View Thread
 Print Thread
Ground Warfare in PDS
Glacialis
I could see recon elements being specops as well. That's the only reason to send in small numbers: highly skilled, exceptionally equipped, do some damage while they're out there and you intend to get them back in one piece. They'd have all manner of machines (small UAVs, crawling robotic bombs, etc) to aid them.
 
RagingBlueWind
you cant send mechanized armor into buildings. you need infantry to sweep. mech armor also lacks the mobility and flexibility of infantry. i say the best bet is to use squads of infantry supported by one or two mecanized armor units that would provide heavy fire support against bunkered down enemies or against armor that the infantry themselves might not otherwise be able to take out.
 
Archangel

Quote

Ironwatsas wrote:
Here's an infantry weapon list to work off of

Hiigaran

::9mm handgun::
reliable light infantry pistol used as a sidearm for all HGN military personel. with an 8 round clip and relible accuracy, this weapon is the staple handgun for taking down lightly armored opponents.

::magnum revolver::
Simple, reliable, powerful, these words come to mind when thinking of the magnum revolver. Commonly seen in use by civilans and military alike. On the frontier worlds this is how you learned to count to 6. Against lightly armored opponents this is the best handgun you can lay your hands on.

::9mm automatic::
Basicly this is a 9mm handgun modified to be fully automatic. With an enlarged 35 round clip this weapon is a very effective macine pistol. In the right hands this weapon is very efficeint even aginst moderatly armored opponents.

::12mm machine pistol::
A home grown machine pistol far more powerful than it's 9mm cousin. it holds 40 rounds and has an electronic helmet jack. it can fire a 3 round burst usally sufficent to take down the average infantryman, or a fully automatic onslaught.

::Tactical 12 gauge::
Your average 12 gauge, pump action, 8 round, all porpose boomstick. Very effective within 8 meters and can send moderatly armored opponents flying. Bad thing to stand in front of.

::7.62mm SMG::
This weapon was desined for close in urban combat. Good all rounder. With a 30 round clip or 70 round drum and helmet linkup built in, this weapon is feared by lightly armored opponents.

::15.45mm assault rifle::
Standard issue for HGN marines, but commonly seen throughout the galaxy. with a laser sight, helmet link, and 50 round clip, this weapon can even kill heavely armored infintry. this weapon also features removeable grenade launcher/bayonet mount for anti armor/close in work.

::17.45mm sniper rifle::
A heavy but effective long range rifle capable of nailing targets at well over 1200m. Equiped with a 10x scope, built in silencer, 6 round clip, and helmet jack, this weapon can easily penatrate even vehicle armor like a hot knife through nothing.

::20mm HMG::
Not for the faint of heart, this gun is your handheld, medium range, gas powered meat grinder. with a 600 round ammo box mounted undreneath you'll have plenty 'o' pain to dish out aginst moderate to heavy armored opponents. Be careful though, after every 75 rounds give it a few seconds to cool and you'll be alright.

::40mm plasma cannon::
This is a very rare and very powerful shoulder mounted plasma cannon. used for killing light vehicles the plasma exits the barrel at a realitively cool 550' celcius. Not hot enough to burn through tank armor, but any light vehicle (and anything inside) would become toast. the weapon is semi automatic and has 5 plasma cells stored internally.

::35mm railgun::
Basiclly a tube lined internally with electromagnets, this weapon is a single shot , breech loading, railgun used for heavy sniping and anti vehicle duty. it comes with a scope and is pretty much silent This weapon fires with such velocity that it can penatrate FRIGATE class armor.

::ATAMi launcher::
ATAMi stands for anti-tank attack missile infantry. It is basiclly a disposable one shot missile launcher used exclusively for killing tanks/heavy armored vehicles. with reliable range and exellent tank killing capability, this weapon can turn the tables in favor of whoever is holding it... kinda.

::12mm flamethrower::
Just your plain ol' average napalm hose useful for torching infintry. with a very short range this weapon is only useful for certan situations where there is nothing flammible around (exept the enemy). it carries 10 litres of fire sauce (a.k.a. napalm) and can easily saturate an area. Do NOT use near fuel, home upolstry, pets, interns, headcrabs, cosmetic supplys, Los Angeleas (even though it deserves it BIG TIME), or anything else for that matter.

