Minimum Number of Troops for "Armchair" Generals to be Useful

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
I wondered how many soldiers you needed before generals, or other high ranking officers who lead from behind the lines, were useful.

I was envisioning a scenario with a half-strength Battalion trying to fight back and contain a technologically superior Company, so approximately 500 men against 100.

With this battle however, I wanted to focus on the skill of the commander of the half-strength Battalion, to have it that their tactics lead to victory. So, I wanted to ask advice on this scenario, and the minimum number of troops I can have while emphasizing the commander's skill.


Thank you for any advice you can offer.
 

badwolf.usmc

#CustomUserTitle
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
255
Reaction score
37
Location
Northern Indiana
I think you have several different questions in this one:

I wondered how many soldiers you needed before generals, or other high ranking officers who lead from behind the lines, were useful.

This is about command and control and it would vary from military to military. There have been generals killed in combat leading their troops.

With this battle however, I wanted to focus on the skill of the commander of the half-strength Battalion, to have it that their tactics lead to victory. So, I wanted to ask advice on this scenario, and the minimum number of troops I can have while emphasizing the commander's skill.

First question you need to ask is how each side defines victory. Based on that question then you can fingure out the tactics that you use.
 

cmhbob

Did...did I do that?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
5,743
Reaction score
4,840
Location
Green Country
Website
www.bobmuellerwriter.com
As Badwolf pointed out, what does it mean to win?

"The attacker must vanquish, The defender need only survive." That means if someone is attacking a fort or something like that, the attacker must destroy the defender. The defender just needs to outlast the attacker.
 

badwolf.usmc

#CustomUserTitle
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
255
Reaction score
37
Location
Northern Indiana
Look at the battle of Khe Sanh during the Vietnam War.

The NVA attacked the Americans at Khe Sanh and the Americans were able to beat back the NVA, so an American victory, right?

The siege of Khe Sanh focused American military effort into a certain region during the early part of the Tet Offensive, which allowed the NVA to run rampant in the rest of South Vietnam. The Tet Offensive was a failure for the NVA, but it turned opinion in the US against the war and led to the eventual withdraw of American forces.

So who achieved their goals and won?

(That is a basic/high school level analysis of the events, and does no justice to a real analysis of the events)
 

Weirdmage

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
562
Reaction score
52
Location
South Yorkshire, UK
As badwolf has already said, there's several question here. I'll answer the first one to the best of my ability.

I wondered how many soldiers you needed before generals, or other high ranking officers who lead from behind the lines, were useful

I think this is more a question of "when" than "how many". I don't know what kind of time period you are planning on setting this in, but in a pre-radio era I'd think not being able to actually observe te battlefield would leave you at a great disadvantage. You don't need to be far behind the lines before the information you'd be getting is outdated. And by the time you've made a decision based on that information and your orders get back the situation may have changed so much that those orders make no sense to the present situation.
Actually, you probably need satellites before it really makes tactical sense to sit behind the lines for a single battle. And then only if you have real time pictures of what is going on.
For bigger things, like WWI and WWII, it would be hard to coordinate all battlefields without sitting behind the front and having access to all information. But I'm sure you'll find plenty of frontline troops in conflicts in the last 100 years that will be of the opinion that those who are not on the frontline knows nothing about what is going on.

Whatever time period you are setting this in, you could most likely benefit from getting one of several books with titles along the lines of "100 Greatest Battles".
There is also quite a few sites online dedicated to military history, so you should be able to find something relevant to what you are trying to do.
 

KarmaPolice

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
203
Reaction score
20
Like the others said, it all depends on what the top brass would consider 'a victory'. A commander seriously outnumbered and outgunned might simply have the standing order 'to keep forces intact much as possible'. Several quick points...

- Yes, they're outnumbered 5:1 - but what is the quality of the troops? The big army may be made from green conscripts 'out of their element', while the small one may be veteran professionals, exactly trained for the conditions.

- There's a chance the larger side may not be able to get all their troops to the the battlefield. Logistical problems, having to leave some as garrisons in settlements etc.

- Not all of these may be combat-ready. Some might be say, Air Force personel hurredly converted into infantry or militia. He might also have some units which swells the numbers but proves useless - say a some light tanks which were unusable due to terrain etc.

- In a modern army, these would be typically commanded by a Captain / Major / Lieutenant Colonel, depending on traditions of the army in question. All of the above have died leading their troops in living memory.

- The CO would gain kudos from his 'operational tactics' - basically succeeding in the 'strategic plan' given by his superiors. If they're the tripwire, it could be simply to 'ambush and retreat' until superior numbers can be brought to bear.
 

cmhbob

Did...did I do that?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
5,743
Reaction score
4,840
Location
Green Country
Website
www.bobmuellerwriter.com
One other important consideration is support, be it air, artillery, or both.

A company of 100 with the support of a single AC-130 could easily hold off 500 troops.

500 troops with artillery support, or even their own mortars, could probably pretty easily overrun 100 troops who don't have any heavy weapons.
 

