And considering Starfleet isn't a ground infantry force... this surprises you why?
Better question: how come Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin failed to employ basic infantry tactics while walking on the moon?
Why are basic infantry tactics almost never employed in Star Trek?
- Thread starter awiltz2
- Start date
Better question: how come Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin failed to employ basic infantry tactics while walking on the moon?
I actually found it slightly more entertaining than "Band of Brothers" if that tells you anything.
Because there was no anticipation of encountering inhabitations? Unlike with Starfleet.
This reminds me of a two hour episode of Combat. Lt Hanley's platoon has to take a hill and they up and down that hill as the platoon takes loses. At the end with only a fireteam left he takes the hill but is then ordered to pull back. The BAR gunner Kirby gives his speech about not giving up that hill.
Since the show ended in 1967 this was before Hamburger Hill happened but if the soldiers carried different guns and if there were a few Black soldiers around they would not have had to film a seperate Hamburger Hill movie. Just replace 1945 ETO slang with 1969 Nam era speak.
I think you mean "Operation--Annihilate!"
"Devil in the Dark" was the one with the Horta.
As for the writers not knowing military tactics, it's probable that, back in the sixties, some of them may have fought in WWII or Korea.
I know for a fact that Richard Matheson (who wrote "The Enemy Within") served in the infantry during WWII . . .
(And, of course, the staging and blocking of the scenes would probably be the director's call, not the writer's.)
Plenty of the people who worked on the original series had military experience and some must have known better. Dramatic necessity is an excuse. You can do it right and still put the characters in danger. In fact, it's scarier when even a well thought out defense can be breached or overwhelmed.
For visually interesting television, yes it is.
The tactics porn crowd wants to see troops carrying their weapons in a ready position and groups moving in a bounding overwatch. The want to hear them shouting reload while a buddy lays down supressing fire......the problem is to get it in the picture everybody is to close
Meaning what in this context? The way they handled security guards on the show wasn't visually interesting.
Yevetha
Commodore
Didn't the MACO's did that in ENT. It worked for me.
Here's another question. Is there any sort of armored tank divisions in the Star Trek Universe? I realize that Star Trek shows didn't have the money to show a future tank, but just seems weird that in military conflicts, ground battles seem to limited to both sides have a group of infantry men and shooting each other with phasers or disruptors. No one seems to try to use vehicles in order to use speed to outflank the en enemy.
It seems a bit silly to choices for travel be limited to Star ship and walking.
It seems a bit silly to choices for travel be limited to Star ship and walking.
Because there was no anticipation of encountering inhabitations? Unlike with Starfleet.
Thank you T'Girl!
As history within TOS and beyond has proven, sensors showing no signs of life (or danger), and even reason and logic showing no signs of life (or danger) are not by any means totally accurate.
As a captain (or anybody responsible for the actual lives of human beings), if there is a chance of your men dying, at least basic caution should be practiced.
Of course, when it reaches a point where general safety is established beyond reasonable doubt (ie. after they determine a life form or civilization to be friendly, and so on), it is silly to walk around ready for battle at all times.
Here are two episodes where tactics could have saved lives (you'll recognize them, I'm too lazy to look up the names
)1) The episode where a gas-based life form is on the surface, that envelopes poor Redshirts and ultimately kills them. If they could have seen it coming, they could have maybe beamed up. Or ran away.
2) "The Galileo Seven," the episode where Spock, McCoy and a few others are ultimately stranded on the surface of a planet. A Redshirt wandered off and was killed by the monster! What an idiot. They're stranded on a planet ... so they split up?
I'm sure there are a few other episodes I fail to remember at the moment.
The only reason I could think of for the lack of tactics is the possibility that Star Fleet member by then had essentially transcended violence and the need to fight, to the extent that such tactics may have not even been taught at the academy.
Another thing I don't understand is why their teams were always so small. Kirk, Spock and McCoy should have had at least two Redshirts at all times just in case something got nasty.
Speaking with my 37th Armored Regiment hat on. The problem is that an ordinary Federation security guard carries so much firepower that he can nuetralize the shock effect of a tank unit. Just as pikemen with long bow support swept away the armored knight and machineguns with artillery support killed the Lancers and other horse cavalry regiments.
In order to generate enogh shields to save himeself from Ensign Redshirt that tank will be a beacon for Enterprise to take out from orbit.
Last edited:
Okay not, from Enterprise then from a copperhead smart round fired from over the hill. In the Trek verse if shields are so good, enough to stop Enterprise from taking out anything she can see why would they be building tanks? Who will they be protecting themselves against?
Knight Templar
Commodore
Remember that a military unit abandoning basic tactics that seem obvious because they believe technology has made them obsolete is something that happens today.
After air to air missiles were introduced the USAF drastically cut back on their air combat manuevering (dogfighting) training because they believed that future air battles would be "lock on a missile from miles away, fire the missile".
Vietnam changed that radically and now USAF pilots still train in dogfighting though it is something they try to avoid at all costs.
After air to air missiles were introduced the USAF drastically cut back on their air combat manuevering (dogfighting) training because they believed that future air battles would be "lock on a missile from miles away, fire the missile".
Vietnam changed that radically and now USAF pilots still train in dogfighting though it is something they try to avoid at all costs.
Similar threads
