Starfleet Marines (not restarting the debate)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kalamaro:
whoo jalu3

the US Space Command is a USAF Command,
and the USAF they aren't Marine

the Marine in Nasa are just to Surveil the instalations

[This message has been edited by kalamaro (edited 03-29-2001).]

---

US Space Command is currently supervised by a USAF general yes but it is made up of experts from all branches of the U.S. military service.

And while many marines do serve as guards, try telling former Marine and astronaut John Glenn that marines can't be all they can be http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen E Oulton:
Pissed-off Moderator mode engaged. Note: I do not like scofflaws.

Jalu3, what part of "please do not respond to this post in this thread" did you not understand? Do you think Dan meant "everyone but Jalu3 do not respond?" The rules apply to everyone. You are not helping the situation by demonstrating that you have no respect for the fact that a moderator was trying to salvage the possibility that the thread can actually remain on topic. If you wish to continue the long pointless argument, go over to Star Trek Chat or General Chat and start a thread. Don't demand that this one be moved there because you haven't the self control to restrict your typing.

End of rant.[/B]

---

Am I the only one here who thinks that Jalu3 was only making a modest request - proposing that the topic be moved? Did he really deserve a "public reprimand?"

Also, if the Moderator has truly ruled that this topic is DEAD, why did Moderator Oulton continue to respond to it..?



[This message has been edited by Cessna (edited 03-30-2001).]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cessna:
Am I the only one here who thinks that Jalu3 was only making a modest request - proposing that the topic be moved? Did he really deserve a "public reprimand?"

Also, if the Moderator has truly ruled that this topic is DEAD, why did Moderator Oulton continue to respond to it..?

---

Not to step on any moderator toes...

Owen didn't rule the TOPIC dead, just asked that no one respons to his post... thus continuing the off topic debate. Halting the OFF TOPIC portion of the thread was his intent, which Jalu3's post continued.

ON TOPIC CONTENT:

I think that the specialties for Starfleet GROUND FORCES of any kind would actually be limited. As they seem to be closely integrated with the rest of starfleet (rather than a separate/ virtually separate branch) it would seem that they don't need much more than "infantry", "cavalry" and "combat engineers"... perhaps with additional schools for scouts/ recon and such. The combat engineer would have some training to cover a squad's needs until a specialist SF engineer could be called in. Planetary SDF's with more distinct arms might have greater duplication.

Since their battlefields would often be a high-tech areas (starships, starports, space stations, etc) all of them would likely have a basic grounding in Systems Engineering. Other specialties could be covered by individuals detailed to the GROUND FORCES from the rest of Starfleet, perhaps with a 6-8 week tactical refresher course.

The squad would be the basic tactical unit, consisting of 6 troops (to fit a standard transporter). A platoon would be 3 line squads and a platoon headquarters squad. With the power of ST-era personal weapons and availability of supporting fire from starships I'm not sure that a heavy weapons squad is required.

I would suggest that a standard SF GROUND FORCES SQUAD include:

1 Squad Leader
1 Combat Engineer
4 Riflemen

The platoon headquarters would be:
1 Platoon Commander
1 Platoon Sergeant
1 Combat Corpsman
1 Combat Engineer
2 Riflemen

A company (probably the largest regularly-fielded element) would have 3 line platoons and a headquarters section ( 2 squads).

The Command squad would consist of:
1 Company Commander
1 Company XO
1 Company Clerk
1 Combat Engineer
2 Riflemen

The Support Squad would consist of:
1 First Sergeant
2 Combat Medics
1 Armorer
2 Riflemen

That gives you squads of 6, platoons of 24, and companies of 90.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

Does anyone have the stats for phaser rifles and compression phaser rifles. Like the correct length, weight, and volume. What is the difference between phaser and compression phaser rifles?

------------------
"Retreat?! Hell, we just got here!"

While the Phasers have all been printed in the LUG books the I and II's common to all.

The Phaser Rifle IIIa was in TNG core rule book (this is that ugly rifle from TNG's first couple of seasons). The IIIC was in the Players handbook and DS9 core rule book (the phaser Seen in DS9) the IIIB (The phaser rifle seen in First Contact & Voyager)was in the Price of Freedom, think I may have got them backwords without looking.

The Compression Phasers uses two higher settings 17 & 18.

On the topic of Starfleet Marines, they were in the old Starfleet Battles game. The explanation was that their numbers were very low during peace time. But during the General War, there were many divisions raised for the war, this was all during the TOS era. The time during the movies was pretty much a "Cold War", the marines have been disbanded because they were not "needed." It would seem that those who wished to remain in service transferred to Starfleet's security, intelligence or command branches, depending on where their skills would do the most good. It seems that by the TNG era the ground side of combat is handled by security personnel. Command might get the glory and promotions, but security has to hold the ground and space. Then during the Dominion War, Starfleet found that it needed "Marines" (warriors)again. I'm sorry but as a historian I know that politicians have always made this mistake, assuming that if you stay peaceful, no one will attack you, the other side doesn't attack because they're afraid of you. But instead of creating a whole new service branch, they just took volunteers and gave them more intense training. Training in which stun was not the default setting on a phaser. Besides Rapid Response Team sounds more politically correct than Fleet Marine Force.

What are the effects of the two higher phaser settings?
I only have the core TNG book and player handbook. Could any one send me stats on the p-3b and any grenades?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66:


ON TOPIC CONTENT:


Since their battlefields would often be a high-tech areas (starships, starports, space stations, etc) all of them would likely have a basic grounding in Systems Engineering.

---

Gotta disagree there, the outposts depictd in "nor the Battle the Strong" and "The siege of AR 552" were not high tech places. The places of combat would as varied as they are today. In TOS and the way LUG wrote of it the Liberation of Tarsus was fierce Street to Street battles. Star Trek V showed a desloete Desert world.

Quote:

---

The squad would be the basic tactical unit, consisting of 6 troops (to fit a standard transporter). A platoon would be 3 line squads and a platoon headquarters squad. With the power of ST-era personal weapons and availability of supporting fire from starships I'm not sure that a heavy weapons squad is required.

---

Then who would be operating the Photon mortar, the heavier groud phasers and the like?

Truth is a Fleet marine force would be as diverse as its modern day equivalent is. I could sill see reliance on the Fleet for the purpose of long range logistics and even medical needs but the force would do its own work on planet the goal being to free the fleet up for its job i.e. keeping the enemy out of orbit and even the system.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric R.:
Then who would be operating the Photon mortar, the heavier groud phasers and the like?

---

Yeah, they used one of those in the opening of the infamous "Arena/Gorn Episode," right?

Does anyone have stats for one of those?

The photon mortar stats are in Price of Freedom.

Mortars have a few advantages over "direct fire" weapons, either real life guns or phasers. For example:

Mortars can lob shells over things. If your target is behind a building you won't have to slag the whole building to hit the target.

Perhaps one of the most important advantages is that you don't have to show yourself to the enemy in order to use indirect fire. You can hide out of site of the enemy and rain shells down on them, and not take any fire in return.

How does this relate to the game? An enemy with a simple, indirect fire weapon could wreak havoc on a phaser-armed away team from a hidden position. This would go a long way to offset the "PC phaser advantage" in a skirmish...

Are there any ballistic weapons for use by Starfleet. I remember a rail gun type weapon being used on DS9. Along with a fancy head-mounted sight with a HUD.
I suppose if I wanted a reliable mortar type weapon, it would be light, less than 10 kg (about the same as an M-60), have a magazine, maybe ten rounds, and the munitions would be programmable, set for ground-burst or air-burst and guided, IR seeking or used AI and IFF to track, attack, and set themselves to do the most damage to target or targets. I targeting could be done by spotters or with orbital surveillance. That would fit the bill.

Who needs a photon mortar when you can set the phaser rifle to level 16 and slag a building?
But I suppose the blast from a photon mortar would be equivalent to a high level phaser shot, with lesser damage further away from the point of impact.

To slag that buliding with your phaser rifle set to level 16 means you have to stick your head over whatever cover you have...Possibly getting yourself slagged. Why not just stand back and lob a few grenades from a mortar into, and, around the target. Much safer that way I think.

harg, ok, i'm present my apology for all i say on the marine.

no, i will never respond on this topic but :

My view is : I'm not use "Marine" Term in startrek



[This message has been edited by kalamaro (edited 03-31-2001).]