Poll
70%
10%
20%
0%
Federation GROUND force vs USA Ground force
What if a 24th century Federation ground force came in contact with a modern USA ground force and they for some reason fought?
This is a very large plain with a few trees and rocks for cover.
Federation forces have typical composition.
USA forces have typical composition, ie infantry, tanks, etc.
Equal numbers
No element of surprise
No air support
Who would win?
Re: Federation GROUND force vs USA Ground force
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
What if a 24th century Federation ground force came in contact with a modern USA ground force and they for some reason fought?This is a very large plain with a few trees and rocks for cover.
Federation forces have typical composition.
USA forces have typical composition, ie infantry, tanks, etc.
Equal numbers
No element of surprise
No air support
Who would win?
The federation.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ali the Federation would have to do is a line of troops with phasers on wide stun. The US army would not even get a shoot throw their shields.
Really? How far is the range? Can it penetrate tank armor? Do the Federation troops have shields/armor capable of stopping artillery/tank rounds?
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
seriously? did you read the thread title? I specifically capitalized the ground in federation ground force in order to avoid this.
OK, but it would just be a matter of time. The federation can out maneuver the US. The federation can replicate their own supply were as the US has to have supply lines. The federation would have air superiority, while the US would not even get anything off the ground. The federation could block all satellite communication, while the US would not even know how to receive subspace communication, let alone block it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, but it would just be a matter of time. The federation can out maneuver the US. The federation can replicate their own supply were as the US has to have supply lines. The federation would have air superiority, while the US would not even get anything off the ground. The federation could block all satellite communication, while the US would not even know how to receive subspace communication, let alone block it.
you are talking about a war. I am talking about a battle, just ground, no air support, no supply lines, just a battle
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
because...does the Federation even have tanks?
they have craft called "hoppers" but they've only been referenced, and never seen on screen. of course, they have shuttlecraft too...
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Really? How far is the range? Can it penetrate tank armor? Do the Federation troops have shields/armor capable of stopping artillery/tank rounds?
it can penetrate tank armour on medium settings. on full settings, entire battallions are getting vaporised.
Originally posted by -Pr-
they have craft called "hoppers" but they've only been referenced, and never seen on screen. of course, they have shuttlecraft too...it can penetrate tank armour on medium settings. on full settings, entire battallions are getting vaporised.
Right, but no combat vehicles that have been used in the ST shows.
Where does it say this?
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
phasers
from memory alpha:
The standard level 16 setting on a type 2 phaser can be used to vaporize tunnels through rock, large enough to crawl through. (TNG: "Chain of Command, Part I"😉 The level 16 wide-field setting can easily destroy half of a large building with a single shot. (TNG: "Frame of Mind"😉
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Thanks.That's neat, although I wonder why they don't use it more often. So if they get within range, they can defeat the US ground troops quite easily (although is there proof that it can destroy tanks?). However, do you know what its effective range is? That would matter alot in this fight.
if it can vaporise concrete, i doubt tank armour would be much of a problem.
they don't use it more often because it would make things too easy lol.
the range? hand phasers can hit at least a few hundred metres, based on the show itself. dunno if a range has ever been stated.
This is a stomp in the Federations favor. With tricorders, Starfleet forces could disrupt the US army's communication and computer systems, rendering strategic movements impossible. They have forcefields (which could even be improvised from phasers in emergencies), transporters (to capture enemy officers), and singe-man photon grenade launchers that can clear an entire hillside with a single shot. As previously mentioned, they have phasers and phaser rifles that can quickly disintegrate armored personnel and vehicles over a wide area. They also have the TR-116 rifle that can scan through rock, armor, and bunkers, and can teleport a tritanium projectile directly into the target from kilometers away. The ultimate sniper weapon.
I can assure you that the US Army isn't going to function well with all communications and computer systems disrupted. Add to that the technological and firepower advantages of Starfleet, and you have a stomp.
Yes, so it's highly likely that Starfleet wins. Remember however, that USA has:
tanks
artillery
mortars
machine guns
gernades
soldiers that are very used to fighting on ground
shotguns
most of which for some reason the Federation doesn't have; I have yet to see a single tank.
Oh, and by "battle" I mean a small scale battle of at most a few divisions, not a large scale strategic war.
Originally posted by HewhoknowsallSo, in your scenario, you were picturing a few USGF divisions across a field from the Starfleet equivalent? Then they proceed to shoot at each other until one side wins?
Yes, so it's highly likely that Starfleet wins. Remember however, that USA has:tanks
artillery
mortars
machine guns
gernades
soldiers that are very used to fighting on ground
shotgunsmost of which for some reason the Federation doesn't have; I have yet to see a single tank.
Oh, and by "battle" I mean a small scale battle of at most a few divisions, not a large scale strategic war.
Well, I'll break it down the way I see it:
Tanks: Starfleet doesn't use them because they are outdated. Shuttlecraft and fighters can perform the same role with superior mobility, defense, and firepower. Tanks really wouldn't be much of a threat due to a lack of protection against phasers (which could disintegrate the tanks with ease) and photon grenades (same effect as phasers only over a 100+ meter area.
Artillery: Again, phasers, phaser rifles, and photon grenades perform the same role as heavy artillery at a fraction of the size of the US Army's emplacements. Starfleet weapons also have far superior firepower (they can disintegrate unshielded material and uncouple multiple targets with a wide-setting blast). In addition, Starfleet has forcefields that can be deployed to protect against US artillery.
mortars-- see previous
machine guns-- see previous
grenades-- see previous
Soldiers that are very used to fighting on ground: Following the Dominion War, Starfleet personnel were very well acquainted with fighting ground wars against superior numbers and technology far beyond anything the US army has to offer. In addition, Starfleet has transporters that can teleport friendly soldiers to strategic battle locations, or simply remove enemy soldiers and equipment (the US army has no way to defend against this).
Shotguns: Phaser can instantly disintegrate single or multiple targets. A shotgun hardly compares.
Think of it this way. Its as if the modern US Army were fighting a Roman Legion from the 1st century. The Romans would fight with swords, spears, arrows, horses, metal armor, and chariots. The Romans would scoff at the US for not having any of these things. But you and I both know that such a battle would be a slaughter due to the superior technology of the US Army. Swords and spears are no match for modern firearms. Likewise, arrows would not be able to penetrate modern armor, nor even a single soldier's body armor.
Likewise, the technology of Starfleet (and tactics) would render the US Army obsolete.