TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Wiki Headlines
We've switched servers and will be updating the old code over the next couple months, meaning that several things might break. Please report issues here.
Total posts: [24]
1

What advantages would the ability to mute the battlefield give?:

 1 Edmania, Sun, 22nd May '11 1:47:36 PM from under a pile of erasers
o hai
You know, the same battlefield that's so loud a lot of people don't even notice a damn plane crashed.

Guns. Tanks. Fighter jets. Helicopters. Explosives.

What if someone could mute all of it (temporarily)?

How could the person's allies take advantage of the situation?
If people learned from their mistakes, there wouldn't be this thing called bad habits.
probably not this smiley
There would be mass confusion, like with people not being able to hear orders. It would be the perfect diversion if you needed to sneak past.
don't look down, just keep your head
Depends on the circumstances, but having the knowledge to know to set up other forms of communications helps. Being able to recognize that you won't be heard is also something that can be exploited. Human beings do a lot of location by sound.

 
 4 Major Tom, Sun, 22nd May '11 3:57:02 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
Again, depends on the circumstances. Being able to mute everything is a great stealth factor if your enemy depends on audiovisual aids for security/reconnaissance. (And/or your technology can beat electromagnetic surveillance such as radar.)

Likewise, for your average infantryman, there isn't much that is scarier than not knowing where a shot came from.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
 5 Edmania, Sun, 22nd May '11 4:15:34 PM from under a pile of erasers
o hai
What about snipers?
If people learned from their mistakes, there wouldn't be this thing called bad habits.
I think modern snipers tend to use silencers anyway. Added bonus for them, then.

Also, when I read your question I actually felt disoriented — my ears imagined what it would be like for there to be no sound and the result was horrible. You know that sort of cottonwoolly feeling when you get water in your ears? Or the huge, echoey sound-not-sound underwater at the deep end of a swimming pool; like someone has trapped you inside your own head with no space to escape. It's a great idea, and a very powerful weapon if used right: in an all-out battle, if one side expects the silence (and has even trained for it) the balance is going to be heavily in their favour. Even if the other side were forewarned, it'd very hard to deal with the implications of absolute quiet without training. Confusion, fear, uncertainty — everything you could wish for.

edited 22nd May '11 5:46:39 PM by LongLiveHumour

Sanity is quieter, but madness is more interesting.

My tumblr
 7 Major Tom, Sun, 22nd May '11 6:37:59 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
^ Suppressors are really only used by snipers on a mission-specific basis. Things like Black Ops type stuff. Sometimes for use in Urban Warfare.

It's not standard operating procedure for snipers to run suppressors.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
 8 Edmania, Sun, 22nd May '11 6:52:18 PM from under a pile of erasers
o hai
I thought silencers aren't really that effective in...well...silencing. It's just that they make the SUPER LOUD GUN far quieter.

Then again I suppose that could make it go unnoticed in a noisy battlefield, even without tanks, bombs, and jets.

edited 22nd May '11 6:55:14 PM by Edmania

If people learned from their mistakes, there wouldn't be this thing called bad habits.
 9 Chubert, Sun, 22nd May '11 7:11:58 PM from California
highly secure
They make it hard to tell where the super loud gunshot came from.

I...think. Major Tom's the military guy.
Whatcha gonna do, little buckaroo? | i be pimpin' madoka fics
 10 jasonwill 2, Sun, 22nd May '11 9:27:55 PM from West Virginia
Uhhh... since you use ears to hear orders reguardless if it is yelled or by radio, your all a huge mess of random shooting and stuff. You can't take your eyes of of enemies, and well, your pretty much screwed.

Cut off the communication and an army dies QUICK. Command structure fails, orders can't be given, and everyone acts on their own, no cohesion, everyting falls apart. If you can't even at least TALK, or yell across a field or use a megaphone, your really screwed.

If it was both sides, it would be a weird and a random, messy and ineffective people randomly dying off. I really don't know, it's too sureal to imagine. If it only happened to one side though, they would get slaughtered.

