TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Sci-fi Military Tactics and Strategy

Go To

TairaMai rollin' on dubs from El Paso Tx Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Mu
rollin' on dubs
#1101: Oct 2nd 2014 at 9:42:53 PM

The thing that made it possible was the one thing that Imperial Japan never could match: logistics. A former Zero pilot wrote about how amazing it was to see the US Navy turn an island into an airfield in days, sometimes hours. Every airfield lost, every ship sank hurt the INJ more than the US Navy.

I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#1102: Oct 2nd 2014 at 9:59:15 PM

Better logistics, better training setup, etc. We could afford to lose pilots because we had our most experienced pilots back home training the replacements in airfields across the country, while the Japanese had no such system in place. The Germans may or may not have had such a system, but also had the problem of having no safe place to train their pilots where they couldn't be harassed by Allied attacks (Kelly Field may not have been a dream assignment for an American pilot trainee, but I can guarantee you he never had to worry about getting bounced by some Me-109s while still figuring out how to handle his plane.)

MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#1103: Oct 3rd 2014 at 12:58:27 AM

Carriers are mobile though, 2-3 fleet carriers in one place can usually bring more to the party than any single island airfield. Carriers also don't need much in the way of a defensive detachment, nor a fleet trains, since they can to a certain degree be the train.

edited 3rd Oct '14 12:59:28 AM by MattII

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#1104: Oct 3rd 2014 at 1:46:13 AM

Actually carriers very much need defensive assets to protect them. That lesson was learned the hard way. Three carriers in WWII were sunk by enemy surface vessels weapons. Several more were sunk by subs. Carriers very much need an escort. They also need the fleet train just as much as the rest of the fleet does.

And the problem of aircraft carriers is that to match a land base they need multiple carriers and the escort force that entails. Carriers cram as many planes in as small a space as possible. An airfield doing the same thing with the same craft can field a surprising large number of craft. For example the airfield at Tianian known as North Field housed 265 B-29 bombers. Over two large carriers worth of aircraft by numbers alone. Not any aircraft but large long range bomber craft. If we were translate the space to fighter compliment your going to need more then a few carriers to outnumber the island. See here That is just some relatively small island.

For the space occupied by a single B-29 you could fit 2-3 carrier craft. That is roughly room for 530 craft at roughly double the capacity. At triple that is almost 800 craft. Keep in mind the field at Tianan would no trouble with fuel and munitions it was already servicing far more thirsty craft carrying far more munitions.

More importantly though unlike aircraft carriers land based fields can field much longer ranged and larger craft. They can also handle a wider variety of aircraft as well.

edited 3rd Oct '14 1:54:34 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
TairaMai rollin' on dubs from El Paso Tx Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Mu
rollin' on dubs
#1105: Oct 3rd 2014 at 6:48:28 AM

Land based airfields extended the range and punch of carrier aircraft. They could land, refuel and rearm then return to the carrier. It was a trick used in the Gulf War that help break the Iraqi army.

I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#1106: Oct 3rd 2014 at 6:59:54 AM

^ In addition land based airfields proved to be a vital backup for carrier aircraft in the event the ship took a bad hit. I know the kamikaze attacks on carriers near Okinawa forced a number of carrier aircraft to land on US-held territory on the island over the course of the campaign.

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#1107: Oct 5th 2014 at 9:04:52 AM

Fascinating and all, but not really related to space, lol.

New Survey coming this weekend!
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#1108: Oct 5th 2014 at 12:48:02 PM

Not necessarily true. Somewhat similar tactics could be applied to say an airfield on a moon or a space station. You could hop your fleet around a system from one body to another. Though it might prove a bit harder to bypass certain threats or choke them out.

Who watches the watchmen?
Flanker66 Dreams of Revenge from 30,000 feet and climbing Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Dreams of Revenge
#1109: Nov 16th 2014 at 10:44:42 AM

Liiiiive!

...Ahem.

Anyway, reviving this to ask a bit more of an in-depth query:

How could I recycle the successor to Deep Battle IN SPACE! and still have it make sense? Or, to rephrase the question, what would a space age Deep Battle look like?

Salient points to consider:

  • In the setting in which this would be employed, there are basically two types of FTL: Star Wars style "hyper drive" FTL drives and Freelancer style "jump gate" installations. The latter are really the sole preserve of civilian traffic and very cheap military craft, whilst the former are ubiquitous amongst more capable military vessels.

