"Realistic" sf space battel

[rehnvall]

Can you recomend som "realistic" sf space battel anime or "real" movie, in stile like forever war or Honor Harrington ther space are a big place and the ships is force to acelerate and have a vector, and is throwing missile on each other at long range.

[bandit29]

Umm how about Talladega Nights? Shake & bake brother!!!

[EXO]

Battlestar Galactica... maybe...

[mechaninac]

The closest thing to a depiction of "real" flight dynamics in sci-fi were the Starfuries and Thunderbolts from Babylon 5. Space above and Beyond, and Battlestar Gallactica (TNS) are close, but B5 was the only one, IMO, that seemed to actually take into account vectors, momentum, yaw, pitch and bank of a spacecraft in zero-g, and how all of those would be affected by the selective application of thrust form its RCS.

Gundam 0083 was also passable for the way the Mobile suits moved in reaction to short bursts from the RCS throughout the Robot's frames.

As for the weapon's discharges, BSG (TNS) has them all beat, since all ordnance is ballistic in nature.

[F-ZeroOne]

Gunbuster features realtivistic effects and various "hard" SF concepts, but is perhaps not exactly "realistic" overall...

If you like reading, Peter F. Hamilitons "Nights Dawn" trilogy (series starts with the "Reality Dysfunction") manages to mix Star Wars style wild space dogfights with "realistic" technology.

Edited February 9, 2007 by F-ZeroOne

[Necron_99]

Serenity

[Sarensaas]

Realistic space battles would actually be kinda boring; you wouldn't be able to hear anything and lasers would be invisible.

[Noyhauser]

Legend of Galactic Heroes, and few others come even close.

LOGH actually is probably the best piece of anime and science fiction in general is that it gives a realistic portrail of Strategic and operational thinking. Its something most Science fiction just fails at (even fiction often doesn't do it well), and is actually really important.

Most science fiction is written by people who have no knowledge of military thought, at best giving their often shallow perspective. LOGH actually revels in this, and provides a brilliantly nuanced view of a war between two empires in the future. Choke points, lines of supply, complex maneuvers, feints, envelopment movements, terrain advantage, ect. are all critical for how the war is prosecuted. If you've done strategic thought, its all there and understandable, and many people who I'd never think would watch Anime appreciate it. You watch fleet commanders apply different strategies on each other and it has real outcomes. Its not like most science fiction shows that has one side having an advantage over another because they've come up with some super fancy technological breakthrough. In LOGH it all comes down to tactics and strategy.

Now on the "tactical level" of war, and spacefighting (which you were asking about), LOGH probably above average. Fleets consisting of thousands of ships engage each other, using X-ray lasers, fusion bombs, and manned fighters. Vectoring is important, as is orientation ect. The ship designs are nice and functional but nothing that spectacular. They fight from million miles apart, slowly closing in, and once they get into close range the blood starts letting. Fleets of nearly 5000 ships and 1.2 million men routinely take 90% casualties, and main characters die off quickly.

No other show I have ever watched has done this. It makes B5 and BSG look like it was written by a 5 year old with a crayon on a napkin. Alot of people on here will give the same sort of recommendation.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Noyhauser

[JsARCLIGHT]

The Odyssey Hal Pod versus Frank Poole, 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[JELEINEN]

I can't really say there's ever been an absolutely realistic space battle in any medium (outside a hard SF novel). LoGH is awesome in terms of verisimilitude, but falls apart if looked at with a mind towards real world physics.

This is a great article on the subject (the site is absolutely awesome for realistic space travel in general): http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3t.html

[Phyrox]

Can you recomend som "realistic" sf space battel anime or "real" movie, in stile like forever war or Honor Harrington ther space are a big place and the ships is force to acelerate and have a vector, and is throwing missile on each other at long range.

First of all, at least try to spell.

Secondly, the only thing I've ever seen or read that satisfied me were the few pages on space combat in the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual actually. And even that is basically just "submarines in space," with the addition of velocity and delta-v concerns.

and once they get into close range the blood starts letting. Fleets of nearly 5000 ships and 1.2 million men routinely take 90% casualties, and main characters die off quickly.

hold on, you talk about how realistic this show is from a strategic and tactical point of view and then THIS? You don't have to be a graduate of the Army War College to see the huge problem with this sort of battle.

Major battles have never had anywhere near those levels of casualties (excepting a few stand outs) for a few good reasons:

- The outcome of a battle can usually be figured out before one side is wiped out, and they usually disengage by that point. Even when the stakes have been very high. Cannae, Okinawa, ambushes and a few similar exceptions prove the rule.

