Prepare to Repel Boarders! Marine ship defense tactic help

I once played in a Space Opera Role play group that had all on board ship fighting done only with swords. The rational being that lasers and blasters would cause too much destruction and everyone would be killed. Just something to think about.

I keep seeing the opening sense of Star Wars, A New Hope in my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ovtoLLLrQ
 
The New Hope being that all trace of the prequels is wiped from the records?


(To be fair, this isn't a particularly new hope....)
 
Perhaps I can give you a bit of a hand here. I am a former US Navy sailor (and current US Coast Guardsman) with 8 years shipboard, 3 of which I spent specifically doing internal security (sort of similar to the repel boarders scenario) as well as doing a couple of boardings. In other words, I am intimately familiar with combat on the inside of a ship. I will only speak on that which makes sound tactical sense and avoid getting into anything that might get me into trouble. I’m also in school to be an aerospace engineer, so I know a little something about spacecraft as well.

First, I’ll start by saying that it’s almost impossible to overstate the nightmare factor of a repel boarders scenario. Very high drama, and in my humble opinion, you’d be doing your readers a disservice if you didn’t properly convey the very heavy terror of such an action. BTW, the actual term we use is “opposed boarding,” so I’ll use that from here on. Another terminology note, navy pukes don’t really prepare to do anything. We stand by. The command would be “STAND BY TO REPEL BOARDERS, [PORT/STARBOARD] SIDE!” Gives me chills… Google search images of ship’s passageways and you’ll see why. Very narrow, very Spartan. Not much cover, and what cover there is will not be bulletproof. Although, I will say this: the defenders have a significant advantage in this scenario.

In order to understand the methods of defense that a security team would employ against boarders, it’s most vital to understand the offensive tactics used by a boarding team in an opposed boarding. Sort of a “think about what you would do and do whatever you’d do to stop someone from doing that” kinda thing.

Boardings are undertaken in order to capture a ship before it is destroyed or to avoid destroying it altogether. An opposed boarding is such a dangerous affair that it is generally speaking much more economical to destroy the target. This means you don’t board a ship unless there’s something on board that’s REALLY valuable and can’t be salvaged from the wreck. Your antagonists are going to ENORMOUS lengths to take this ship, and that also deserves mention (IMHO).

But if you insist on boarding a ship, you want to do so as quickly and quietly as possible. A stealthy approach and a hull breach as near as possible to the critical parts of a ship are your best bets.

Now, a little mental exercise: If you want to control a ship, what must you control? The first instinct is to say “the bridge.” Well, that’s a high priority target, but a ship, on the whole, can be run just as effectively from the engine room as the bridge, with a little emergency rigging. So you absolutely have to control the bridge and engine room.

Now, imagine you captured the bridge and engine room, but word got out to the enemy fleet that the ship had been boarded? If it was important enough to warrant an opposed boarding, it is probably important enough to write off the lives of the crew, and thus the defenders’ allies may try to sink the ship to prevent it being taken as a prize (that’s actually what we call a captured ship. The crew that we send to man the vessel after it’s captured is called a prize crew). This party just took a nasty left turn for everybody aboard. So capturing the comms center is also a high priority.

By this time, you can be sure that your presence has been noted by the crew and they have probably pieced together that you launched from a bigger boat than the dinghy attached to the hull, so anyone not involved in repelling boarders will probably attempt to force your retreat by engaging your mothership. So you want to capture gunnery and other combat systems quickly. Another plus to this is that you can then use the ship to fight.

After you capture combat systems, comms, engineering and the bridge, you effectively own the ship. At this point, the defenders have little choice but to fight until they don’t have any bullets left or surrender to the attackers.

Keep in mind that due to the layout of ships, these things rarely happen like in Halo. More often, it will be a VERY small team of special ops types who rely on the element of surprise to achieve their objective.

