Could one, in theory, use FTL drives as weapons of mass destruction? I'm referring to the prevalent theory about Alcubierre drives that involves the accumulation of vast amounts of energetic particles during superluminal travel. Since the energy accumulated could be potentially unlimited depending on travel time and we have no idea if the release of this burst of energy would be limited to the front and back of the ship or instead be omnidirectional, is space warfare as we picture it even remotely plausible? Or would space battles be decided entirely by who got there first and who arrived second, utterly obliterating everything on the battlefield with a burst of energy more powerful than a supernova?
edited 18th Nov '14 1:18:25 PM by KSPAM
I've got new mythological machinery, and very handsome supernatural scenery. Goodfae: a mafia web serial
Really? I was under the impression that "Alcubierre drive" referred to one specific type of warp drive.
Hmmmm... would it be possible to equip a starship with a "heat siphon" or "radiation siphon" that could collect energy from warp (or from energy-based weaponry) and recycle it back into the ship?
I've got new mythological machinery, and very handsome supernatural scenery. Goodfae: a mafia web serialThe same way you counteract massed artillery batteries or naval vessels at sea on the ground: Dispersion. Don't clump your army groups in a 1 km grid square wide valley for instance.
Keep things moving, keep things diffuse enough to minimize their big guns effect on target. Get so close to the enemy that orbital bombardment risks blue-on-blue or excessive civilian collateral damage. (If the enemy cares about such things anyways...)
The Russians did that at Stalingrad to neutralize the Wehrmacht's superior artillery and air power advantages at the time.
There are actually several different proposals, each behaving slightly differently, depending upon which mathematical model a particular physicist believes will govern the warp effect. I don't think you could recycle the energy because the warp bubble cuts the ship entirely off from the surrounding universe, nothing gets in or out while the drive is engaged (that's how it avoids violating relativity, in fact). You pre-program a destination before you engage the drive, you turn it on, and then you wait the appropriate amount of time before turning it off. From the ship's point of view, the universe goes away for a while, and when the bubble goes down they are in a different place.
edited 18th Nov '14 5:37:07 PM by demarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Well, artillery batteries need not be grouped together to act together as long as they have overlapping ranges.
Re: the 5 Inch guns, they may be pop guns in the arena of pre-missile naval armament, but compared to many land-based artillery pieces they're massive, plus there's not a lot a tank will be packing that could take a destroyer or cruiser out of action, particularly the older armored ones.
^ Plus modern 5 inchers among others can fire pretty rapidly when used for fire for effect barrages. Oto Breda 76mm Super Rapid 120 rpm anyone?
This is 100% correct if my recollection of the US military's field manual on how the Soviets operated holds up. Basically, fire support (in the form of artillery or airstrikes) would be arranged to begin well in advance of the actual assault, such as 25 hours prior. These strikes would hit designated targets (such as C3), enemy strong points, or throughout the entire depth of the defence.
Supporting fires would also be initiated from the outset of the attack proper, aiming to facilitate breakthroughs by Soviet formations. Everything was, as you said, painstakingly timed so that the opponent would scarcely have time to poke their heads out from their bunkers before a platoon of BMP-2s is already upon them.
Coincidentally, Soviet doctrine did make allowances for the use of (presumably tactical) nuclear weapon systems during the fire preparation and actual conduct of the attack, and they noted that a sudden withdrawal by enemy troops could precipitate the use of a nuclear weapon. I also heard elsewhere that one method they would have employed to diminish the effectiveness of NATO's nuclear weapons was to "hug" and mingle with the enemy to complicate targeting.
I think that would serve the space!Soviets well, at least in a nuclear or nuclear threatened environment.
That would definitely be workable, particularly if it uses a bus complete with MIRVs to 1) strike more targets and 2) saturate enemy defences.
So far as warhead options go, well, this is a soft sci-fi work so almost anything is feasible. For example, they might use kinetic penetrators where collateral damage is undesirable (which brings up the question of why they'd be using orbital bombardment in the first place, but shhhhh!
).
Yes, by the simple expedient of sending something FTL and then letting it smack into the planet of those jerks waaaaaaaay over there.
But unless your setting loves having a bunch of dead worlds, I would be surprised if that wouldn't be illegal under their laws and conventions of warfare.
Keep things moving, keep things diffuse enough to minimize their big guns effect on target. Get so close to the enemy that orbital bombardment risks blue-on-blue or excessive civilian collateral damage. (If the enemy cares about such things anyways...)