It'd be hard then, cause you can only see them, and to do that, you need to look everywhere, and risk getting shot instead of hearing from where shots are coming from.
as of the 2nd of Nov. has 6 weeks for a broken collar bone to heal and types 1 handed and slowly
 11 Edmania, Mon, 23rd May '11 4:09:23 PM from under a pile of erasers
o hai
So, say that there were 40, 000 soldiers (this includes ones inside vehicles) going against a well funded army that exceeds the millions deployed.

Do you think this would give enough of an advantage for the smaller army to win the battle, even if the enemy has experienced the muting before? (they know that the small army is capable of it, but they don't know how to counter it) This is also assuming they have enough ammunition and gas and etc.
If people learned from their mistakes, there wouldn't be this thing called bad habits.
 12 Major Tom, Mon, 23rd May '11 5:13:35 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
40, 000 soldiers of one division against an army group of millions.

Muting or not, direct confrontation between that kind of force disparity is likely to end in tragedy for the 40, 000.

Now does this mean the 40, 000 cannot possibly defeat the army group? Nope. When you are vastly outnumbered and outgunned, that's when you change the flow of battle onto your terms. Strike weak points and run away to strike somewhere else, seize equipment and supplies from fallen enemies wherever possible, spring an ambush or trap on various parts of the army group, try to separate the elements of the army group to lead them into said ambush/trap, things like that. Doing this style of warfare is aggravating as hell and an attrition nightmare for the enemy if your outnumbered side has the better soldiers. Provided you are inflicting enough casualties compared to what you are taking (say in your average engagement, you lose 25 men and suffer 60 wounded, they suffer 200 men lost and 800 wounded) over time you'll grow stronger while they grow weaker and weaker.

Eventually with that kind of warfare style, you'll be able to take on what's left of that army group in direct confrontation on your terms and win. A historical example of just this happening was in The American Revolution. For the first two years, our most successful tactics were guerrilla strikes and battles. (The few direct confrontation victories like Saratoga mostly came down to better leaders and knowledge of the surrounding terrain.) Over time we got better and better both at guerrilla warfare and direct confrontation to the point that in 1780, the British could commit all of their military against us and we'd still win the war. A similar situation is emerging in Libya along the Misrata front today.

edited 23rd May '11 5:17:59 PM by MajorTom

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
 13 Edmania, Mon, 23rd May '11 5:23:13 PM from under a pile of erasers
o hai
How much would wide range explosives help?

Also, the group of 40, 000 is willing to use dirty tactics, like poison.
If people learned from their mistakes, there wouldn't be this thing called bad habits.
 14 Major Tom, Mon, 23rd May '11 6:55:49 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
^ Define "wide range explosives". HE munitions? Plastic explosives like Comp B or C4? Trinitrotoluene (TNT)? Good old fashioned black powder?

Because explosives set as traps are useful. Case in point Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) commonly seen over the last 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq. They won't win the war for you, but they can be a hell of a source of losses for the enemy.

(I assumed the 40k would be willing to fight dirty, you did not need to bring that up.)

edited 23rd May '11 6:56:13 PM by MajorTom

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
 15 Edmania, Mon, 23rd May '11 8:39:48 PM from under a pile of erasers
o hai
Whichever one that can significantly damage (or at least kill the people in it from the outside) M1 Abrams tanks.

edited 23rd May '11 9:22:26 PM by Edmania

If people learned from their mistakes, there wouldn't be this thing called bad habits.
 16 jasonwill 2, Mon, 23rd May '11 10:28:08 PM from West Virginia
how many million? There is a huge difference between one and two million, or even 40, 000 and 1, 000, 000.

I do not think you appreciate this difference, 1, 000, 000 is 25 times greater than 40, 000. That means that each unit will need to take out TWENTY FIVE units each, and that is assuming they do not get killed.

Also, if they have encountered this before, they will be prepared. Obviously Morse Code would be the use over radio, but they may also use sign language or some other form of non audible communication for the infantry. If this was the first time, you would have the element of suprize and might be able to do it.

