and until grav belts are small enough, they are relatively immobile. (WHen the slow vehicles are doing 150kph+, foot-sloggers at a peak 20kph are way outpaced; versus the sustanied 6-8kph, with 200kph+ anti-personell platforms, inffantry need to find cover and use it.
foot battledress units are VERY little use; great in high-threat urban, or for incidental armored combat, but anything they can catch outguns them, and aything they outgun can outrun them.
Grav Infantry, either two-man bikes or individual grav belts, fill the modern (20th C) roles for battlefield infantry.
Grav-Battle-Dress function like 1-man assault platforms. Maneuverable enough to use any available cover, fast enough to be a nuisance to grav armor, tough enough to survive secondary weapons, dispersed enough to be kilo-for-kilo more survivable against primary weapons than light vehicles, with all the urban and battlefield advantages of soldier-on-the-field: Useful hands, and great strenght, can take cover in the wierdest places...
The IFV turns back into a jeep-equivalent: air-rafts with pintels... driver, gunner, electronics man, and commander. Every man also has a small-arm, and a one-shot (or more) anti-vehicular weapon (LAW, UBGL, or Rifle-mount RAMGrenades).
more IMTU details:
The roles of APC and HC (helo, cargo) become merged into a machine as versatile as either. THey can go surface to orbit, and often near mach. This is the grav APC.
Attack helos and light tanks become merged into grav tanks; again, massive mobility, good air-to-ground capability, and often exquisite sensor packages.
Motorbikes become replaced with grav belts and/or grav bikes for scout and recon work, TL dependant. Many grav scouts get augmented with jet engines for massive speed bursts.
Many transport aircraft gain gravitic lift augmentation; this ups thier maximum load, and increases maneuveraility; it is a marginal unladen improvement.
Fighter aircraft merge with light tanks... becoming light grav tanks and/or grav assault speeders. often equipped with aerodynamic maneuver systems, and aircraft-style exterior munitions add-ons, and as often with jet or rocket secondary thrust systems.
Infantry beomce more and more defensive and/or urban oriented in use modes: until battle dress gains augmentations, it is bulky and uncomfortable, and until grav belts are small enough, they are relatively immobile. (WHen the slow vehicles are doing 150kph+, foot-sloggers at a peak 20kph are way outpaced; versus the sustanied 6-8kph, with 200kph+ anti-personell platforms, inffantry need to find cover and use it.
foot battledress units are VERY little use; great in high-threat urban, or for incidental armored combat, but anything they can catch outguns them, and aything they outgun can outrun them.
Grav Infantry, either two-man bikes or individual grav belts, fill the modern (20th C) roles for battlefield infantry.
Grav-Battle-Dress function like 1-man assault platforms. Maneuverable enough to use any available cover, fast enough to be a nuisance to grav armor, tough enough to survive secondary weapons, dispersed enough to be kilo-for-kilo more survivable against primary weapons than light vehicles, with all the urban and battlefield advantages of soldier-on-the-field: Useful hands, and great strenght, can take cover in the wierdest places...
The IFV turns back into a jeep-equivalent: air-rafts with pintels... driver, gunner, electronics man, and commander. Every man also has a small-arm, and a one-shot (or more) anti-vehicular weapon (LAW, UBGL, or Rifle-mount RAMGrenades).
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
It could have a lot of those characteristics, as every unit (all the way down to individual infantry in battledress) would have at least minimal ability in all major areas (mobility, armor, direct fire, indirect fire, point defense fire, sensors and commo).
They'd be a dispersed "fleet," operating just within support distance of each other, but spread out enough to avoid being caught in one weapon burst (nuclear or meson). They'd rely on their sensors and commo to locate enemies and coordinate their actions, and their mobility to move swiftly together for battle, and then equally swiftly disperse again afterwards.
Electronic warfare (sensors and communications) would be the key. You'd see recon drones, remote sensors, decoy drones, jamming systems, communications repeaters, and stuff I can't imagine, all contesting for control of who sees what first.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Meson accelerators are particle accelerators that produce mesons. Mesons can pass though matter without any trouble, and can have their decay into high-energy explosions controlled to occur when the meson gunner wishes. As a result, battlefield meson accelerators can shoot through hills, mountains, or entire planets if needed. They also pass through any armor you can make, so there's no defense against them (on a battlefield) except to not be at the place the meson explosion occurs.