- No force could maintain these loses, it makes no tactical sense, no strategic sense, no financial sense, and little political sense.

I've never seen LOGH, but you description sounded pretty glowing on the realism scale until you mentioned this.

[JELEINEN]

hold on, you talk about how realistic this show is from a strategic and tactical point of view and then THIS? You don't have to be a graduate of the Army War College to see the huge problem with this sort of battle.

Major battles have never had anywhere near those levels of casualties (excepting a few stand outs) for a few good reasons:

- The outcome of a battle can usually be figured out before one side is wiped out, and they usually disengage by that point. Even when the stakes have been very high. Cannae, Okinawa, ambushes and a few similar exceptions prove the rule.

- No force could maintain these loses, it makes no tactical sense, no strategic sense, no financial sense, and little political sense.

I've never seen LOGH, but you description sounded pretty glowing on the realism scale until you mentioned this.

The casualty rates he mentioned aren't routine at all. The number of ships and men involved are huge, but the percentages aren't nearly that high outside a couple of exception similar to the historic ones you list.

[Noyhauser]

I can't really say there's ever been an absolutely realistic space battle in any medium (outside a hard SF novel). LoGH is awesome in terms of verisimilitude, but falls apart if looked at with a mind towards real world physics.

This is a great article on the subject (the site is absolutely awesome for realistic space travel in general):

funny you should bring this up Jelenien, because this site made me thing. I don't disagree with your point that LOGH is not completely realistic in physics, Its still better than a whole host of other mainstream shows, like SW and ST. Also the world handles the implications of the technology in a way that offers a contending perspective to some of the points made in the site you posted. Take for example planetary bombardment. Now it might be more realistic and easier if both sides just bombared each other with relativistic mass drivers (and they certainly know how to do so in LOGH as you see in one of the episode), but in the universe there is a social taboo that prevents them from doing so, and there is complete revultion at the prospect of using such weapons of mass destruction. Though it portrayal of the physics of war isn't 100% realistic according to what we know, its believable, and its far better able to explain the social implications of the technologies. That in itself is completely unique in science fiction, and is its greatest strength.

Secondly, the only thing I've ever seen or read that satisfied me were the few pages on space combat in the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual actually. And even that is basically just "submarines in space," with the addition of velocity and delta-v concerns.

hold on, you talk about how realistic this show is from a strategic and tactical point of view and then THIS? You don't have to be a graduate of the Army War College to see the huge problem with this sort of battle.

Major battles have never had anywhere near those levels of casualties (excepting a few stand outs) for a few good reasons:

- The outcome of a battle can usually be figured out before one side is wiped out, and they usually disengage by that point. Even when the stakes have been very high. Cannae, Okinawa, ambushes and a few similar exceptions prove the rule.

- No force could maintain these loses, it makes no tactical sense, no strategic sense, no financial sense, and little political sense.

I've never seen LOGH, but you description sounded pretty glowing on the realism scale until you mentioned this.

Yeah, maybe you should then actually watch it before you come here and give us your opinion. First off using army examples makes no sense because these battles take place not on land but in space. In reality the battles that occur in LOGH are in many respects closer to naval warfare, where the nature of the warfare makes the possibility of a decisive result more apparent and as a result casualty rates are often higher. If a ship goes down in space, the chances of the crew living is quite low, probably lower than if a vessel sinks. Remember in army units morale is quite important... people can flee if need be. Its far more difficult to flee in a naval battle, and it would be even more difficult in space. The interesting twist of this is that because of the nature of the weapons, the battles do take on a land warfare type of strategy that is akin to Napoleonic and Age of Enlightenment warfare, but with the different outcomes as I listed above.

Secondly in LOGH one million people is a drop in the bucket, particularly if its coming from a population base that probably numbers in the 100 billion range for each empire, and modern space construction techniques that would pump out ships like no tomorrow. And to be perfectly honest, when these losses mount up for one side, the story showed the economic effects of these losses. Lets be honest, when was the last time you actually saw a show that discussed the economic and political effects of a disasterous military strategy?

Finally there are plenty of different battles in LOGH, many of which don't have high casualty rates or decisive outcomes. Many of the battles with the highest losses occurred due to complete ineptitude of the commander in question (Amlitzer star zone encounter is the quintessential example.) Actually the premise of the show is that both empires see the rise of new leaders from the old guard who show tactical brilliance that change the outcome of war, somewhat akin to the difference between the First and Second World War. Earlier leaders would just attempt to conduct attrition type tactics, watching both sides batter each other to oblivion. The entrance of the two leaders herald a revolution in warfare, both of them practice a more fluid style of strategy that leads to far more decisive outcomes to conflicts.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Noyhauser

[JELEINEN]

The populations for both sides are mentioned a couple of times in the series, but I can't recall what they are (each was in the tens of billions I think). The Reich is signifigantly larger than the FPA (which is important for the story).