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
843
Location
Connecticut
As you can see, there's no absolute number. There are some critical unknowns in your question, e.g. what is the level of technology? what types of weapons, organization, communications & support forces are in play? what types of tactics & strategies are available to either side of the combat? how quickly can reliable information travel, across what distance? how evenly are the forces matched?
 

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
Hmm... I see that I left out some necessary information. I'm sorry I don't have a way of spoilering these large blocks of exposition.


Setting: Modern day military, American for now.

Goal of the Battle: The smaller force, the Company, is just raiding the place and causing some havoc. It's a fairly complicated political and technological situation, which I could go into at length.
They cut through the local forces like butter (big technology advantage), and expect the same to happen with the Battalion that comes up. The Company is a little surprised to see more organized resistance so quickly. The Company is also here to test the military capabilities of the Battalion's faction--just play with them a bit, to see how they fight.

The Battalion's objective is to stop the enemy's advance, or hopefully even force the enemy to retreat (defeating them outright isn't much of an option).

Luckily, the raiding force has no intention of staying for even a moderately difficult fight, and so return to their craft for a rapid extraction due to the tactics and organization of the Defenders pressing them (somewhat).

The Defending Battalion's Condition: The Battalion is made of off-duty infantry who were stationed nearby when the raid started. There was no indication whatsoever of an attack by the Company, no one even knowing this attacking force existed until now. There is no other pressing conflict to make them particularly prepared, either.

So, the Battalion's men are not particularly battle hardened. They're well drilled, they aren't fresh out of boot camp. However, their force was scrambled together desperately in response to the attack, so they aren't even a full strength Battalion. They even have had to supplement themselves with some paramilitary units, namely SWAT, counter terrorism units, maybe even general police--they're desperate.

Due to the unusual nature of the conflict, the Battalion has lacks full artillery support and Armour, only having what's on base. They are totally lacking air support. The battlefield is the middle of their fully populated city, though, so these options were already limited.

Possibly the most problematic, is that the Battalion lacks a good idea of the enemy's capabilities and battle doctrine. The enemy has recklessly spread themselves out, sometimes having a lone fire team a couple of blocks away from support. However, they fight with unknown technology, and some of them are impervious to small arms fire, requiring motor support or heavier anti-tank munitions. The enemy's firepower is extreme and precise, and they possess such boons as small air support craft similar to drones. Some also possess advanced mobility, making it difficult to project enemy movement.

The Attacking Company's Condition: The Company, contrasty, is a smaller, vastly technologically superior force, made up of the super elite, who are entirely prepared for this attack. They don't have exact data on the landing site nor the occupying forces, but probably have a better idea than most paratrooper operations have. They have a pretty good idea of what weapons and tactics the enemy have, and are drilled to deal with them. They lack practical experience with fighting this enemy, however. Despite this, they are not deployed cautiously, taking a ridiculously spaced out formation at the outset of the battle, and returning to a more sensible (but still very spaced out) formation only when pressed to by the enemy.

Rather than conventional artillery support, the Company relies on precise air to ground fire, which it is using sparingly against the Battalion, for now (it's busy with crippling the remains of the power and landlines, roads and bridges). However, many of their ground units possess firepower equivalent to modern artillery, used at much closer ranges.

Their air support consists of small craft similar to modern drones, but a lot more agile, with armour more similar to a AH-1 Cobra gunship. Ground Armour is sparse for the Company, but many of their infantry units are heavily resistant to fire, with weaponry capable of taking out an MBT being common amongst the force. Those vehicles the Company have brought are made for speed, but have firepower and armour more similar to medium tanks.


The Strategy and Process of the Battle:
Attacker
The Company's attack strategy was simple. They hit major junctures of communication lines moments before the attack, including landlines, roads and bridges. A Company sized force was then deployed in the centre of the target, a large Metropolitan area. The Company proceeds to shoot at anything that looks threatening or otherwise, decimating any police they encounter. They spread out to an extreme, unworried by police or SWAT resistance, performing a strange part of the mission which involves exploring and investigating elements of the city and kidnapping a variety of its inhabitants or even animals.

Defence
Meanwhile, the defending force is taken entirely by surprise, and it is due to unusual circumstances that they were able to coordinate any counter attack whatsoever, having several high ranking military officers off duty within the vicinity and roughly a Battalion's strength of soldiers stationed in the area. Their defence is extremely improvised and hodgepodge, and at first their only goal is to eliminate the intruders.

Attacker
The Company is not unprepared for this event. For now, they maintain a bizarrely loose formation. When encountering enemies, Company fireteams either decimate them at once with overwhelming force, or fallback--bunkering down if retreat is unavailable or risky. Whenever a fireteam encounters resistance it cannot overwhelm at once, air support and one or more other fire-teams head to the area, flanking the enemy with their superior mobility.

Defence
Eventually, the Battalion's effort gets more organized. They start covering their flanks and form a solid formation, calling in mortar and limited armour and artillery support, and making use of antitank munitions to deal with the enemy's resistance to fire.