So in my understanding it would be the same remedy Deep Battle proscribed for advances in artillery and precision guided munitions (remain dispersed except when actually engaging the enemy, consider concentrating fires rather than forces, etc.) except more so?
Or, to put it another way, only concentrate when absolutely necessary. And getting close to the enemy would be very effective, simply because flattening a city (or getting several of your own units rendered combat ineffective) would be very unpopular. It would also introduce a margin of uncertainty (do you risk hitting your own men to stop that armoured unit that's kicking everyone's asses or not?) that could be exploited.
Locking you up on radar since '09Well, figure a given artillery piece has a range of five miles (back pocket estimate). You could easily disperse a battery across a relatively broad area to make massed counterfire difficult while still allowing them to cooperate with each other both in ganging up on individual objectives and providing mutual coverage against enemy ground or air attack. Of course, this idea is all good until you have to move everything and the available geography only presents you with a limited number of options for movement (say, a pass where you could be easily cut off by a prepared enemy).
Nathaniel Fick noted that the American planners failed to realize that an Iraqi defense against an American invasion would not necessarily play out the same as an American defense against a foreign invasion. While the Americans would burn every bridge as they retreated, forcing the enemy to make time-consuming river crossings, the Iraqis left every bridge intact, tempting the highly mobile American forces to use the main river crossings, neatly putting themselves in the cross hairs of prepared ambushes.
He also noted that the Iraqis would have done a lot better if their forces were properly trained and motivated to actually use most of the numerous defensive advantages they had over the invading Americans, but a cross of poor morale-induced staying power and poor training-induced inaccurate fire meant that American forces would often come out victorious despite boldly marching into the maws of the enemy (to paraphrase his assessment: Iraqi incompetence in battle managed to trump American incompetence in preparation)
edited 19th Nov '14 1:08:42 PM by AFP
Pretty much.
Well, it's always a trade-off. No plan or position is perfect! So the space!Soviets would just need to make the best of it.
And as for Mr. Fick's analysis, well, mirror imaging has always been a problem for commanders. Still, very interesting, particularly since I didn't know about that before!
I forgot to mention it earlier, but mobile anti-orbital systems are valid in my setting - think stuff equivalent to the S-300 family in terms of size and mobility. Hence, they could dissuade orbital bombardment by providing a protective "umbrella" over friendly areas.
Locking you up on radar since '09^ Now that's just an Epic Fail. 7vs1 at point blank and you still lose to the 1? There's not a desk in the world strong enough to withstand the incoming.
To be fair though, when they tried to blow a few up because they became irrecoverably stuck, they found that the front of the hull and front and sides of the turret were immune to even the M1's gun even at next to point-blank range, so the fact that the T-72s were unable to do much is only to be expected.
What you want to give them isn't panthers, it's Stu Gs. Especially in a defensive war.
Funny you mention quality. The Iraqi tanks were already export version T-72's to begin with. They had to use non-standard Soviet/Russian kit made in other countries to upgrade and maintain their tank forces in the first place. Their guns should have been able to do something unless they had non-standard kit and munitions as well.
Qunatity has a quality all it's own does have some limits.
Who watches the watchmen?You dare badmouth the Panther? Its armor is made from steel folded a thousand times, its cannon forged from the same steel and temper as Curtana, Joyeuse, and Durendal! Its gasoline, unfortunately, came from oilfields the US Army Air Forces burned to the ground. Also, none of the previous stuff is true either.

During the Rebellion against Gaddafhi i recall hearing about a 5 inch gun swatting tanks that got too close tot he shore line.
Saber: The biggest hang ups for orbital to surface bombardment is scale and delivery time. I do recall the Russians became rather adept at using well timed and coordinated artillery barrages alongside their maneuvers and attacks. You would have to carefully select your targets and time it so the AOE of the strikes is dissipating rather then in the process of heading out as the troops are moving in. Basically time the attacks and maneuvers to work shortly after a strike hits. You would want your weapons being delivered to not have an AOE so large your forces take too long to move in to take full advantage of the strikes effects so things like Massive Kinetics or Nukes might be a bit tricky to use as they both present large scale long term hazard post impact.
Basically what I could see being used is a MIRV or Ballistic missile like weapon fired from orbit containing a large but powerful conventional weapon package of some sort. Think like loading up the Russian R-36 but packing large conventional warhead(s) of some sort. Not sure what your warhead options are but something that is somewhere between a FOAB and low yield nuke is probably what you are looking for.
edited 18th Nov '14 12:50:34 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?