TNG - The Big Goodbye

[Fianna]

The idea that ground vehicles don't exist anymore in the 24th century is extremely suspect to me at least in a military context. That kind of thing is sorely missing on countless ST battlefields. No personnel carriers, no mechanized infantry and no armored vehicles. These seem like they would be very useful as flying equivalents would be easy to shoot down with futuristic sensors and guidance systems. Considering the apparent absence of the transporters on ST battlefields, just moving troops around the lines on foot seems like it would cause more fatigue and attrition than modern troops suffer.

Presumably, you could just have shuttles and the like fly a couple feet off the ground and achieve the same effect.

[Beastro]

The idea that ground vehicles don't exist anymore in the 24th century is extremely suspect to me at least in a military context. That kind of thing is sorely missing on countless ST battlefields. No personnel carriers, no mechanized infantry and no armored vehicles. These seem like they would be very useful as flying equivalents would be easy to shoot down with futuristic sensors and guidance systems. Considering the apparent absence of the transporters on ST battlefields, just moving troops around the lines on foot seems like it would cause more fatigue and attrition than modern troops suffer.

It is possible that those increasing sensor technologies have advanced to the point that drones/artillery/phaser systems/whatever are able to target anything that moves, including wheeled vehicles, and warfare is pretty much slinging weaponry at each other until the trenches grind together and they can shoot and fight at close range. The supertech means either victory in the opening seconds against non-peer forces with beaming in and shuttles which don't need to obey the laws of aerodynamics, or it cancels each other out and they have to grind away at the edges of each other until the trenches meet and they take each other out at close range. There is just not the need for personnel carriers as we know it, because it is either safe for transporters and shuttles within your supertech field, or you are moving on foot at the edge of your own supertech field to avoid being toasted by the enemy's supertech.

Arguing ground warfare in Star Trek isn't a good idea.

It's the weakest part of Trek. The best thing they did was back in TOS at least trying to maintain the use of infantry support showing the use of an futuristic mortar. Since then, it's been TNGs claims that a phaser armed man is more powerful than battalion of 20th Century soldiers without actually showing the claim and an odd mix small arms combat and hand to hand fighting as if they're back in the days of muskets and cutlasses.

The budget limitations of the show and the Age of Sail origins of Trek as a concept will not allow more.

[Beastro]

The idea that ground vehicles don't exist anymore in the 24th century is extremely suspect to me at least in a military context. That kind of thing is sorely missing on countless ST battlefields. No personnel carriers, no mechanized infantry and no armored vehicles. These seem like they would be very useful as flying equivalents would be easy to shoot down with futuristic sensors and guidance systems. Considering the apparent absence of the transporters on ST battlefields, just moving troops around the lines on foot seems like it would cause more fatigue and attrition than modern troops suffer.

Presumably, you could just have shuttles and the like fly a couple feet off the ground and achieve the same effect.

And people in the 60s thought helicopters would replace APCs for the same reasons. We still have APCs. Air cav has diminished from its old hyped up position since then precisely because the sky is a more lethal environment for slow, lumbering vehicles than the ground and we all know how well Trek shuttles fair when under fire.

[CrypticMirror]

The idea that ground vehicles don't exist anymore in the 24th century is extremely suspect to me at least in a military context. That kind of thing is sorely missing on countless ST battlefields. No personnel carriers, no mechanized infantry and no armored vehicles. These seem like they would be very useful as flying equivalents would be easy to shoot down with futuristic sensors and guidance systems. Considering the apparent absence of the transporters on ST battlefields, just moving troops around the lines on foot seems like it would cause more fatigue and attrition than modern troops suffer.

Presumably, you could just have shuttles and the like fly a couple feet off the ground and achieve the same effect.

And people in the 60s thought helicopters would replace APCs for the same reasons. We still have APCs. Air cav has diminished from its old hyped up position since then precisely because the sky is a more lethal environment for slow, lumbering vehicles than the ground and we all know how well Trek shuttles fair when under fire.

* With current technology and costs. Of course.

That is the big disclaimer you forgot to add to your statement. I assume you meant to, and just forgot.

[Riedquat]

And people in the 60s thought helicopters would replace APCs for the same reasons. We still have APCs. Air cav has diminished from its old hyped up position since then precisely because the sky is a more lethal environment for slow, lumbering vehicles than the ground and we all know how well Trek shuttles fair when under fire.

But we don't see much tougher ground vehicles (probably with some of the Trek shuttle tech to allow them to get briefly airborne to get over obstacles a la the Mass Effect Mako, only hopefully a little better) either.