Attacker
Seeing this, the Company is forced to tighten their formation, though it is still too loose by modern military standards. The Company does not put up a hard resistance, retreating whenever threatened with sufficient fire or firepower to endanger them. However, their retreat is often made towards a prepared ambush. In the case where any losses are taken, the wounded, weapons and bodies of the fallen are carried away either by squad mates, or by a strike motorized strike squad. In cases where bodies, wounded, or equipment cannot be recovered, it is hit with a precision air to ground strike, destroying everything within a short radius beyond all recognition. These strikes are often timed to try and hit approaching enemies. Sometimes, the vehicle or soldier who is lost is equipped with a bomb, and self destructs at a similar timing. Other soldiers are capable of helping with the timing of the strike or self destruction, if they have a clear view of the target area.

Attacker
As the formation of the Company becomes more solidified, their tactics become more aggressive. They attempt to penetrate into the Battalion's line, taking superior firing positions in an attempt to decimate the Battalion's formation. They make use of their mobility and ability to operate with small forces to make flanking manoeuvres whenever possible. Fire and Manoeuvre tactics are also very popular with the Company.

Defence
The tactical ability of the commander may have come in earlier, but it would shine most at this point. They have to anticipate the enemy's manoeuvres, lay ambushes and coordinate support, reinforce the positions that can be held and abandon the positions that are about to be overrun', to exploit weaknesses in the enemy's formation, and to evacuate and rescue any civilians they can. Of course, some of these decisions would be better made by captains and lieutenants directly involved, so the fighting must enter a stage where the overall shape of the formations and forces is key, rather than individual platoons or companies. The main character might also show aptitude by working out and adapting to the enemy's technological capabilities and planning around them, where a less able commander may keep to doctrine which does not apply well to the situation.

Attacker
While the Company isn't losing in a conventional sense, taking few losses, their cautious tactics keep requiring them to retreat when the enemy comes in force or when superior ground is lost. Eventually, the Company will stop their more aggressive tactics, attempting instead to wait in defensive positions and destroy any counter-attack. However, the enemy is behaving wisely and does not fall for this trap, only attacking weak positions while avoiding strong ones, manoeuvring to better positions.

Attacker
The Company is unwilling to maintain their positions, as they do not want to stay around till enemy reinforcements arrive. So, they turn their attention to a full scale retreat back to their landing craft, covering their retreat with Fire and Manoeuvre, air support, and precision air to ground strikes, they retreat in orderly fashion, and their craft escapes. They also make use of smaller helicopter-like craft for faster extraction

Defence
The Battalion cautiously pursues the enemy at the commander's orders. Some may become overzealous in this pursuit and be cut down. Attempts are made to take down some of the helicopter-like craft,but are largely ineffective due to their speed, armour, support, and careful deployment. Once the enemy are in their escape craft, there is little that can be done. The Defence can celebrate their bloody half-victory, and attempt to organize aid for their wounded and for the civilian population--while maintaining awareness in case of follow-up attacks.



Of course, there are some details I unfortunately left out. The panicking civilians who need to be evacuated will make a big difference, I figure, and I could go into it at length. Moving tanks may be hard for the defenders due to debris from enemy fire, traffic jams, and panicking civilians. Due to enemy air superiority, it is extremely risky to make use of helicopters and other air support. There are some other details I may have forgotten, as well.

I apologize for this poor presentation.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
It brings to mind an image of a bizarre rendition of pokemon, where each general yells at their private to do more and faster push-ups than the other, or dig a deeper trench.
 

badwolf.usmc

#CustomUserTitle
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
255
Reaction score
37
Location
Northern Indiana
A similar battle would be the Battle of Mogadishu, which you can see in the movie Blackhawk Down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

I'm not certain that the 500 can do what you want them to do. During the Battle for Mogadishu, US forces were outnumbered between 25 and 30 to 1, not 5 to 1 like in your example, and were still able to do what they needed to do. The US lost 18 soldiers, with another 73 wounded, while the estimates for enemy killed are between 315 and 3,000, with ~1,000 being the accepted number and another 4,000 wounded.

Technology and Air Power rule the battlefield for a reason.

I would suggest you cut that company down to a platoon of around 50 guys and give that battalion anti-air capability, to reduce the effectiveness of the air power.
 

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
I agree with your point, it may be better to reduce the Company to a Platoon. My main concern was that if there were too few attackers, then there wouldn't be any tactical depth for the Commander to take advantage of, as the optimal tactic would seem to be surround them and fire, and the enemy could maintain a battle line. However, if they are suitably spread out, it may still be fine.

Sorry, I did forget to mention that the Battalion does have some anti-air capabilities. The Attacker's air units are used conservatively. They're also small, armoured targets, and are swift and agile, such that many of the anti air weapons are reduced in effectiveness within the urban environment. Still, this means the Attackers can't just have their air units buzz over the Battalion and devastate them, because if they stick around for long they'll be shot out of the sky.

I'm trying to balance the Attackers' technology so it seems incredibly impressive, but actually has more limitations than are expected. At one point, I intend to have the precision air to ground strikes fail to kill infantry who are under heavy cover (it is very hard to make a good bunker buster), and you can beat it in rate of fire simply by having more artillery units (the attackers appear to be on a tight budget, for this attack).