[Sundown]

Like JELEINEN mentioned, extremely high casualty percentages are actually somewhat of a rarity in LoGH. Just off the top of my head, I think most percentages lie around 30-60% per engagement, depending on the battle and circumstances. I remember one battle with extremely high percentages because it was fought as an all-out delaying action-- I could be remembering wrong, however.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Legend of Galactic Heroes, and few others come even close.

LOGH actually is probably the best piece of anime and science fiction in general is that it gives a realistic portrail of Strategic and operational thinking. Its something most Science fiction just fails at (even fiction often doesn't do it well), and is actually really important.

I agree on the beauty of LOGH's portrayal of logistics, strategy and the effects of home politics on military campaigns but really, using axes in boarding actions?!!?

[JELEINEN]

I agree on the beauty of LOGH's portrayal of logistics, strategy and the effects of home politics on military campaigns but really, using axes in boarding actions?!!?

What better way to prove you're a teutonic badass than to whack people with a battleaxe?

[Phyrox]

What better way to prove you're a teutonic badass than to whack people with a battleaxe?

Boarding actions in space eh? The physics boggle the mind.

And I am more a naval historian by training than a military historian, so I "get" the differences.

But by all means, enjoy your show. I'm not saying it's bad, I've never seen it. But For however well it describes grand strategy and operational level details, it doesn't sound like a terribly realistic show. More so than Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5 and the like...but that isn't saying a great deal.

[JELEINEN]

Boarding actions in space eh? The physics boggle the mind.

And I am more a naval historian by training than a military historian, so I "get" the differences.

But by all means, enjoy your show. I'm not saying it's bad, I've never seen it. But For however well it describes grand strategy and operational level details, it doesn't sound like a terribly realistic show. More so than Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5 and the like...but that isn't saying a great deal.

We see maybe a handful of boarding actions in the entire in the entire series. Usually they're surprise actions initiated by deceit of subterfuge. Is it 100% realistic, no, but that would make for an incredibly boring show (it rarely even works in novels, for that matter).

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

There has never been a realistic space battle in real life has there? So I doubt any of them are realistic because how would we know if they are truly realistic, unless there was something in real life like a space war to compare the fictional show against? (macross 7 might be seen as realistic if in the future we have the tech to spacefold if that is invented for all to use. Ah yes, spacefold some bombs onto people's ships at the moment they are about to blow up, rather than shooting them from a close distance. Brilliant strategy, Protodevlin!)

Someone mentioned no sounds in space for example. Not many sci fi takes that into account. Probably because it also has to be entertaining too.

Edited February 10, 2007 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[F-ZeroOne]

Like JELEINEN mentioned, extremely high casualty percentages are actually somewhat of a rarity in LoGH. Just off the top of my head, I think most percentages lie around 30-60% per engagement, depending on the battle and circumstances. I remember one battle with extremely high percentages because it was fought as an all-out delaying action-- I could be remembering wrong, however.

Of course, "High" and "rairity" are such relative terms. After all, 30% of a million is still about 300,000 men...

[Dobber]

B5 all the way, particularlly the epsidode when Narn ships engaged shadow ships from beyond visual range with there particle beem weapons. Always hated that about StarTrek. The Enterprise could fire it's phasers at a target on a plantes surface hundreds of miles away....but yet needed to get within a few KM's to fire on another ship.

Chris

[rehnvall]

I agree on the beauty of LOGH's portrayal of logistics, strategy and the effects of home politics on military campaigns but really, using axes in boarding actions?!!?

It is becuse the use of explosive gas (forget the name) as a common tactic. If you fire a "ray-gun" in the gas, the gas explod and you to. Remember som "stormtropers" do have a combine gun/axe

LOGH and B5 is good shows, but I am looking after is a battle ther the ship do not run the risk of to collide in a normal battle both LOGH and B5 have a habit of fight close even with capital units.

Yes I can understand why "realistic" shows are rare, then you can have "action" ww1 style fight instead.

Phyrox: I am not a native english speaker, can write foreign language perfect?

Edited February 10, 2007 by rehnvall

[rehnvall]

Always hated that about StarTrek. The Enterprise could fire it's phasers at a target on a plantes surface hundreds of miles away....but yet needed to get within a few KM's to fire on another ship.

