Sci-fi Military Tactics and Strategy

There is no practical way to perform a thorough inspection in the depths of space of thousands of cargo containers. For comparison, the smallest terrestrial cargo container ship hauls over 1,000 containers the big ones over 22,000. The port of Los Angeles alone in one year handled over 4 million containers.

You need a facility to offload and reliably inspect the containers especially if anything is stored in layers of any sort. That is before you realize that containers full of containers and extra packaging is the norm and you wind up having to inspect those as well. It is still Exceptionally time-consuming and impractical to even try and peek into every single container to examine every item and examine them front to back in detail. This isn't a hard concept to understand. This is a very time-consuming process. Even automation is not going to stop it from being time-consuming. Any sort of detailed examination is going to be time-consuming by its very nature. The greater the overall volume of trade is the more impractical that becomes and the more time it takes.

You really need to revisit and very carefully rethink pretty much every one of your suggested scanning measures as they are all badly flawed in regards to scanning a ship designed to do long-range space travel. Especially once you realize things like ships that travel long distance ins pace are protected against radiation hazards, insulated against exposure, composed of large quantities of metal and equipment that would play merry hell with magnetic sensors, containers need to be accessed to obtain chemical samples, containers don't have to have air inside them unless you're transporting something that needs it, and you can't just simply irradiate the shit out of something and hope for the best. Pretty much all your scan methods have issues and notable limitations in terrestrial settings as well.

Relying on strange shapes is almost useless as an indicator unless something is pretty obvious and that has its own limitations. Even using the ISO container system as a point of reference there are a significant number of variations inside that system including custom boxes and means to carry cylindrical containers inside frames. The only requirement is compatibility for stacking and attachment. Even some of the odder military containers are still ISO compatible.

You're still ignoring the huge problem with forcing craft into sub-optimal trajectories vs the most fuel and time efficient ones. You know the whole point of your Delta-V Budget. You're not escaping that. Making craft take longer and more fuel consumptive trajectories is not a "simple course change" and means more time and money and time is still money. It's also an overt negative impact on fuel budgets and craft performance. There is no such thing as a simple course deviation in orbital mechanics.

The only reason we can predict sea or air travel is terrain determines where craft can move. The vast majority of aircraft have their routes dictated by available airfields, which is a terrain feature and gravity and other considerations means they have to come down sooner rather than later. Surface Naval vessels are even more restricted to 2d movement and the fact there are terrain features that dictate the route they can take including sub-surface hazards. There are only so many open routes through the ocean to take as things like weather patterns and ocean currents impact shipping and landmasses impose an obvious challenge. That and we can readily observe the limited amount of space both aircraft and ships can sail in by satellite and ground radar. We can track them because they have a significantly smaller volume to move around in with additional limiting factors simply not present in space. You obviously can't travel through a planet but that is pretty easy to avoid with the sum total volume of a solar system to travel in.

In space with a sun of a solar system as a central point of reference, we are talking about a sphere with effectively infinite possible points of arrival and nearly an infinite number of possible trajectories. You will not know where they will arrive or what their best trajectory is until they arrive in the system. And even then they will have to tell you that info. The only way to change that is to have an artificial chokepoint.

Just to give you an idea of the impossibility of what you are suggesting. The distance to the edge of the Solar System we occupy to our sun is about 122 AU, each AU is about 150,000,000 km. That isn't a volume that is a single point straight shot from edge to center. Assuming the solar system is a sphere the sum total volume of said system is 7,610,000 AU. You will never ever be able to come close to predicting every single possible orbital trajectory in that kind of volume of space especially considering solar systems are in dynamic motion which adds significant degrees of complexity to any such attempt. Nor could you predict any possible point of arrival at any given point the surface area of the sphere when nothing actually has to oblige you by following a perfectly straight line.

Your idea is never going to be universal by any stretch of the imagination neither will any treaty. The reality will be each system does what they want namely what works best for them and any problematic systems get cut out. That has always been the reality. You're not escaping it. The reality will be a lot less strict than what you are suggesting especially if it is what commerce demands. Interstellar commerce can continue on quite readily sans such gross restrictions and it is far easier and effective to cut a problematic system out of the loop than for the system to cut out the possibility of a large volume of trade.

In terms of space, space is big a few systems out of how many possible millions being cut out of the loop is no measurable loss. It is also a lot easier, practical, productive, and cost-effective to cut out problematic systems than to eliminate commerce traffic. The attractiveness of your individual market is far less of an incentive when you can just go somewhere else.

If you make interstellar commerce too expensive by your measures it won't be interstellar commerce that goes away when said commerce is desired especially in the context of a single system insisting on those restrictions. That is almost a guarantee. You're trading because you find appreciable value in doing so and often need and want to do so regardless of local resources.