High-TL ground combat without battlefield meson guns would still be very fast and deadly. Meson guns just make things more fast and more deadly.
High-TL ground combat without battlefield meson guns would still be very fast and deadly. Meson guns just make things more fast and more deadly.
Also, regardless of whether local space was controlled or not, tactics wouldn't change much, I wouldn't think, from those used when there was no one in sole control of space in-system. Life expectancy for the side on the wrong side of such control might only be measured in weeks, say 4-6 at most, but they'd still required bayonets to root out. Keep in mind, a planet's a big place, and troops at the higher TLS would presumably have mobile nuc dampers and anti-sat weapons.
It could have a lot of those characteristics, as every unit (all the way down to individual infantry in battledress) would have at least minimal ability in all major areas (mobility, armor, direct fire, indirect fire, point defense fire, sensors and commo).
They'd be a dispersed "fleet," operating just within support distance of each other, but spread out enough to avoid being caught in one weapon burst (nuclear or meson). They'd rely on their sensors and commo to locate enemies and coordinate their actions, and their mobility to move swiftly together for battle, and then equally swiftly disperse again afterwards.
Electronic warfare (sensors and communications) would be the key. You'd see recon drones, remote sensors, decoy drones, jamming systems, communications repeaters, and stuff I can't imagine, all contesting for control of who sees what first. </font>[/QUOTE]Unit frontages would also expand immeasurably, I would think, with divisions having frontages of hundreds of kilometers as well as an increased requirement for defence-in-depth. Funnily enough, ir parity was acheived in the EW battle, you'd most likely see things degenerate down the level of WWI communications and recce ops, as using the radio (or TL15 equivalent) would be too risky except in emergency. Kind of like today, in fact
On the battlefield, mesons suffer from "Time on Target" issues.
A meson gun has a very limited burst radius (USP Value x 10m); for every 3.6KPH, 1mps of movement. If we assume short burst meson fire (say, 1 seccond of burst) with 5 seconds charge up (not unreasonable, given FF&S values), the tracking and response times become critical for non-pattern fires.if it can range you AT FIRING TIME and you are basically in-beam, it's a simpl matter of putting it on you; that is a rare best case, tho... most meson fire is remote, called as arty fire (delaying it by 5 seconds or more) or is remote sensor operated. So we have to add commo and processing lags, plus fire/nofire decision tree lags... and hit targets that can't be anywhere but where you expect. Mesons are devastating against infantry, combat walkers, and slow track/wheeled. Horrendous against pillboxes. Dangerous to ground vehicles. A moderate threat to jets, gravs, helos, and other agile or very fast vehicles...
The issue is "How fast can you bring it to bear, and how well can you adjust fire in the ciritcal second before and during fire." For, if you hit it, it is dead. (Striker, MT rules, at least, a meson turns to dust the contents of its area of effect!)
A meson gun has a very limited burst radius (USP Value x 10m); for every 3.6KPH, 1mps of movement. If we assume short burst meson fire (say, 1 seccond of burst) with 5 seconds charge up (not unreasonable, given FF&S values), the tracking and response times become critical for non-pattern fires.if it can range you AT FIRING TIME and you are basically in-beam, it's a simpl matter of putting it on you; that is a rare best case, tho... most meson fire is remote, called as arty fire (delaying it by 5 seconds or more) or is remote sensor operated. So we have to add commo and processing lags, plus fire/nofire decision tree lags... and hit targets that can't be anywhere but where you expect. Mesons are devastating against infantry, combat walkers, and slow track/wheeled. Horrendous against pillboxes. Dangerous to ground vehicles. A moderate threat to jets, gravs, helos, and other agile or very fast vehicles...
The issue is "How fast can you bring it to bear, and how well can you adjust fire in the ciritcal second before and during fire." For, if you hit it, it is dead. (Striker, MT rules, at least, a meson turns to dust the contents of its area of effect!)
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
PBI said:
My Imperial Marines wear a "micro-missile" backpack launcher that carries such small commo repeater missiles, along with a selection of other goodies.
