Sci-fi Military Tactics and Strategy

I was thinking that it is the fighter's shield that allows it to pass through the larger target ship's shield. It would only need to cancel a very small portion of the larger shield to do that.

If numbers win, then missiles beat fighters.

All you need is a decentish hand wave of some sort.

Shield kajiggery is an interesting variation if you want to say have fighters get really close for their attacks.

Ian Douglas covers space fighters using exotic technology for space fighters to help make them effective.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Jul 19th 2019 at 5:43:26 AM

9mm hollow-point is entirely effective against tanks, you just gotta figure out how to hit their weak point, in this case being the crew.

But really, any close analysis of how technology and tactics work in Star Wars is doomed to failure because Star Wars was never that kind of story, despite having all the stylings of it. It's a sword-and-sorcery story that happens to have space ships and robots. The best fanwank for how the shields do or don't work in Star Wars is that there are two types of shielding (recall that the Death Star's thermal exhaust port was specifically ray shielded), with the kind that stops solid objects being a lot more energy intensive (hence why we only see them used for entire planets, because it's easier to fit a giant energy generator on a planet than on a ship, with even mammoth creations like the Death Star still being on the "small moon" scale of things.

So why not fire solid projectiles? Besides the "it's not that kind of story" thing, maybe explosive shells or kinetic slugs just lack the destructive energy of turbolaser blasts. So your broadsides of 18 inch shells would sail unopposed through the shields and leave scuff marks on the paint job, unless of course they hit a window, which we know for a fact fighters can crash through easily.

Why not create guided missiles, especially in a setting where they can create autonomous droids? What did I just say about it not being that kind of story? But really, in that case, someone would just Use The Force and we'd be back where we started.

They tried to use missiles, but the adorable little guys kept saying funny things and making really cute "beep boop" noises and no one had the heart to fire them.

Space doesn't even act like space in Star Wars let alone the actual ships.

It might as well just be a background considering how little (if any) zero-g sections there are, pilots don't even where oxygen masks, etc

It's enough that at several points in history the idea of raw numbers of X be it infantry, artillery, missile boats or whatever has drastically altered the tactics, doctrines and even technologies of entire militaries.

A Space Fighter is no different in this regard.

Tom: As usual you ignore the rest of the actual equation. Numbers are only a relatively small fraction of the whole. Unsupported infantry even if they outnumber their foe 20-1 are going to get slaughtered by an enemy that does the opposite. That applies to everything including fighter craft, missile strikes, large naval vessels, small vessels etc. The side that fights better not with more is far more likely to win. Quality and actual hitting capability all matter quite a bit more than raw numbers and have quite consistently allowed inferior numbers to defeat numerically superior enemies. Simply throwing more of something at anything is almost never a viable answer unless you want a lot of wastage.

Also, the more costly a unit is in logistics, monetary cost and time to make, and quantity of the resources the far more quickly "more numbers" becomes a losing proposition vs fighting battles with better equipment and better tactics and strategy.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Jul 19th 2019 at 6:58:25 AM

Okay, controversial opinion time: I think atomic rockets is wrong. Not in the way you think. In how even their estimates of what space war would be like is way too liberal.

Honestly there would be no need for capital ships, let alone fighters. Something like the Expanse, which touts its realism, is laughably inaccurate. Too many humans doing too many things. Even humans not automating drones would be pretty insane. Space is too dangerous and far far too complex for us squishy simians. Leave it to the computers.

Unless we discover artificial gravity.

Then all bets are off and everything AR says becomes completely irrelevant anyhow

No Atomic Rockets covers that, noting that by all means us squishy humans should never ever be in space. The thing is, nobody in the audience wants to watch lifeless automated drones run things, we want to see human crews in trouble.

It's quite true that any sort of realistic spaceships would be flown by computers, with humans as passengers and technicians. Any space war would be fought by AI robots and/or remotely piloted craft, without risking squishy fleshbags, and at such long ranges that you would never see another combatant with the naked eye. That's not sexy, though; you can't get a good sci-fi drama going if there are no lives at stake — not directly, anyway.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 19th 2019 at 10:48:00 AM

Yeah, for all it's objectivity, AR is ultimately about writing science fiction.

That said, have you checked out the game Children of a Dead Earth? It's the single most accurate projection of near to moderate future space warfare that I've seen. It also mostly agrees with your assessment.