Anyway, sorry, I'm babbling again. I'll take another closer look at Black Hawk. Hopefully I can get some ideas for clever tactical decisions the Commander can make.

Thanks again for your help!
 

culmo80

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
135
Reaction score
12
Location
Alexandria, VA
I had to read through your posts a few times to understand the situation, but I think I have it now.

So the attacking force (the company) are the "enemy" and the defending force (the battalion) will be led by your main character. Correct?


I think you should establish the point of this raid before you get into the details of the fighting.

Why is this group of highly-trained soldiers with immense support attacking this city?
If the goal of this mission is to "create some havoc" then why risk these highly-trained soldiers? Why not simply use these great drones that you have to launch strikes at random buildings? Why not fund an indigenous terrorist organization?
I think there needs to be a reason for this company to be there. That will really drive your battle.

In military terminology, a raid is a tactic - a means to an end, not an end itself. You can use a raid to destroy an enemy facility, or to eliminate an enemy force.

Why not have your enemy company there to kidnap a VIP? Use the Battle of Mogadishu as an example. Taskforce Ranger was sent into the heart of the city in order to capture a high ranking member of the Mohammed Farah Adid militia. The raid was supposed to take only a few minutes, with the Rangers and Delta Operatives back on base within the hour.
However, the movie portrayal doesn't accurately show this, but they weren't exactly out there on their own. An international coalition was ready and able to support, but Special Operations Units tend to like to operate without letting conventional forces in on the big secret. 10th Mountain could have been ready to respond within minutes of that first helicopter going down...if they had been told in advance.

The point is, you need to identify exactly why this company is attacking the city. Give a valid reason for them to be there. Then, you can decide if 100 men are enough to complete the mission.


Secondly, a 5-1 numerical imbalance isn't all that impressive, especially considering the massive technological support this company has. 100 men absolutely could hold off and even drive back 500 men who are only marginally-trained and unprepared. History is full of such encounters.
And that leads me to this:

A general officer does not lead a battalion. At the most, he might lead a brigade, but more likely you'll only find a flag officer leading a division, and that's around 10,000 men.


Hope this all helps.
 

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
I'm sorry for not giving the details of the political situation and reason for the raid earlier. I wasn't sure if anyone would be interested.


I see the point to the 5 to 1 issue--it isn't high impressive under the circumstances. I was starting with that as my baseline to try and show the raider's impressive fighting ability, but not make them so outnumbered that their defeat doesn't come as a surprise.

I'm wondering about reducing the Raiders' numbers to a platoon, and possibly even increasing the defenders to a full battalion. 20 to 1 odds, roughly. I want to keep the defenders' force small, to give that impression it is a hastily arranged defence, and that there was no idea an attack would come.

For the leader of the Battalion, I was intending a general to have been nearby through chance, so he goes to lead the local forces. In this case, I was also intending for the command tent to get hit, and a high ranking logistics or medical officer to be the next in command due to a lack of combat officers on base--the sort of officer who ought to have no idea what they're doing, in this situation (ala Omar Bradly, who originally worked at a desk).


The raid has several motives to it, but largely it is to confuse the local population as to the raiders' motives and make them seek a peaceful treaty with them at a later point. More importantly, it serves to intimidate the local population (toward a treaty that will suit the raiders), and as a warning to other nations who will hear of this raid and the raiders' great power. Even if the population of this nation will not forgive the raid, they expect they can make alliances with other nations, and get what they need.


I hope this reply is a helpful explanation. Thank you for all the help you have offered, and for spending time helping me.
 

Weirdmage

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
562
Reaction score
52
Location
South Yorkshire, UK
I'm wondering about reducing the Raiders' numbers to a platoon, and possibly even increasing the defenders to a full battalion. 20 to 1 odds, roughly. I want to keep the defenders' force small, to give that impression it is a hastily arranged defence, and that there was no idea an attack would come.

The second part of this is something I have been thinking about since I last commented on the thread. Is this raid the initial strike in this conflict? Because if it isn't I would find it hard to see how the defenders could be totally unprepared for an attack.
From other things you say it seems like this is near to the frontlines, and then I find it hard to swollow that this raid comes as a total surprise, and also that this city seems to totally lack any form of organised defenses.
The same really goes for the technological advantage your heroes have. From what you say in the thread it looks like that is also something that come as a surprise. Something that also seems quite unlikely given the time it takes to develop military technology, and how you can get information of quite a lot that is in development if you are interested. (For instance I saw a special around 1990 about future military technology, and not all of that is in use yet.)

All of the above goes for a story set on this planet in the present or near future. If the raid is done on an alien planet some 100+ years into the future then it would become much more plausible to me. (I.e. if it is Military Science Fiction.)


The raid has several motives to it, but largely it is to confuse the local population as to the raiders' motives and make them seek a peaceful treaty with them at a later point. More importantly, it serves to intimidate the local population (toward a treaty that will suit the raiders), and as a warning to other nations who will hear of this raid and the raiders' great power. Even if the population of this nation will not forgive the raid, they expect they can make alliances with other nations, and get what they need.

