Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mk.IV

[Hladgos]

I can always use subjective magnetic sheilding that activates as soon as a round is close enough. Or if I really wanted to troll, I could build a tank out of space bridge material. Synthetic diamond internal support, with graphene armor which would just be a total godmod. I could always drop my tanks from orbit, eh?

...this is sounding more and more like something that belongs in the FT Discussion thread.
Just sayin'.

I know, but tanks are kindof useless in FT.

[Orussia]

I know, but tanks are kindof useless in FT.

Hardly. There will always be a need for a heavily armored vehicle that mounts a large cannon.

[Hladgos]

I know, but tanks are kindof useless in FT.

Hardly. There will always be a need for a heavily armored vehicle that mounts a large cannon.

Well, air attacks, as well as space attacks can hit anything and take it out a lot more quickly, especially if you have cannons that are more powerful and can be mounted on said airborne vehicle.

[The Kievan People]

What is and isn't useless in FT depends entirely on what assumptions you make about tech in your scenario.

[Hladgos]

What is and isn't useless in FT depends entirely on what assumptions you make about tech in your scenario.

Well, most FT is going to have some kind of space based stuff, and with that, air based stuff. landing on a planet woulden't be so useful anymore. Then again, what exactly do you fight for in FT? I'm moving this to the FT discussion now. Thanks for helping me with my useless questions though. I'll be back *terminator voice*

[Indeos]

What is and isn't useless in FT depends entirely on what assumptions you make about tech in your scenario.

Well, most FT is going to have some kind of space based stuff, and with that, air based stuff. landing on a planet woulden't be so useful anymore. Then again, what exactly do you fight for in FT? I'm moving this to the FT discussion now. Thanks for helping me with my useless questions though. I'll be back *terminator voice*

If you don't have land troops you can't take planets.

[The Corparation]

What is and isn't useless in FT depends entirely on what assumptions you make about tech in your scenario.

Well, most FT is going to have some kind of space based stuff, and with that, air based stuff. landing on a planet woulden't be so useful anymore. Then again, what exactly do you fight for in FT? I'm moving this to the FT discussion now. Thanks for helping me with my useless questions though. I'll be back *terminator voice*

I know, its rhe same way how when heavy bombers and dedicated ground attack aircraft rolled out land forces became obsolete...oh wait you can't win by air power alone in MT .Thinking you can win on space power alone in FT is equally ridiculous.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Who needs to take a planet with boots on the ground when you can literally nuke it from orbit?

[Indeos]

Who needs to take a planet with boots on the ground when you can literally nuke it from orbit?

Obviously FT means you don't need resources and can waste entire populations for little reason. And there's no public fallout from genocide. Obviously.

[Galla-]

Well, most FT is going to have some kind of space based stuff, and with that, air based stuff. landing on a planet woulden't be so useful anymore. Then again, what exactly do you fight for in FT? I'm moving this to the FT discussion now. Thanks for helping me with my useless questions though. I'll be back *terminator voice*

I know, its rhe same way how when heavy bombers and dedicated ground attack aircraft rolled out land forces became obsolete...oh wait you can't win by air power alone in MT .Thinking you can win on space power alone in FT is equally ridiculous.

Space power is not air power.

You're not confined to a planetoid, for one. You can simply bombard the planet with relativistic weapons from a distance that is far out of reach of any planet based missiles or lasers.

Wars can certainly be won by space power alone. Mostly because the weight penalties for transporting large numbers of soldiers interstellar distances renders planet based military forces beyond police obsolete.

Try reading The Killing Star for an example.

Wars in space will not be fought over limited resources, they'll be fought solely for survival against other races. This means brutal, quick, effective methods of annihilating entire planetary populations and industry with high powered weapons. There is no reason to spare cities or capture territory when it is infinitely easier to simply strip mine asteroids or comets. Pretty much the sole reason you'd go to war is to ensure that the other guy doesn't try to kill you with RKVs before you kill him.

Of course FT is FT and giant, massive ground battles in spehs are interesting and neat, more so than being bombarded by unstoppable relativistic weaponry, even if the latter makes sense, it doesn't make for a fun RP.

Who needs to take a planet with boots on the ground when you can literally nuke it from orbit?

Obviously FT means you don't need resources and can waste entire populations for little reason. And there's no public fallout from genocide. Obviously.

Er, yeah actually.

I know, but tanks are kindof useless in FT.

Hardly. There will always be a need for a heavily armored vehicle that mounts a large cannon.

Mass.

Telephone pole or sand grain moving at 0.8 c > Tank.

[Indeos]

Obviously FT means you don't need resources and can waste entire populations for little reason. And there's no public fallout from genocide. Obviously.

Er, yeah actually.

