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

[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)?

Other variants include:

• No artillery and only had bombs in a vague replacement role?
• A force which only fields heavy, expensive infantry (e.g. C&C CABAL, which only fielded the occassional cyborg - a unit which would qualify for Super-Soldier in G:MC).
• A force with no air, but lots of (Air), (C3I) and good artillery?

Thanks in advance!

[Walrus]

First of all you should find a reason why TL8+ civilization don't use tanks:

1. Lack of materials for good armour. Something about rare metals for hard alloys and non-inventing of aramid-like polymers (kevlar).

2. Lack of fuel for moving such heavy vehicles. Like Germany in WWII was cut off from oil resources.

3. Some conservatism in warfare in non-human psychology society. Like non-appreciating of firearms in Japan but without lack in other technologies.

4. Lack of necessity for heavy land armour. E.g. little islands warfare or jungle warfare. A lot of navy and air force, some amphibious armour but a little of heavy land armour. Like USA-Japan campaign during WWII or USA campaign in Vietnam.

5. Lack of infrastructure for moving such vehicles. E.g. in jungles again or in hard rocky or marsh terrain or so on.

6. Some weird artificial conditions, like in "Competitions" by S. Lukyanenko.

All such conditions constrain all warfare, not only actual using of armour.

[Sam Baughn]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

...how would a TL8+ civilization fare in war if it didn't have any form of tanks (armour)?

Working from real word examples, I'd say pretty well, so long as (a) they have sufficient anti-tank, (b) the battle isn't being fought in simple, open terrain and (c) the enemy isn't prepared to inflict massive collateral damage rooting you out.

Air and Artillery are probably fairly similar.

Only fielding elite infantry seems like a recipe for failure. Infantry is pretty much a necessity if you want to do anything with your army other than fight, or if you want to engage an enemy in any manner more subtle than blowing up a house-sized area. In any kind of low-intesity conflict, infantry are essential and limiting the number you have is probably a bad thing.

[gilbertocarlos]

Most countries, if they don't have tanks and the like, buy used ones from others, here in Brazil, we still have WWII tanks and artillery...

[Phantasm]

One other thing to remember is, "why were tanks invented in the first place?"

The answer is: during the trench warfare days of WWI, machine guns were mowing down soldiers on an hourly basis. Tanks were invented to protect people from machine gun fire. Their advantages and drawbacks in the field quickly became obvious.

So, if a world doesn't have armored vehicles, you have to wonder what factors led to that situation. A few ideas:

Perhaps machine guns were never invented. Of course, this means that the hand-cranked Gatlings of the 1880s also never got used.

Perhaps trench warfare, which was essentially trying to use 19th and even 18th Century tactics and strategies against early 20th Century automatic weapons, never happened. This would be because the military thinkers of Victorian-era Europe actually adapted to the weapons before things dragged down for five years (or so).

Perhaps there wasn't much iron, or petroleum for internal combustion engines, or the chemicals necessary for the more powerful smokeless powder required for the period rifles and machine guns.

The list goes on and on.

[vicky_molokh]

The 'tankless' idea is mostly from an old setting project where one of the nations lived in such terrain that cars (and tanks) were highly problematic in terms of passability, so they never invented/built any (mecha would only slightly improve passability, but nobody bothered). Other nations had at least some flat areas, so they didn't skip armored vehicles.

Then again, I remember someone saying around here that at TL7+ tanks are a waste of resources, so I got curious how irrelevent (or important) they are.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

Perhaps machine guns were never invented. Of course, this means that the hand-cranked Gatlings of the 1880s also never got used.

Perhaps trench warfare, which was essentially trying to use 19th and even 18th Century tactics and strategies against early 20th Century automatic weapons, never happened. This would be because the military thinkers of Victorian-era Europe actually adapted to the weapons before things dragged down for five years (or so).

I'm not sure these would jive. The concept of armored vehicles goes way back- some European nations used armored war-wagons back in TL3, didn't they? (Granted, they weren't used for mobile warfare.) And we've all seen Leonardo Da Vinci's drawings.

Armored war automobiles predate WWI by over a decade. The Simms car was prototyped in 1899- in keeping with the national obsession of the time it was meant to combat the Boers. And the French had one with a ridiculous doubly-hyphenated name in 1902. Even before WWI people were thinking of using them in a cavalry role, so the idea wasn't really new. What was new was the specific implementation that the British came up with to solve their trench-crossing problem, using caterpillar tracks.

But I think the winds were already blowing that way.

Lacking machine guns might help horse cavalry linger a bit longer, but they stopped being widely viable as more than a reconnaissance, security, and raiding arm with the development of breech-loading repeaters. (As a cavalryman it really kills me to say that...) I think armor was on it's way from that point on.

[Purple Haze]

Originally Posted by acrosome

I'm not sure these would jive. The concept of armored vehicles goes way back- some European nations used armored war-wagons back in TL3, didn't they? (Granted, they weren't used for mobile warfare.) And we've all seen Leonardo Da Vinci's drawings.

A whole war was fought around them, Bohemia 1419-1434:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

Perhaps machine guns were never invented. Of course, this means that the hand-cranked Gatlings of the 1880s also never got used.

I'm actually having trouble imagining a world anything like TL8 that doesn't have machine guns. Anyone that knows how a steam engine work could design a repeating firearm, and from there it's a simple matter of making it repeat a lot.

[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?