Attacking a civilian target, like the city you mention seems to be, hasn't really worked as intimidation in any situation I can think of. It would be more likely to cement the will of the population against the invading forces (the raiders). It's not like the US led forces in Afghanistan or Iraq had an easy time of it despite having a pretty big technological advantage over the insurgents/resistance/local militias in those countries.


I am sorry if I seem negative towards the ideas you have presented. It's just that I can't get it to add up to something that is realistic based on my 30+ years of reading military history and following occuring conflicts.
It actually clicked for me yesterday that a raid of the type you describe is more similar to a near future FPS/Shooter video game description than a real conflict. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it would need quite a bit of worldbuilding to realistically get today's world to that point. -Something that video games can gloss over because the point of them is to blow things up.
In a novel however, I'd expect a solid political foundation to get to the point where this raid happens. -Unless as mentioned before it is Military Science Fiction, where the action can overshadow the need for realism.
 

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
It would be the initial strike of the conflict. I'm sorry if I implied this was a conflict near a frontline, but the country hasn't been in any major war for some time, and was in a time of total peace when the raid happened.

Well, the raiders weren't really intended as heroes. No one was aware of them till now, so it would be difficult to know about their technology.


I have discussed this with a historian, who helped me hammer out the political aspects of the story. What I wasn't sure of was how to handle the details of the raid.

The story would probably go under military science fiction. Is that bad?
 

Weirdmage

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
562
Reaction score
52
Location
South Yorkshire, UK
The story would probably go under military science fiction. Is that bad?

Absolutely not. It just makes the level of realism very different to a contemporary/near future (as in next 20 or so years) story.

The details of the raid are much more up to you when the story is Military SF. And if as you say the raiders are actually unknown up to this point by those attacked, you can give them basically any technology necessary to have them do what they need to do for your story.
I'd suggest, as others already have, that you have a specific objective for the raid though. Just creating chaos would seem like little more than an excuse to put some battle scenes in. Of course, creating chaos and then ask for something in return for creating even more of that type of chaos would probably work. -But I'll leave that to you. If you know where A (before the raid) is in the story, and C (what is the larger result of the raid), you should be able to create what you need in B (the raid) to traverse the distance between the points.

Good luck. :)
 

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
Thank you Weirdmage!

The main technological requirements are for them to be very militarily effective and capable of rapidly striking/deploying at a target with little to no warning. That coupled with a successful introduction ought to cause the necessary panic for the next part of the story, where options of war and peace get bandied about.

I wish you luck in your endeavours as well!
 

culmo80

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
135
Reaction score
12
Location
Alexandria, VA
From a military standpoint, a raid like the one you describe would serve almost no military purpose for the attacker. At the very least, it would give ample warning to the defenders that war was upon them. At most, it would galvanize the defending nation and unify them in a single effort.

For example, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US launched precision airstrikes at Iraq's command and control network, the air defense system, and any viable military targets. the idea was to totally wreck the Iraqi defensive network prior to the ground invasion - much like we did in 1991.
Had the US simply bombed civilian centers, the result would have been a much more pronounced international condemnation, the loss of the few allies we had, and it likely would have swung Iraqi civilian support towards Saddam.

If you're looking for an opening salvo in a war, consider Pearl Harbor for your scenario. A surprise attack against a strategic target with the purpose of crippling the American fleet, making an American response near-impossible. The Japanese failed, but that's a good place to start.


You absolutely can write military sci-fi, but the basic tenants of war still should be present. It won't matter how awesome your fighting scenes are if the reader is still questioning the whole reason for the battle.
 

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
Well, the idea is to make it look like an exploration mission, rather than a military attack. The raiders decided to gamble on this strategy, as war doesn't match their resources or aims. I realize that this is a weird way of going about things, but this is part of the premise of the story, to make the raiders' aims mysterious and oft brought up throughout the story.
 

Taejang

Why not?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
258
Reaction score
30
Having read through all of this, I'll give some thoughts.

First, you are describing a situation akin to alien invasion. A small group of extremely advanced aliens attacks a civilian target without warning. I don't know that your raiders actually are aliens, but that was how I interpreted things. If this is not the case, you'll need to make sure your readers know these are humans. You'll also need some very convincing evidence as to how such a vast technology difference came to exist between the US (or any comparable modern nation) and this raider faction.

I can see no reason for the raiders to abduct random local civilians unless they have absolutely no information on the defenders. AKA alien invaders. Politically speaking, they may try and exchange hostages, but if this is an opening salvo, the defenders are unlikely to have prisoners of their own, and the raider tactics prevent any from being taken in this engagement. Besides, with this level of technical superiority, I can imagine the raiders could mount impressive special ops forces and forcibly retrieving any captives from the defenders.

If they are indeed lacking information about the defenders for some reason, they should be looking at the internet, not mounting raids. With their level of technology, I would expect they can find an internet cafe. Heck, they could probably hack into a sizable number of secure databases without even getting out of their PJs. They'd only need to conduct raids to access closed systems (such as highly-secure military installations).

