"The desk ripped from a loose mooring and crashed into the wall, which buckled. The deck split open underfoot. A roar went through the entire hull, ribs groaned as they bent, plates screamed as they sheared. A girder snapped in twain and spat sharp fragments among a gun turret crew. A section broke apart, air gushed out, a hundred men died before the sealing bulkheads could close." (p. 137) (For reference, see "Time Lag.")
Space battles are similar in three fictional futures.
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And the longest, most dramatic, and most carefully thought out description of a battle in space given us by Anderson was the clash between the Terrans and Merseians in Chapter 17 of ENSIGN FLANDRY.
Sean
This whole story is a bit optimistic; it's good writing, but... The problem with David and Goliath stories is that in reality 99% of the time Goliath stomps David into toe-jam. There are exceptions, but they're rare; focusing on them too much tends to breed unrealistic attitudes and gets people into trouble.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Actually, I agree with you! MOST times the bigger army or fleet wins. But, Poul Anderson manages to make the victory of the Terrans at Starkad at least plausible, because of the boldness, skill, and sound tactics they used. And a little luck for the Imperials.
And not that long ago I mentioned the AMAZING victory won by the Austrian Navy at the Battle of Lissa during the Seven Weeks War of 1866. By all rights the Austrians should have been defeated by the Italians at Lissa, due to having a smaller, more antiquated fleet. But they did not! The Austrian admiral ordered his ships to CHARGE the Italians and RAM them--which they did, ramming and firing point blank at their enemies. Two Italian warships were sank and the rest fled. Sometimes audacity and unexpected tactics can win the day!
Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Another thought I had was that the plot of ENSIGN FLANDRY called for the Terrans defeating the Merseians in Chapter 17 of that book. Their task was to confirm or not Flandry's interpretation of the information about Starkad a spy had obtained from the Protector Brechdan Ironrede's secret files. The outcome of the entire story depended on the Imperials defeating the Merseians. Iow, it was a plot necessity.
Sean
Sean: well, size isn't the -only- factor. There are a whole bunch, and often one can compensate for another. What size and resources do is give you room for error. If you can roll with the initial flurry of punches, it's easier for you to get better than for the other guy to get bigger. You don't have to be as good as he is, you just have to be good enough that he can't roll right over you at the start.
And of course, long wars tend to be settled by attrition; short ones often by other factors. Prussia, which had little depth and few resources, tended to specialize in small wars -- until their tradition ended up trying to win -world- wars, where it wasn't enough to be quick and skillful and deliver a few rapid devastating blows.
Differences in military technique tend to even out or even out "enough" over time, particularly within the same civilization/culture-cluster. We were never as skillful as the Germans at actual fighting, for example, but we won both World Wars by being good -enough- to prevent them winning a quick victory, and then essentially grinding them down.
Less so between civilizations, because copying technique is difficult if you have to copy the attitudes of mind that underlie it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Again, I have no disagreements with you here. Yes, size and resources can give a bigger side in a war the ROOM needed for grinding down even an opponent who was better at war than you.
I agree with your last sentence as well. Truly mastering a technique can be difficult if the attitudes underlying it were not yours.
Sean
Post a Comment