There has never been a period where humans did not have some form of extensive trade locally or in a broader context. We have been doing commerce on a good size scale since we actually developed civilization and from what we can glean from our prehistory past whenever humans met there was commerce. Trade has been a vital part of humanity likely beyond what we can accurately detect. To add yet another wrinkle, trade has been a critical part of the advance of human technology. In fact, a lot of our technology transmission occurred and still occurs via various forms of trade. Any time long-distance trade was disrupted it was either restored as soon as feasible or new profitable long-distance trade was found.

Slowing down traffic doesn't protect your system from the risk of kinetic attacks. A kinetic attack does not have to oblige your security system and is quite unlikely to do so.

Adding in FTL to any security question only makes your problem worse in most regards unless you have a limited point of access type FTL like gate travel. If you have that kind of natural chokepoint and it is the only practical method to get across vast distances quickly then some aspects of your idea become more feasible to a point. Any FTL system that effectively allows a ship to go wherever they want or allows a ship to move absurdly fast makes your countermeasures effectively worthless. There are even some varieties of FTL that can cause potential havoc just by being pointed in the wrong direction when they arrive. The presence of FTL does not eliminate the need for efficient trajectories in the system in most cases unless its type can allow a ship to effectively arrive in the system right up to its intended destination.

If your concern is protecting against kinetic threats from suicide runs a checkpoint system isn't going to stop it. The one part of flight control of aircraft you could have sampled from that would have been honestly useful in space would be the concept of a flight plan. You announce what you are, where you are from, what your mass is, general cargo, maybe beam out a manifest and crew roster and register a flight plan based on your optimal trajectory for your current Delta-V budget. Adjustments are made without pushing the entering ship into a sub-optimal flight path as much as can be helped for any safety adjustments such as other ships, navigation hazards or covering miscalculations and you don't have to battle forcing someone into the equivalent of weigh station with less than optimal trajectory.

You eliminate the need for the far more impractical inspection system checking every single ship and replace it with something far more practical. You watch the trajectory and keep updated on a position related to the flight plan. Excessive deviation draws attention and questions and if said trajectory starts to take on too many characteristics of a kinetic attack or a catastrophic failure that could result in a dangerous impact you blast the offender. Anyone who arrives and doesn't announce their intentions is obviously suspicious.

The only time you need the checkpoint is if a ship or its cargo is suspect. Periodically screening suspicious craft and cargoes is far more efficient and effective means of controlling against some threats than trying to force every single ship into that inspection system. Even then I would still have a sort of inspection port for that rather than trying to fly a shuttle or equipment out to a given point. It allows you do go as in-depth as any given inspect feels the need for and gives you the option to use more effective systems and not have to deal with meeting a ship in motion.

Most of what you are suggesting as a means to protect against a kinetic approach with checkpoints is not a practical or effective method to do so and is still unlikely to stop the container attack and realistically will do almost nothing against a kinetic threat. There are frankly easier ways to do this.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Dec 18th 2019 at 11:13:56 AM

Defending a settlement on our moon, what kind of vehicles would be best suited for the job? As I think you have to take the super low gravity into account.

Maybe the only way a one manned aerospace strike craft could work? In defending a atmospheres, yet strategically important satellite of a planet?

Well, we already have the moon buggy so maybe something like that only modified for combat. IIRC we had to specially design the LRV for use on the moon. It could maybe something like the fast recon buggies but based on Lunar designs. Or we could just is a robotic rover.

Does the low gravity affect the speed or nah?

Yes, it drastically affects the handling across the board.

Power to weight goes up, traction goes down.

So then add some weight. It's the friggin Moon, not space.

Meaning use some tanks, they'll bounce and bobble around a lot less than a buggy. If at all.

The underlying problem is that fire on the move systems designed for conditions on Earth won't function properly in a low gravity environment. I'm sure they can be adapted, but why restrict ourselves to surface hugging vehicles. It doesn't take much thrust to rise above the surface, which smoothes out all the bumpiness. A "Hind D" on the moon?

That just makes me think of a tank hind on the moon. All the armor of a tank with all the movement of a Hind.

I wouldn't just add some weight Tom, well not unless your trying to design something that works every where.

You have less gravity on the moon, abuse the fuck out of that, you can build vehicles from the ground up that just.... literally don't work planet side, and honestly get a way more capable war machine out of said specialization.

Hovering vehicles turn like ass, and they would be even worse about it on the moon where there is no real air resistance so to speak. This isn't to say that they wont have uses, but there is always a use to something that sticks to the terrain and has the maneuverability to go with it.