However, that is on an infintry level. The Vehicals, while not able to communicate with command, would still be able to use all their equipment, and act independently. Given they would probably quickly adapt to include morse code, and this will mostly just slow them down.

And even at that fielding an army "in the millions" would be an extreme economical thing, unless it was China, who both have the amount of people to do that kind of thing without too much notice, and can do it cheaply. I do not think America has a million, I'd guess a few hundred thousand. I do know that we have about 600 (800?) active duty bombers, and about a thousand active jets, and about 1, 200 training craft. Although those numbers are a bit outdated (by about 6 or 7 years), we may have more right now.

If the weather was bad, and you hit their main communications, that would help, but even then short way morse code would still be going on with radio pulses. It isn't the easiest way, and it wouldn't be encoded, but it would be something. It might be too much hassel to encode basic orders.

This could allow you to intercept the communications very easily, so really this is a war of knowledge, since this is all it ever was since your strategy was communication.

Now, with bad weather, an un-open environment, and further attacks on their communications like you said, will put you that much closer but you are still not there.

If you have some B-52's with you, those will be invaluble for thinning out the army, but will just be a dent against one million. Infact, to deploy that many at once is insane, even by Star Wars standards. An Imperial Class I Star Destroyer has about 20, 000-50, 000 people, so a million would be twenty of them. Keep in mind that these things are a fucking mile long. If you are familiar with star wars and know what I am talking about, this should give you scale. I do not even think that most invasions go that far, and at the climax of the Empire they had 25, 000 star destroyers of that class, and at any one time they would never deploy that many (25), and star wars is known for huge battles.

It would be utterly insane to do this, realistically they would just bomb the fuck out of the 40, 000, or deploy a much smaller force to take care of them, designed specifically for this mission to use a combination of morse code and sign language.

Now you can still beat them. If they are a million, they would maneuver much more slowly, and you could escape their notice.

But again, I do not think you fully appreciate the scale. Also, your 40, 000 should have air support as well to stop bombings from killing them. Also, it would be important to know what they have, but the cheap option that beats pretty much anything other than other more expensive US craft, I'd say to go with the F-16. Cheap, and good enough to go toe to toe with any third world power, or China. I wouldn't recommend the F-15 unless you have lots of cash yourself, as they are extremely expensive, about twice as much as the F-16, though they are multi=platform and very good at what they do. If you are insanely rich, a handful of F-22A Raptor Stealth Fighters would do it, but even in real life these are extremely limited in number. Cheaply, B-52's with dumb bombs (each one can have about 300 I think, and they do cover a large area) to thin out your foes, F-16's to give cover support, and cut the communications, have it in bad weather in un-open terrian, and be prepared.

Even with all that, you would probably still die. So ya, too many people against you. Even 1:3 is very dire indeed.

If we say that these things give this bonus to the kill ratio, let's figure out the odds then.

normal: 2:1 k/d mute: minus 3:1 k/d weather: .5:1 k/d bombers: .50:1 k/d (being optimistic here, 300 bombs and a huge amount of something like 10 B-52's bombers might kill only a few ten thousand before needing to land and reload) communications attack: 4:1 terrian advantage: 3:1 preperations: 2:1

That means you have 2+3+.5+.25+4+3+2= 14.75 Let's throw in .25 for luck, and say that is 15.

That means after all 40, 000 die, you killed 600, 000.

Even with all that, that is still completely fucking insane if someone could pull that off. Those 40, 000 dead would be fucking heroes.

If it was 2, 000, 000? Well then your really fucked and it compounds it even more. It gets exponentially harder, not incrementally at this point.

So maybe you can kill half of them, but even then you still lose.

Outnumbered 10 to 1 would be much more believable, but most of your guys would still die unless the enemy decided it wasn't worth it. There is a reason we do not deploy thousands like this anymore, technology makes it impractical when we have much more sane and explosive options, bombing runs.

We have less soldiers today than many Ancient Empires, or at least it is my understanding.

