[Mass Combat] A civilization without Armour units (and similar variations)

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

I'm not sure I can imagine a technology that can invent explosive shells, but not explosives as propellants. No way to build tubes that can contain the pressure?

Given that you can build a functional rocket out of a cardboard tube....

Trying to come up with a *technical* reason is probably a bad idea, anything that is an actual barrier distorts too much other technology. The simplest reason is "nobody ever thought of it". Very little technology is inevitable at any particular TL, we're just fooled by how ubiquitous stuff becomes at particular points in history. Undoubtably there is simple stuff completely achievable at TL7 that people a couple centuries from now are going to think 20th century militaries were idiots not to have invented - the list of stuff falling into that category from the past isn't short after all, from phalanxes and stirrups onward.

The next best excuse is probably tried that, didn't work. "Not *another* crazed inventor with an armored vehicle design, after the land ironclad debacle, you'd think even the village idiots would know better...."

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Greetings, all!

A question inspired by the recollection of some very old discussion on stardestroyer.net: how would a TL8+ civilization fare in war if it didn't have any form of tanks (armour)?
!

Against whom and in what terrain?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

A
Depends on your anti-tank technology. "Big flat plains" are good ground for anti-tank missiles.

Not really. Anything a human can carry is going to be outranged by comparable technology a large vehicle can carry.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Against whom and in what terrain?

Throughout TLs 7-9 on non-jungle and non-broken-cliffs terrains.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Very little technology is inevitable at any particular TL

While this is true, people have independently come up with the idea of "let's stick some armor on this truck!" many many times; turrets, tracks, or super-heavy armor may not be invented, but stuff that's armored enough to resist small arms seems pretty hard to avoid.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Throughout TLs 7-9 on non-jungle and non-broken-cliffs terrains.

Then go with a lack of fuel. There's no good reason for tanks NOT to exist at TL7-9 otherwise. Tanks existed to restore tactical and strategic mobility in a situation where it had evaporated, and the previous methods(cavalry) were stymied by the new technologies(barbed wire, and machine guns). Without barbed wire, you can probably have horse mobility. With it? No chance.

[acrosome]

Is this an alternate history question, or a real life modern warfare question?

Because if the latter, well, there are a lot of examples to study of armored forces fighting a group who has no armor. Libya invading Chad- aka the Toyota War- comes to mind. Countless guerrilla wars, including Vietnam (though you said non-jungle). The Falklands conflict would be a good one- there were some light armor present but they played an extremely minor role.

If the former, then the other side won't have armor either, eh? Then, again, we have a historical example- the result of a Great Power conflict might be endless attrition warfare as in WWI, unless you allow advanced airpower and artillery that makes concentrating forces in one line suicidal. In such a case warfare becomes one monumental skirmish line and mobile warfare might be possible. Maybe someone would try to pattern-bomb the enemy's front with B52s or something. Chemical warfare might look more attractive, to make up for the lack of shock effect from the armor and allow one to punch through the opposing lines. Of course, the Falklands might be a good example, here, too, in a more restrained war.

P.S. Tanks aren't being used in Afghanistan, but armor is, in the form of MRAPs.

P.P.S. Air power has another advantage. Yes, the cost per ton delivered is higher than artillery, but airpower has a range a hell of a lot farther than 30km! Plus, you can put a very concentrated tonnage on a small target, aka hitting C3 targets, hardened buildings, etc. The cost per ton of a cruise missile remains much more than air power, at least in recent US conflicts were attrition of aircraft was low.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Is this an alternate history question, or a real life modern warfare question?

Mostly a real life/playtest/realitycheck question inspired by an old setting idea (right now dead, but might be reanimated later). Basically, I wonder how a nation would fare in TL7-TL9 warfare (assuming it faces nations of same TL and comparable size/military budget) if it never had Armour (Tank) technology. As in, no heavily armoured tracked vehicles with big cannons.

[Walrus]

So, you know how. It's the beginning of WWI. Long positions war with a lot of trenches, minefields and the gods of the battlefield are machine gun and sniper. Also with use of chemical weapons.

More modern are any land operations against guerrilla forces: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Iraq. There were a little of armour at guerrilla forces and limited armour with organized forces just because there were no targets for them.

What about artillery? Is Paris Gun allowed? Or is Dora?

What about air and naval forces? Are they armoured? And if so, why are not land forces?

What about APCs? They aren't tracked and don't have big cannons. But way from APC to IFV and then to tanks and SPG is obvious. At least just railed or wheeled ones should exist.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Walrus

So, you know how. It's the beginning of WWI. Long positions war with a lot of trenches, minefields and the gods of the battlefield are machine gun and sniper. Also with use of chemical weapons.

More modern are any land operations against guerrilla forces: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Iraq. There were a little of armour at guerrilla forces and limited armour with organized forces just because there were no targets for them.

What about artillery? Is Paris Gun allowed? Or is Dora?

What about air and naval forces? Are they armoured? And if so, why are not land forces?

What about APCs? They aren't tracked and don't have big cannons. But way from APC to IFV and then to tanks and SPG is obvious. At least just railed or wheeled ones should exist.

The basic idea originally was a terrain that was very unfriendly to tanks or heavy cars. Cliffs, nasty swamps, small islands, jungles - that sort of thing. It's not that they couldn't put armor on transports - it's that tank-like transport were of so little use that they switched to naval and air power pretty early (F142 has stats of a TL2 glider, most likely used for scouting; they started improving it as early as TL3).