Knowing that, how might you defend against boarders? Well, the first thing that I would do is order the ship to battle stations, or General Quarters. On my last ship, this involved an alarm and the following was passed over the PA: “General quarters, general quarters. All hands man your battle stations. Set material condition ZEBRA (more on this in a moment) throughout the ship. Below the main deck proceed up and forward starboard side, down and aft port side. Man all damage control repair stations. All stations make manned-and-ready reports to the bridge over [the designated GQ net] or by calling [the bridge’s phone number]. General quarters.”

As a captain responsible for the life and well-being of every man under my command in addition to the life and well-being of the ship and any cargo aboard, my first tactic is to prevent the boarders from breaching the hull. Gunnery should be engaging the boarding craft from the moment they are identified as threats.

Simultaneously, I would have all of the internal doors closed and sealed. All of them. In the US Navy, we call this ‘condition ZEBRA.’ Ships are made watertight (or in this case, airtight) so that if one compartment floods (or decompresses), the damage is isolated to that one room. You can use that against the boarding team. Force them to open the doors. It will slow them down. Once the boarding team loses the element of surprise, they have only speed and violence of action to rely upon. Sealing the doors will slow or even halt their progress.

Once the hull is breached, I would order the doors that are secondary boundaries to the point of entry permanently fused shut. You think about a square room. Say it has three doors (primary boundaries) that lead into the adjoining rooms. The doors out of those rooms are secondary boundaries. Welding these shut will frustrate the effort. In a large-scale boarding, it would necessitate the boarding team bringing cutting tools to the location and beginning the slow work of cutting the door out.

Important note: In a space environment, the use of explosives is probably not very feasible. An explosion kills or injures in one of three ways:

1) Heat: the intense heat can cause severe burns which can incapacitate victims
2) Shrapnel: shards projected outward at high velocity can completely pulverize someone who is very close to the explosion (hence the darkly humorous phrase, “nothing left but pink mist and memories”), and can project small debris for an incredible distance.
3) Pressure: an explosion displaces the air in a spherical area around the device. What is left is a local vacuum, but also a wave of compressed air traveling at the speed of sound throughout the space. This is called an overpressure wave. It can cause death by severe internal hemorrhage and may even vaporize a body, given sufficient energy.

The overpressure wave dissipates harmlessly in an open tactical environment. The wave bounces quite well off of most walls, though. Consider the 20 July plot to kill Adolph Hitler. The bombing in the Wolfsshanze failed because it was too hot in the bunkers so they went to an outbuilding and opened the windows, which allowed the pressure to escape. That, combined with the shielding effect of a sturdy table leg, spared just about everybody in that room including Hitler the brunt of the bomb. Now consider that every habitable space on a spaceship must be pressurized to 14.4 psi (not sure what the metric works out to, sorry) and one has to be very careful about maintaining that pressure. There are not likely to be very many wide open spaces on a spaceship because it takes so much atmosphere to maintain pressure. Breaching explosives would then likely cause severe injury to both the boarding party and the defenders. Perhaps some class-delta burner or acid to eat through the bulkhead is more appropriate than breaching explosives.

Doors are a defender’s best friend. It forces the hostiles to go single file through a very narrow space. In fact, on modern warships, an average sized person can barely get through a door without bending, twisting, jumping, or otherwise contorting themselves. This means you can maul anybody passing through with hostile intent. Shotguns are a natural choice to defend this. Many passageways on a ship intersect with others, forming 4-way and “T” intersections. These corners are the best cover that you’ll typically find in any ship. If your defenders are wearing proper hearing protection, you can get three men behind each corner. One in the standing position, one in the kneeling position, and one in the prone position. This will not be comfortable for long, but it will provide a fairly heavy volume of fire through the door.

Hopefully that will be enough to get you started. Let me know if you need anything else!
 
Excellent and fascinating post MPaul, and welcome along. Hope you'll stick around. You might find a few people picking your brains! :)
 
Minor Quibble;

There is only one Captain aboard a ship - its Master.