::Hand Grenade::
Half pound steel pineapple with a 20 meter kill radius. Be very careful when cooking it off 'cause it's got 3 seconds as opposed to the usual 5.

::Tear gas grenade::
Commonly used for non-leathel crowd control, teargas is very effictive against anything without a gas mask.

::Flashbang::
The flashbang grenade is meant to incapacitate combatants without harming them. The modern flashbang when detonated unleashes a very bright flash and loud bang temporarily blinding and deafining the opponent thereby rendering them slightly more p!$$#@ off at you than they were 5 seconds ago. the effect wears off in about 30 to 60 seconds.

::C4 charge::
Also reffered to as the Sachel charge, the C4 is a compact low yeald plastic explosive meant to blow open doors and walls. Also makes for a good AT mine. It can de detonated remotely or on a timer.

::Claymore mine::
A small, Derectional mine, used to deny an area to infantry. Very effictive in clusters.

::AT mine::
A pressure sensitive anti-tank landmine used to deny an area to ground vehicles. Very effictive in clusters.

::"Beehive" mine::
A small, dome shaped, proximity detonated, mine that when activated unleashes thousands of small, Sharp, Peices of metal cut to whirl around at leathely high speed, cutting enemy infantry to ribbons. I't gets it's name from the sound it makes when detonated. Rarely employed but effictive

::Tasergun::
A small, pistol shaped, weapon used to stun an enemy with an electrical pulse. effective at close range only.

::Beanbag shotgun::
A 12 gauge loaded with small bean bags for stunning opponents.

::Tranqulizer gun::
Usally a deer rifle loaded with tranqulizer darts for knocking opponents unconcious.

::37mm Grenade launcher::
This grenade launcher can be fittied to an assault rifle for added firepower. Modified versions of the above listed grenades are used as ammo.

This is not the final verson and is just an idea to give us something to work with.

Vaygr list coming soon.

Oh and please don't critacize this too much, it took me three hours to write.


I submitted a similar profile to tel, but aparently the team choose to ignore it.


Anyway...why would the main weapon need a magazine? We are talking armored troops here, why not store the ammo on the suit itself and belt-fed it into the weapon? It would solve the problem with reloading...there is also no reason why anyone would want to carry a revolver - simply create a handgun with the samecalibre and have it the normal way - again, the reloading issue, it takes way longer with a revolver, with NOTHING in return. Then, why would anyone issue a semi-automatic sidearm when you can have a selective fire one with a larger ammo capacity? The multiple types of the SMGs are somewhat silly, since a single all-rounder would be better logistic wise. Spec-ops is a different thing. The shotgun would most likely be a module for a larger weapon. Its simply to inflexible to issue it to someone as his main weapon.
ATAMI would be better called AAMI (Anti-Armor-Missile Infantry), since, again, a missile would be designed generally defeat an armored opponent (who may be a tank or a powered armored suit). A minor issue.

Otherwise, it seems a bit to...earthstyle for my taste, but then again...
 
RagingBlueWind
are we talking about the same armored troops here? i was under the impression there was a distnction between armored troops and actual mechanized armor (i.e. a mech). if this is the case, then having an auto loading mechanizm on an armored troop would be unfeasable.
a) it would be too big
Cool it would severly restrict the mobility of the infantryman. his arm isnt a gun, its holding one.
c) the only flexible method of auto feeding large amounts of ammo would be a belt but if you have that hanging over your shoulder, its bound to get shot and disconnected. then youd have to get someone else to pull the belt back over to you again. it just seems easier to me to reload with a clip, and honestly, reloading is rarely an issue considering most urban warfare has people bunkered down behind buildings sporadicly shooting at each other. none of this lets charge and jump around spraying everyone in sight so much that we actually have to reload while everyone else can kill us.

the point of a side arm is as an emergy weapon. you dont need to belt feet a pistol cuz ur rarely going to use it for prolonged periods. also, handguns rely on their smallness and flexibility. a handgun with a belt feet could not be drawn in a split second, i garuntee it.
 