Of course, at TL-15 you have meson communicators, which are supposed to be undetectable, unjammable, and uninterceptable. Even if that is all true, I would think that TL-15 forces would have battlefield meson screens as well as battlefield nuclear dampers, and those meson screens would probably stop your incoming/outgoing meson communications beams, too.
Yes, I can see this. You might have another use for those remote drones here, as messengers to either physically carry a message from one unit to another, or as "one-use-only" commo repeaters that move to a safe distance, then broadcast your message.... and promptly get blasted by an enemy homing missile!
My Imperial Marines wear a "micro-missile" backpack launcher that carries such small commo repeater missiles, along with a selection of other goodies.
Of course, at TL-15 you have meson communicators, which are supposed to be undetectable, unjammable, and uninterceptable. Even if that is all true, I would think that TL-15 forces would have battlefield meson screens as well as battlefield nuclear dampers, and those meson screens would probably stop your incoming/outgoing meson communications beams, too.
Larry Reese
SOC-3
Greetings all,
I think three key areas are being overlooked in this discussion:
1. The tremendous cost of the equipment in use. As in modern armies, airforces, navies, the astronomical cost of the equipment has yielded individual units several orders of magnitude greater in capability (generally) than their predecessors, but correspondingly fewer in number. In many cases, MUCH fewer in number. One of the reasons the F-16 was designed was to give the US numbers as well as technical excellence (the F-15 and F-14 were both technically superior to the F-16 but were vastly more expensive - on the order of ten times as expensive as their most numerous probable adversary - this meant that all things being equal they might face ten times their numbers in tactical and strategic operations - no matter how good you are, eventually, one of those ten will get you before you get him - hence the less capable but more numerous F-16 to "bulk up" the total US fighter inventory). It seems logical to me that this would often prevail in the future as well - with a mix of high and medium technology units in combat on both sides in most situations.
2. The networking possiblities for these forces. Huge advances in situational awareness and C4I are possible with the types of speculated advanced technology communications/networking capabilities. I won't bore you here but have written some fiction involving some of these possiblities that I find very intriguing (I find that applying the technology to a given set of "real world" goals helps to find uses, loop holes, problems, in ways that just looking at the tech on paper and brainstorming doesn't).
3. The massive superiority possessed by any side that owns the highground. If any sizeable enemy fleet is operating in orbit, the organized ground forces of the opposition would (in my opinion) be relegated to a guerilla type campaign only. This is assuming that an agressor would only try to land ground forces after destroying any opposing fleet (not doing so would risk massive losses to the ground forces in my opinion prior to their even being deployed). Massing for any organized maneuver battle would expose them to the concentrated fire of orbital weapons that can burn through virtually any defense they can mount. It would be suicidal. Of course doesn't preclude these forces from massing in built up areas and relying on the fear of civilian casualties or destruction of economic infrastructure to deter the use of orbital weaponry (but this won't stop the use of precision weapons from orbit). Of course, again in my opinion, the enemy may recognize that going in on the ground would be just as likely to destroy the city as an orbital bombardment and destroy the entire site anyway, just to preclude the casualties they would otherwise incur. Of course, there are numerous permutations of these scenarios, but I think that encounters between large, massed high tech ground forces would probably be few and far between.
Larry Reese
I think three key areas are being overlooked in this discussion:
1. The tremendous cost of the equipment in use. As in modern armies, airforces, navies, the astronomical cost of the equipment has yielded individual units several orders of magnitude greater in capability (generally) than their predecessors, but correspondingly fewer in number. In many cases, MUCH fewer in number. One of the reasons the F-16 was designed was to give the US numbers as well as technical excellence (the F-15 and F-14 were both technically superior to the F-16 but were vastly more expensive - on the order of ten times as expensive as their most numerous probable adversary - this meant that all things being equal they might face ten times their numbers in tactical and strategic operations - no matter how good you are, eventually, one of those ten will get you before you get him - hence the less capable but more numerous F-16 to "bulk up" the total US fighter inventory). It seems logical to me that this would often prevail in the future as well - with a mix of high and medium technology units in combat on both sides in most situations.