I'd personally go with 200, 000 against them, that is still outnumbered 1:5, but with enough skill, and wits, you could pull that off and win with this mute skill. Hell, it could be done in real life today with an insanely intelligent general and the right conditions, but it would be very hard to pull off.

Though, if they are expecting it, it might make a well funded army able to counter it. Many other armies couldn't nearly as easy, but one like the US, China, Russia, Britain, could do it with some difficulty and quick adjustments.

If the enemy hasn't known about it for long, you may have a couple of months before everything is refitted for this threat if it is considered major. Many top secret projects will want to acquire it as well.

As for reguards to numbers, look at it this way. You are one person with one stick. There are 25 people with sticks. That is your odds if it is 40, 000 to 1, 000, 000. Visualize it that way. Good luck.

Anyway, hope this helps.
as of the 2nd of Nov. has 6 weeks for a broken collar bone to heal and types 1 handed and slowly
 17 Edmania, Tue, 24th May '11 4:42:39 AM from under a pile of erasers
o hai
There's plenty of alternatives to one-on-one in modern war, so the 1 vs 25 thing doesn't really work well.

Let's say...approximately 3, 000, 000 (including those who die due to lack of supplies or poisoned supplies or being caught in an explosion or the rubble from an explosion, etc.) soldiers. All of the infantry soldiers have no armor and use M16s. There actually is enough funding for most of them, because the country funding them is ridiculously wealthy, but many are in an unhealthy state and at least half are untrained soldiers that were pretty much just any man over the age of like 13 they found, regardless of if they were fat, sick, or whatever.

Due to the amount deployed (the general commanding them is not exactly bright, so he just goes with numbers) there's more soldiers within an area, so wide range weapons should be better than usual. No B-52s. They have this thing which can fuck up the enemy's resources, but I don't think it would be as efficient for clearing soldiers directly even though it is now mounted on something that can at least make it move at 13 kilometers per hour which has enough energy in it that it can move for a month without needing more fuel.

I forgot about morse code.

Also, the army of 40, 000's fortress is at an unknown location for most of the time, and it will only take minor damage from nukes. The army of 40, 000 also has an artificial monster capable of catching this thing with its bare hands without even breaking bones, though that's less useful than it seems since it has a hard time staying in the air.

The army of 40, 000 is also capable of using explosives that are expected to wipe out 1, 800 soldiers each time which are extremely cheap to make and easy to use.

The main weapon is expected to be that artificial monster, but it will still take damage from tank shells (even though they won't be deep wounds) and the army of 40, 000 only have 1, 347 of these tanks (except twice as fast.)

How easily do you think the enemy would give up after their president is killed? (at least, give up the war, maybe they'll attack later but not for now.)
If people learned from their mistakes, there wouldn't be this thing called bad habits.
 18 jasonwill 2, Tue, 24th May '11 5:36:15 AM from West Virginia
depends, who is the enemy? Also as of 2004 I found out the the USAF has 5, 778 aircraft, I do not know about the Navy though.

Though given it is merely infintry you are against, you will still have a hard time, even with all this, but from my understanding of the scope of it, it is at least pluasible, though it can still be dramatic with smaller numbers.

The thing is the {Willing Suspension of Disbelief}} comes in. Readers will except the impossibe, but not the unprobable. Though before your monster is deployed, your people will have to lay low big time. Also, it would work better if not all 3 million appeared in one battle, that is... highly unrealistic. You can't deploy that many people, it would take years.

Sure, you can move maybe 100, 000 together in a huge leap, but it will take a shitload of transports. It would probably take a few days to a couple of weeks to move that many in real life today.

So as long as when your guys are spotted, they kill the spotting group, they can hide before more show up. I mean, if they are looking for them, they might spread out into smaller yet still large groups.

It would then be one game of hide and seek, cat and mouse. It would be a gurrilla war.
as of the 2nd of Nov. has 6 weeks for a broken collar bone to heal and types 1 handed and slowly
 19 Major Tom, Tue, 24th May '11 6:34:30 AM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
^ Yeah that's the big question, who's the enemy?