  • The military in question uses a mixture of ballistic and energy weapons, whilst their opponent uses energy weapons exclusively. Furthermore, combat drones are much more prevalent in their opponent's armies.

  • They significantly outnumber their opponents.

  • The setting is much closer to soft sci-fi than hard sci-fi.

For those unfamiliar with the doctrine the Soviets used during the mid-late Cold War period, here's a possibly inaccurate summation. It used highly aggressive, rapid attacks from multiple axes to break through enemy defences and penetrate deeply into their territory. Enemy C3, logistics, reserves, and so on were prioritised for destruction. Towns and cities would be ideally bypassed in favour of continuing the advance. Strong points in the enemy's defence would also be bypassed.

Units would be massed very quickly to achieve their objectives, and significant supporting assets (artillery, air strikes, etc.) would be put in place to facilitate this. Said supporting assets would be targeted either at the enemy's strong points, the above mentioned priority targets, or throughout the entire depth of the enemy defence.

Don't be afraid to ask for clarification!

Locking you up on radar since '09
demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#1110: Nov 16th 2014 at 6:56:44 PM

I'm going out on a limb and say that "Deep Battle" as the Soviets envisioned it, doesn't make that much sense in space, esp. with FTL of any kind. Given the technology you have presented, they shouldn't have to "penetrate" their opponents territory the way armored formations need to move through enemy lines. It seems to me that in your universe, no one can keep the enemy out of their rear areas. In fact there are no rear areas. Everywhere is the front. So what this battle looks like are small mixed, independent formations being deployed everywhere, looking for an opportunity to raid the enemy or intercept a raid. Victory in war will be determined by economic attrition, so industrial production areas are the prime targets. Think the Battle of Britain, not the Fulda Gap. It's as if strategic long range bombing were the primary tactic. In every encounter, opposing forces are desperate to do more damage to the other side than the other side can do to them. The other side will deploy their drones defensively, to cover their territory more effectively, but will be tactically very aggressive with them when they detect a potential threat. Any civilian ships moving through their space better let them know ahead of time.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#1111: Nov 16th 2014 at 7:18:04 PM

^ I'd say as the Soviets envisioned it would not come to pass as they thought...

However I do see a two-tier form of this. Traditional Deep Battle doctrine albeit "modernized" for terrestrial affairs and a different one for space, one that aims to control local space in and around star systems and their jump nodes. Avoid the defensive platforms if any in orbit around a planet but seize the jump nodes while attacking fleet bases and fleet support facilities. (Then force the local fleet garrison to either abandon the system either through attrition or deterrence or force them to commit to a climactic if one-way trip decisive fleet battle for control of space.)

edited 16th Nov '14 7:19:38 PM by MajorTom

demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#1112: Nov 16th 2014 at 7:24:16 PM

What is a "jump node."

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#1113: Nov 16th 2014 at 7:28:39 PM

Any point that is useful for using a universes example of FTL travel. It may be a set of coordinates, a worm hole, a jump gate etc from which one can safely use their FTL drive. Think of it as a travel lane in space for a specific maneuver a travel corridor.

Who watches the watchmen?
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#1114: Nov 16th 2014 at 7:55:50 PM

^ Specifically referring to how the example mentioned gates for civilian (and some military) space traffic.

TairaMai rollin' on dubs from El Paso Tx Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Mu
rollin' on dubs
#1115: Nov 16th 2014 at 11:00:46 PM

I posted a bit on one faction's take on Soviet-style tactics IN Space here.

"Crusher ships" (from Dune, with a bit of BattleTech mixed in) are a series of ships that split apart. Dropship, Attack Drone, Space Fighter all working as part of a whole to "crush" opposition. The many dropships bring all supplies, vehicles and equipment along with troops.

The Southern Cross Mustered Citizenry views attacks on cities as pointless. They will attack any defenders and arrest any planetary leadership. SCMC units seize flat ground, spaceports, or coastal cities that can support further landings.

Once on the ground their information warfare units disrupt all planetary communications. Warships and fighters escort dropships and crushership delivered reinforcements. The enemy is met outside of a city, but there are units that have been trained in urban combat. As a last resort Orbital Bombardment will be used to "pacify" enemy forces lodged in a city.