Inert

Quote

You can't send mechanized armor into buildings. You need infantry to sweep. Mech armor also lacks the mobility and flexibility of infantry. I say the best bet is to use squads of infantry supported by one or two mechanized armor units that would provide heavy fire support against bunkered down enemies or against armor that the infantry themselves might not otherwise be able to take out.

(side note: fixed your punctuation and spelling)


First, what would recon be doing in a building?

Secondly, mobility and flexibility are insignificant in battle. You're not talking about samurai's coming at you at supersonic speeds, you're talking about infantry with guns. You only need as much manueverability as is required to track targets, and that's more then enough for a mechanized suit to handle.

And I'd pick a squad of mechanized armour any day over your infantry.

I'm not saying that all ground combat is restricted to mobile armours, but that the general idea is to use armours. Obviously, things like infiltration are more suited for infantry, but the general battles should be fought with armours.
 
yasotay
Specops recon would be there doing their best not to be seen. If they are shooting it means they are compromised and most likely looking for extraction. Specops recon is far different than Specops direct action missions, they are not playing Ghost Recon crap in the real world. Recon by 'regular' troops would likely be done by mechanical means in the form of unmanned air or ground systems, or stand off sensors.

Unmanned ground systems are used just about every day now to clear houses and caves. I watched a small UAV navigate through a building and have been briefed on flying machines the size of a butterfly that are in testing. There is also a technology being developed that allows you to see through walls. Recon in the future will not be near as manpower intensive as you think.

Powered armor will have some utilities, just like armored vehicles, but will be equally vulnerable to anti-armor weapons. Today right now US infantry has a shoulder launched fire and forget anti-armor missile. In the near future it is entirely feasible that much smaller missiles with advanced explosive charges could be launched miles away to attack mechanized vehicles or people.
 
madcow305
Ironwatas: Alot of the equipment and weapons you posted would be highly outdated in a few decades, not to mention a few thousand years into the future.

Flashbangs - useless on a battlefield where your enemy is equipped with pressurized combat suits with full helmets. The visor would have light senors able to react and dim the faceplate a several times the rate of the human eye.

C4 - I would REALLY hope that we still aren't using C4 100 years from now. Hopefully a higher-yield alternative can be found.

Sidearms - Newer propulsion methods might allow ballistic weapons on the scale of sidearms to stay in use, but their only purpose would be against unarmored to light-armored infantry. They'd be highly useless against mechanized troops.

Rifles - I'm not sure how well bullets will penatrate foot-thick ceramic armor plating that will surely cover the breast area of a mechanized infantryman. Perhaps the faceplate would be vulnerable to hypersonic rounds.

Railgun - I don't think a hand-held railgun would have the capability to piece frigate armor when the AC on the old Blade Interceptors could not. I would suggest scaling this down, and using this propulsion system in your sniper rifles.

Flamethrower - Highly effective anti-personel weapon, but maybe we could come up with a more effective fuel than napalm.

Anti-tank weaponry - I would suggest using DEW in place of missiles, due to the fact that a shoulder-fired light pulsar cannon uses energy packs, weighing maybe 5-10 pounds, while a shoulder-fired rocket probably weighs much more.

Grenade - I don't see small shrapnel doing much against mech inf.

Claymore - see grenade.

I'm assuming the non-lethal weapons you listed aren't for use against military targets :rolleyes:.

Suggestions:

Active Camoflage - This technology is currently being implemented by the military as we speak. Granted, today's "cloaking" tech isn't too great. They basically made a cloak out of clear beads, with cameras projecting the image of the other side of the cloak onto the outside. Basically, you can see "through" the material to the other side.

However, in PDSverse, I expect full-on personal cloaking shields. Granted, the larger the object you're trying to cloak, the less success you'll have, since the visual distortion becomes very large. I expect only Spec Ops teams will use this tech to infiltrate bases for recon/sabotage.

Magnetic Deflector-shields - Reference Fortune's personal deflectorshield in Metal Gear Solid 2. Of course, I don't expect our devices to deflect every single bit of ammunition shot at them. A round propelled at a fast enough speed can overcome the mag-shield. The main purpose of the shielding is to slow incoming ammunition down, and deflect its angle so that it is a glancing hit rather than a direct one.