As others said, I cannot imagine 500 defenders could force military victory against this highly-superior force of raiders. However, the defenders don't need to; if the raiders accomplish their goals, whatever they are, the raiders will simply leave on their own. The defenders could claim it as a victory, though it would not have been their actions that caused the raiders' retreat.

How do the raiders arrive without being spotted by satellite, radar, or coast guard? This shouldn't be a problem with their level of technology, but if you haven't thought of it, you should jot a note down somewhere.

How long is this battle going to last? You said to assume something like the US as the defenders; except for a communication blackout, it only takes fifteen minutes (at DEFCON 5) to scramble jets from QRA areas like DC and Norad. Other areas would take a little longer to scramble, but it isn't going to take hours and hours. That doesn't account for any planes already in the air. Most major metropolitan areas have nearby air support, possibly even from carriers if they happen to be around. I'd guess the defenders could have air support before the battle you outlined would end. That could actually serve as a decent reason for the raiders to withdraw, depending on their air superiority powers vs whatever jet force is inbound, but could also complicate their extraction exponentially.

Now, after reading all that, please don't take me to be a meanie trying to destroy your story or be negative or critical or whatever. Everything I've outlined is only how I see it and subject to plenty of mitigating factors. With the tech level these guys have, maybe they jammed communications. Maybe the defenders have a chance because the raiders' orders include preventing any prolonged visual contact at all (to preserve secrecy of tech and tactics), thus forcing them out of any real fight and drastically reducing the options for their air power to offer support. Etc etc.

As for actual tactics, here are some this "armchair" general came up with, from your battle outline.
1) If the raiders are so keen on preventing any of their casualties from being recovered by defenders, the defenders can take advantage of that. Overwhelm a distant raider squad or fire team and prepare an ambush for the raider drones coming to dispose of the bodies. Focus the defender's anti-air at that spot to knock out the drones.

This works because it takes observed behavior (raiders don't leave any scrap of their presence behind) and puts that raider objective at odds with whatever other objective the raiders have, which the defenders probably can only guess at. The raiders are forced into an extended, open confrontation against the defenders who are entrenching themselves around the fallen raider squad, or else the raiders must abandon the fallen. This creates an advantage for the defenders and pulls raiders out of their careful defensive retreat.

The defenders can even pretend to salvage a raider intact and then demand the raiders leave in exchange for recovering the body. The raiders may be forced to attack the defenders' position to confirm or deny whether the defenders really do have an intact body, or the raiders may be forced to parlay. Either could be advantageous to the defenders.

2) If the raiders are observed taking captives, the defenders can deny them this possibility. This is obviously dependent on the ruthlessness of the defenders, but they can deliberately kill their own civilians who are captured. If the raiders' mission depended on this, they are now frustrated.

This can be mitigated by the raiders if the hostages are protected inside their vehicles, though that can backfire if the defenders focus on the vehicles anyway, possibly without even knowing their own civilians are inside.

3) If the raiders are relying on anything in the city, the defenders can deny them that. Destroying their own bridges, blocking roads, etc. This may not work if the raiders' superior mobility negates it; something you'll have to consider.

4) Interstates work well for moving tanks. In an attack, most civilians will flee away from the city; this should make roads temporarily clear going into town (I say temporarily as civilians will soon overflow into those roads, too). Depending on the military installation in question, there will be some tanks/vehicles on base/post; these could be moved to the rear of the raiders' formation, as judged by where the raiders are slowly retreating to. This would be far easier than moving them through the city itself.

5) If the enemy is observed to retreat from any serious engagement, the defending commander can take advantage of that. Either guessing or after careful observation, he/she can attempt to determine what is "serious" enough to make the raiders retreat, then fake it.

If it is just numbers, a mass charge may be called for. Or faking numbers, for instance with military personnel "drafting" willing civilians and having them march alongside real units to appear more numerous than their real fighting abilities would be. Particularly viable if the defenders are not all in uniforms anyway. In the US, this is particularly viable as there are enough guns in almost any city to fake an impromptu army, either from private stocks or taken from stores.

If it is support, using the limited number of tanks and helicopters available to threaten the largest number of raider positions could make the raiders fall back faster than actually committing these resources against one specific raider position. The threat of force can be quite powerful all by itself.

6) If the defenders figure out who the raiders are during the battle, they can claim to order retaliatory strikes on the raiders point of origin. This may encourage a withdrawal of raider forces. Obviously impossible if the defenders don't know where the raiders came from.

Against any nation like the US, the raiders will need some way to escape satellite detection, because after a raid this significant, every satellite available will be tracking them as they retreat. That means the defenders would know where the raiders retreat to. For reference, the EU, China, and Russia all have their own satellite networks online or coming up in the next few years, ending the possibility of sabotaging the entire global network by targeting/hacking a single nation, and you can bet every nation would track these raiders, whether they are friendly with the nation under attack or not.

Thus the threat of that tracking could necessitate a raider retreat, as the longer the battle lasts, the more satellites will be in position and watching. Even if they can't track the raiders' withdrawal, simply observing their capabilities will be a large intelligence boon against the raiders (who won't let their own dead fall into enemy hands for fear of the intelligence gathered from the bodies).