The parts are committed to the whole: everything is tasked toward the mission objective (capture a spaceport, destroy the garrison, take over the planet). So even if the enemy runs to the hills or flees into the cities, the SCMC will keep landing troops until the defenders are eliminated. Then the cities will fall like ripe fruit.

edited 16th Nov '14 11:14:34 PM by TairaMai

I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#1116: Nov 17th 2014 at 7:35:32 AM

I used the link and read some of those old posts from 2013. Wow, Flanker's been working on this for some time, eh? I can see now where he is coming from. He wants to transplant a Soviet-style military organization into space, presumably because that fits the types of stories he wants to tell (I imagine that they're the bad guys).

The thing is, that type of organization only makes sense if you have a concentrated set of enemy forces to focus your highly centralized and top-structured fleets on. It made sense for the Soviets because NATO was almost entirely contained within Germany. It's easier to micro-manage things from Moscow when your enemy is so highly concentrated geographically.

Transplanting that to deep space will be challenging. It's just too easy to out-flank a space fleet. Planetary bodies are so tough compared to spaceships that the defense has an inherent advantage. The basic tactic is almost guaranteed to be stand off and fire from maximum range, for any foreseeable combination of realistic technology. All this favors decentralized fleets over centralized ones on a tactical level.

You can still use your Soviet-style antagonists of course, because the Soviet system of military organization was also an outcome of the political system governing Russia at the time. One party authoritarianism lends itself to that kind of thing. So maybe your invading fleets are build along Soviet lines basically for domestic political reasons, and the smaller rebel coalition can take advantage of that, despite being outnumbered. Does that fit your narrative, Flanker?

Now I'm seeing it like the American Revolution. The invaders can take any territory they focus on, but the rebels will continually grind them down with an almost unlimited number of local forces engaging in hit and run tactics. The invaders eventually have to give up and leave, because they cant afford to replace their occupying forces indefinately. And no matter how many star-systems the invaders occupy, they cant occupy them all, so their flanks are always exposed (in three dimensions). How does that sound?

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
TairaMai rollin' on dubs from El Paso Tx Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Mu
rollin' on dubs
#1117: Nov 17th 2014 at 11:14:27 AM

[up]Here's my take:

  • The Earth Defense Force uses propaganda, precision fires, depth and speed to overwhelm the defenders. Charm away the native population, hit the defenders hard then blockage the planet.

  • The SCMC will try and talk the defenders out of resisting. If that fails, they will simply land and lay siege to the cities, grinding down the defenders. It's a carrot and stick approach: join us or be ground under.

  • The Cay Union uses brute force. Their approach is a hail that is simply Resistance Is Futile. They raid planets to gather information and because ship captains get a cut from goods and resources taken in raids. If the defenders won't surrender, they'll destroy a city from orbit. They leave nasy ecological surprises behind when they retreat. They only reason they've been successful is that they have a higher technology level than a lot of their neighbors.

I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
Flanker66 Dreams of Revenge from 30,000 feet and climbing Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Dreams of Revenge
#1118: Nov 17th 2014 at 11:14:46 AM

I'm going out on a limb and say that "Deep Battle" as the Soviets envisioned it, doesn't make that much sense in space, esp. with FTL of any kind. Given the technology you have presented, they shouldn't have to "penetrate" their opponents territory the way armored formations need to move through enemy lines. It seems to me that in your universe, no one can keep the enemy out of their rear areas. In fact there are no rear areas. Everywhere is the front. So what this battle looks like are small mixed, independent formations being deployed everywhere, looking for an opportunity to raid the enemy or intercept a raid. Victory in war will be determined by economic attrition, so industrial production areas are the prime targets. Think the Battle of Britain, not the Fulda Gap. It's as if strategic long range bombing were the primary tactic. In every encounter, opposing forces are desperate to do more damage to the other side than the other side can do to them. The other side will deploy their drones defensively, to cover their territory more effectively, but will be tactically very aggressive with them when they detect a potential threat. Any civilian ships moving through their space better let them know ahead of time.

A very interesting analysis!

I would say that although things initially look very fluid, with no real "anchors" to latch on to, as you indirectly touched upon key targets would be the opponent's FTL gates. They criss-cross space almost like a spider's web. But there's just one little problem: it's outright illegal to destroy them under this setting's laws and conventions of warfare, and disabling/hijackingnote  them is made much more difficult by the fact they are invariably heavily protected. For example, a QRA force may be on standby to investigate any potential or known enemy activity.

So they pose an interesting dilemma: they are clearly part of your opponent's centre of gravity, and yet an insufficiently powerful assault is unlikely to decisively eliminate them as a factor.

