A Treatise On Ground War in the 30th Century

The following is a collection of excerpts from the book “A Treatise On Ground War in the 30th century” By Brig. General Arthur Wells

I am penning this text on the ground war in the 30th century for a very simple reason. That reason being is I often find my self-being asked a very fundamental and reasonable question. “Why did the soldiers on modern earth fight the way they did?” The context of the question being that the way our forebears fought was rather silly and they would die in rapid numbers if we on an equal field of a battle fought them. The answer to that question is very simple; they waged war the way they did due to the equipment and technology available to them at the time.

In the 21st century, soldiers fought in loose formations, wielding chemically fired weapons dependant on ammunition, and protected with layered cloth armor. Like their forebears before them, they liked to line up in lines to bring the most firepower to bear. That being said, soldiers, fought very a very mobile style of warfare in comparison to our own troops. They would attempt to cover ground and seize cities and key movement points along rivers and roads. Then call on their radios for out of sight artillery attacks, as well as supporting, and out of sight, missile strikes to neutralize enemy positions and targets.

Fighting in the 30th century, however, would look strange to our forebears. Our soldiers have some similarity, though for us we have defeated concerns that the soldiers on our home planet had to contend with. Fighting in the 21st century was often done at a range. Melee combat was rare, and battles though destructive remained somewhat impersonal. In the 30th century, combat is often intimate, up close, and troops take melee combat seriously, often being issued swords and shields in the event of an enemy charge. Battles however still remain quite destructive.

Weaponry

Laser guns, gauss guns, rail guns, plasma cannons. All four weapons are seen in the hands of the major space-faring nations. All four of them make a mockery of the ancient chemically fired weapons seen on ancient earth. The comparison of a Gauss or Laser gun, to an ancient AK-47 would be like comparing an AK-47 to a crossbow, or Brown Bess Musket. Both the crossbow and the Brown Bess are fine weapons; for their time, but no match for the sophistication of 30th-century science and engineering. Simply put, the technological gap between the AK-47 and the Alliance Laser rifle is too great.

The limitations on 21st-century earth weapons meant that soldiers in that time would often hide behind cover, or move in order to avoid being killed. Rubble, broken vehicles, concrete walls, or even simple foliage obscuring line of sight made training soldiers to seek out these terrain features a priority. However 30th-century weapons can destroy blow through terrain features with impunity, along with any who hides behind it. The limitations on 21st-century weapons appear to be raw power.

If a 21st century Marine was put up against a unit of Brown Bess wielding red coats, that lone marine would without a doubt slaughter those troops with his AR Assault rifle with ease. TheRed Coats would do as they were trained, line up, and volley fire. The Marine with his automatic rifle would then seek cover from the enemy barrage, and then likely slaughter those men as they were not trained to seek cover.

Now put an Alliance Marine against a Platoon 21st Century United States Marines. The United States Marines would likely seek cover, in a building, behind rubble or in foliage. They would then use suppression fire on the Alliance Marine, and primitive explosives. The Alliance Marine would find the chemically fired rounds pattering harmlessly off of his armor. Then would adjust the power on his Laser Rifle and use his HUD to zero in on the target's heart beats, then methodically kill them. Or simply change the power setting on his or her rifle to level the building with repeated shots, or destroy cover the United States Marines were using.

Armor

The known nations all seem to have some form of armor, which aids in staying alive.(Save for the Dominion of Ersutu) The Gartagens utilize ceramics that make for some of the best-known suits of combat armor encountered, whereas we in the alliance utilize metallurgical compounds to harden our armor and impact dampeners. Force absorption engineering techniques and distribution in the construction of the armor make troops able to stand up physics in combat. Tai Pan is known to take it further equipping their troops with personal shields and projection that turns force away. Combat armor is a technological achievement that as a result really shapes the state of 31st-century ground combat. When chemical firearms were first developed they made ancient armors obsolete. Later when better materials made for superior armors, a new arms race between weapon and armor began and saw a new golden age of weapons engineering begin. To be clear: armor is what killed the viability of chemically fired projectile weapons.

Melee Combat

If a return of armor is what killed the viability of chemically fired weapons, then melee combat is a by-product of that return.

Even poor groups can afford or scavenge extremely strong, lightweight, materials from star-ships, construction sites, or factories to make armor that is resistant to all but the heaviest handheld ranged weapons. Groups lacking these weapons will gravitate towards swords, hammers, and other melee weapons that can either attack weak points or just bash an armor-wearer unconscious. Line charges and physical combat are now considered tactical options available to battlefield commanders, and urban environments make close quarters combat a constant reality. Even well equipped soldiers can often be seen carrying a melee weapon for such encounters.

  • guide/planetarywarfare.txt
  • Last modified: 2018/10/25 03:00
  • by uso