Chris

Yes I always wounder whay the crew do not have spacesuit and safety belt on then they are going in battle that would increase the efficiency greatly. Mr throw-of-the-chair or miss-get-som-electrical-lightning-on-mye

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Yes I always wounder whay the crew do not have spacesuit and safety belt on then they are going in battle that would increase the efficiency greatly. Mr throw-of-the-chair or miss-get-som-electrical-lightning-on-mye

I also wonder why even if the power is down and 'ALL' systems are offline, the damn artificial gravity still works. The artificial gravity generator must be the most reliable unburstable piece of equipment in the ST universe.

[F-ZeroOne]

I also wonder why even if the power is down and 'ALL' systems are offline, the damn artificial gravity still works. The artificial gravity generator must be the most reliable unburstable piece of equipment in the ST universe.

<pedant> Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country <pedant>

[chrono]

You don't have to be a graduate of the Army War College to see the huge problem with this sort of battle.

ROFL!!!

Unless the Army War College suddenly got a Space Tactics department for the school, land and most wet naval tactics would be basically meaningless.

ROFL!!!

But LOGH definitely shows well the realism of war. Both in a politico and military way. Crest of the Stars & Banner of the Stars(all series) lack alot of the same Oomp! in realism which makes it a 'light' realism SF show.

[Phyrox]

ROFL!!!

Unless the Army War College suddenly got a Space Tactics department for the school, land and most wet naval tactics would be basically meaningless.

ROFL!!!

But LOGH definitely shows well the realism of war. Both in a politico and military way. Crest of the Stars & Banner of the Stars(all series) lack alot of the same Oomp! in realism which makes it a 'light' realism SF show.

The most basic precepts of military strategy are pretty universal. Sustained 70% casualty rate is unsustainable and unrealistic in ANY setting.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

That's what I like about macross - there is no choice. Zentradi if they were real would have enslaved us without a "hero" ship with a big arse gun. And tactics and strategy can change depending on the level of tech for the "universe" that the sci fi is set in. (ie gundam is supposed to be a realistic robot show, but they made up a rule where in UC the ships can't even lock on with missiles effectively.)

If you get "too realistic" you are limited in what strats would work. If you are not given a choice, (the military is outnumbered but doesn't want to give up freedom to the zentradi) maybe the Deadalus Manuever (essentially a giant robot punching holes in ship to blow them up from inside) would be suicide, but NOT if the humans had technology from a more advanced alien race. It would be "realistic" for that universe since it is explained reasonably how it would work.

Pirates boarding the ships? That is a real strategy and you see that in macross too. (when the zentradi use the deadalus to thier advantage to attack the ship from inside). What might be dangerous and risky for one universe isn't a problem for another. (again in macross they had no choice: they are the only chance the human race has to survive so all those dangerous ideas global and misa used actually made sense..for that universe)

If we say 'realism' for our current tech level, then the strategies are realistic. But so much sci fi always has stuff with made up technology. My question is: So where do you draw the line between a "realistic" depiction of space war and a "non-realistic" depiction of space war? At least with world war movies we have a real world war to compare them against, right? We can consult the historians and vets on what would pass as authentic and true to the real thing. (ie "that scene with the soldiers was too clean, thier uniforms should have been much more dirty", "that gun was not the right type and the damage shown is not consistant with what a real one would have done" etc and then go and compare the movie with what a real one looked like or watch real war footage of it etc Things like the speed of the ships, the armor, the weapon effectiveness is all made up, so how can it be 'real'?)

Edited February 10, 2007 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[rehnvall]

Phyrox: Think about the slaughter/madness at the westen front ww1, armys wher literal annihilated and reinforce up to strength. Tell them that ther tactic ther unsustainable and unrealistic.....

In LOGH only a smal number of the population are in the military but ther are still much civilian disturbance becuse of the heavy casualtys.

1/1 LowViz Lurker;

What I mean with realistic is that the level of teknologi is even not inconsistent, star wars is a exempel of "non-realistic" uneven/inconsistent technology, you have fantastic droids, sensor, computers etc but you stil train/aim the guns manual. With that level of teknologi it would make sense to have AI/computer guided weapons. Yes you can have a "strange" explanation outside the movie that the peopel in star war do not know how to invent/understand droid/computer teknologi and can only make coppys of the old teknologi, but how good is that explanation....

you can get same result frome a hero unit but with different "credibility" like then gundam in 83 destroy a whole fleet or then a gundam in seed/destiny destroy a whole fleet.

Edited February 11, 2007 by rehnvall

[mechaninac]

I draw a distinction between science fictions as follows:

"Realistic" scifi makes an attempt to ground the rules of their universes in known scientific facts, or at least try to couch their more fanciful aspects within some semblance of physical laws as we understand them today, or based on theories that make sence as intellectual exercises. Examples would be Blade Runner, B5, SAAB, BSG, SG1, UC Gundam, Macross.