That kind of design would make an amazing breakthrough vehicle, but like I don't know if it would be the best frontliner or mixed in with infantry units.

Edited by Imca on Dec 22nd 2019 at 1:57:10 AM

The moon is probably the only place you could have a space fighter, actually. There still wouldn't be any dogfights and it'd be limited just to this environment (it'd be useless in LEO), but you could certaintly wouldn't have to handwave much of anything, if at all.

It'd be one hell of a technological feat in any event.

"Hovering vehicles turn like ass" Source?

Talk to any one who has ever driven them, watch the top hear guys drive them, find youtube videos of it.

Turning is only part accelerating in the new direction, you need to decelerate your old direction as well, and well... they have ZERO traction, and rely in air resistance to change directions... when they turn they want to keep going in the direction the were going that's just basic physics, cars and other land vehicles grip the ground to stop there sliding and get going the new direction... and aircraft work almost entirely on air resistance....

Hovercraft dont have these luxuries and if you make then take a turn at speed they are going to continue for a couple hundred meters or more in the direction they were just going too.

They basicly slide around like they are on the worlds bigest ice ring, because well in a way they are... its obviously not imposoble to deal with since they are used, but it is a rather significant limitation and requires substantial crew training to acount for.

Here is a paper that talks about how they turn

Edit: Forget a couple hundred meters, apperntly at speed the military's hovercrafts have a turning radius of 2 KILOMETERS.

From the description of dealing with the LCAC

For context an entire WWII battleship can make a turn in 700 yards.... and when you need nearly 3 times the turning radius as a 60,000 tone warship I think it is fair to describe your turning radius as "Ass"

Edited by Imca on Dec 22nd 2019 at 10:03:12 AM

Hovercraft are basically giant self-propelled airhockey pucks. Their big advantage is speed. Their big disadvantage is speed.

I have just recently learned, as in... "I was looking this up earlier for you, so the all mighty google algorithm put some hovercraft videos in my youtube feed and I watched one because what the hell"

The Soviet armed hovercraft are actually so bad at turning, that they have special ships there to help them spot ahead and radio back, so that they can begin turning before they even get close to the location, because they literally take so long to turn that if they only had sightline and didn't begin the process far enough in advance they cant even see what there avoiding... they would end up colliding with things.

So it seems the 2km for the American tank lander is on the good end of hovercraft handling, like no hard numbers are there for the Soviet ones, but at least the LCAC doesn't need dedicated turn spotters.

that one made me laugh a bit, because it is very true.

Edited by Imca on Dec 23rd 2019 at 3:58:15 AM

Hmm, where to start? First, hovercraft cant work on the moon at all, because no air. So HC aren't the model, spacecraft are. SC's do operate under conditions of turning momentum, just like the article states, yet they seem able to operate anyway. Obtaining speedy rotation isn't the problem, as your article states, changing the direction of trajectory is, and that take thrust applied at such an angle that the craft moves in a new direction. However, note that neither HC's, helecopters, nor spacecraft need be facing in the direction that they are moving, nor in the direction they intend to turn. So a moon flyer could turn and shoot in any direction it pleases without affecting flight performance, aiming the weapons independently of flight (and with gyroscopes, the aim point can be quite precise). Turning will indeed require a radius much greater than a surface bound vehicle would require. In terms of flight characteristics, it would be halfway between a helecopter and a fixed wing aircraft.

You're on the moon. Gravity is 2.38 m/s^2. You can achieve flight with two fire extinguishers and some wishful thinking.

If you want to fly on the Moon just Grenade Jump!

Edited by MajorTom on Dec 24th 2019 at 6:44:02 AM

Guys please, this is science fiction. To fly you have to throw yourself at the ground and miss!

Not sure if this is the right thread but it's kinda a meta-tactical question.

So in this spacepunk setting I'm working on there's a kind of taxonomy for different species' preferred tactics. What I've got is a trifecta of three basic types; Ranged-attackers "I should strike from where my foe can not reach", Counter-attackers "I should be immune to attacks and punish my foe for trying", and Rush-attackers "I should strike before my foe has a chance to strike me".

Humans, for example, are primarily ranged-attackers with a bias for trying to outrange our foes even at the cost of lethality. For example, the Romans developed very long ranged field artillery even though these weapons rarely decided the result of a battle. Early bolt action rifles had maximum ranges of nearly 2 km but you couldn't aim it well enough to hit anything at that range.

Another race, The Great Hive (Actual name unpronounceable, language scent based) are large insectoids with a strong building instinct. They're counter-attackers, making even civilian buildings veritable onions of sturdy walls. Wars often boiled down to attrition as neither side wanted to make blatant attacks.