[Beastro]

The idea that ground vehicles don't exist anymore in the 24th century is extremely suspect to me at least in a military context. That kind of thing is sorely missing on countless ST battlefields. No personnel carriers, no mechanized infantry and no armored vehicles. These seem like they would be very useful as flying equivalents would be easy to shoot down with futuristic sensors and guidance systems. Considering the apparent absence of the transporters on ST battlefields, just moving troops around the lines on foot seems like it would cause more fatigue and attrition than modern troops suffer.

Presumably, you could just have shuttles and the like fly a couple feet off the ground and achieve the same effect.

And people in the 60s thought helicopters would replace APCs for the same reasons. We still have APCs. Air cav has diminished from its old hyped up position since then precisely because the sky is a more lethal environment for slow, lumbering vehicles than the ground and we all know how well Trek shuttles fair when under fire.

* With current technology and costs. Of course.

That is the big disclaimer you forgot to add to your statement. I assume you meant to, and just forgot.

Having slow, lumbering craft hundreds of feet about the ground isn't a good idea in a major war setting. I would not want to be in a shuttle flying around during the Dominion War anymore than I would have been in air cav over the Fulda Gap.

And people in the 60s thought helicopters would replace APCs for the same reasons. We still have APCs. Air cav has diminished from its old hyped up position since then precisely because the sky is a more lethal environment for slow, lumbering vehicles than the ground and we all know how well Trek shuttles fair when under fire.

But we don't see much tougher ground vehicles (probably with some of the Trek shuttle tech to allow them to get briefly airborne to get over obstacles a la the Mass Effect Mako, only hopefully a little better) either.

And it's silly. Simply introducing shields to vehicle warfare would open up so many possibilities.

I could see APCs being built to hug terrain with room enough for a small shield generator and some site to site transporter tech that allow them to get up close to the enemy, drop the shields and start popping squads on the enemies rear, for instance.

[drewder]

There are other reasons to give a military force a ground vehicle. Like scouting. No matter how good your sensors are they're always subject to jamming, same with transporters. Being able to scout from the ground will allow you to move more stealthily than you could otherwise do from a shuttle.

[CrypticMirror]

The idea that ground vehicles don't exist anymore in the 24th century is extremely suspect to me at least in a military context. That kind of thing is sorely missing on countless ST battlefields. No personnel carriers, no mechanized infantry and no armored vehicles. These seem like they would be very useful as flying equivalents would be easy to shoot down with futuristic sensors and guidance systems. Considering the apparent absence of the transporters on ST battlefields, just moving troops around the lines on foot seems like it would cause more fatigue and attrition than modern troops suffer.

Presumably, you could just have shuttles and the like fly a couple feet off the ground and achieve the same effect.

And people in the 60s thought helicopters would replace APCs for the same reasons. We still have APCs. Air cav has diminished from its old hyped up position since then precisely because the sky is a more lethal environment for slow, lumbering vehicles than the ground and we all know how well Trek shuttles fair when under fire.

* With current technology and costs. Of course.

That is the big disclaimer you forgot to add to your statement. I assume you meant to, and just forgot.

Having slow, lumbering craft hundreds of feet about the ground isn't a good idea in a major war setting. I would not want to be in a shuttle flying around during the Dominion War anymore than I would have been in air cav over the Fulda Gap.

Shuttles are not helicopters though. They are faster, more manoeuvrable, heavily armed, can accelerate and decelerate to and from FTL speeds and insane mach speeds, faster than you can read this sentence, and have sensor suites able to read any potential battlefield in a way that makes any surveillance tech we have now, much less the seventies and eighties you are comparing them to, look like a tin can on a string, so the comparison to 80s helicopters is complete fatuous. And just for the record, tanks and APCs in any hypothetical Fulda Gap scenario would toasted by the nukes dropped there, because the idea of a massive tank or infantry battle was a fiction sold to the public to cover up just how quickly things would go nuclear. Thank you for coming to my TED talk, the exit is to your left, please visit the gift shop on your way out.

[clearspira]

The idea that ground vehicles don't exist anymore in the 24th century is extremely suspect to me at least in a military context. That kind of thing is sorely missing on countless ST battlefields. No personnel carriers, no mechanized infantry and no armored vehicles. These seem like they would be very useful as flying equivalents would be easy to shoot down with futuristic sensors and guidance systems. Considering the apparent absence of the transporters on ST battlefields, just moving troops around the lines on foot seems like it would cause more fatigue and attrition than modern troops suffer.

Presumably, you could just have shuttles and the like fly a couple feet off the ground and achieve the same effect.