There are industrial heartlands of the sort you are envisioning, so if you're willing to employ the term loosely they may be considered the rear area or operational/strategic depth of their masters.

However I do see a two-tier form of this. Traditional Deep Battle doctrine albeit "modernized" for terrestrial affairs and a different one for space, one that aims to control local space in and around star systems and their jump nodes.

Funnily enough, I was thinking that they'd be straight up using a modernised version of Deep Battle when fighting planetside. It was mostly making the conversion of Deep Battle for space that posed a problem. That and how does Deep Battle evolve when orbital bombardment is a potential factor? I personally assume that it would encourage even further dispersal prior to an attack but simultaneously highlight the need to rapidly mass troops or fires when the attack is in progress. You might even see "hugging" the enemy on a strategic scale!

Avoid the defensive platforms if any in orbit around a planet but seize the jump nodes while attacking fleet bases and fleet support facilities. (Then force the local fleet garrison to either abandon the system either through attrition or deterrence or force them to commit to a climactic if one-way trip decisive fleet battle for control of space.)

This would be practical, yes. In this particular model I imagine that you'd conquer a system from the outside in - secure any FTL gates in the area, destroy/capture space stations and support facilities, and then go for the planet itself, only dealing with orbital defensive platforms insofar as they affect the fleet's ability to perform its role.

Though in order to ensure uncontested control of space either in orbit or just in the system, I figure that enemy fleets would be prioritised for destruction.

@Taira:

Interesting concept!

I used the link and read some of those old posts from 2013. Wow, Flanker's been working on this for some time, eh? I can see now where he is coming from. He wants to transplant a Soviet-style military organization into space, presumably because that fits the types of stories he wants to tell (I imagine that they're the bad guys).

Yes, I have been working on it for a while - once the idea seized me it wouldn't let go, though I've made woefully little progress on actually writing the damn thing. I'm horrible with beginnings, but that's a topic for Writer's Block.

And that is exactly it! I basically want to create the Cold War: Sci-fi Edition, complete with Space!USSR and Space!NATO. I wouldn't say that they're the bad guys per se (two of my protagonists actually come from the space!Soviets), but no-one is outright The Bad Guy FactionTM. Of course, the splinter group doesn't see things that way. But again I think I am be straying off topic here, so if you want to hear more don't hesitate to PM me. smile

The thing is, that type of organization only makes sense if you have a concentrated set of enemy forces to focus your highly centralized and top-structured fleets on. It made sense for the Soviets because NATO was almost entirely contained within Germany. It's easier to micro-manage things from Moscow when your enemy is so highly concentrated geographically.

Transplanting that to deep space will be challenging. It's just too easy to out-flank a space fleet. Planetary bodies are so tough compared to spaceships that the defense has an inherent advantage. The basic tactic is almost guaranteed to be stand off and fire from maximum range, for any foreseeable combination of realistic technology. All this favors decentralized fleets over centralized ones on a tactical level.

That is a tough one. I'd point out that the classic view of the Soviet military as being an inflexible sledgehammer is a misconception - they simply focused on the strategic/operational level. Everything was executed in support of strategic & operational objectives. If you focus on the tactical level then it does seem to come off as unwieldy, but if you look at it in the context which it was designed for then it makes more sense.

But that doesn't really do much to solve the issue.

You can still use your Soviet-style antagonists of course, because the Soviet system of military organization was also an outcome of the political system governing Russia at the time. One party authoritarianism lends itself to that kind of thing. So maybe your invading fleets are build along Soviet lines basically for domestic political reasons, and the smaller rebel coalition can take advantage of that, despite being outnumbered. Does that fit your narrative, Flanker?

The space!Soviets are more heavily authoritarian than their counterparts, yesnote .

Now I'm seeing it like the American Revolution. The invaders can take any territory they focus on, but the rebels will continually grind them down with an almost unlimited number of local forces engaging in hit and run tactics. The invaders eventually have to give up and leave, because they cant afford to replace their occupying forces indefinately. And no matter how many star-systems the invaders occupy, they cant occupy them all, so their flanks are always exposed (in three dimensions). How does that sound?

Of course, the problem the space!Soviets face is that although they enjoy significant advantages in manpower and materiel, they can't be everywhere at once and their foe has technological superiority. Furthermore, the NATO analogues have already set up a network of stay behind units intended to act as guerrilla fighters in space!Soviet held territory. So this does actually fit into my narrative fairly well.