That's really ridiculously boring, though. Maybe realistic, but boring. Also really unlikely, IMO, because humans don't generally like genocide or cooperating with each other.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Who needs to take a planet with boots on the ground when you can literally nuke it from orbit?

Obviously FT means you don't need resources and can waste entire populations for little reason. And there's no public fallout from genocide. Obviously.

There can be no news if there's no-one to report it.
Besides, in FT, you've got thousands of planets to rape for resources, you can afford to obliterate a handful :')

[Indeos]

Obviously FT means you don't need resources and can waste entire populations for little reason. And there's no public fallout from genocide. Obviously.

There can be no news if there's no-one to report it.
Besides, in FT, you've got thousands of planets to rape for resources, you can afford to obliterate a handful :')

If your whole military is based on that you'll never be able to actually take a planet, though.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

There can be no news if there's no-one to report it.
Besides, in FT, you've got thousands of planets to rape for resources, you can afford to obliterate a handful :')

If your whole military is based on that you'll never be able to actually take a planet, though.

Like Galla said, why bother?
Just strip mine asteroids.

[Galla-]

Er, yeah actually.

That's really ridiculously boring, though. Maybe realistic, but boring. Also really unlikely, IMO, because humans don't generally like genocide or cooperating with each other.

Humans probably wouldn't give a rat's ass if it were furfag aliens or Hortas with lasers tbh.

And FYI, we can be convinced pretty easily that genocide is a great thing to do to ourselves with very little persuasion, see Yugoslav Wars, Armenia, post-WW2 Eastern Europe, etc.

Of course FT is FT and giant, massive ground battles in spehs are interesting and neat, more so than being bombarded by unstoppable relativistic weaponry, even if the latter makes sense, it doesn't make for a fun RP.

There can be no news if there's no-one to report it.
Besides, in FT, you've got thousands of planets to rape for resources, you can afford to obliterate a handful :')

If your whole military is based on that you'll never be able to actually take a planet, though.

That's the whole point.

[Indeos]

That's really ridiculously boring, though. Maybe realistic, but boring. Also really unlikely, IMO, because humans don't generally like genocide or cooperating with each other.

Humans probably wouldn't give a rat's ass if it were furfag aliens or Hortas with lasers tbh.

And FYI, we can be convinced pretty easily that genocide is a great thing to do to ourselves with very little persuasion, see Yugoslav Wars, Armenia, post-WW2 Eastern Europe, etc.

Eh, still really really boring. Like I said, more realistic, but I wouldn't be able to write a universe like that. (I think this is also responsible for the stupidly realistic sci-fi that seems prevalent in modern writing. Too many technical details and not a single compelling goddamn character.)

The logical conclusion, however, is that surviving species will eventually cooperate to end actual warfare because it's so destructive, and there'll basically be a Cold War-type constant buildup but with an even bigger war between "spies".

[Galla-]

Humans probably wouldn't give a rat's ass if it were furfag aliens or Hortas with lasers tbh.

And FYI, we can be convinced pretty easily that genocide is a great thing to do to ourselves with very little persuasion, see Yugoslav Wars, Armenia, post-WW2 Eastern Europe, etc.

Eh, still really really boring. Like I said, more realistic, but I wouldn't be able to write a universe like that. (I think this is also responsible for the stupidly realistic sci-fi that seems prevalent in modern writing. Too many technical details and not a single compelling goddamn character.)

The logical conclusion, however, is that surviving species will eventually cooperate to end actual warfare because it's so destructive, and there'll basically be a Cold War-type constant buildup but with an even bigger war between "spies".

Actually the logical conclusion is that species who either survive such assaults, or have record of them happening, will seek isolation and dispersion to avoid genocide.

[Indeos]

Eh, still really really boring. Like I said, more realistic, but I wouldn't be able to write a universe like that. (I think this is also responsible for the stupidly realistic sci-fi that seems prevalent in modern writing. Too many technical details and not a single compelling goddamn character.)

The logical conclusion, however, is that surviving species will eventually cooperate to end actual warfare because it's so destructive, and there'll basically be a Cold War-type constant buildup but with an even bigger war between "spies".

Actually the logical conclusion is that species who either survive such assaults, or have record of them happening, will seek isolation and dispersion to avoid genocide.

I don't really see that, since it means either not expanding or expanding somewhere nobody has. Just seems illogical; I'm imagining the perpetrating species that haven't really fought each other deciding collectively that they don't want to risk annihilating each other. Nash equilibriums and all that. I'm way, way too tired for this conversation; just take my word for the fact that your FT makes me really really bored from a writing/reading perspective so I reject it.

[Galla-]

Actually the logical conclusion is that species who either survive such assaults, or have record of them happening, will seek isolation and dispersion to avoid genocide.

