There's about 3 to 5 million midget in the USA.
Let's say half of them are in age of fighting. Let's also have 50% of available female midgets rolled in, and all males are taken.
Forget about the maths.
Let's say we get between half and a full million midgets ready for war.
List the pros and cons of such an army on tactics, strategies, logistics, economy, etc.
USA Midget Corps
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
- Khas
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
- Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation
Re: USA Midget Corps
What is this I don't even
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: USA Midget Corps
Supposedly being about assembling a somehow super serious treatise into weighing pros and cons of a modern dwarf army.
- Praeothmin
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 3920
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
- Location: Quebec City
Re: USA Midget Corps
Only Pros, look at the Ewoks... :)
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
Re: USA Midget Corps
Easier transportation and logistic supply chain. Smaller people eat less food and are easier to transport. I suppose they're also smaller targets, and can't be shot up as easily. If you work with a maximum height of five feet rather than six and change, you can made headroom smaller on tanks, decks shorter on ships and submarines, et cetera.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Supposedly being about assembling a somehow super serious treatise into weighing pros and cons of a modern dwarf army.
On the down side, smaller people are generally weaker in absolute terms. This could be a disadvantage in close quarters engagements, police actions, and dealing with heavy weapons.
They're stronger in relative terms to their body size; biomechanically, we're dealing with a square/cube ratio, so things that go by dimension^2, like armor weight given a fixed thickness, are unaffected.
Overall, I would say that smaller soldiers are an advantage the more your army relies on technological aids to deliver; and a disadvantage the more your army relies on muscle power and humans carrying things from point A to point B. Sounds like a net advantage to me, provided you can find enough short people in good enough shape.
This is all if you just happen to be working with people who are short, rather than who have one of the medical conditions associated with dwarfism which also produce disproportionate limbs or are associated with mental retardation.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: USA Midget Corps
Finally someone being serious about it, and with excellency! :)Jedi Master Spock wrote:Easier transportation and logistic supply chain. Smaller people eat less food and are easier to transport. I suppose they're also smaller targets, and can't be shot up as easily. If you work with a maximum height of five feet rather than six and change, you can made headroom smaller on tanks, decks shorter on ships and submarines, et cetera.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Supposedly being about assembling a somehow super serious treatise into weighing pros and cons of a modern dwarf army.
On the down side, smaller people are generally weaker in absolute terms. This could be a disadvantage in close quarters engagements, police actions, and dealing with heavy weapons.
They're stronger in relative terms to their body size; biomechanically, we're dealing with a square/cube ratio, so things that go by dimension^2, like armor weight given a fixed thickness, are unaffected.
Overall, I would say that smaller soldiers are an advantage the more your army relies on technological aids to deliver; and a disadvantage the more your army relies on muscle power and humans carrying things from point A to point B. Sounds like a net advantage to me, provided you can find enough short people in good enough shape.
This is all if you just happen to be working with people who are short, rather than who have one of the medical conditions associated with dwarfism which also produce disproportionate limbs or are associated with mental retardation.
It is certain that the technological support of troops is a factor to consider. For example, the strength problem could "easily" be dealt with by a breakthrough in exoskeletons.
The large pro that comes through the use of small people is that everything can be smaller. In the end, the costs on certain resources can be significantly cut.
Other interesting idea is imagining what would happen if some enemy troopers had to get inside buildings or caves largely built to suit the height for small people. It makes troop movement clumsy for normal heighted humans.
A dwarf using a rocket launcher will have his center of gravity lower if he kneels. However, his rocket launcher will also be lower, and with shorter legs, he won't gain as much stabilization as a 1.8 m soldier would.
In modern warfare, we notice that many building windows are built in such a way that a human standing behind one is particularly exposed. He has to kneel or bend in some way in order to peek without exposing too much body. Which means it's more problematic to make quick moves from such a position, while a dwarf already stands in a more natural position.
Not knowing if this is a plus or not, in a thick jungle, most of their body is already covered by the vegetation at ground level, with only their heads or upper-torso sticking out.
Could it be possible to train special Dwarf Corps? I suppose finding like two dozen thousands of them would more than enough to form a special branch of the army, although the scale of economics would mean that with those limited numbers, they wouldn't have access to expensive vehicles tailored to their needs and would most likely only obtain cheap Dwarf-exclusive trucks and cars, and perhaps old-gen modified transport helicopters.
- Tyralak
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:39 am
- Contact:
Re: USA Midget Corps
Sorry to bump an old thread, but this needed to be added for context.