• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do Trains Have a Role in Future Warfare?

Dayton3

Dayton3

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
12,687
Reaction score
1,938
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I was reading the modern war novel "Red Metal" I think it was called. In it the Russians are determined to seize a massive rare Earths mine in Africa. In order to distract the United States and disrupt U.S. operations in Africa they launch a massive deep armored raid from Belarus across Poland to attack the American command base for its African command in Germany.

The Russian armored force is supported by three large trains based on a Russian passenger train design that features variable gauge railroad trucks meaning it can adjust quickly to the different railroad gauges used in Russia and Western Europe. The trains carry massive amounts of weapons and munitions for the Russian armored force to use. But most ominously it carries SAM launchers for the most advanced SAMs in the Russian military. In effect the SAM carrying train serves as a portable SAM umbrella for the Russian armored raiding force.

My question that I wondered about was if trains in the future might have a significant military role? I know it is just a novel but it got me to thinking. I've had an interest in the future applications of what we tend to think of as post or obsolete technology like steam engines and trains.
 
The last armored train used in combat that I can think of was one train that fought at Stalingrad. It did okay as far as I can remember.

You pretty much have to wait for something to get near the tracks and the tracks themselves are vulnerable.
 
swing_voter said:
The last armored train used in combat that I can think of was one train that fought at Stalingrad. It did okay as far as I can remember.

You pretty much have to wait for something to get near the tracks and the tracks themselves are vulnerable.
Click to expand...
Bridges are sitting ducks in today's world of precision bombing. You can probably nail a bridge from an aircraft carrier from 100 miles away. And, I would not be surprised to see a plane drop a smart bomb that can hit one from farther away than that.
 
Railway tracks meet GBU-37. GBU-37 meet railway tracks.

Threat of train instantly eliminated.
 
The only significance of trains in future warfare, outside of logistics, is as concealed mobile launchers for cruise and ballistic missiles.
 
Dayton3 said:
What if the train is mounting the most advanced SAMs in the world?
Click to expand...

Bomb the railway tracks in advance of the train. Bomb the railway tracks every 100 feet for miles in front of the train. The repairs would take weeks.
 
Questerr said:
Bomb the railway tracks in advance of the train. Bomb the railway tracks every 100 feet for miles in front of the train. The repairs would take weeks.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a pretty big expenditure of time and effort just to halt just one train? And even then the train is still there with its arsenal of weapons. Not to mention that that most dense rail networks have multiple lines of transit.
 
Dayton3 said:
Isn't that a pretty big expenditure of time and effort just to halt just one train? And even then the train is still there with its arsenal of weapons. Not to mention that that most dense rail networks have multiple lines of transit.
Click to expand...

If the train is a serious threat, then its worth it. If it's not, then why use the train?

The train having an arsenal of weapons is insignificant if it can't arrive at the battlefield.

You think there might be a reason why armed trains were only really used in counter-insurgency warfare? You think military planners might have already seen this technology as a dead end?
 
Also, to more directly address the SAM's: even the best SAM's in the world don't deal well with coordinated attacks from multiple directions, supported by jamming and decoys.

When the train has a known path to a target, planning such an ambush would be very easy. Losing a few strike aircraft in exchange for destroying the train would be worth it.
 
Questerr said:
If the train is a serious threat, then its worth it. If it's not, then why use the train?

The train having an arsenal of weapons is insignificant if it can't arrive at the battlefield.

You think there might be a reason why armed trains were only really used in counter-insurgency warfare? You think military planners might have already seen this technology as a dead end?
Click to expand...

To be honest I didn't figure they gave it much thought. Can you recommend a book or two about the use of trains in counter-insurgency warfare. Given that's the kind of combat the U.S. seems to be waging all the time these days perhaps they do have a value to modern warfare.
 
Dayton3 said:
To be honest I didn't figure they gave it much thought. Can you recommend a book or two about the use of trains in counter-insurgency warfare. Given that's the kind of combat the U.S. seems to be waging all the time these days perhaps they do have a value to modern warfare.
Click to expand...

They really don't compared to helicopters. I don't know about books, but the German Army used trains on the Eastern Front and in Yugoslavia for counter-partisan operations and both the Red and White Armies in the Russian Civil War used them to protect their supply lines (which were rail dependent).
 
they used to have a massive role but no so much anymore
 
TypicalRussian said:
they used to have a massive role but no so much anymore
Click to expand...

Armored/armed trains never had a "massive role" in warfare. They got used as very bad artillery platforms in late industrial era and WW1 (note: an armored/armed train isn't the same as a railway gun), then as counter insurgency weapons in the Russian Civil War and WW2.
 
Probably depends.......

burt-lancaster-thetrain-1193.jpg


.......on whether Labiche and Papa Boule will be there.
 
Dood sits around thinking about warring.
 
Dayton3 said:
Isn't that a pretty big expenditure of time and effort just to halt just one train? And even then the train is still there with its arsenal of weapons. Not to mention that that most dense rail networks have multiple lines of transit.
Click to expand...


Taking out railway tracks is a common thing in a war to limit the logistical support that any military would need. The same would go for bridges, roads, ports etc. WW2 did not have the precision long range bombing that exists now, so a military train could potentially work then, but now it would be likely stuck at the first river crossing waiting for the bridge to be repaired. While trucks could cross on a portable bridge or wade through the water. In Eastern Europe and much of Asia, the Abrams tank would have limited access due to bridges not being strong enough to support its weight
 
Outside logistics, no. They never really had that big of a combat role to begin with.
 
What if the trains could be prepositioned deep in enemy territory BEFORE hostilities began? Under the pretext of regular economic ties and activity.
 
Dayton3 said:
What if the trains could be prepositioned deep in enemy territory BEFORE hostilities began? Under the pretext of regular economic ties and activity.
Click to expand...

One of the arguments against the building of the Eurotunnel is that it could be used to negate the benefit of the UK being an Island.

The obvious retort to this idea is that it would be rather easy to defend against an attack force trying to get out of a tunnel but I suppose once it's taken it would allow easy transport of tanks and stuff.
I think mostly it's a romanticised view of war when we see trains involved in fiction or the Metro games which are great by the way.
 
Peter said:
One of the arguments against the building of the Eurotunnel is that it could be used to negate the benefit of the UK being an Island.

The obvious retort to this idea is that it would be rather easy to defend against an attack force trying to get out of a tunnel but I suppose once it's taken it would allow easy transport of tanks and stuff.
I think mostly it's a romanticised view of war when we see trains involved in fiction or the Metro games which are great by the way.
Click to expand...

What are the "Metro games"?
 
Dayton3 said:
What if the trains could be prepositioned deep in enemy territory BEFORE hostilities began? Under the pretext of regular economic ties and activity.
Click to expand...

Even a civilian could identify an armed train from a normal freight train.
 
Dayton3 said:
What are the "Metro games"?
Click to expand...

Metro 2033, Metro Last Light, and Metro Exodus. Post-apocalyptic first person shooter set in Moscow's underground metro system. Based on a series of books by a Russian author.

Very good games indeed.
 
Dayton3 said:
What are the "Metro games"?
Click to expand...

They are an FPS series set in a post-apocalyptic Russia based on a series of books of the same name.
They are tense and hardcore with limited ammo and the graphics are amazing.
It does a great job of telling a story of a bunch of survivors living in a Metro system because the world above is a nuclear wasteland.

I highly recommend them all.

Metro (franchise) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom