The Role of Ground Forces in Interstellar Warfare

[Crom's Black Blade]

The RT figures, consistent in this regard with many other sources give several years on average to cross the whole damn galaxy.
With a caveat that a particularly talented and well equipped navigator can make the journey considerably quicker, down to about a year (though that's something only the likes of Astartes, Lord Inquisitors and well off Rogue Traders may pull off), and depending on warp events and lanes used, some legs of the journey will be much faster than others.
We're talking about 100k lightyears for the galaxy technically, or about 75k for Imperium itself, skipping the fringes. Even in the latter case, we're talking about averaging about 10-15k in a year, or 30-45 LY per day.

By "RT" do you refer to Rogue Trader(1987) or another book? Because I did a quick search through the former, thanks to the link provided by @JagerIV , and found this:

Under the intuitive guidance of the navigator, a ship is able to traverse distances of tens of thousands of light years in a single jump. Perceived journey time is 1-4 days per thousand light years, equivalent to 1-6 months of real time. Even so, a journey from one edge of the galaxy to the other would take between 85 and 510 months of real time.

Which suggests the "several years" isn't the average but closer to a high end optimal figure with decades to cover such distance being possible even with the help of a navigator.

For the figure given for a thousand light year journey works out, assuming a 30-day month and rounding both of the year figures down for simplicity, should work out between 33.3 light years per day to 5.5 on the low end.

The from one edge of the galaxy offers similar figures with 39 LY per day to a low of 6.6 a surprisingly similar figure..

Now it's quite possible elsewhere in the book they give a different time figure, or you were referring to a different book entirely so I was curious if you happen to have the quote you were specifically referring too.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Erm...Imperial Guard regiments aren't exactly small formations of soldiers...and there's a thousand other fronts that need constant supplies of manpower.

Where does it say that? The Imperium is far more short on advanced gear for the manpower than the manpower itself.

Let's you and him fight then.

 

[Marduk]

By "RT" do you refer to Rogue Trader(1987) or another book? Because I did a quick search through the former, thanks to the link provided by @JagerIV , and found this:



Which suggests the "several years" isn't the average but closer to a high end optimal figure with decades to cover such distance being possible even with the help of a navigator.

For the figure given for a thousand light year journey works out, assuming a 30-day month and rounding both of the year figures down for simplicity, should work out between 33.3 light years per day to 5.5 on the low end.

The from one edge of the galaxy offers similar figures with 39 LY per day to a low of 6.6 a surprisingly similar figure..

Now it's quite possible elsewhere in the book they give a different time figure, or you were referring to a different book entirely so I was curious if you happen to have the quote you were specifically referring too.

That would more likely be the route and warp condition variation. Even the basic navigation roll chart from RT offers from 1/4 to 4x the "GM Estimate" depending on the roll (which i think those figures are for), and 6 years times 16 would not be anything near 40 years, and then there are later RT books that add warp travel time affecting ship components and such on top of that, there is even a warp drive model that halves travel time on top of these normal factors and it doesn't even qualify as archeotech.
Meanwhile 6 years with good roll giving 1/4 time plus some other bonuses stacked would get close to a year.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

That would more likely be the route and warp condition variation. Even the basic navigation roll chart from RT offers from 1/4 to 4x the "GM Estimate" depending on the roll (which i think those figures are for), and 6 years times 16 would not be anything near 40 years, and then there are later RT books that add warp travel time affecting ship components and such on top of that, there is even a warp drive model that halves travel time and it doesn't even qualify as archeotech.
Meanwhile 6 years with good roll giving 1/4 time plus some other bonuses stacked would get close to a year.

Well obviously Fluff would take priority to game mechanics I would think.

 

[Scooby Doo]

I'm aware, the problem is you can't square that reasonably with them also being desperately short of manpower. As I said above, the Imperium says they're short of manpower but acts like lives are cheap and disposable.


I don't think Starship Troopers ever really gives us any concrete numbers for speed. What are you basing this on?

The Mongoose role playing game gives a TON of lore info just like the 40k board game guides.

 

[Bear Ribs]

The Mongoose role playing game gives a TON of lore info just like the 40k board game guides.

Why the heck would that ever be considered useful? It's an out-of-print RPG with little in common with the other settings besides the names. You really need to get over the idea that every random thing written on some bubblegum wrapper can be taken as definitive truth.

The Mongoose game in particular was called out by the authors as being its own setting, with elements from various disparate franchises welded together rather than being canon to any of them.

 

[Vyor]

My question being: how is any of this even relevant to the thread?

 

[Bear Ribs]

My question being: how is any of this even relevant to the thread?

Fair enough.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Why the heck would that ever be considered useful? It's an out-of-print RPG with little in common with the other settings besides the names. You really need to get over the idea that every random thing written on some bubblegum wrapper can be taken as definitive truth.

Uhn it has plenty in common, it includes elements of the major battles (Kleandathu and Pluto Campaign). It says even in the link you posted it's based on the Films and TV show.

I wouldn't call five publications made for it (they got the license for it) any less canon then 343's expanded universe lore which is vastly different from the original Halo trilogy.

The Mongoose game in particular was called out by the authors as being its own setting, with elements from various disparate franchises welded together rather than being canon to any of them.

It doesn't say it isn't canon, SST doesn't even have a canon policy. All they're doing is using a composite of the existing content, there is no hierarchy like Star Wars.

 

[Marduk]

My question being: how is any of this even relevant to the thread?

Strategy and logistics... The speed and method of moving ground forces around the place has massive implications for their role in any setting.
Even within 40k, you can see the differences between the doctrine of Astartes with their relatively fast warp ships, IG using slower transports, and Eldar with their very much quick, spec ops style operations through very fast webway gates.
If you can send forces quickly in reaction to something, small scale spec ops style deployments are absolutely an option, but if the delay is measured in months or years, it may well be "full invasion or don't even bother because whatever was going to happen already happened".

 

[Vyor]

Strategy and logistics... The speed and method of moving ground forces around the place has massive implications for their role in any setting.
Even within 40k, you can see the differences between the doctrine of Astartes with their relatively fast warp ships, IG using slower transports, and Eldar with their very much quick, spec ops style operations through very fast webway gates.
If you can send forces quickly in reaction to something, small scale spec ops style deployments are absolutely an option, but if the delay is measured in months or years, it may well be "full invasion or don't even bother because whatever was going to happen already happened".

Sure, but the thread is about the role of ground forces period, as in asking why they're useful at all. Being able to get them somewhere fast doesn't make them useful. When they do when there does.

 

[ATP]

If you want to take and hold ground, you need boots on the ground.

Copious amounts of boots on the ground.

Or,if you have very good teleporters or/and good precise striking from orbit,just few observers which would coordinate fire till enemy is deal with.
With lots of drones to check it for them.

 

[Vyor]

Or,if you have very good teleporters or/and good precise striking from orbit,just few observers which would coordinate fire till enemy is deal with.
With lots of drones to check it for them.

Or even just a decent amount of orbit to atmosphere fighter/bomber craft.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Only with ground forces can you truly enjoy crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you and hearing the lamentations of their women effeminate members of their species.

You can do all of these things from orbit yes, but watching it through a satellite or drone feedback isn't the same as directly witnessing what is best in life and thus loses its luster.

 

[JagerIV]

Then it makes you wonder, why the hell bother fighting for these sparely populated areas lmao 😂


I remember one episode where the Separatists invaded a planet that had stone age technology (literal stone huts)...for reasons (didn't even mine it) and the Republic fought over like three major cities.

Well, to be fair, why was the bloodiest battle of the American Civil War fought over Gettysburg, a town of then 3,000 people, on which roughly 200,000 men converged? And of course the battle of Midway occurred around an island that has zero native inhabitants. The village named after the castle the battle of Agincourt is named after seems to have been around 100-200 people.

These things do happen with a fair degree of regularity. In fact, one would be tempted to say a great many battles, especially meeting battles, take place in places without all that much there, but are on the way to something actually valuable.

Edit: and for more modern examples, The Iraqi army was destroyed in a featureless desert 100-200 km West of Kuwait, the issue at stake in the war. Combat in Kuwait itself was relatively very minor.

 

[ATP]

Or even just a decent amount of orbit to atmosphere fighter/bomber craft.

Indeed,but capable enemy would schoot them.Could do notching to orbital bombardment or teleporters.

 

[Vyor]

Indeed,but capable enemy would schoot them.Could do notching to orbital bombardment or teleporters.

true, but if the enemy still has AA up then your ground forces fucked up. You can't be sure teleporters or orbital bombardment will work.

 

[Marduk]

true, but if the enemy still has AA up then your ground forces fucked up. You can't be sure teleporters or orbital bombardment will work.

Massively depends on technological balance of offense vs defense in setting, and also level of investment in the particular planet. On one side of the spectrum you have settings that struggle massively with large and fast rocks without relying on a starship to handle it. And then you have settings with city\planetary shields that can tank orbital bombardment from a whole fleet for months or years, and even shoot back while at it. Even if a setting has such toys though, it's unlikely every planet has this level of defense - say, in 40k, Terra, Luna, Cadia or even average Astartes homeworld can have some insane defenses that can at least hold a major fleet for considerable time, but that doesn't mean the average mining colony or civilized world has the same, most of them won't have anything close to that.
And if it does, the question is, can the fleet at least make a hole in the defenses, even if it can't just wreck everything from outside the range of return fire, if that's even a desirable result in the first place?

In some cases the defenses would also cover only some section of the planet, city, continent, or so to begin with rather than having a uniform full spherical coverage, allowing ships to approach for a landing from another angle and use the planet itself to shield a landing from the defenses.

 

[JagerIV]

Hm, these debates do often seem to come to the belief the theorists of the 1950s "nukes make every other weapon irrelevant" were right, which I don't think history bring out.

Lets look at some historical, post nukes examples, and think about how the battle changes if space assets are available. Here's a list:

1) Falklands war
2) Gulf War
3) Annexation of Crimea (Ukraine 2014)
4) Kosovo War

All of these were Wars over territory (Falklands, Kuwait, Crimea/dombras, Kosovo) involving nuclear powers. If the factions involved had real space assets, how do any of these conflicts change, and does it negate the need for surface forces? My gut inclination is no.

Falklands both sides wanted to keep limited, and getting the Argentinians off the island without some ground forces with anything like acceptable casualties seems limited.

Gulf War I'm not sure space weapons would be all that meaningfully damaging than the air campaign was. In Fact, I could see replicating the effect of the air campaign with purely spaced based assets being dramatically more expensive than the air campaign. And, as damaging as the air campaign was, it also clearly not enough on its own to force an Iraqi withdrawal. How much firepower would it take to win that war from spacepower alone?

Space forces might give the Russians some advantage in that conflict, but mostly in deployment of the little green men to even more quickly carry out its faint accompli, and frustrate Ukrainian military operations against the Donbas Rebels. Complementary to the ground forces achieving their objectives, but not in any way a replacement, with the troops on the ground being the key asset.

And Kosovo like the gulf war already involved a massive air campain, and its not clear how much space assets would improve on what was achieved with ground forces. Nor if the Kosovo campain would have suceeded without a credible ground invasion threat.

 

[Marduk]

Hm, these debates do often seem to come to the belief the theorists of the 1950s "nukes make every other weapon irrelevant" were right, which I don't think history bring out.

Lets look at some historical, post nukes examples, and think about how the battle changes if space assets are available. Here's a list:

1) Falklands war
2) Gulf War
3) Annexation of Crimea (Ukraine 2014)
4) Kosovo War

All of these were Wars over territory (Falklands, Kuwait, Crimea/dombras, Kosovo) involving nuclear powers. If the factions involved had real space assets, how do any of these conflicts change, and does it negate the need for surface forces? My gut inclination is no.

Falklands both sides wanted to keep limited, and getting the Argentinians off the island without some ground forces with anything like acceptable casualties seems limited.

Gulf War I'm not sure space weapons would be all that meaningfully damaging than the air campaign was. In Fact, I could see replicating the effect of the air campaign with purely spaced based assets being dramatically more expensive than the air campaign. And, as damaging as the air campaign was, it also clearly not enough on its own to force an Iraqi withdrawal. How much firepower would it take to win that war from spacepower alone?

Space forces might give the Russians some advantage in that conflict, but mostly in deployment of the little green men to even more quickly carry out its faint accompli, and frustrate Ukrainian military operations against the Donbas Rebels. Complementary to the ground forces achieving their objectives, but not in any way a replacement, with the troops on the ground being the key asset.

And Kosovo like the gulf war already involved a massive air campain, and its not clear how much space assets would improve on what was achieved with ground forces. Nor if the Kosovo campain would have suceeded without a credible ground invasion threat.

A large part of the reluctance to use nukes come with the psychological and political dimension of radioactive contamination combined with the "wherever wind blows" caveat.
When you fight over whole planets and/or have DEWs with power measured in kilotons or megatons, it's completely different.
Nukes don't make every other weapon irrelevant, but nukes\orbital bombardment do double as superheavy artillery\air support if you are willing to use them as such.