And people in the 60s thought helicopters would replace APCs for the same reasons. We still have APCs. Air cav has diminished from its old hyped up position since then precisely because the sky is a more lethal environment for slow, lumbering vehicles than the ground and we all know how well Trek shuttles fair when under fire.

* With current technology and costs. Of course.

That is the big disclaimer you forgot to add to your statement. I assume you meant to, and just forgot.

Having slow, lumbering craft hundreds of feet about the ground isn't a good idea in a major war setting. I would not want to be in a shuttle flying around during the Dominion War anymore than I would have been in air cav over the Fulda Gap.

Shuttles are not helicopters though. They are faster, more manoeuvrable, heavily armed, can accelerate and decelerate to and from FTL speeds and insane mach speeds, faster than you can read this sentence, and have sensor suites able to read any potential battlefield in a way that makes any surveillance tech we have now, much less the seventies and eighties you are comparing them to, look like a tin can on a string, so the comparison to 80s helicopters is complete fatuous. And just for the record, tanks and APCs in any hypothetical Fulda Gap scenario would toasted by the nukes dropped there, because the idea of a massive tank or infantry battle was a fiction sold to the public to cover up just how quickly things would go nuclear. Thank you for coming to my TED talk, the exit is to your left, please visit the gift shop on your way out.

And speaking of nukes; they are incredibly weak weapons by the standards of Star Trek. It never seems it because of the VFX, but photon torpedoes are meant to be rated in the tens of megatons range. And your typical deflector shield will take several of them (not to mention the ridiculously advanced composite armour they have in the future. The Defiant doesn't even need shields to take a torpedo).
In other words, it would be very difficult to ''first strike'' an attack force of shuttles or runabouts.

[McAvoy]

The idea that ground vehicles don't exist anymore in the 24th century is extremely suspect to me at least in a military context. That kind of thing is sorely missing on countless ST battlefields. No personnel carriers, no mechanized infantry and no armored vehicles. These seem like they would be very useful as flying equivalents would be easy to shoot down with futuristic sensors and guidance systems. Considering the apparent absence of the transporters on ST battlefields, just moving troops around the lines on foot seems like it would cause more fatigue and attrition than modern troops suffer.

Presumably, you could just have shuttles and the like fly a couple feet off the ground and achieve the same effect.

And people in the 60s thought helicopters would replace APCs for the same reasons. We still have APCs. Air cav has diminished from its old hyped up position since then precisely because the sky is a more lethal environment for slow, lumbering vehicles than the ground and we all know how well Trek shuttles fair when under fire.

* With current technology and costs. Of course.

That is the big disclaimer you forgot to add to your statement. I assume you meant to, and just forgot.

Having slow, lumbering craft hundreds of feet about the ground isn't a good idea in a major war setting. I would not want to be in a shuttle flying around during the Dominion War anymore than I would have been in air cav over the Fulda Gap.

Shuttles are not helicopters though. They are faster, more manoeuvrable, heavily armed, can accelerate and decelerate to and from FTL speeds and insane mach speeds, faster than you can read this sentence, and have sensor suites able to read any potential battlefield in a way that makes any surveillance tech we have now, much less the seventies and eighties you are comparing them to, look like a tin can on a string, so the comparison to 80s helicopters is complete fatuous. And just for the record, tanks and APCs in any hypothetical Fulda Gap scenario would toasted by the nukes dropped there, because the idea of a massive tank or infantry battle was a fiction sold to the public to cover up just how quickly things would go nuclear. Thank you for coming to my TED talk, the exit is to your left, please visit the gift shop on your way out.

And speaking of nukes; they are incredibly weak weapons by the standards of Star Trek. It never seems it because of the VFX, but photon torpedoes are meant to be rated in the tens of megatons range. And your typical deflector shield will take several of them (not to mention the ridiculously advanced composite armour they have in the future. The Defiant doesn't even need shields to take a torpedo).
In other words, it would be very difficult to ''first strike'' an attack force of shuttles or runabouts.

That's the thing though, large starships can take hits from photon or quantum torpedoes. They have larger power generators and in a universe where more energy means more powerful shields and weapons, something as small as a shuttle will not take the same beating as a ship.

Defiant as small as she is, is still a special type of ship and even then far bigger than a shuttle anyway.

You can probably first strike a shuttle or fighter group. Not like they are going to fire just one torpedo. There will be volleys. That is assuming they don't care about collateral damage.

It's been established that if you have air superiority today or in Trek you can do what you will to ground equipment. But if you and your enemy don't have it, you will be more preoccupied trying to attain it while at the same time as assisting ground assets.