Hypersonic blades - These handheld close-quarter-combat weapons consit of a metallic alloy blade laser-sharpened to just a few molecules wide on the edge. Combine this with the handle's battery-powered motor, which vibrates the blade at hypersonic frequencies, and you've got a good, relatively quiet weapon for dispatching light-medium armored units.

Now on to unit classifications and equipment:

Light-armor - Think the Spartans from Halo. Small powered suit with internal motors to aid in movement, and enchance strength. Suit is fully-pressurized, so there is no danger of bio or chem weapons. Visor has active datalink to all other units on the field, as well as base command aboard the ground-based command center or the Imperator IV/Deliverence currently acting as the command vessel. Different vision modes include Night/Infared.

Body armor is a thin ceramic outer exoskeleton, with the 29th century kevlar equivilent padding the inside.

Weaponry is all hand-held. These include the rifles mentioned earlier by iron, previously mentioned Vibroblades, shoulder-launched pulsars/antitank missiles(usable with 2 people only), railgun-sniperrifles, and a specially modified hyperspace transmitter, which will be described later.

Lightarmor units as usually used in small squads of 5 on covert sabotage/recon/assassination missions.

Medium Armor - Think Terran Marine. These guys are 10 feet tall. Suits are again augmented with artificial muscles to aid movement and strength, and everything else i mentioned for the light armor, but to a higher degree. Armor thickness varies according to the body-part. The breastplate will be 8-14 inches thick, composed of metallic alloy overlaying the kevlar equivilent. The limbs are the next heavily armed, with about 3-6 inch plating. Fingers, feet, and the faceplate are only 1-2 inches thick, making them the most vulnerable areas.

Primary weaponry will still be handheld. The primary armament for medium-armored troops will be a modular rifle. Muzzle velocity will be hypersonic, able to fire armor-piercing rounds that can penetrate enemy breastplate armor. the stock can be expanded or contracted according to the stability and manuverability needed. the barrel uses electro-magnets to accelerate and spin the bullet, allowing reduced wear-and tear. The electro-magnets are powered by nodes on the rifle's grip, which matches nodes on the suit's hands. This adds a failsafe measure, because the rifle will stop firing without a source of power.

Additional weapons can be mounted on hard-points on the suit's arms, shoulders, and thighs. These include "Ion Blades", which are basically batteries of charged ions combined with a mag-field generator. The mag-field's cohesion can only be maintained for a few feet, after which the ion blade will dissapate. Particularly useful for ambushes of targets too heavily-armored to take out with conventional weaponry.

Heavy Armor - Think the Armored Core units. These behemoths are basically ASCA adapted to ground combat. Unlike the previous suits, this one does not have motors that enhance a pilot's natural movement. Instead, the pilot must manuver the vehicle as a ship. The cockpit is located in the torso, behind 3-5 feet of armor plating. Behind the cockpit is the fusion reactor, and behind that is another 3-5 feet of armor. Primary armament would be handheld pulsar rifles, powered through a direct link to the suit's reactor. hardpoints hold all other arms, which can be detailed at DanielHawking's ASCA blueprints thread. One weapon I would like to add though, is the Fusion Torch. This weapon is derived from the torches used in the mothership's foundries to atomize matter. This close-range weapon is used to diable capital ship modules and point-defense weaponry.

EDIT:

Gah, forgot to describe Hyperspace transmitter. Would it be possible to have a transmitter transmite its exact location to a fleet waiting several billion kilometers away? I'm imagining this: The Hiigarans are planning a planetary assualt. The main obstacle is the extensive PDS grid on the surface of the planet. They manage to sneak a small cloaked corvette through the sensors and to the surface of the planet. The transport carriers a few five-man teams of light-armor Spec Ops. Their goal is to disable the local hyperspace-inhibitor, and then place transmitters on key PDS sites. After blowing the inhibitor, they activate the transmitters, beaming their signals through hyperspace to the fleet waiting at the edge of the solar system. The fleet then opens up with all missile batteries, at the same time opening a gateway to each of the transmitters' locations. Hundreds of missiles go flying through the openings. Several billion miles away, gates open over 4 major PDS sites on the Northeastern continent, and fusion missiles come pouring through, destroying the sites, and opening a gap the in defense grind for the fleet to station itself over.
Edited by madcow305 on 30-10-2005 06:49
 