A Marine of that rank would be, 'Promoted,' to avoid confusion, as it's assumed that anyone saying, 'Captain,' is addressing the ship's commander.

Having had "the captain" and "captain" onboard before, I don't think it's something you'd have to worry about. CAPT smith (the captain) will probably much more advanced in age that CPT Jones, who graduated from the academy two years ago.

Also, a little known fact of military etiquette: you can call a CPT "sir," whereas it is impolite to refer to the Captain as anything other than "Captain"
 
Whilst i have no experience with military tactics and things i do understand that a good tactic when defending a large space with few numbers is to use a positioning that allows fire from several directions. This allows fire from all groups of forces to support each other and prevent gaps.

By which i mean, check point squad could cover the centre of the corridor, whilst you arrange the other two squads on either side. This way, each team can cover the same area from different directions. The left and right squads could cover the check point squad should members be killed. some members could easily change firing direction to cover the centre.

In addition to this idea, i have had the pleasure of recently reading The Lost Fleet series by John G. Hemry under the pen name Jack Campbell. He is retired US navy and wrote the books using all of his military knowledge, it is very heavy with tactics and things that must be considered when fighting on ships and in space. I recommend you read them as i have learnt a lot about space warfare from them.

I hope this helps!

-Kieran-
 
Given that a spaceship is a contained pressurized space, I'd be using thermobarric weapons.
 
Given that a spaceship is a contained pressurized space, I'd be using thermobarric weapons.

Observations on that:

There is a principle called "rapid dominance," or as we in the States have come to know it, Shock and Awe (I really hate this phrase. Overused and annoying. And Americans shorten it until it sounds like an indian tribe. "I'm full blood Shokanaw!"). Set off a couple of these puppies anywhere near an enemy, and it will seriously demoralize them. Fear is normal in combat. You can fight through fear. Fear mixed with a sense of hopelessness and the prospect of a truly gruesome death is a recipe for surrender.

The US Defense Intelligence Agency has this to say about thermobaric weapons:
"The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique–and unpleasant…. What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs…. If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents."

According to a separate U.S. Central Intelligence Agency study, “the effect of an FAE explosion within confined spaces is immense. Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, and thus invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness.”

Another Defense Intelligence Agency document speculates that because the “shock and pressure waves cause minimal damage to brain tissue…it is possible that victims of FAEs are not rendered unconscious by the blast, but instead suffer for several seconds or minutes while they suffocate.”

On the other hand...

1) modern spaceship atmospheres are relatively oxygen-rich, so you wouldn't need to use an FAE to get the same effect. Gaseous oxygen burns quite well on its own. Look at the Apollo 1 tragedy or even oxyacetylene blowtorches.

2) ships are generally partitioned so that damage is contained to the space in which it occurs. So if you set off an FAE on the messdeck, you'll destroy everything in the messdeck, but not much else. Also, you might inadvertently fuse the doors shut.

3) Fascinating and effective things, FAEs. Expensive, though. A mass driver could easily acheive the same results at a fraction of the price. US Navy's railgun program, for example. Using a railgun to puncture the skin of a spaceship would expose the affected spaces to the plasma trail of the projectile (not sure if a plasma trail would be generated in vacuum, but it would be once the skin is penetrated), would likely ignite the atmosphere in affected spaces, and would then expose those spaces to hard vacuum. And the projectile is literally a chunk of metal. No guidance or avionics. No scatter charge or detonators. Zero points of failure. Just a flying chunk of metal.

Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
I think the most important thing is to figure out the setting, weaponry and defenses of your science fiction universe, in that order.

