炽焰帝国2评测：无双+骑砍超带感 画面不打折

Question

In a sci fi world where energy shields can be created to deflect ranged projectiles or even outright dissolve them, would force fields end up affecting warfare well enough to shake things up considerably? They seem like they can considerably improve matters in favour of defenders. If so, then how are you supposed to deal with them as the attacker?

Answer 1

Every new weapon leads to new defenses and new tactics. Those tactics would definitely change, but warfare might not change fundamentally. Bullet and armor technology have been steadily increasing since the late 1800's, with each increase in armor met with an increase in projectile strength. By the end of WWII, heavy tanks were considered impenetrable and immune to cannons, which lead to specialized shaped charge shells (HEAT) and long rod penetrator shells (APFSDS), negating any reasonable armor shifting defensive design from stopping hits in armor to deflecting or not getting hit.

Assuming the laws of physics still apply, a force field would be subject to the force applied on it when it stops a projectile. If a small bullet has 1000 J of energy, moving at 1,000 m/s, and the force field stops that bullet in 1 m, those 1000 J of energy are dissipated in 0.001 sec, requiring an instantaneous power of 1,000,000 Watts. Either a massive power feed is needed, or the field must be "charged" so that it has that energy available. Depending on the logic of the system, it could be overwhelmed by exceeding the field's instantaneous power rating (a high energy projectile) or by wearing down the energy in the field (repeated projectiles, not necessarily moving that fast).

The principle of the field may also dictate how it could be overcome. If it's electromagnetic, a non-conducting projectile would be unaffected. If it applies a steady force over an area, a small diameter, long, dense projectile (tungsten rod) would penetrate further. If the field vaporizes projectiles (by heating, friction, etc.) that could require more energy or lead to field breakdown in different ways, like plasma forming and disrupting whatever constitutes the field.

No matter the mechanism of the field, force applied by the field to stop projectiles would 'push' on the field, and possibly the field emitter. Attacks could be simple mass attacks, like a boulder moving not very fast, to shove or crush the field emitter, or very fast or harmonic attacks, to shake the emitter apart.

Whatever the technology, a counter weapon or tactic could be designed.

Answer 2

It entirely depends on the effectiveness of the forcefield technology. If it is weak, prone to mistakes and failures, or only occasionally blocks projectiles, then you're not going to see much difference on the battlefield.

If instead forcefields are very effective, then the question becomes, what is its weakness? Can you star wars "drone" your way through a force field? Is it an enormous power drain? Does it only withstand a max tolerance? These questions matter, because it impacts how attackers respond to this.

Weak to being pushed through aka star wars "drone"

This would have the effect that projectiles are rendered useless, and that only soldiers or drones could enter the shielding. This eliminates the possibility of artillery or shell fire as it would only waste ammunition. It can be useful way to switch up the warfare and give an excuse to use soldiers even with modern technology, without which you may not have good justification for the "hero" to go on a dangerous mission for instance.

Enormous power drain

Does it require a constant power drain or is power drain ramped up on the basis of how many projectiles it is keeping out? A constant power drain means potentially having a mobile nuclear reactor to keep things running from within without any external power sources. Mobile nuclear reactors are definitely smaller than more traditional nuclear reactors, but they're still huge. If you were to attempt to build a tank powered by this nuclear reactor and a shield, it would be very costly to build and very large. Perhaps you would have the added problems of overheating (maybe even the shield keeps the heat inside which causes problems to those who use it for too long). Maybe it keeps air from passing in and out which means you'd also have to bring an oxygen tank. Oxygen tanks are prone to explosion, which might make a good targeted attack by enemies.

Is power consumption ramped up with increased projectiles? This means the enemy could potentially drop the shield simply by making rapid attacks over a short period of time. Maybe they shoot the target with bullets to drop the shield and then hit it with artillery. The defenders might counter this by making the power source external. It would then be able to withstand far greater number of attacks, but it would still have an upper limit. Worse, coordinated attacks to different shielded targets would impact the overall system just as much, so enemies could organize timed attacks in an attempt to overload the shielding and require an impossible amount of power to sustain it.

Fixed max tolerance

Maybe it can only withstand a certain amount of force, and then the system fails. This wouldn't be particularly useful for a tank or a large target but it might be very useful for a soldier. It could be the difference between life and death. One shot which would have otherwise maimed or killed a soldier can now be completely stopped, giving that soldier an edge to shoot back.

The way the enemy adapts to this should be fairly evident. If a personal shield is technology the enemy can obtain, also they can have a personal shield which is equally effective. This might make a good story revolving around tech that absolutely would change the odds in the battlefield but also most be safely guarded tech. Unlike the other scenarios where shielding might be more beneficial for larger targets, and therefore the technology would be more difficult to obtain either because it is too heavy or too integrated into the structure itself, every soldier who dies with this tech is a chance for the enemy to gleam some new information about it and try to replicate it.

If it is too sophisticated to replicate, you still risk that the enemy can simply use it for themselves. So the strategy for the defenders would then be to safeguard the tech, make it impossible to reverse engineer, have as few people as possible who know how it works and to keep those people safeguarded. If you wanted to prevent the enemy from being able to pick it up from a fallen soldier, you could say that once the shield is broken, it cannot be restored not even by a friendly soldier.

Conclusion

I hope that covers a wide variety of possibilities. Shielding would only be as impactful as it is useful or not useful. Think in these terms, and think on how the enemy might try to counteract that. Assume either side will do anything in its power to have an advantage on the battlefield.

Answer 3

If the big point is that the shield blocks all projectiles, the obvious change is that there are no longer projectile weapons. All combat will be melee or hand to hand.

Infantry tactics will revert to Ancient Roman and/or medieval formations with shield walls or pikemen. The pikes might be replaced with what Eric Flint and Dave Freer called "bangsticks", pole weapons with a shotgun shell or such in the tip.

Armored vehicles would mostly be useful for transportation. Their armaments might resemble something like the old spar torpedoes. You might also see scythe blades mounted on the sides, depending on whether you count something moving at vehicular speeds a projectile. You might also see knights make a resurgence on ATVs or dirt bikes.

Artillery mostly deals with projectiles, so it would be relegated to a very marginal role. They could still be used to hit unshielded structures such as field expedient fortifications. There is also the possibility of firing lighting shells either to light the battlefield or to blind the enemy. And, if you are willing to dispense with the Geneva Conventions, poison gas shells and other chemical weapons could also be delivered.