RagingBlueWind
i never said use infantry for recon. i said sweep. the problem is you cant take a mobile armor into a building. if you dont sweep it clean, you leave enemies behind your front lines who can sabotage supply lines and other important logistically things (or just wreck havoc like the insurgents in Iraq are doing). unless your idea of a sweep is to blow every building down, i dont see why infantry are obsolete.

but yasotay has provided a solution to the recon problem via UAVs so that point is moot. i simply wanted to clarify what i meant earlier.

by mobility i mean targeting the unexpected. if you think all your enemies will line up in front of you for easy tracking... well... infantry can quickly turn around to engage targets from behind, while a mech has to turn its turret around, or even take several slow steps to rotate.
additionally, mechs cant take cover. while its true they pack more armor, as yatsuov pointed out, there will be anti armor weaponry. get some infantry behind the armor, and you can blow those things away.

granted, large scale field battles will be almost exculsively armor, i dont think you could safely take a city without using infantry. ill concede that they will play a much more limited role, but i still think its necessary to have infantry as backup to respond to hidden targets that recon might have skipped over (no recon is perfect. they will always find a way to hide)
 
madcow305

Quote

RagingBlueWind wrote:
i never said use infantry for recon. i said sweep. the problem is you cant take a mobile armor into a building. if you dont sweep it clean, you leave enemies behind your front lines who can sabotage supply lines and other important logistically things (or just wreck havoc like the insurgents in Iraq are doing). unless your idea of a sweep is to blow every building down, i dont see why infantry are obsolete.

but yasotay has provided a solution to the recon problem via UAVs so that point is moot. i simply wanted to clarify what i meant earlier.

by mobility i mean targeting the unexpected. if you think all your enemies will line up in front of you for easy tracking... well... infantry can quickly turn around to engage targets from behind, while a mech has to turn its turret around, or even take several slow steps to rotate.
additionally, mechs cant take cover. while its true they pack more armor, as yatsuov pointed out, there will be anti armor weaponry. get some infantry behind the armor, and you can blow those things away.

granted, large scale field battles will be almost exculsively armor, i dont think you could safely take a city without using infantry. ill concede that they will play a much more limited role, but i still think its necessary to have infantry as backup to respond to hidden targets that recon might have skipped over (no recon is perfect. they will always find a way to hide)


If you've already started advancing on the cities, than means you hold control over orbital space. I can think of a good way for Vaygr to clear cities without infantry.

"Come out with you hands up, or we will unload 10gigatons of explosives on you asses".

Hiigarans would be too tame and civilized to try this method unless they were VERY pressured. Besides, unless you were planning to colonize the planet you just conquered in the near future, keeping cities intact is a very minor objective. Cities of people are cities of prisoners that require half a city full of guards to watch them. From a purely military standpoint, it'd be better on your forces to raze the cities and its inhabitants than set aside half your personel on watch duty.
 
Nemmerle
Theoretical examination of ground combat objectives and methods.

When examining a planetary assault it is necessary to take into account not just our own abilities but also the likely abilities of our opponents.

Sensor technology is such today that a starship should be able to detect and eliminate, with reasonable accuracy, any unconcealed threat force on the planetary surface that is not protected by an energy shield of some sort. Defeat against an orbital force is inevitable, the star ships can simply loiter outside of the weapon range of planetary defences and deploy missile weaponry in salvo until the defences are overcome.

Thus the best defence against an attacking force is concealment.
Planetary defence cannon and the like should be distributed across the surface and concealed as other installations, or hidden completely, as part of any good defence grid. Meanwhile planet-wide aggressive jamming should be active in order to prevent them from being detected from orbit.
This would prevent the star ships from simply taking out any enemy unit that moved and make invasion a truly risky business. There would be lots of anti-starship weapons scattered across the surface, and the fleet wouldn't know where they were to strike at them until they fired.