2. The networking possiblities for these forces. Huge advances in situational awareness and C4I are possible with the types of speculated advanced technology communications/networking capabilities. I won't bore you here but have written some fiction involving some of these possiblities that I find very intriguing (I find that applying the technology to a given set of "real world" goals helps to find uses, loop holes, problems, in ways that just looking at the tech on paper and brainstorming doesn't).
3. The massive superiority possessed by any side that owns the highground. If any sizeable enemy fleet is operating in orbit, the organized ground forces of the opposition would (in my opinion) be relegated to a guerilla type campaign only. This is assuming that an agressor would only try to land ground forces after destroying any opposing fleet (not doing so would risk massive losses to the ground forces in my opinion prior to their even being deployed). Massing for any organized maneuver battle would expose them to the concentrated fire of orbital weapons that can burn through virtually any defense they can mount. It would be suicidal. Of course doesn't preclude these forces from massing in built up areas and relying on the fear of civilian casualties or destruction of economic infrastructure to deter the use of orbital weaponry (but this won't stop the use of precision weapons from orbit). Of course, again in my opinion, the enemy may recognize that going in on the ground would be just as likely to destroy the city as an orbital bombardment and destroy the entire site anyway, just to preclude the casualties they would otherwise incur. Of course, there are numerous permutations of these scenarios, but I think that encounters between large, massed high tech ground forces would probably be few and far between.
Larry Reese
Defenders have their advantages too, of course. In particular, they are likely to be dug in in their nice invisible bunkers at the bottom of the oceans, under cities, ice caps and so on. Hiding in caves, in other words.
And they have meson guns. And pre-prepared sensor networks.
Infantry can be dug into "invisible" bunkers, controlling drones. If they see a target, they fire a missile at it. And nobody can see them.
Planetary assaults can be extraordinarily bloody things.
And they have meson guns. And pre-prepared sensor networks.
Infantry can be dug into "invisible" bunkers, controlling drones. If they see a target, they fire a missile at it. And nobody can see them.
Planetary assaults can be extraordinarily bloody things.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
I agree with Larry that TL12+ equipment is terribly expensive (my Imperial Marines cost about MCr2 each, just for personal gear). Such expensive troops will have to cover more ground per trooper (I designed my Marines to cover about 1km of front per man.)
We know that the Imperium (and some of it's enemies, anyway) do use a high-low tech mix as he describes. In the Imperium the colonial armies tend to provide the low-tech forces.
I did say uptopic that if one side had undisputed space superiority the other side had better not try any form of ground warfare other than guerilla warfare, because of the sensor and ortillery network the space forces would provide.
I can only see serious ground warfare over planets that both sides want to take intact, and where either neither side has space forces (because they wiped each other out) or the two space forces (or possibly one invading space forces vs. some serious planetary defenses) counterbalance each other.
We know that the Imperium (and some of it's enemies, anyway) do use a high-low tech mix as he describes. In the Imperium the colonial armies tend to provide the low-tech forces.
I did say uptopic that if one side had undisputed space superiority the other side had better not try any form of ground warfare other than guerilla warfare, because of the sensor and ortillery network the space forces would provide.
I can only see serious ground warfare over planets that both sides want to take intact, and where either neither side has space forces (because they wiped each other out) or the two space forces (or possibly one invading space forces vs. some serious planetary defenses) counterbalance each other.
I agree with larry that large engagements are rare, but for some very different (or at least unstated) reasons:
1) most worlds don't want ground warfare at all; they will gladly fight in space, but land troops, and they will likely put up only token (if any) resistance to protect the hab buildings.
2) Large units are hard to carry system to system.
3) maintaining large forces is, while not prhibitively so, not desireable for worlds happy as members of the Imperium; most armies will be the minimum force committment required by the 3I.
4) the major expense in any military with effective simulation becomes simulators and personell. Best way to reduce costs is then to reduce personell, as this also reduces simulator time.
(Corollaries: effective simulators are probably purpose built to match equipment; simulator time reduces op hours of field equipment, reducing maintenance needs; simulattor time obviates much of the expese of ammunition and fuel)
5) Smaller forces are usually able to have higher morale and better equipment.
I also agree that Ortillery and sensor kits from orbit make non-guerilla warfare very risky; trepidas, astrins, and other sealed grav tanks, however, double as orbital fighters, and hence count towards space superiority. (At least, under MT, they can and do.) No other ground nor air vehicles can put force so effectively past the atmosphere. Heck, speeders with lasers can be vicious!