On the flipside, due to the aggressiveness, scale and speed with which the space!Soviets carry out their operations, it's very easy for space!NATO to find themselves getting overwhelmed. It's not going to be a cakewalk for either side (unfortunately for them, but fortunately for the reader!).

Locking you up on radar since '09
demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#1119: Nov 17th 2014 at 4:59:40 PM

Awesome. So... time to get writing?

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#1120: Nov 17th 2014 at 5:40:43 PM

That and how does Deep Battle evolve when orbital bombardment is a potential factor?

That's one of your elements for how shall we say forward artillery batteries. They're the things aimed at the strong points and cities while your ground forces race through everything else. (Possibly freeing up some logistics and manpower allowing an even more mobile warfare.)

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#1121: Nov 17th 2014 at 6:31:54 PM

Not really. You are going to likely still need the guns on the ground to begin with namely ones scaled appropriately for the task at hand. There is reason there are still several calibers and variety of artillery systems today. Using something that many would use to flatten a city tends to lack tactical flexibility more appropriately scaled systems would have. That and their time from fire to impact would be a lot shorter and likely comparatively more accurate.

The Orbital weapons scale would likely fit in at the higher levels of organization to begin with. You wouldn't likely use an orbital bombardment to support a single squad, or company. That is the kind of fire support you use for larger scale operations like attacking an entire front.

Even if you use KKV type weapons, small nukes, or other munitions of similar scale there is still a very good reason to push orbital weapons higher up on the tier.

Who watches the watchmen?
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#1122: Nov 17th 2014 at 8:19:05 PM

^ And that's how Soviet Deep Battle used its largest guns. They weren't used for the average AK-toting squad on a single target unless it was an objective needing hit. (They had smaller auxiliary assets for that. Or they brought their own.)

What I'm saying is, in this new form of Deep Battle you can use orbital assets as your bigger batteries either in supplementary or primary roles depending on stage of the battle. The earlier in the battle you are the more likely your calls for fire are going to come from the highest ground.

Put it this way, if you are at the start of a US Marine amphibious landing are your artillery going to be set up on the decks of the ships launching your guys or are they going to be the ships themselves?

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#1123: Nov 17th 2014 at 9:00:10 PM

Even various naval weapons get sorted accordingly. There is a bit of difference from a 5 inch gun and 16 inch gun. Both in terms of range also in effect at target. That would also apply to missiles. You wouldn't swat a target with a Tomahawk when all you need is a Hellfire.

But yes Orbital Weapons would definitely serve well as the highest order of fire power deliverable to the surface.

Who watches the watchmen?
Flanker66 Dreams of Revenge from 30,000 feet and climbing Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Dreams of Revenge
#1124: Nov 18th 2014 at 7:59:17 AM

Awesome. So... time to get writing?

I should probably get on that, yes. tongue

@Orbital bombardment:

I was indeed envisioning orbital weapon systems as basically being the highest level of supporting fire available to commanders, though as Tuefel said it's the sort of thing that's probably best used at the front or army group level rather than at the small unit scale (that's what CAS and planetside artillery is for, after all). Thank you very much!

My main concern was the issues that orbital bombardment poses for Deep Battle. How do you minimise the effectiveness of enemy orbital bombardment without sacrificing the potential advantages of Deep Battle (rapid tempo, large scale, high aggressiveness, etc.)?

Furthermore, deceptive measures were a major part of Soviet military thought (see: maskirovka). For example, some axes of advance were meant to distract and deceive the opponent, and any axis could become the main axis of advance depending on battlefield conditions.

How could maskirovka be applied to this Deep Battle concept (in particular as it applies to space warfare)?

Locking you up on radar since '09
AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#1125: Nov 18th 2014 at 9:39:16 AM

Vice versa, there are things the smaller naval weapons can do that the bigger guns really aren't suited for. Just as you wouldn't use a Tomahawk for a target only worthy of a Hellfire, there are smaller/faster targets that the bigger weapons just don't have the capability to engage, which is why the Iowa class B Bs never really tried to knock down torpedo bombers with the 16 inch guns (that's what the 5 Inch guns were for).

Actually, funny thing, the 5 inch guns in theory were "Dual Purpose", equally suited to engaging surface ships and aircraft, depending on ammo choice (bursting Anti-Air or delayed-fuse armored piercing). But since any ship that could be seriously hurt by a 5 inch didn't really have much armor protection, they decided it was simpler just to shoot everything with the Anti-Air shell and just set the fuse to burst on contact.


Total posts: 12,295
Top