In light of the presence of extremely powerful jamming the planetary defence grid will likely utilise ultra hardened communications, this is likely to include direct fibre-optic links between various centres which would be mostly immune to the jamming field and allow for continued coordination.

Given the sort of resources that are inevitably employed in a planetary defence grid, (there'd have to be hundreds of thousands of weapons, and they'd not be restrained by the same problems as a starship based system,) we predict most of the fleet would be lost while moving into orbit and disabling the defences. Massive collateral damage would also occur in taking out weapons situated in urban areas, potentially crippling the planet's production capabilities. Even after which there is a possibility that some might remain that have not yet fired which would then be directed against the landing craft.
This in mind the main task for ground forces would be to locate the orbital defences and take them out, possibly with a small nuclear or antimatter device, so that the main star ships could safely attain orbit and provide fire support/reinforcements with limited risk.

Because of the orbital defences large-scale deployment of things like 'mechs' would be inadvisable in the early stages of the landings, they need big transports and even once they're on the ground they're just not concealable. This creates a role for standard infantry again as they would have to be the ones to take out the defences so the larger units could be deployed. The likely effect of deploying mechs in the early stage of the invasion would simply be to immediately overwhelm the landing area with enemy units.

Deployment should instead be of small teams of infantry and light armour in heavily stealthed corvettes to slip through the defences, once on the ground the teams own stealth devices coupled with the jamming field should allow for them to avoid most resistance.

Short range secure communications should be a standard part of any unit, this would have to use something like an optical signal to overcome the jamming effect. Planetary forces would have an advantage in that they would already have secure communications by means of fiber optic links between installations, (or whatever their equivalent might be.)

The main objective of planetary defence should be to keep the star ships away from orbit so they cannot provide fire support, once the star ships can safely reach orbit one way or another it's all over for the defenders and so concealment coupled with a stiff orbital defence is the best course of action. For the attackers small units to locate and destroy the orbital defence weapons so that the star ships can achieve orbit and begin the invasion proper is the best course of action.



Additional Weapons advisory

Directed Energy weapons are advised for infantry deployment, kinetic rounds sufficient to overcome the armour of modern units are of such a scale that the returns in penetration of the target no-longer favour its continuation as an infantry weapon. Instead it is suggested that a Directed Energy rifle using high density energy cells and a tight focus emitter be developed for immediate production.

Predicted ground-based defences in addition to a likely equivalent of our own forces include probable gun emplacements, both of a kind suitable for field assemblage (likely employed in an urban environment) and the fixed emplacement kind. Some sort of disposable missile launcher is also likely to be distributed in urban areas among militia.
 
mrWHO
I hope that "Supreme Commander" game will be so good and so easy to mod that PDS team would consider making a PDS ground warfare mod. With addition of sea and air combar it would be very interesting.
Edited by mrWHO on 30-10-2005 12:54
 
RagingBlueWind
from what i've read earlier, Hiigarans have a moral code to warfare so I do believe razing cities is out of the question.

Quote

Thank you. Some common sense in this room is great! Mobility can only do so much. RagingBlueWind, this is not Time Crisis!

please stop taking my definition of mobility and flexibility completely out of context. i am well aware that this is not quake iii where we can all rocket jump around and we have to have split second accuracey to kill things. as i have reiterated for the third time now, by flexibility and mobility, i mean being able to enter buildings when needed, and not being so open to fire. if you think being able to take cover when you come under fire is a trivial matter then prepare to loose alot of mechs to a few scrawny infantry who managed to stay hidden and have anti armor rockets. i should also mention mechs completely lack the silence and subtelty that infantry have. i hope the next person who replies to this doesnt say something about how im talking about fighting hypersonic samurai again. that is clearly not what im talking about.

EDIT: also, what about occupation? do you plan on using 10 foot mechs to patrol the city. what about door to door searches? i should mention that there will be political consequences for using a 10 foot mech to patrol a city. its going to get the civilian populace uneasy and turn your image badly. now i realize this isnt much of a problem for vagyr but do hiigarans really want a civilian aided insurgency every time they liberate city or planet?
Edited by RagingBlueWind on 30-10-2005 18:52
 
Nemmerle
from what i've read earlier, Hiigarans have a moral code to warfare so I do believe razing cities is out of the question.