1) most worlds don't want ground warfare at all; they will gladly fight in space, but land troops, and they will likely put up only token (if any) resistance to protect the hab buildings.
2) Large units are hard to carry system to system.
3) maintaining large forces is, while not prhibitively so, not desireable for worlds happy as members of the Imperium; most armies will be the minimum force committment required by the 3I.
4) the major expense in any military with effective simulation becomes simulators and personell. Best way to reduce costs is then to reduce personell, as this also reduces simulator time.
(Corollaries: effective simulators are probably purpose built to match equipment; simulator time reduces op hours of field equipment, reducing maintenance needs; simulattor time obviates much of the expese of ammunition and fuel)
5) Smaller forces are usually able to have higher morale and better equipment.
I also agree that Ortillery and sensor kits from orbit make non-guerilla warfare very risky; trepidas, astrins, and other sealed grav tanks, however, double as orbital fighters, and hence count towards space superiority. (At least, under MT, they can and do.) No other ground nor air vehicles can put force so effectively past the atmosphere. Heck, speeders with lasers can be vicious!
Of course, this whole discussion all depends on what rules set is being used. I'm not very familiar with Striker, but there are a few wargames put out by GDW in the Traveller verse and in almost all of these, ground combat is certainly possible, even viable, even when local space is controlled by one side or the other. Granted, th side that's receiving orbital bombardment (by any sizeable fleet; a few squadrons) tends to last only a few weeks, but that's nowhere near the level of annihilation posited uptopic.
Of course, there is the argument that the game mechanics of those games (FFW, Invasion: Earth, Imperium), bear no resemblance to reality, but, then again, the same could be said of Traveller
I'm not saying being on the bad end of an orbital superiority equation would be a trival matter, just that it wouldn't be the automatic, QUICK, death others have advocated. Remember, if every weapon system performed exactly as advertised, soldiers in modern military conflicts would have killed each other many times over, and they haven't I see no reason why things would change, regardless of the tech level.
Of course, this all assumes two forces at relatively (within one) equal tech levels. A TL7 division suffering orbital bombardment is not a pretty thing to see
Of course, there is the argument that the game mechanics of those games (FFW, Invasion: Earth, Imperium), bear no resemblance to reality, but, then again, the same could be said of Traveller
I'm not saying being on the bad end of an orbital superiority equation would be a trival matter, just that it wouldn't be the automatic, QUICK, death others have advocated. Remember, if every weapon system performed exactly as advertised, soldiers in modern military conflicts would have killed each other many times over, and they haven't
I see no reason why things would change, regardless of the tech level.Of course, this all assumes two forces at relatively (within one) equal tech levels. A TL7 division suffering orbital bombardment is not a pretty thing to see
Striker doesn't make any assumptions at all about there being ortillery, nor exactly how to deal with it. Really, it isn't (quite) compatable with the CT of its day. It included conversions for using traveller naval craft in striker engagements, but not as ortillery.
Sadly, the only REAL ortillery covered are Meson Guns.
Invasion Earth is based upon the idea that it is too much a political need to TAKE Terra intact; it's an ideology issue, not a tactical nor strategic issue, that determines the need for ground takeover.
Realistically, the defense strategy for an undesired war of agression is moving large rocks at high velocities against their staging worlds. Eradicate their ability to repair and maintain.
The problem is that a black war strategem begats a black war strategem.
Large Scale ground combats need the following:
1) a target worth taking intact
1a) for intelligence gathering
1b) for ideological, propaganda, and/or morale purposes
1c) for resource acquisition
2) a viable force assault force adequate to the task
3) a defense force big enough to make it work
4) sufficient force interpenetration to prevent large scale force destructions... IE, close enough that you can't use ortillery nor deep-site mesons. Note force interpenetration need not be in the other force, merely in things the other force considers unsuitable for destruction.
5) accessability to invaders.
Much of striker is postulated upon local, effectively balkanized worlds, rather than the sweeping battles. Striker really limits itself to about regimental actions, BTW, due to play-scale.
Mind you, Invasion Earth uses regiments as the counting unit for larger counter's strengths...