Sorry this post is so long. :Shrug:
 

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
Hi Taejang. Thank you for your feedback!

Objectives: The primary objective is to make the raid seem like a research mission rather than a military one. This includes grabbing stuff the raiders don't actually need to keep up that appearance, but they also grab stuff they do find useful. While you can look up biology and technology on the internet, some thing you need to see and play with for yourself to properly understand. In particular, the raiders make a point of hitting military bases, communication arrays and government buildings to obtain information not on the internet.

Soldier Numbers: I was considering making it closer to a full Battalion for the defenders, and about a platoon for the raiders.

Stealth: I have considered the factors of stealth. It is hard to know how to justify it though. Hard scifi sometimes goes so far to say there will never be stealth in space, so it mostly relies on their technology having something that hasn't been learned about yet--which would make sense if they have any FTL capabilities.

Jets: In this case, they're probably not much of a concern. The raiders hit the communication networks pretty hard, and even stage some fake attacks on cities in the opposite direction to lure away armies. The jets themselves are mostly lured into ambushes and destroyed by superior combat aircraft, making use of the jet fighters' lack of intelligence.


Strategy

1) Excellent idea! I was thinking about this, but wasn't entirely sure how you'd achieve this. Often, the strike is made by some artillery craft out of reach, that seems able to home in on the fallen soldier's position. However, if a soldier were to fall somewhere the artillery couldn't effective hit, they may have to send in the drones or infantry, which you could ambush. Maybe if you killed a scout inside a sturdy building?

2) This is a worthwhile idea. I'm not sure I can explore it for this particular raid, but I'd like to have something like this come up later.

3) Ironically, the raiders would actually be using this against the defenders. With a mixture of jump jets, hover technology, and fast infantry, the raiders can traverse most obstacles easily.

4) I was actually wondering about this. I thought that since the raid was so sudden, the civilians wouldn't have time to evacuate. Combined with drone, artillery and infantry attacked, I figured the roads would be pretty well gummed up with cars destroyed or otherwise, making it trickier for tanks (they could just drive over the cars, I figured, but thought it may still make it awkward to manoeuvre).

5) I'll have to make use of suggest intimidation tactics as you've suggested. It might create an opening for the defenders.

6) That could be amusing. "We have located the raider's base. Sending coordinates over encrypted channel. Give 'em hell!"
"Whoa, we found the raider's base?"
"Nope."

Satellites: I might just have the raiders take over all the satellites during the raid, scuttling or abandoning them before they're hit by missiles (or potentially setting them up for missile defence). With their ability to attack undetected, it might be conventional satellite technology is ineffective against their stealth technologies.

Of course, doing stuff to other nations' satellites is sure to annoy them, but it may be worth it compared to the alternatives.


Thank you again for your detailed feedback! It got me thinking about things in new ways. Thank you for that. I wish you the best.
 

Taejang

Why not?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
258
Reaction score
30
Some other notes I thought of since the first post. Numbers correspond to previous numbers.

1) Additionally, even fragments of something hard (like body armor) can reveal a heck of a lot of information. Talk to a fireman about how they discovered what started a fire, and where. Now imagine the smartest military minds in the world analyzing it.

After such a raid, you can bet the defenders will comb the wreckage and find such fragments. You can expect them to learn things about the raiders that way, though it would take longer and be less total information than an intact body would provide.

4) Civilians would clog the roads, but many cars can't travel as quickly (or at all) in the median. Tanks can. Depending on the city (number of overpasses, rivers, etc), this may not work, but at least for short stretches, the tanks can drive around congested areas by avoiding the roads. If the military base/post has combat engineers, temporary bridges may also be used to move forces into position.

7) Regardless of whether these are aliens or not, it sounds like they have space flight. Any ground army will lose to an air-supported army. Mobility, firepower, and defense from the air is just better. Likewise, any world army will lose to any space-supported army. If you've read a lot of military science fiction, you'll know why. If you haven't, let me summarize.

a) With sufficient calculations, a large rock dropped from space (a few tons and coated so as to survive entry through the atmosphere) is the equivalent of a nuclear ICBM. If we didn't know there was anybody in space to drop it, we would assume it was another human nation, possibly leading to global nuclear war but at least leading to increased suspicions and decreased cooperation.

A few dozen such rocks could get really close to wiping out all life on earth. The dust kicked up would block the sun and cause a few years of global starvation. Any military force left after that would be easy pickings.

b) It would be very, very frightening to us as a global society if we started losing satellites. Assuming we didn't have any way to combat them in space, it wouldn't require much for them to take some out. This wouldn't impose a communication blackout but would seriously damage our intelligence communities and military capabilities in general. Doing so to a handful of satellites would demonstrate the ability to do so to all, and thus create an atmosphere of fear: they can hit us all day and we can't touch them.

Because there is no loss of life, it would not likely unite the world like a nuclear strike would. The raiders could thus get us into advantageous negotiations without risking an actual landing.

If there is going to be a landing, dealing with the satellites is probably a prerequisite.

c) Obtaining hostages in a rural area is much safer than from a major city. If they need living humans and animals to learn from, farms are the best option.

