Would there be a use for armoured vehicles on planets between the size of Ganymede (~2634 km radius) & 120347 Salacia(~423 km radius)? While these bodies are small would they still be large enough for armoured vehicles? Unlike the larger planets in this universe they are subject to orbital bombardment from projectiles up to the equivalent of ~300mm rockets, but most is smaller than that. (Any projectile shot at a larger planet burns up in the atmosphere.) These planets are not terraformed & most of the small population of these planets lives underground while the only thing of real value on these planets is their mineral resources. These planets have their own dedicated military forces dedicated to fighting on them that don't have to fight anywhere else, so familiarity with using armoured vehicles isn't an issue. Warfare is human vs human with nations of similar technology level. Warfare is mostly outside invaders but sometimes the ones towards the larger end of the scale have 2-3 major factions fighting for control.
-
Who are they fighting? Other factions on the same planet? Or invaders coming from space? – Philipp Aug 03 '21 at 09:44
-
@Philipp mostly outside invaders but sometimes the ones towards the larger end of the scale have 2-3 major factions fighting for control. – OT-64 SKOT Aug 03 '21 at 09:47
-
Then perhaps the question Can realistic planetary invasion have any meaningful strategy? might be related. – Philipp Aug 03 '21 at 09:59
-
The rods from god disagree with the notion that any orbital bombardment would fail. Basically a streamlined tungsten rod dropped from high orbit would impact with tremendous force. So unless you specify that this universe has physics or technology to prevent this orbital bombardment would be possible. – Demigan Aug 03 '21 at 10:46
-
@Demigan it wrote that because it's simpler than explaining the entire geopolitical situation of my world. The best summary is that would result in either a lambasting from the international community & a lot of sanctions & at worst a nuclear response for doing something like that to the only planet that is inhabitable without significant technological assistance & on which the majority of industry & population. Everywhere else isn't worth the cost for that kind of system & your better off with tactical nukes because no one could go outside without significant assistance in the first place. – OT-64 SKOT Aug 03 '21 at 11:04
-
@OT-64SKOT I think you just gave more than enough information. "Because of Geneva-like conventions and international backlash the use of large-scale orbital bombardment is limited in use and ordnance size" basically describes it. – Demigan Aug 03 '21 at 12:52
-
2@Demigan At least for Salacia, the gravity is so low that I'd think that rodding wouldn't function at all. Ganymede, at 0.14g, requires ~7x the acceleration time for a rod to acquire the equivalent energy of a rod used against an Earth target, allowing the target to move out of the target zone at a relatively leisurely pace. – GrumpyYoungMan Aug 03 '21 at 15:34
-
@GrumpyYoungMan good point. I interpreted his first sentences to mean "only on small planets can you use orbital bombardment of up to 300mm in size". He mentions projectiles vaporizing in-atmosphere of larger planets which solidified that assumption, hence my reply. – Demigan Aug 03 '21 at 16:41
2 Answers
Armored vehicles excel at open land warfare. When an invader has orbital superiority, then they can land and bombard wherever they want. That means that any vehicles on the surface are easy to hit targets. If the invaders want to take any objectives intact, then they would do that by landing ground troops right next to the entrance. So most combat on the surface will likely be short-range infantry engagements around or within the underground facilities.
That means that armored vehicles are of little use against orbital invaders.
However, they might be quite useful in wars against other factions on the same planet. If you want to attack another facility nearby which does not have a tunnel connection, then you first have to get there. There are two ways to do so: By ground or by suborbital flight.
Flying would be faster, and on a low-gravity world not even very energy-expensive. But it makes you an easy target for enemy AA guns and you can hardly do it stealthily. So a ground offensive with vehicles sneaking through the cover of valleys and craters might be a viable alternative. You will have armored vehicles anyway: Radiation and micrometeroids would make armor on civilian vehicles mandatory. So all it might take to turn a civilian cargo truck into a formidable military APC might be to bolt on a gun or two.
The opponent might not want to be besieged. So if they find out, they would intercept your invasion force in their own vehicles. So you have vehicular warfare on the surface. Having bigger guns and thicker armor on your vehicles than they do would be pretty useful. So you have a reason to build tanks.
Still, flyers have their use. So you would likely have combined arms warfare on the surface, with both ground vehicles and flying vehicles. Or even hybrid vehicles which are both capable of driving and short flight. Adding jump-jets to a ground vehicle on Earth is a futile endeavor due to the high surface gravity, but in a low-gravity environment it might be viable.
- 48,627
- 16
- 95
- 171
-
How would they land next to the entrance? Any smart defender would place bunkers close to the entrance. Too close to destroy the bunker without collateral damage if you do orbital bombardment. That means landing the troops, and armored vehicles would become useful. But where do you land? Underground and hidden bunkers would be located near likely landing sites, and possibly anti-orbital missile sites could also be located there, always firing on a target on the opposite side of the planet to reduce the chance of detection. – Demigan Aug 03 '21 at 10:52
-
1@Demigan The question is asking if the defenders would use armored vehicles. When their defense strategy is based on bunkers and missile batteries, then they wouldn't. – Philipp Aug 03 '21 at 10:59
-
Ah my mistake. replace "bunker" with "armored vehicle". The ability to move around the objective is important too. The ability to move them prior to an attack to likely sites is also valuable, pre-prepared bunkers could house armore vehicles and hide them from view. – Demigan Aug 03 '21 at 11:07
Versus an external invader, given that there's very little gravity dwarf planets like Ganymede (0.14 G) and Salacia (0.02 G) and consequently very little or no atmosphere, a spacecraft can approach almost arbitrarily close to the surface. An invader would use the much heavier guns of accompanying warships to neutralize any surface vehicles using direct fire and there's no civilian population on the surface they have to avoid targeting, which implies there's no place to hide from orbital direct fire. So armored vehicles are only usable by the invading force. (If the invader doesn't have space superiority, they can't land ground forces either without having them destroyed during the landing.)
The very low gravity on the smallest dwarf planets means vehicles used there would resemble small spacecraft rather than what most people think of as armored vehicles anyway. Tracks/wheels would be useless (ground friction is proportional to gravity, of which there is very little) so thrusters are needed to be move around and also to compensate for the large recoil forces of the onboard cannon.
Versus another faction on the same planet, armored vehicles are possibly useful.
- 7,729
- 2
- 20
- 31