First and foremost, you'll want to know if there is artificial gravity. Writing for zero-gravity combat is challenging because no one really knows what combat would be like in zero-gee. In my current storyverse I have infantry squads using "base and goal" tactics. The "base" is upright relative to your own ship and upside down relative to the enemy, while "goal" is upright relative to the enemy. Having troops in both orientations allows for superior fields of fire, and one squad can provide covering fire while another squad advances. Accidentally losing contact with your boot magnets is practically a death sentence as you float slowly through the air with only suit-based maneuvering thrusters, away from cover and easy to shoot.

As far as atmospheres go, any storyverse with instantly-conjurable energy barriers will use them to prevent air from getting out. In any other storyverse, hulls will be punctured at some point and air will go bye-bye. Do a bunch of people die immediately, or do they all have vacuum-tight suits on? Or are they sufficiently cybernetically enhanced to survive in a vacuum?

You'll also want some sense of how big your ship is. I wouldn't take for granted the "starships = sea ships" principle. Sea ships are limited in size by the depth and width of common ports and channels. Starships have no size limit other than simply becoming too massive to realistically accelerate; but different types of speculative propulsion can counter that. I would NOT automatically assume that starship corridors have to be claustrophobic and cramped.

Only after you figure out the setting can you really sit down to think about weapons and tactics. If you're fighting on a very small, fully gravitized ship with high-lethality ranged weapons then maybe it's not too different from modern day tactics.

If you're fighting on a very small ship but melee weapons are stronger than ranged weapons (Shields deflect lasers!) then you might look up Age of Sail references.

If you're fighting on a very large ship then tactics become far more like urban infantry actions, you have to deal with a mix of enclosed and wide-open spaces.

If your storyverse is filled with insanely overpowered machines, maybe your soldiers become more like technicians and engineers - tweaking, hacking, and protecting a swarm of killer death robots (or nastier yet, a killer nano-swarm).

Also, it might be worth thinking about the defensive countermeasures that could be used aboard a starship. A starship is not like a sea ship, you can destroy large portions of a space vessel without causing it to "sink". Defenders could plant bombs or cause intentional hull and atmosphere failures to defend their ships. The manipulation of artificial gravity systems (Crush your enemies!) is also a popular, if somewhat unexciting defense. Even without artificial gravity, an unexpected thruster burn could throw enemies around with good old fashioned acceleration. In a storyverse with plentiful defensive barriers, trapping a boarding party in a wall of energy shields is also feasible.
 
For what it's worth, one of the weaknesses with military SF, I think, is a tendency to just write modern war with some moon-commies, as opposed to thinking about the full-on weirdness that futuristic war could involve.

Weirdness is the wrong word. I think full-on horror is more like it.

I'd guess all ships would have some sort of fire suppression system, that either replaces the ship atmosphere with inert gases or a vacuum.

That would mean any explosives or weapons would have to work under those conditions.

Also, you could probably safely assume the defenders have some sort of kit that lets them survive in the environment created by the fire suppression system, and that same kit couldn't be too bulky, so as to allow them to put the fire out.

So rupturing gas pipelines, or injecting gases into a sealed room might be an offensive action.

I can't imagine you'd use swords or melee weapons for the same reasons. You might just slice though a 1amp electricity conduit by accident
 
My densified nano-diamond blade laughs at your puny ampere of current.


It may indeed, but if your densified nano-diamond blade conducts electricity your body won't be laughing at that 1 ampere current (1 amp is the current required to stop a human heart).
 
It may indeed, but if your densified nano-diamond blade conducts electricity your body won't be laughing at that 1 ampere current (1 amp is the current required to stop a human heart).

Pretty sure that diamonds are non-conductive. That was supposed to be the point of the joke.
 
Hi,

I knowlittleabout the combat side of things, but I do read a little about weaponry, and my thought is that this would be vital to your scenario.

I don't think any projectile weapon would be a flyer in space. Apart from the obvious risk of puncturing the hull and suffocating everyone, think about Newtons little rules. If the gravity's off for whatever reason, and everyone's floating about, you shoot in one direction and fly backwards.

