Why is the Federation army so weak?

[Gustav32Vasa]

Yes.

And modern body armour, which in many cases offers minimal resistance against direct hits?

Yes.

[Gustav32Vasa]

Wasn't some one identified as federation marine in one DS9 epsidoe? I remember hearin about that here once...

Yes but I cant remember the episode.

[Skylon]

We have heard about personal force fields, but we have never heard about the Marines in TNG+ era.

I don't recall hearing about them prior to that either. Unless the guys in armour that we see in TMP are Marines.

I seem to recall some tech manuals from the 80's stating those guys were basically redshirts. Its just in the movie-era security goons got body armor.

Of course in Star Trek III there are some pretty doofy looking security guards in Starfleet HQ (the guy who calls Sulu "tiny"). Dunno their deal.

In terms of Starfleet learning from its mistakes...I got two...

1) The plexi-glass (I'm sorry, probably transparent aluminum) shield between the transporter and the transporter chief added to the Enterprise transporter room in the movies I thought was smart and wish they kept it in the TNG-era. God knows WHAT they'd be beaming up.

2) The TNG "remote control" phasers I attribute to progress. I know they don't look like guns but I think that's the point. It seemed whenever Kirk and company beamed down the aliens knew exactly what the weapons were and made sure to grab them off Kirk and Spock. Didn't seem to happen as much in TNG.

[Gustav32Vasa]

1) The plexi-glass (I'm sorry, probably transparent aluminum) shield between the transporter and the transporter chief added to the Enterprise transporter room in the movies I thought was smart and wish they kept it in the TNG-era. God knows WHAT they'd be beaming up.

They can deactivate weapons under transport, and have done so in many TNG episodes.

[Batman]

I'm reasonably certain that shield was a TMP-only oddity anyway. I don't think it's still there for ST II to VI. Anybody know for sure?

[Skylon]

I'm reasonably certain that shield was a TMP-only oddity anyway. I don't think it's still there for ST II to VI. Anybody know for sure?

It was in Star Trek VI.

http://movies.trekpulse.com/album/displ ... m=88&pos=1

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Forcefield does not mean a device that you can hook onto your belt like a communicator and stop phaser fire. <snip>Brian

Actually, Worf did exactly that with a personal forcefield in "A fistful of Datas."

[brianeyci]

Actually, Worf did exactly that with a personal forcefield in "A fistful of Datas."

I know, but if Starfleet could deploy a personal forcefield that was of any use against energy weapons, they would have. Therefore those personal forcefields Leyton was talking about were probably small forcefield devices designed to block off corridors (which we have seen phasers have the ability to do with some tinkering). Otherwise we have to assume that personal forcefield technology is rare or the characters are stupid for not replicating it.

Brian

[Junghalli]

Transporters and orbital superiority would tend to make 20th/21st century military organization irrelevant. Starships are the howitzers, shuttle craft the gunships, a tank is just an easy target for a ship or shuttle.

The problem with that is I doubt those MT level photon torpedos make very good scalpels. Besides, relying on spacecraft for fire support is highly unreliable. It would be easy for the enemy to deprive you of fire support by attacking you in space and on the ground at the same time. Hell, what if your fire support just isn't in the right place in orbit? Not to mention that an orbiting weapons platform is a sitting duck to ground missiles. There's a reason missile-tipped sattelites aren't very much in demand today, even though they are technically feasable.

The problem people have with Starfleet's lack of militarization is that they are thinking in a 21st century context. Many of us don't have the luxury of a government that will stop at nothing to peacefully resolve disputes before they come to military actions.

And the Federation does? They live in a galaxy that contains things like the Dominion, Borg, and 8472. Those guys would scare me much more than Al Quaeda and red China ever will.

After the Khitomer Accords, for the better part of a century, the Federation hadn't met an enemy they couldn't avoid conflict entirely, negotiate a rapid cease fire with or expel out of their borders with ease until they met first the Borg and then the Dominion.

True. The Romulans were avoiding contact with them. They don't seem to have any serious enemies between TOS and TNG, and their military became hideously hidebound and atrophied as a result.

[Stark]

The Cardie Conflict was after the Khitomer accords, I believe.

Further, reliance on SHUTTLES for everything is funny. They don't even have dedicated assault shuttles. Orbital fire support can be stymied by messing with sensors, which isn't hard. If shipboard phasers can't cut through starship armour easily, what makes anyone think they can destroy harderned bunkers easily?

[Batman]

Transporters and orbital superiority would tend to make 20th/21st century military organization irrelevant. Starships are the howitzers, shuttle craft the gunships, a tank is just an easy target for a ship or shuttle.

The problem with that is I doubt those MT level photon torpedos make very good scalpels

We know those torpedoes are a) not MT level to begin with and that b)that yield can be dialed down to nothing whatsoever. They're at least as useful as modern PGMs.

Besides, relying on spacecraft for fire support is highly unreliable. It would be easy for the enemy to deprive you of fire support by attacking you in space and on the ground at the same time.

Relying on aircraft for fire support is highly unreliable. The enemy can deprive you of fire support by attacking you in the air and on the ground at the same time.

Hell, what if your fire support just isn't in the right place in orbit?

What if your artillery support isn't in the right place? What if your CAS aircraft aren't?

Not to mention that an orbiting weapons platform is a sitting duck to ground missiles. There's a reason missile-tipped sattelites aren't very much in demand today, even though they are technically feasable.

Because they're in stationary orbit you moron. Which a starship need not ne. And how about smaller ships like shuttles or runabouts in atmosphere?

The problem people have with Starfleet's lack of militarization is that they are thinking in a 21st century context. Many of us don't have the luxury of a government that will stop at nothing to peacefully resolve disputes before they come to military actions.

Thank Valen for that. Newsflash: What if they cant peacefully resolve them? Gee, that Army would sure come in handy now.

And the Federation does? They live in a galaxy that contains things like the Dominion, Borg, and 8472. Those guys would scare me much more than Al Quaeda and red China ever will.

So not having ground frorces woth mentioning makes you feel better?

After the Khitomer Accords, for the better part of a century, the Federation hadn't met an enemy they couldn't avoid conflict entirely, negotiate a rapid cease fire with or expel out of their borders with ease until they met first the Borg and then the Dominion.

True. The Romulans were avoiding contact with them. They don't seem to have any serious enemies between TOS and TNG, and their military became hideously hidebound and atrophied as a result.

I coud've sworn that's what we're complaining about...

[Junghalli]

We know those torpedoes are a) not MT level to begin with and that b)that yield can be dialed down to nothing whatsoever. They're at least as useful as modern PGMs.

OK, you have a point about being able to dial down the yield (by putting less antimatter in, I guess).

Relying on aircraft for fire support is highly unreliable. The enemy can deprive you of fire support by attacking you in the air and on the ground at the same time.

Yes, which is exactly why it would be a bad idea for an army to give up every weapon heavier than an RPG.

What if your artillery support isn't in the right place? What if your CAS aircraft aren't?

See above. A modern day army might be fucked if this happens, an army like the Federation seems to field would be royally quadruple-fucked in the ass. Which is, again, why it's a bad idea to rely exclusively on orbiting spacecraft for your artillery.

Because they're in stationary orbit you moron. Which a starship need not ne. And how about smaller ships like shuttles or runabouts in atmosphere?

Conceeded. It still strikes me as a horrible idea to completely abandon the concept of combined arms though.

The problem people have with Starfleet's lack of militarization is that they are thinking in a 21st century context. Many of us don't have the luxury of a government that will stop at nothing to peacefully resolve disputes before they come to military actions.

Thank Valen for that. Newsflash: What if they cant peacefully resolve them? Gee, that Army would sure come in handy now.

Err, you just quoted the argument I was trying to refute.

So not having ground frorces woth mentioning makes you feel better?

Not at all. I was trying to prove that disbanding your army would be somewhere in there taking a nap on while driving when it comes to suicidal stupidity. You seem to be confusing my arguments with the ones I'm responding to.

[Batman]

We know those torpedoes are a) not MT level to begin with and that b)that yield can be dialed down to nothing whatsoever. They're at least as useful as modern PGMs.

OK, you have a point about being able to dial down the yield (by putting less antimatter in, I guess).

Relying on aircraft for fire support is highly unreliable. The enemy can deprive you of fire support by attacking you in the air and on the ground at the same time.

Yes, which is exactly why it would be a bad idea for an army to give up every weapon heavier than an RPG.

Okay, so you're arguing relying on aircraft exclusively is unreliable.
I understood you to mean that iorbital bombardment/shuttle strafing doesn't work, period.

What if your artillery support isn't in the right place? What if your CAS aircraft aren't?

See above. A modern day army might be fucked if this happens, an army like the Federation seems to field would be royally quadruple-fucked in the ass. Which is, again, why it's a bad idea to rely exclusively on orbiting spacecraft for your artillery.

I see we're in agreement then.

Because they're in stationary orbit you moron. Which a starship need not ne. And how about smaller ships like shuttles or runabouts in atmosphere?

Conceeded. It still strikes me as a horrible idea to completely abandon the concept of combined arms though.

It is. I was merely arguing that Brian's concept works. A combined arms approach would work loads better.

So not having ground frorces woth mentioning makes you feel better?

Not at all. I was trying to prove that disbanding your army would be somewhere in there taking a nap on while driving when it comes to suicidal stupidity. You seem to be confusing my arguments with the ones I'm responding to.

Apparently so. My apologies.