Human crews still serve on ships in Children of a Dead Earth, but as technicians and such, as well as second opinions for targets and firing solutions.

I've heard of it, but am not interested in playing at the moment.

Anyway, the "lives at stake" thing is possibly a bit off. There wouldn't be many people killed in ship-to-ship combat. However, once the war is over, the winner will show up at the loser's planet(s) with the power to commit genocide. The stakes are very high, but also very remote from the actual fighting.

I'm still laughing at that one video game developer who's justification for space fighters was...I shit you not...corporate greed.

Like....what?

Even a drone fleet will need a human crewed command ship not too far away, but the number of humans needed within the combat zone will be far less than we are used to. Mere hundreds at most. As fighteer points out, this changes as the combat zone approaches areas occupied by civilian populations. These areas will not be defenseless, but the probability of collateral damage will be far higher.

Well, like I was trying to say, I'd expect most combat assets to be deployed far away from inhabited areas. If the enemy gets to within striking distance of planets, the war would probably already be lost. Of course, striking distance can be relative. If they prefer to lob KKVs (never mind RKKVs) at you and call it a day, that distance could be measured in AUs.

Edited to add: If I were an alien species with the technology to traverse interstellar space with a combat fleet, and the objective of eliminating humanity's ability to resist whatever I wanted to do with Earth, I wouldn't send any troops or ships to the planet at all. Instead, I'd set up shop between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, catch asteroids, and push them into impact trajectories. A few dozen would do nicely. If I wanted to be fancy, I'd give them some steering controls so I could guide them to hit major cities.

I've already crossed the void between stars; I can afford to be patient. I'll let them go on their way, wait a few months for the impacts, then casually drop in and pick off the survivors.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 19th 2019 at 11:38:47 AM

By your description there's no reason to even have a combat fleet.

Once again.

Space War is pointless.

My scenario assumes vast technological superiority, to the point where humans are basically toast no matter what. Most sci-fi space war scenarios occur with rough technological parity, so it wouldn't be nearly that simple.

I dunno about that. Territorial claims are only as effective as you can enforce them so once you get to the point that space colonization becomes relevant then you also end up with Macgyvered warships threatening to slam a rocket into a habitation dome.

Question: Would a superheavy infantry fighting vehicle be useful enough to justify its cost?

For context, the setting in question has superheavy tanks and aircraft which benefit from anti-projectile Deflector Shields, which are too big for smaller vehicles to use. Ground combat works on mostly the same basic principles as the modern day, but intense land conflicts are a major concern, certain heavily fortified facilities are critical targets, and armored vehicles are a bit more dominant than today (Largely thanks to the proliferation of small recon drones that vastly increase situational awareness for armor). The faction in question already has a versatile superheavy tank chassis which could be used as the basis for a superheavy IFV.

Is there any real use for a superheavy IFV, though? Would it be able to navigate in the kinds of terrain where large platoons of infantry are useful? Could its job be done better by normal-sized vehicles? Could it be useful in assaulting fortresses? What other information do you need in order to come up with a good answer?

Superheavy IFV exist in real life, but they are niche, with only a couple nations having them like Israel.....

The reason being is that there primary use is actually urban warfare, where you cant tell where an attack is going to come from, so all the extra armor is to protect you from attacks you cant predict.

... The limitations of heavy weight lowering there maneuverability and/or increasing fuel and maintenance costs, and there normally lighter armament and inability to double as a scout however kind of.... well make them undesirable to nations who aren't engaging in a LOT of urban warfare.

here is a picture of one in all its fatass glory◊

Edited by Imca on Jul 20th 2019 at 7:46:45 AM

Actually, the most likely scenario for space warfare is human-on-human, fighting for dominance in Earth orbit, or possibly around other planets. Fighting in deep space makes little sense.

Yes. A space fighter in any sense only works semi-plausibly if it's in the lower layers of the mesosphere. Once you're in the thermosphere and exosphere, you're in the territory of "Why is this a thing?

That's one of the reasons why the Space Fighter trope is real and a good idea. Nobody's going to fight over literally empty space. They're going to fight over landmarks for want of a better term. That means planets, asteroids and the like. Fighters can be based off those or brought in by space carriers. Admittedly they might have more use as a defensive craft than power/force/offensive projection.

The Super Heavy IFV basically requires similar logistical support to tanks and the majority of them are typically modified tank chassis.