Explosives are even less likely, because not only might you blow the hull, but you could also start a fire which would consume your air. And then there's the shockwave to consider. The overpressure shockwave would be channelled down corridors at massive velocities and would probably be just as deadly to friends as foes.

Lasers at least don't have a recoil, but they would start fires. And rail guns, assuming you have one that's small enough to hold, would just be even more dangerous projectile weapons.

My thought would be to look at some of the DARPA stuff for non lethal urban pacification, and start advancing their ideas. Recently I've seen docos showing the use of sound waves to pacify crowds, and so maybe a sonic pistol could be set to rupture flesh and not metal. Also they have weapons that can fire foam that sets hard around people in seconds, trapping them. Also from my gaming, how about grease guns, that leave the enemy floudering, but thanks to specially designed boots, your people can walk safely through.

Also as Paul said - on ships doors are your friends. On space ships my thought is that they could be your absolute bestest friends. Simply lock them in a section of the corridoor that's air tight, and remove the air.

Hope that helps.

Cheers, Greg.
 
Hi,
think about Newtons little rules. If the gravity's off for whatever reason, and everyone's floating about, you shoot in one direction and fly backwards.

Although there isn't a market for space personal weaponary, so no one has probably bothered to research/test anything...

...surely it would be easy enough to construct some sort of recoiless projectile weapon system for zero-g/freefall. If that was your goal (and you wanted to puncture the ship's hull - perhaps you don't care about the air inside and you are suited in some manner)?
 
I don't think any projectile weapon would be a flyer in space. Apart from the obvious risk of puncturing the hull and suffocating everyone, think about Newtons little rules. If the gravity's off for whatever reason, and everyone's floating about, you shoot in one direction and fly backwards.

Any spaceship/starship plausibly capable of safe interplanetary/interstellar travel is going to be MUCH sturdier than the flimsy structures we are launching into space with current-day tech.

A starship that can realistically travel long distances will be built to withstand impacts from space debris far, far more energetic than a modern sniper rifle bullets. I don't think it's unreasonable to have projectile weapons capable of killing people but not capable of puncturing their hull. On a sufficiently large starship the walls would likely be very thick, and would be surrounded by water or other radiation shielding instead of vacuum.

Even if you had a hypervelocity railgun capable of penetrating relatively strong starship walls, it wouldn't take a whole lot of nanotech to create self-repairing walls. All you need is a material that can liquefy/solidify on command. Surface tension would pull it into place and then it could solidify into an air-tight (if not particularly strong) plug. This is a vastly lower tech level than say, a Iain Banks General Systems Vehicle.
 
Even if you had a hypervelocity railgun capable of penetrating relatively strong starship walls, it wouldn't take a whole lot of nanotech to create self-repairing walls. All you need is a material that can liquefy/solidify on command. Surface tension would pull it into place and then it could solidify into an air-tight (if not particularly strong) plug. This is a vastly lower tech level than say, a Iain Banks General Systems Vehicle.

This being true, it may work out better for the invading force. A ship's battery railgun (ie VERY large calibur) would, as I stated, punch a hole in the ship, ignite the local air supply, perhaps even punch out the other side, and (even if momentarily) expose the crew in affected spaces to vacuum. If the hull seals again, then the only damage done is the loss of some atmosphere and a whole bunch of crew. If your intent is to fight with the captured ship, then that works out VERY well... No lengthy and dangerous damage control operations.
 
Any spaceship/starship plausibly capable of safe interplanetary/interstellar travel is going to be MUCH sturdier than the flimsy structures we are launching into space with current-day tech.

A starship that can realistically travel long distances will be built to withstand impacts from space debris far, far more energetic than a modern sniper rifle bullets. I don't think it's unreasonable to have projectile weapons capable of killing people but not capable of puncturing their hull. On a sufficiently large starship the walls would likely be very thick, and would be surrounded by water or other radiation shielding instead of vacuum.