You could have said the same about the Americans but look at Hiroshima, you could have said the same for the English but look at Dresden.
All it takes is one person to decide that things could be done a lot faster if that inconvenient obstacle was removed... After months, years of warfare, people are going to start to look at those cities and wonder, there will be more and more people who decide it should be done a lot quicker. Maybe the first person to do it would just be sick of the war, maybe they'd just want it over more quickly, I don't know, but rest assured that if the war goes on for any significant length of time someone is going to do it, and the longer the war goes on the more people are going to do it.
Higarans may have a 'moral method of war' but those morals are vulnerable to the horrors of war just the same as anything else.

And for that matter how do you know the Vaygr don't have a moral method of war? They are a tribal society and often such societies have very strict ideas about honour, nuking a city from orbit without giving the people a chance to fight might violate those ideas.

Regardless of which if you situate a planetary defence weapon in a city and cover it with a shield anything strong enough to break through the shield is going to have to strike with nuclear force anyway.
Edited by Nemmerle on 30-10-2005 19:39
 
RagingBlueWind
truth. but thats not to say Hiigarans wont prepare an alternative to razing cities to the ground. naturally they will try the less collateral method first and when it does get to messy they will then switch over to razing cities. that being said, do you think we will eventually just nuke Bagdhad because Americans have lost too many soldiers?
 
Inert
About being open to fire, since you seem so determine to point that out....

I assume anything able to destroy a mech consists of nothing less then a fully fledged rocket? For one, thrusters can be used to evade a fire-and-forget missile. For tracking missiles, well there are ways to throw them off.

No, granted, a mech would not easily "thruster" out of a rocket's path, but it would be better then an infantry trying to jump out of the rocket's area of effect. And even if it does manage to escape it, being gunned down in a rain of small calibre bullets that you could buy down at the corner is a pretty lousy way to wage war.

Secondly, there wouldn't be a need for a mech, or anybody for that matter, to enter a building. A building is rather insignificant in comparison to winning the battle. As for any reason to keep the building intact, there's always a seige option.

Now, lastly, stealth. Why do you need to be quiet? The enemy knows your here. If they try to run, we have ways of tracking them.
 
madcow305

Quote

RagingBlueWind wrote:that being said, do you think we will eventually just nuke Bagdhad because Americans have lost too many soldiers?


That would make me laugh so hard..................
 
madcow305

Quote

Inert wrote:
About being open to fire, since you seem so determine to point that out....

I assume anything able to destroy a mech consists of nothing less then a fully fledged rocket? For one, thrusters can be used to evade a fire-and-forget missile. For tracking missiles, well there are ways to throw them off.

No, granted, a mech would not easily "thruster" out of a rocket's path, but it would be better then an infantry trying to jump out of the rocket's area of effect. And even if it does manage to escape it, being gunned down in a rain of small calibre bullets that you could buy down at the corner is a pretty lousy way to wage war.

Secondly, there wouldn't be a need for a mech, or anybody for that matter, to enter a building. A building is rather insignificant in comparison to winning the battle. As for any reason to keep the building intact, there's always a seige option.

Now, lastly, stealth. Why do you need to be quiet? The enemy knows your here. If they try to run, we have ways of tracking them.


I don't think light and medium armored infantry are equipped with thrusters.
 