"Fantasy" scifi makes little to no attempt at maintaining a sense of reality with its technologies and physical laws, requiring a much greater suspension of disbelief, by trading believability for story telling convinience. Examples include Star Wars, Star Treck, and a host of others that escape right now.

Edited February 10, 2007 by mechaninac

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

1/1 LowViz Lurker; What I mean with realistic is that the level of teknologi is even, star wars is a exempel of "non-realistic" uneven/inconsistent technology, you have fantastic AI in droids, sensor, computers etc but you stil train/aim the guns manual. With that level of teknologi it would make sense to have AI/computer guided weapons. Yes you can have a explanation whay you have to aim manual like it in gundam.

Ok gotcha.

"Realistic" scifi makes an attempt to ground the rules of their universes in known scientific facts, or at least try to couch their more fanciful aspects within some semblance of physical laws as we understand them today, or based on theories that make sence as intellectual exercises. Examples would be Blade Runner, B5, SAAB, BSG, SG1, UC Gundam, Macross.

Ok so long as there are fictional rules governing the fictional technologies so strategy remains realistic within the rules created. So gundam would get away with it because it has made an explanation for why the guidance isn't perfect under some conditions using the rules. But star wars doesn't since it didn't explain it and why the tech is used unevenly. Maybe all george lucas needs to do is come up with some explanation for why people don't trust droids. Fear of a robot revolt or AI taking control from humans? The replicants were pretty dangerous once they got too smart in BR, so I'm thinking people in the star wars universe may have a law about guided weapons in star wars like we have with WMD? I'm only kidding around. But in shows like macross they had something like it with regards to AI getting too smart and it being illegal or something due to self awareness. Maybe they need something like that for Star Wars? (only much more paranoid: only the elite can use them to control the flow of power, a bit like how the zentradi have the biggest giants as leaders rather than everyone being the same size) Otherwise why NOT allow "Sharon Apple" free reign to control a whole battleship the same way that "Cortana" can in "Halo" or HAL can? Humans can then concentrate on more important things and if the crew dies, the AI at least can take over from the dead humans. Macross got away with it to a lesser extent by creating a half-believable reason. (so all star wars would need is "it's illegal", "dangerous", "elite are deliberately preventing it from being released")

Edited February 11, 2007 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[F-ZeroOne]

Phyrox: Think about the slaughter/madness at the westen front ww1, armys wher literal annihilated and reinforce up to strength. Tell them that ther tactic ther unsustainable and unrealistic.....

I might be misunderstanding your reply here, but in the long term it was unsustainable. Theres a reason we don't fight wars that way anymore (or at least, try very hard not to... ). All the combatant nations were pretty much exhausted by the end of the war, and the UK was trying to get the US involved much of the way through the war.

[Noyhauser]

The most basic precepts of military strategy are pretty universal. Sustained 70% casualty rate is unsustainable and unrealistic in ANY setting.

Oh god come off of it. You haven't watched the show and yet you're taking wild stabs at the air against it, just because you have an education in the field. Thats complete and utter hubris. Guess what? I too hold several advanced degrees in strat studies/IR and I've published too. The difference between me and you is that I've seen the show and you haven't. I'm telling you now that show on the whole gives a realistic portrail, one that unique in science fiction. Is it perfectly realistic? no, particularly on the hard science end. But its really really well done, and many of the remarks you've made here on realism are off the mark.

You never responded to my point that the empires probably number around 50~100 billion people, to which 1.2 million isn't really that much. the FPA had something like 15 fleets at the start of the show. Losing one or two of them isn't that big a loss in the grand scheme of things, but not all battles are so decisive as jelenien points out. Also the war is shown to be unsustainable, there is a very clear discussion on the economic effects of it, particularly on the Free Planets Alliance, which is a major part of the storyline. I ask you again how many other shows actually discuss any of this?

What I find ironic is that if anything this is the show you'd probably enjoy the most given your education, and yet you just want to pontificate here about how it seems wrong. Maybe you should give it a try and then come back and make your points. If you have problems then I might be able to take you a bit more seriously. At the same time, I'd probably agree with your criticism at that point.

Edited February 11, 2007 by Noyhauser

[JELEINEN]

There has never been a realistic space battle in real life has there? So I doubt any of them are realistic because how would we know if they are truly realistic, unless there was something in real life like a space war to compare the fictional show against?

We know how physics work, so that gives us a fairly good idea.