There's another species, avian-based, that are rush attackers but I'm still working on that.

So, am I missing anything? Any glaring flaws or combat tactics I haven't considered?

As long as your theme is consistent and makes sense from the perspective of your story I see no issues.

Old guns are surprisingly accurate. There were quite a few sniping and range records dating back prior to the First World War. All with iron sights. One of them I remember was an over 1000 yard shot (1600ish if I remember correctly) fired by one guy from a horse and hit. In the Russo-Japanese War, the Russians used volley fire and scored enough hits from Mosin-Nagant and/or Berdan rifles to take out a Japanese artillery battery from over 2200 meters in one instance.

In fact, such extreme ranges were the main reason why smokeless powder was invented. The Lebel 1886 bolt action rifle was the first smokeless powder design and could outrange any contemporary or immediate predecessor be it the Chassepot, Gras rifle, Dreyse needle rifle, early Mausers, Martini-Henry, 1873 Springfield, Swiss/Italian Vetterlis and more.

Edited by MajorTom on Jan 31st 2020 at 6:28:23 AM

Point. Counter point, the Great War. All that ranged ended up meaning nothing in the face of trench warfare. Nobody dare set up regimented firing lines in the face of machine gun fire and even with machine guns you often had charges that reached melee combat. All that range and it all meant jack. The best rifle of the war was the SMLE precisely because it used a shorter barrel and emphasized faster rate of fire.

Likewise, during the Franco-Prussian war the French had a longer range rifle but the Prussians had as well as a larger army but the Prussians won due to better logistics and tactics.

Finally, we have the Vietnam war with the M14 often being suppressed by the cheaper and faster firing AK-47.

Range alone isn't that big of an advantage.

Actually, having a longer effective firing range is a huge advantage. The range of the rifles in WWI meant that almost everyone was in range the moment they came over the top or out of cover and started receiving fire. That long effective range was part of why the trenches were needed in the first place. All that range actually mattered quite a bit in pretty much all of the weapon systems as they allowed both sides to take the enemy defense under fire and keep them under fire until melee in more than a few places. Add the use of obstacles and difficult terrain it meant you spent a lot of time in the effective range of enemy fire for a longer time frame and further out than most weapon systems.

There was no best rifle in WWI as they all filled their intended roles pretty well and pretty much all of them worked as expected. There were also several points where that really long effective range was used to suppress enemy positions via massed rifle fire from the trenches. Same for machine guns. We still have tactics and strategies on the books for how to use personal arms and machine guns in an indirect fire role.

The usual media depiction of the mad melee is often oversold. Significant casualties were often inflicted if an enemy was not properly suppressed in their trenches and/or their machine guns either knocked out or suppressed.

Rapid-fire has its place but it isn't supplanting or fully superior to the long effective range with slower rates of fire. Which type of fire you need is often down to the situation and the slower semi-auto fire is often far more effective than full auto fire sometimes even at very short ranges. Trying to advance against an enemy who has a long effective range and the right kind of field of fire to take advantage of it favors the long effective range quite a bit. It is one of the things that makes snipers very dangerous. Taking advantage of position and preparing the field of battle as best as possible can drastically alter the efficacy of equipment on hand.

A weapon capable of effective fire from about 1,000 meters to point-blank including some sort of rapid-fire capability is almost a perfect weapon in general functionality and capability.

When someone asked for a rough calc of the "black box" rail gun weapon system and we drew out some details and considerations. The net result was a weapon that had an absurd effective range and given the accounted for factors would have been equally capable at close range as it was at long range. If anything it got far more lethal at shorter ranges. It had a back of the napkin max point-blank range of over 2km. That kind of effective firing range from a personal weapon would be absolutely insane and it would provide a huge advantage.

I would also point out the magic measure of the majority of weapons is something that is effective between 300-400 meters up to point-blank. That has a lot to do with the technological capabilities and limits of effective range on modern weapons.

Tom: Shots at and past 1,000 yds are rare for deliberate aimed fire. The majority of ranged combat including the most recent wars averages 300-400 meters with shots taken at 500m and out becoming increasingly rare for most weapons.

In real life, of course, the combined fire of several different types of weapon/attack combinations usually confers the greatest advantage.

-Laughs in M1903 Springfield-

Cavalry carbine size, 2000 yard range, standard issue for infantry. Marines were dropping bullets on Germans' heads from 800+ yards with them at Belleau Wood.

-Laughs in Steyr-Mannlicher 1895-

Straight pull bolt is extremely hard to beat when it comes to manual actions. Only a few weapons have managed to outdo that one, nearly all of them were pump-action slamfire shotguns like Winchester 1897 or specially designed leverguns.