RagingBlueWind
infantry would fan out so if you killed one infantry in a rocket, everyone else would just open fire on whoever shot it. you wont have as many mechs as you will infantry. taking out 3 mechs with rockets is easy. taking out a squad of twenty infantry with rocket or even small arms fire is not - even with a machine gun.

and no as other shave pointed out, it doest necessarily take a rocket to kill a mech. someone suggested using a shoulder mounted DEW. id like to see a mech thruster out of an energy weapons path especially when it doesnt know its coming. even if the weapon is a rocket though, id be very very surprised if its thrusters were powerful enough to accelerate a mutli ton vehicle out of the path of a rocket in a split second. this isnt gundam seed where giant mechs can make hairpin manuvers. you have to take into consideration the mass of the mech and the amount of acceleration required to move such a mass in a certain period of time.

no need to enter a building because its insignificant to a battle? might i point you to stalingrand where the battle was won house by house. i feel that you have this one preconceived notion of ground warfare being on a big plane where everything is easily visible. battles can take place in urban areas, and gaining ground is capturing buildings. if you walk down the street without clearing the buildings out, then you have enemy forces behind your main lines and then you get pincered which is a very bad tactical situtaiton to be in.

obviously you feel we should just blow the building down anyways however, but will the Hiigarans be resorting to leveling an entire city to force an enemy out? i think this would be the last option that the Hiigarnas would take, and it being the last option must mean there are options that would deal less collateral damage. those options being to use infantry because its the only way to kill enemies without severly destroying infastructure.

stealth. just because i know you are in town doesnt mean i know where you are in town. flanking requires to some degree stealth or at least subtlelty. you can't flank if they know you're flanking, they'll be ready for it and manuver away. you can't ambush without stealth, nor can you infiltrate without stealth. and if you're walking down a street, do you really want to let everyone know you're there?

you also never addressed the issue of occupation and how if you occupy a city with mechs is far more imposing and gives you a bad image. you also cant do searches with mechs nor can you fly a UAV through crowded streets for recon. some things have to be done by foot.
 
RagingBlueWind
theres what you can do and what you should do. ive been emphasizing this for a while and you just all ignore me anyways. just because we can level a city from spaceside bombardment doesnt mean we should or for that matter the Hiigarans will. i mean the Americans can nuke Bagdhad but should they? will they? biological warfare? we could drop nerve gas on them but should we? psychological warfare? it could work. but then you have one hell of a pissed off populace that would revolte in your face at the first chance. then what are you going to do? nuke the whole planet? might as well have nuked it to begin with. in that case, why the hell do we even need ground troops. to hell with that lets nuke everything we come across.

on a planetary scale, we dont care about one building. fine. lets not care about this one building. then when we get to the next one, lets not care about that one either cause holy crap its only one building! then we get to the next and the next and holy crap by the end everythings gone! jesus wtf happened?!

if infantry can be so easily taken out why arent the marines gone :uhoh:

Quote

One could say there is no need for MRAM's while there are HVM's, but there are SITUATIONS WHERE SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT IS REQUIRED.

aren't you proving my point here for why infantry aren't obsolete? just cause we have the biggest baddest mech in town doesnt mean there arent situations when we need the lighter gun.

your concept of stealth is equivalent to "if we see your country, we can see where all your spies are" thats crap. just because you have a fleet parked outside, doesnt mean you know where the ground forces are. and your gamer noob example isnt even relevent to moving away. thats called rushing, not manuvering. manuvering is, i see you trying to creep jack me so ill run before you pin me against the creeps.

Quote

I don't think light and medium armored infantry are equipped with thrusters.


Why the hell not? Jump jets could be useful for quick bounds, reducing marching time - specialised use.


uhhh maybe because it would be too frickin big. read the descriptions of what light and medium infantry actuall are in the ASCA board. they are guys in suits, not mechs. if you want to strap a booster rocket to an infantry man, go ahead. ill just laugh when he moves like a snail and kills himself when he turns the thing on. :rofl:

Quote

Remember - WEAPONS FIRE RADIATION = Bad
dont use energy weapons then. rail guns dont discharge radiation, normal guns dont discharge radiation. its pretty funny that you tell us to open our minds when you are so set and locked with giving all infantry energy weapons that you cant solve the simple problem of non detection by taking a technological step backwards to a weapon thats nearly just as efficent.
 
TelQuessir
This discussion is over. Proceed to the conclusions thread I am now writing, and follow my standard of presentation, if you are serious about what we do here.

I do not need finger-pointing in what amounts to be a very good unmoderated discussion. That shows signs of getting out of hand into a merry go round that will lead to a lot of fatigue, but no practical result. So. Allow me.
 
Jump to Forum