What's clear is, to get the correct 'answer' you have to have decided what all your technologies at the time of your novel are available and also have a design philosophy.

For example an orbiting dyson cylinder is specifically designed so that it can sustain being punctured by debris. The reason is because Mass really matters in this case and it makes a lot of sense to build the infrastructure as light as possible. From my reading, it seems that the reduced overall air pressure and the large volume ensures very little loss of air and you can quite leisurely replace any damage.

In fact if your starship engines are not powered by handwavium and do not produce Giga-terra watts of energy to propel the ship forward at a snap of a finger*, then you'd have to factor in mass as a constraining factor of your starship design. It would be a bit like the early days of tank development: Do you built a heavily armoured 'walking' pillbox that might manage 4kph, or sacrifice armour and get something zipping about at 40kph, or do you build in a big gun and sacrfice some armour and speed?

However I would agree that it would relatively simple to come up with some sort of well-protected hull - and if it was specifically designed to be a war craft of some sort, there would be an arms race between armour+protection and weaponary designed to puncture it. (Why a war craft would have big corridors inside it and people walking about is another question, unless it was a transport of some kind I suppose...)




*Let's face it most people just assume this in most spaceship futures :)
 
Although there isn't a market for space personal weaponary, so no one has probably bothered to research/test anything...

...surely it would be easy enough to construct some sort of recoiless projectile weapon system for zero-g/freefall. If that was your goal (and you wanted to puncture the ship's hull - perhaps you don't care about the air inside and you are suited in some manner)?

A recoiless gun is an impossibility. All projectiles have mass and if one is accelerated away from you, by whatever means, then you will be accelerated in the opposite direction. That said if your mass is (as is likely) considerably greater than that of the projectile then the effect on you will not be all that significant. The kick you feel when you fire a hand gun seems quite large but that is because it is really only affecting your hand. If the gun is rigidly fixed to you body it will not seem as great.

Actually I tell a slight lie as a recoiless gun is possible if a significant amount of the propulsion gas is allowed to escape backwards (balancing the projectile). However it would not be a good thing for any friendlies behind you in a confined space like a spaceship. (see here).

On the other hand for in-ship fighting low velocity and relatively light projectiles (darts maybe rather than bullets) would be perfectly adequate for such short range fighting (not to mention significantly reducing the risk of hull punctures) and even in freefall the differences in mass between firer and projectile should then be negligible. Though you would probably still want to stick to single shots rather than a machine gun.
 
If the gravity's off for whatever reason, and everyone's floating about, you shoot in one direction and fly backwards.

If you want to fight effectively, you will almost certainly try to avoid "floating about". Staying near hard surfaces allows you to take cover behind corners and such, while floating freely leaves you exposed.

So you can safely assume some sort of magnetic +/- adhesive ability in combat spacesuit boots and gloves, which should allow you to absorb reasonable amounts of recoil without floating up and away.


A recoiless gun is an impossibility.

Recoiless rifles exist, but as pointed out they will eject something backward - either explosive gases or a counterweight - rather dangerous for anyone behind you.

Alternatively, if your spaceships are propelled by non-inertial handwavium, you can simply propel your bullets with smaller amounts of non-inertial handwavium.

Note that a true hypervelocity weapon may well have less recoil than a "modern day" firearm. Muzzle energy increases with the square of velocity, so as velocity increases you can use a much lighter projectile and have less total recoil with the same muzzle energy.

In the supersonic range of velocities (ie gunpowder firearms) you'll lose a lot of stopping power by having a lighter, faster bullet. However, as you get into the hypersonic realm your projectile starts to deliver thermal and concussive energy and may remain destructive even with very small size and mass. (ie, it no longer follows the ballistic stopping power equation)

Of course, as you approach the relativistic limit of very high velocity and very low mass you end up with a particle beam rather than a projectile.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, low-velocity frangible rounds could be designed to have extremely low penetration and minimal damage against walls, such as this round used by air marshals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Back
Top