This can be mitigated if there is some restriction on where or how often they land; for example, maybe they can't go up and down from orbit willy-nilly, requiring the raiders to combine multiple missions into one.

d) If they are aliens to our world (even if human), they will need a long time to understand and adapt to our weird technology. The unique combination of our hardware and software will not be easily hackable to an outsider who has no concept of "Windows" and "Linux," much less all the protocols like IPv6, BlueTooth, and SSH they would need to understand to hack our stuff.

Likewise, we won't be hacking them anytime soon, no matter what Independence Day portrayed. However, both sides could figure out some basics of hardware capability (like radio frequencies) and brute-force jam signals, though the raiders would probably be better at it than we would be.

e) You mention that many hard scifi precludes the idea of stealth in space. Baloney. We as a world are barely looking at space; anybody coming at us carefully wouldn't have to do much to avoid detection. We regularly spot new asteroids/meteors on near-earth trajectories right before (or even after) they pass us; something as small as a ship that is trying to be stealthy (and probably much faster than a meteor) could reach us easily.

What's more, we already have technology that provides some darn good stealth. Search for "invisible tank" and you'll find prototype tested ideas for tanks covered in screens and cameras to project the terrain and make themselves invisible, tanks that absorb or redirect radar, tanks that adjust their temperature to that of the ambient atmosphere and are rendered invisible to infrared... the list goes on.

If we had comparable technology, maybe the hard scifi fans would be right. We could use various forms of radiation or other things to detect incoming spacecraft. But such things are in the beginning stages for us; we certainly don't have any of that in space and looking for intruders. Any small, stealthy invasion force with superior technology is quite likely to reach Earth's atmosphere undetected.

Actual inserting gets harder; probably best to come down over Antarctica where few satellites are looking and behave like a shooting star until slowed down and the craft is cooled off; then traditional anti-radar and anti-ladar/lidar technology would be required to get around undetected. As we have stealth bombers, it is certainly possible. Taking out satellites makes the whole thing easier, if perhaps giving away the fact that things are going on.

f) If they are from another planet, we can't touch them. Period. Merely threatening us with world-wide annihilation and pointing out the fact that it would take us years to reach them, if we even have the capability of doing so, would end any direct military response. Then they come down and make demands. If we don't cooperate, they dump a rock on our heads.

g) All this assumes the off-world raider force is united and not pressured by anyone else. If the raiders are a splinter group, with limited resources and possibly hunted by other off-world groups, it is entirely feasible they couldn't behave so brazenly.

8) Obviously you don't need to explain more, I'm just spitballing ideas here. The crux of the matter is, if they can escape into space and have any degree of mobility there, we can't really do much to them. And as you can tell from another long post, I kind of enjoy spitballing ;)
 

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
1) Mm, I was figuring on this. If there are only about 50 insurgents, and they take few casualties and they are careful, the chance of there being little for the defenders to find afterwards is good. Though, preventing them form finding some kind of fragment seems like it may well be impossible, even if their artillery can just about obliterate material with a direct hit.

4) Yeah, the tanks could go anywhere there was space. I sort of figured in a large scale panic, you may get cars in places they weren't meant to be, but not necessarily in large enough numbers to be a problem. A tank can go over a car easy.

7) Mm, I had this is mind. Of course, there were some battles and wars where air superiority wasn't enough, namely Patton's campaign in Africa where the British failed to give proper air support (not that German air support was in great supply at that time).

For this instance, the raiders don't want to do significant damage to the planet, so throwing rocks from space isn't an option they're willing to use (will probably crop up later when they get desperate).

I agree that taking out the satellites will be important and necessary. It will also serve to make the world nervous about starting a war with the raiders. I wonder how many satellites they should take out. They could only take out the ones that will see the mission area during the operation, or could take most or all of them out.

With the city, I figure their need to grab hostages isn't too intensive. They won't do it if it puts them at risk, and will gun people down seemingly at random; partly to make it seem like they have trouble telling hostiles from civilians. When they really want people, they'll attack undeveloped, isolated areas with reasonable populations.

I agree with your points about technology compatibility. I figured the raiders studied radio signals for a while, managed to access the internet and study that for longer, and eventually thought they knew enough to begin the attack.

I think the people who say stealth is impossible in stealth are exaggerating and going too far, but I see that some writers take it for granted space is easy to move in. This article covers most of the discussion I've seen about stealth in space: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#id--There_Ain't_No_Stealth_In_Space
I'm not trying to argue on this. Mostly, I just figure it's better to say they're not sure how the raiders are messing with their radar and other sensors, implying they have some technology that isn't even understood yet.

There are some reasons they can't just tell the world to surrender. This is a major theme of the story, that why don't the raiders just threaten the world and force them to cooperate. Some characters give half-hearted explanations for why it might be, but none are satisfactory--but the fact of the matter is that no matter how sensible it seems, the raiders are doing something strange, and no one is sure why. As you guess, the raider's have their own reasons for their strange actions.

8) Spitballing is a lot of fun, and can help people to come up with new ideas and to better understand the material. Thank you for all your help!