I don't really see that, since it means either not expanding or expanding somewhere nobody has. Just seems illogical; I'm imagining the perpetrating species that haven't really fought each other deciding collectively that they don't want to risk annihilating each other. Nash equilibriums and all that. I'm way, way too tired for this conversation; just take my word for the fact that your FT makes me really really bored from a writing/reading perspective so I reject it.

Of course FT is FT and giant, massive ground battles in spehs are interesting and neat, more so than being bombarded by unstoppable relativistic weaponry, even if the latter makes sense, it doesn't make for a fun RP.

And Gallaverse has spehsarmy, it's just around to fight people with sufficient spehswank to land on planets with troops.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

Humans probably wouldn't give a rat's ass if it were furfag aliens or Hortas with lasers tbh.

And FYI, we can be convinced pretty easily that genocide is a great thing to do to ourselves with very little persuasion, see Yugoslav Wars, Armenia, post-WW2 Eastern Europe, etc.

Eh, still really really boring. Like I said, more realistic, but I wouldn't be able to write a universe like that. (I think this is also responsible for the stupidly realistic sci-fi that seems prevalent in modern writing. Too many technical details and not a single compelling goddamn character.)

The logical conclusion, however, is that surviving species will eventually cooperate to end actual warfare because it's so destructive, and there'll basically be a Cold War-type constant buildup but with an even bigger war between "spies".

Stupidly realistic modern scifi?

lol

the peak of hard scifi is long past

you used to see big-name science-fiction authors going to space science conferences slumming for ideas, and in some cases actually coming up with ideas that went on to be elaborated in scientific studies

these days the closest you can get is people like reynolds and baxter

[Indeos]

Eh, still really really boring. Like I said, more realistic, but I wouldn't be able to write a universe like that. (I think this is also responsible for the stupidly realistic sci-fi that seems prevalent in modern writing. Too many technical details and not a single compelling goddamn character.)

The logical conclusion, however, is that surviving species will eventually cooperate to end actual warfare because it's so destructive, and there'll basically be a Cold War-type constant buildup but with an even bigger war between "spies".

Stupidly realistic modern scifi?

lol

the peak of hard scifi is long past

you used to see big-name science-fiction authors going to space science conferences slumming for ideas, and in some cases actually coming up with ideas that went on to be elaborated in scientific studies

these days the closest you can get is people like reynolds and baxter

I worded it wrong. Should've just said stupidly technical; even the fucking complete-pipe-dream stuff seems to need twelve pages of crap that sounds scientific for the author to be satisfied. I miss Bradbury and Asimov.

[Crookfur]

Stupidly realistic modern scifi?

lol

the peak of hard scifi is long past

you used to see big-name science-fiction authors going to space science conferences slumming for ideas, and in some cases actually coming up with ideas that went on to be elaborated in scientific studies

these days the closest you can get is people like reynolds and baxter

I worded it wrong. Should've just said stupidly technical; even the fucking complete-pipe-dream stuff seems to need twelve pages of crap that sounds scientific for the author to be satisfied. I miss Bradbury and Asimov.

You need to read some Neal Asher. His work is a nice refreshment if you've been stuck in a weberloop. Of course it isn't in any way hard scifi...

[Indeos]

I worded it wrong. Should've just said stupidly technical; even the fucking complete-pipe-dream stuff seems to need twelve pages of crap that sounds scientific for the author to be satisfied. I miss Bradbury and Asimov.

You need to read some Neal Asher. His work is a nice refreshment if you've been stuck in a weberloop. Of course it isn't in any way hard scifi...

I don't really like hard scifi, and tbh I don't read a lot of sci-fi anyway because most of the best authors are dead. Like the two I already mentioned, Clarke, and Herbert...it's probably a bad thing that one of the better sci-fi books I've read since 2000 was written by Captain Kirk.

[Yes Im Biop]

Ok. Hello again XD

WHat is the largest...Most powerful cannon you could mount on a Tank? Im hitting for a Railgun but what size and speed of slug would kill tanks, and not rip the one that fires apart. ATM The tank is around 80 Tons.

[Spirit of Hope]

On FT planet taking: (because I just showed up) depend on assumptions.

Here their are 2 assumptions that can be made
Assumption 1: Planets will not be able to defend themselves from an enemy fleet. If this assumption is followed their is no real need for a dedicated army with heavy vehicles, any resistance nuke it from orbit. What you would need is a police force to keep planet populations in line, and carry out occupation duty. Maybe some specialty units for the very rare situation where you need a persuasion strike on a planet but can't or won't just capture/nuke the planet.

Assumption 2: Planets will be able to defend themselves form enemy fleets. The idea is here, if you can build missile capable of pulling lots of g's in acceleration then it could leave the gravity well and go and attack enemy fleet units. Here you see the need for a landing force as they could attempt to pass through enemy defenses and take out said defenses.