Which brings concern about this...

Whichever one that can significantly damage (or at least kill the people in it from the outside) M1 Abrams tanks.

The way this statement makes it sound, you have 40, 000 people against apparently the entire US military. Problem is the US Army has less standing forces presently than you're deploying to battle in this.

Now in employing the MST3K Mantra, I'm now assuming that's just the standard you want for explosives rather than the actual foe you're up against. In which case standard HE and Comp B explosives are largely ineffective unless used in a saturation barrage and repeated hits or an absolutely huge amount of them in order to toss and flip the tank or crack it open from any direction. For standard comparison, M1 Abrams tanks in Iraq over the last 8 years have faced IED's more powerful than 152mm artillery and the worst damage inflicted was a mission kill via destroying the tracks and damaging the optics/engine. Rarely did they incur crew casualties via IED.

Now that's if you use such conventional stuff as improvised explosives. C4 when applied directly to the hull of a main battle tank like an Abrams or T-90 can in sufficient quantities (about 20 kg tops) destroy such a tank completely depending on placement of the C4. But to employ this method means putting your soldiers literally at point blank range of the tank's crew and weaponry and even then your soldiers are going to have to prioritize putting it on places like the engine, rear compartments, side hull armor or ideally underneath the tank.

edited 24th May '11 6:45:39 AM by MajorTom

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
 20 Edmania, Tue, 24th May '11 8:59:33 AM from under a pile of erasers
o hai
It isn't the actual US army, they just have the same equipment (in larger quantities.)
If people learned from their mistakes, there wouldn't be this thing called bad habits.
 21 jasonwill 2, Wed, 25th May '11 10:30:12 AM from West Virginia
[up]Then your fucked.

No, really, you are. The limiting factor in real life is we do not have a sci-fi scale of this stuff, it's expensive. And even with what we do have in large numbers, is spread everywhere. Our armies are well trained, where as a lot of the World is not. While many developed nations can stand toe to toe on many levels, all out, not as much if we used all our forces. This is due to the fact we have such a large population.

Now someone like China has vast numbers and resources, and might be able to out due us, but for the most part, we are the strongest power in the world in terms of military, economic, and political. China just about beats us in economics, it is generally understood that Russia is close there in terms of military, or used to be, and politically... I think we forcfully dominate the scene there.

Generally America is well meaning but short-sighted, but we are fucking strong. It's like a superman that isn't always helping in the best of ways.
as of the 2nd of Nov. has 6 weeks for a broken collar bone to heal and types 1 handed and slowly
 22 Major Tom, Wed, 25th May '11 12:03:12 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
^^ How? It's hard to believe some kind of out of nowhere nation (or N.G.O. Superpower) has emerged to have more Abrams tanks than the Abrams' largest customer.

Were it a purely fictional vehicle that was comparable in every way I could believe it better.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
 23 jasonwill 2, Wed, 25th May '11 12:42:53 PM from West Virginia
Probably another super power, but even with that, it just takes the status of America in terms of power.

What I am saying actually is that unless they are limited like America is in real life in the ways I said, she's fucked. Her whole army, is fucked. 3 million people with much larger proportions of vehicals as the real US army, even with all that her good guys have, are still deeply screwed.

Even with the same proportions, they are screwed, but even more, say its a 1:50 in real life, then she takes it to 1:10 in the book, that makes it much worse. Now every tenth unit is a war machine and not just a guy with a gun.

edited 25th May '11 12:44:20 PM by jasonwill2

as of the 2nd of Nov. has 6 weeks for a broken collar bone to heal and types 1 handed and slowly
 24 Edmania, Thu, 26th May '11 12:33:49 PM from under a pile of erasers
o hai
They aren't named vehicles, so they are just expected to be fictional ones very similar to the American ones, and yeah they're a ridiculous superpower.
If people learned from their mistakes, there wouldn't be this thing called bad habits.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 24
1


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy