Attack or Defend?

[trader jim]

Yeah....Liam you coulda been a Contender!!!!..
but...no....you hada turn to the Dark Side...and get mixed up in that NEW ERA stuff!!!

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
IYTU, yes, they do not work; IMTU, no-they work fer me.

That's your biz, but by the rules and by logic a practically motionless object is useless as a space weapon.

WHich isn't the same as technological parity you alluded to between USSR and Nazi germany at the time,-that's using human numbers to throw continuously at an attritional rate and out spend your enemy til he is no more.

They had numerical superiority.
And the sides were roughly technologically equal.
Two completely different facts, but facts nonetheless.

I am a serviceman, In the Infantry, and now in the reserves of the same branch, here in the USA. I have defended from fixed and mobile stations, airfields, and Patriot Missile batteries in Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia.

Who where you attacked by? When you said you defended a piece of territory, I thought you actually came under attack.
All of us who have been in the armed forces have at some point done exercises. Though in my line of work we don't defend territory anyway.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Tobias:
That's your biz, but by the rules and by logic a practically motionless object is useless as a space weapon.

Motionless as a mine/missile? aye, till it detects and engages and attacks at High Gee, fairly useless without a target.


WHich isn't the same as technological parity you alluded to between USSR and Nazi germany at the time,-that's using human numbers to throw continuously at an attritional rate and out spend your enemy til he is no more.

They had numerical superiority. And the sides were roughly technologically equal. Two completely different facts, but facts nonetheless.

Facts, like weapons, their worth depends on how you use them in an argument, Tobias.


I am a serviceman, In the Infantry, and now in the reserves of the same branch, here in the USA. I have defended from fixed and mobile stations, airfields, and Patriot Missile batteries in Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. [/QUOTE]Who where you attacked by? When you said you defended a piece of territory, I thought you actually came under attack.

You presume/ assume defending means coming under attack. It does not sir. I think you need re-read my statement again...and not read into it this time. Remember--the GOAL of defence is to deter/ stop an enemy attack. if you ACCOMPLISH these, you win/ may resume offensive operations, gain that precious initiative you spoke so highly of.


All of us who have been in the armed forces have at some point done exercises. Though in my line of work we don't defend territory anyway.

Ahh, and if one did not do "exercises", how does one know if one can do a thing or not? Goes two ways Tobias, in offense or defense.
Hence TRAINING is esssential in preparedness, and the self *defense* of one's nation.

AS for OFFENSE-- even a CDR in the attack (pick your medium air sea, space, ground) MUST be able to conduct such operations with regards to his flanks and rear's security (a defensive measure)-lest the enemy exploit these and, as you say lose the initiative.

I think we'd really like to settle this over a chess game sometime. I think you'd be an aggressive attacker-I'd enjoy playing a match, like this post!

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by trader jim:
Yeah....Liam you coulda been a Contender!!!!..
but...no....you hada turn to the Dark Side...and get mixed up in that NEW ERA stuff!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OFF TOPIC: Sorry Jim, its *never was any secret* there, I use CT and Hg stuff still--sketch out a ship, then like our starport thingy we're working on..then flesh her out TNE style for the detail hungry player in the group [ya know the type-"must-know" how many MW the power plant gives out after they've taken a hit or such].

back on topic, resume discussion/ poll..offfense vs Defense.

 

[womble]

Soloprobe said:

Womble,
Astronomers today can see planets,stars and, Nebulae Billions of Miles into space. You can see stars light years away from the planet's surafce(Some of us call it stargazing). With the right optics you can see satelites and even spacecraft moving through space. Why is Jumpspace opaque? Because you think the cannon says so?

If you disregard canon in a discission like this, it's helpful if you state the premises upon which you are working. Sure, IYTU, you can have whatever you like, but if you deviate too far from the common ground the discussion rapidly becomes unmanageable.

Those of us who call looking at points of light in the sky "astronomy" realise that the light you see from a star one to 6 parsecs (a week's jump) away has taken between 3.26 and 19.56 years to arrive. Sure, with superoptics, you can spot that J-2 invasion fleet getting ready to leave home. But not until 6 and a half years after they've turned up and subjugated you and your planet (if you were basing your defense on spotting them coming through J-space).

Though I think it's pretty strongly inferred in the canon that J-space is not observable from N-space (certainly N-space is not observable from J-space), you're right, it might be possible to see something moving at nerly 190c (J1). Anybody care to calculate what visible light will have been doppler shifted to? Do the equations even work at that speed? But Canon definitely precludes any FTL sensors (or you'd be able to communicate FTL without sending a ship) so an interstellar invasion fleet travelling in Jump will always emerge before sensors can even pick up that they're about to, let alone that they began Jumping a week ago.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Motionless as a mine/missile? aye, till it detects and engages and attacks at High Gee, fairly useless without a target.

If the mines in your example would all fill that description, they might have use. Although they would then simply be missiles.
However, they don't. At least not all of them.

Facts, like weapons, their worth depends on how you use them in an argument, Tobias.

Indeed. You claimed Germany was significantly technologically superior - which it wasn't.
Point - counterpoint.

You presume/ assume defending means coming under attack. It does not sir. I think you need re-read my statement again...

When making statements about the tactical merits of defense in a combat situation, it is not useful to take examples where no combat actually took place.
Although I have to repeat: The tactical merits of ground defense are not what we're talking about here.

Ahh, and if one did not do "exercises", how does one know if one can do a thing or not? Goes two ways Tobias, in offense or defense.

Yes, but I don't know what the point is here. Of course it is essential to be prepared for the defender as well as the attacker.

AS for OFFENSE-- even a CDR in the attack (pick your medium air sea, space, ground) MUST be able to conduct such operations with regards to his flanks and rear's security (a defensive measure)-lest the enemy exploit these and, as you say lose the initiative.

For naval warfare things are somewhat different. There are defensive tasks and missions there, but they are very different from those in ground combat.
In Traveller space warfare, things are all different again, because there are no "aircraft". no "submarines" and no workable "mines". I would even say there is no equivalent to a "torpedo boat".

I think we'd really like to settle this over a chess game sometime. I think you'd be an aggressive attacker-I'd enjoy playing a match, like this post!

Chess, for all of its merits, is an abstract game. It can teach strategic thought, but it does bear little resemblance to actual military situations. Thus I might as well adopt a "defensive" posture there.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Tobias:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If the mines in your example would all fill that description, they might have use. Although they would then simply be missiles.
However, they don't. At least not all of them.
Well one is merely a lunch vehhicle for deployment of said for a turret/ or bay missile arrnagement. One of those weapons is merely the robotic CT/HG High Passage adventure Interdiction satellite vehicle (which does launch missiles, and is mobile, and stelthy (as well as small).

--parsing up what is a mine & what is a missile now? LOL..<grins> Aye. its a mine in the sensde its sits there and waits to be tripped/ triggered..then its a missile in execution phase, most of these.


Facts, like weapons, their worth depends on how you use them in an argument, Tobias.

Indeed. You claimed Germany was significantly technologically superior - which it wasn't.
Point - counterpoint.

*IMO, It was, prior to the advent of the T-34..
countered again. germanies armor and airforce at the start of Barbarossa outclassed Russian armor and airforce.- Stalin's factories beyond the Urals had to play catch up, and the Army of the Siberian east had to be transferred to make up the differences..AT the outset, Russia had numbers only to her advantage in manpower.


You presume/ assume defending means coming under attack. It does not sir. I think you need re-read my statement again...</font>[/QUOTE]When making statements about the tactical merits of defense in a combat situation, it is not useful to take examples where no combat actually took place.
Although I have to repeat: The tactical merits of ground defense are not what we're talking about here.

to recap: The last question was-- whether I had defended anything, when where and whom. The thread's over all topic is which do you like best offense or defense, before we crossed wits a few posts ago. The merits of defense (never mind the medium (air land sea, space) in which it pertains) are what we are pro & conning here--at least I am.<shrug>


Ahh, and if one did not do "exercises", how does one know if one can do a thing or not? Goes two ways Tobias, in offense or defense.[/QUOTE]Yes, but I don't know what the point is here. Of course it is essential to be prepared for the defender as well as the attacker.

Thank you for acknowledging that at least, Tobias!


AS for OFFENSE-- even a CDR in the attack (pick your medium air sea, space, ground) MUST be able to conduct such operations with regards to his flanks and rear's security (a defensive measure)-lest the enemy exploit these and, as you say lose the initiative.[/QUOTE]For naval warfare things are somewhat different. There are defensive tasks and missions there, but they are very different from those in ground combat.
In Traveller space warfare, things are all different again, because there are no "aircraft". no "submarines" and no workable "mines". I would even say there is no equivalent to a "torpedo boat".

Well traveller, space combat is 3-D..as for no aircraft??? I seem to recall Space Ftrs even in CT..
As for Torpedoe boats,
are these not missile frigates? (very few laser weapons/ missile heavy ships?)-lad, the SDB fits this to a Tee..(in U-Boat analogy-ambushing out of gas giants, etc..)


I think we'd really like to settle this over a chess game sometime. I think you'd be an aggressive attacker-I'd enjoy playing a match, like this post! [/QUOTE]Chess, for all of its merits, is an abstract game. It can teach strategic thought, but it does bear little resemblance to actual military situations. Thus I might as well adopt a "defensive" posture there.

Strategic thought is behind this entire discussion.

Slainte!

 

[plop101]

Interesting subject.

IIRC, from James Dunnigan's book "How To Make War," all things being equal, the side defending is supposed to have a 1.5 to 1 advantage over the attacker. Why the does the defender have this advantage? Well, the attacker has to move; the defender doesn't.

How does this translate to Traveller? All things being equal, a fleet built purely for defense [ie SDB's and Monitors] will generally defeat a equally sized fleet composed of jump capable ships.

Capture and Conquest vs Total Destruction:
Does the attacker have to conquer the world and occupy it, or does the attacker merely need to destroy the significant bits on the surface of the planet? Destroying a target is a lot easier than capturing it.

How does this translate to Traveller? If, as the attacker, my leadership has authorized destruction of said world, all I need to do is fling mass quantities of stand off WMD[ie flung asteriods] at the world from a safe distance. Big Rocks are cheap, hard to defend against, and would force defender to expend resources on rock defense that would otherwise be committed to counter attacking the intruder fleet. Also, intruder fleet can now can use its mobility to avoid being attacked by native fleet. Take an attack on Sol system. By conquest, we have to go into close orbit, expose the fleet to planetary defense, drag in jump troops and landing craft, fight the defense fleet, etc.
By destruction, I can set the intruder fleet anywhere in the asteroid belt, and fling rocks at Earth. If native fleet comes out, intruder fleet jumps to the far side of the belt, and flings more rocks. Native fleet now has to spread its forces out to stop these rock raids. In my universe, that shifts the advantage to the attacker.

However, and I cannot stress this enough, there are many, many other variables to consider. Given the nature of the poll, having just two choices, attack or defend, I chose attack, but quite honestly these things are a alot more complicated than that.

Happy Grognarding!

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by plop101:
IIRC, from James Dunnigan's book "How To Make War," all things being equal, the side defending is supposed to have a 1.5 to 1 advantage over the attacker. Why the does the defender have this advantage? Well, the attacker has to move; the defender doesn't.

I'll say it again: Tactically, defense has its merits. And the points you bring up are all good and true. But strategically, attacking is the advantage.
Consider the example of SDBs/Monitors vs. jump-capable warships. Ton for ton, the system craft are at a significant advantage.
However, see it in the strategic context. Let's say we have Pocket Empire A and Pocket Empire B, both with 10 worlds each and comparable levels of population, technology and industry.

Empire A has invested most of its resources in system craft and planetary defenses.
Empire B has invested most of its resources in jump-capable battlefleets and assault craft.

Sure, Empire A's forces may have an advantage in fighting power of two to one over Empire B's. But Empire B can concentrate its forces to tackle a fraction of Empire A's forces at a time. Empire A's resources will also be diminished as worlds fall, while Empire B's resources will remain untouched even when one of its attacks fails.

Creating local superiority is what strategic initiative is all about.

You can win battles, but you can't win a war by staying on the defense.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
parsing up what is a mine & what is a missile now?

A missile is something that can move, fast. Some of those mines only had 0.2Gs acceleration. They don't count as missiles in my book.

countered again. germanies armor and airforce at the start of Barbarossa outclassed Russian armor and airforce.

Technologically? I dunno. Our pre-Tiger and Panther tanks were fairly wimpy. Certainly inferior to, say, a KV-1.
Germany had superior fighter aircraft, for sure, but the Ju-87 was becoming obsolete as a ground attack craft.
The two main points:
- The forces were definitely not even close to a full tech level apart, as you implied in the original post.
- The Soviet countermeasures to German superiority in quality involved no "low-tech ingenuity", but simply throwing masses of cannonfodder into the fray to slow down the German forces.

Well traveller, space combat is 3-D..as for no aircraft??? I seem to recall Space Ftrs even in CT..

People usually use the analogy:
Spaceship = Naval ship
Space Fighter = Fighter Aircraft
This analogy is false. See the thread on that sometime back.
The gist is that a 200-kiloton dreadnought and a 20-ton fighter move in the same medium, while a 100-kiloton aircraft carrier and and F-14 Tomcat do not.
In Space there is no "higher level" for fast movement, as for aircraft, nor a "lower level" for stealth as for submarines.

As for Torpedoe boats, are these not missile frigates? (very few laser weapons/ missile heavy ships?)-lad, the SDB fits this to a Tee..(in U-Boat analogy-ambushing out of gas giants, etc..)

These analogies might hold some water depending on the rule system you use. But in CT, a Dreadnought normally only fears God and (another) Dreadnought.
Missile boats can be a thread, but only if deployed in sky-darkening masses. They lack the ability of striking at a weak spot, like a torpedo boat could.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Zutroi]

I find I must concur that traveller has no equivalent of the airplane or submarine.

My logic? Both are small units (perhaps undetectable) capable of performing 'one shot, one hit, one kill' strikes on capitol vessels. Sure, there are 10 to 50 ton COACC craft, but they CAN'T destroy or cripple a Tigress with a single missile.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Tobias:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
parsing up what is a mine & what is a missile now?

A missile is something that can move, fast. Some of those mines only had 0.2Gs acceleration. They don't count as missiles in my book.

countered again. germanies armor and airforce at the start of Barbarossa outclassed Russian armor and airforce.

Technologically? I dunno. Our pre-Tiger and Panther tanks were fairly wimpy. Certainly inferior to, say, a KV-1.Germany had superior fighter aircraft, for sure, but the Ju-87 was becoming obsolete as a ground attack craft.

Prior to the debut of the T-34, technologically, you were ahead of them. I have this from Gernman historical sources written on actions of the Operation known as barbarossa. Not to mention the Abwe=her pre-strike of 1938 which allowed Stalin to assume his High command was riddled with spies and "purged" the Red Army of *treasonous* elements.

The two main points:
- The forces were definitely not even close to a full tech level apart, as you implied in the original post.
- The Soviet countermeasures to German superiority in quality involved no "low-tech ingenuity", but simply throwing masses of cannonfodder into the fray to slow down the German forces.

1-And strategically or tactically the offensive failed in Russia. Germany bit off more than it could chew. And was forced back to a defensive war. Losing Africa(1943) and Italy (when the switched sides again), and another front into France in June 1944 didn't help either.
2- Tobias, I *must* (cheerfully, mind ye!)disagree, the Zulu's did the same to the british empire with numbers at several battles-tis the oldest low tech strategy there is--the human wave asslt.

Well traveller, space combat is 3-D..as for no aircraft??? I seem to recall Space Ftrs even in CT..

People usually use the analogy:
Spaceship = Naval ship
Space Fighter = Fighter Aircraft
This analogy is false. See the thread on that sometime back.
The gist is that a 200-kiloton dreadnought and a 20-ton fighter move in the same medium, while a 100-kiloton aircraft carrier and and F-14 Tomcat do not.
In Space there is no "higher level" for fast movement, as for aircraft, nor a "lower level" for stealth as for submarines.

As for Torpedoe boats, are these not missile frigates? (very few laser weapons/ missile heavy ships?)-lad, the SDB fits this to a Tee..(in U-Boat analogy-ambushing out of gas giants, etc..)

These analogies might hold some water depending on the rule system you use. But in CT, a Dreadnought normally only fears God and (another) Dreadnought.
Missile boats can be a thread, but only if deployed in sky-darkening masses. They lack the ability of striking at a weak spot, like a torpedo boat could.-Tobias </font>[/QUOTE]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ah, dependent on what rule system I use, eh?Well apples and oranges then!<grins>!

And any dreadnought can be brought down by sufficient missile damage (never mind planetary meson fires). The analogy is of rats gnawing down a lion-many rats die, but so too, the lion.
_________________________________________________

as for the "original topic":
A little debate currently rages in "The Fleet" regarding attack and defense of hi-value worlds. So fellow Arm-chair Admirals, which side of the battle would you prefer to find yourself in charge of?

I prefer the defense still, of a High value world. NO MATTER THE Game rules!<smiles> still. We'll argue WW 2 another day another Thread Tobias. <bows>..

auf wiedersehen.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Prior to the debut of the T-34, technologically, you were ahead of them.

Well, that's certainly debatable for armor, but the T-34 was already becoming available in 1941 and the KV was available even earlier.
In any case, I repeat: Any discrepancies were not even close to a full TL.
The more decisive factors were training, organization, leadership and the fact that Germany launched a surprise attack (of sorts).

2- Tobias, I *must* (cheerfully, mind ye!)disagree, the Zulu's did the same to the british empire with numbers at several battles-tis the oldest low tech strategy there is--the human wave asslt.

What kind of "ingenuity" is that? It's simply desperation using the only advantage you have. If the Zulus had numbers comparable to the Brits, they would have been wiped out immediately.

When numbers are equal, the technologically superior force has an advantage. I think no one can rightly deny that.

Ah, dependent on what rule system I use, eh?Well apples and oranges then!<grins>!

They might, that is not to say they will.
I'm mainly arguing from a CT/MT and perhaps GT perspective.
TNE changed some basic technological assumptions to such a degree as to be incompatible with the earlier Traveller background - and they wanted to change even more...
Apart from the fact that I thoroughly detest TNE's background, this incompatibility makes it diffcult to consider in a general discussion.

And any dreadnought can be brought down by sufficient missile damage (never mind planetary meson fires). The analogy is of rats gnawing down a lion-many rats die, but so too, the lion.

The best even large swarms of missile boats can do is scrub away the Dreadnought's exterior weapons and maybe its fuel tanks, even using nuclear missiles, which a well-designed TL 15 ship is nigh-invulnerable to.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[plop101]

Tobias: Attack!
Liam: Defend!
Tobias: Rabbit Season!
Liam: Duck Season!
etc etc etc ad infinitem->

Reposting:

However, and I cannot stress this enough, there are many, many other variables to consider. Given the nature of the poll, having just two choices, attack or defend, I chose attack, but quite honestly these things are alot more complicated than that.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Cast as Bugs Bunny (Liam)--gee thanks Plop101!

 

[Tobias]

Actually, plop, we have been exchanging arguments in order to stress our points. Theis technique (you seem to be unfamiliar with it) is called a discussion.

As for your words of wisdom so great they merited reposting: Great. "There are many, many other variables to consider."
O geeze, if I only had known that before!
Any more pearls of wisdom like: "It depends on the situation"?

Regards,

Tobias

 

[plop101]

from Tobias:

Any more pearls of wisdom like: "It depends on the situation"?

Obviously not a Bugs Bunny fan. Oh well, it takes all kinds I guess.

"It depends on the situation" may not sound neat and sexy, but its better than telling your forces to attack on all fronts when they are getting the snot beat out of them.

 

[Ran Targas]

Gentlemen, I propose that you are missing the most important factor when it comes to warfare, leadership!

There are so many variables to be factored in from TL, focus of technological development and application (ex: missiles vs. guns), composition of forces, concentration of forces, system topography, availability of supplies and resources, flexibility of forces/platforms, available intelligence, development of tactics, use of countermeasures and stealth, militarization of planetary population, BUT leadership is truly the great equalizer.

Examining historical battles and campaigns inevitably exposes opportunities lost by one side or the other that would have turned the tide of the battle; opportunities only recognized in hind sight. The great leaders are able to embrace these opportunities, poor leaders do not.

You want to take a planet of equal strength and capability, you better have superior leadership!

 

[Liam Devlin]

Or if ye want to save it, the same, Ran Targas..<smiles>.Touche'& well said.