Printable View
Actually, Hadley, that would make some sense...
If you notice that ops, tactical/security and engineering are all the same "branch" in the late-24th C. Starfleet, its clear that they are "technicians." That means that they're technical specialists, and their "basic maintenance" job description makes them suited to handling repairs to a variety of pieces of equipment. Junior enlisted, especially, are probably interchangeable between the three sections.
It's also supported by at least one bit of on-sceen evidence...Ensign Sito Jaxa, who was a security officer, was being considered for a promotion to Lt(jg). This would have entailed her transfer to Ops (Data's seat), and there was apparently nothing odd about it - it seemed fairly routine. More importantly, it seemed she could simply slot into the role whenever necessary.Quote:
Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Actually, Hadley, that would make some sense...
If you notice that ops, tactical/security and engineering are all the same "branch" in the late-24th C. Starfleet, its clear that they are "technicians." That means that they're technical specialists, and their "basic maintenance" job description makes them suited to handling repairs to a variety of pieces of equipment. Junior enlisted, especially, are probably interchangeable between the three sections.
Whether this means she had cross-training in Ops as well as security, I am unsure.
However...it is also important, I feel, to note that Ensign Sam Lavelle (who was Command branch, and apparently a Helmsman), ended up being promoted after Sito's death...and went straight into Ops.
My memory fails me as to whether he was wearing red or mustard at the end of the episode, but it does support the view that most SF officers are fairly thoroughly cross-trained. In game terms, I look at it as they all have the Systems Operations skill - just a variety of specialties, and there's no problem having a "red shirt" occupy a position normally held by a "yellowjacket".
Mind you, in my game there is no "Operations" sub-branch. I have "Operations" as an over-arcing classification which covers both Security and Engineering...and everything else wearing yellow! :)
Data being "Operations Manager" meant two things: he was the senior officer whose most common station was "Ops" (power management, life-support maintenance, sensor operations, etc), plus he also held the title: Operations Manager. On ships in my campaign, the Ops Manager is always the ship's second officer, and he is responsible for both Engineering and Security.
Thus, going from the top-down in my campaign, the chain of command on the E-D was something like:
Picard (CO)....Riker (XO)....Data (2nd Off)....
and on "equal terms" (not rank, but responsibility)
....LaForge and Worf.
In other words, Geordi may have been Chief Engineer, and Worf may have been Chief of Security, but they both reported directly to Data, and thence on to Riker or Picard.
I've never been able to get around the idea of their being an "operations" branch - it seems to artificial a distinction. If you wear yellow and your job is to fix something, operate machinery or otherwise interact with the ship directly, you're Engineering. If your job is carry a phaser and beat people up, you're Security ( :) ).
But if you wear yellow and do any of those things, you're Ops.
This is, of course, all just in my campaign. YMMV.
Hope this isn't too unclear...:D
Well this is a weakness in the Federation that needs be addressed a ww2 German Infantry platoon would have SLAUGHTERED the Jem Hdar at Ar 577 or ar 588 .A SINGLE machine gun would have made that choke point unpassable two would be a slaughter.
one other thing why didnt they use there phasers on wide angle??
Well, as to the first point...Quote:
Originally posted by Typhonis 1
Well this is a weakness in the Federation that needs be addressed a ww2 German Infantry platoon would have SLAUGHTERED the Jem Hdar at Ar 577 or ar 588 .A SINGLE machine gun would have made that choke point unpassable two would be a slaughter.
one other thing why didnt they use there phasers on wide angle??
An MG-38 might well have slaughtered the Jem'Hadar (assuming they didn't use their shrouds...:) ), but so would a heavy mounted phaser on continuous fire. Why didn't the Federation forces use one, you ask?
Answer: The same reason the German infantry on D-Day didn't have MG-42s with unlimited ammunition every five metres for a 20 kilometre stretch of beach.
They didn't have enough. AR-558 was about a cut-off unit, desperately trying to survive with heavy casualties and minimal supplies.
If you've seen the mini-series Band of Brothers the closest WWII approximation would have been the Allied forces at Bastogne, at Christmas 1944, where many units were down to a single round per man in terms of ammunition.
AR-558 was not a typical engagement. In a typical engagement, where power cells for phasers were in plentiful supply, I'd like to see how a Panzer or two stacks up against phasers on level 16. My bet is you'd have a couple of piles of molten slag within a few seconds.
As to why they didn't use phasers on wide-angle setting. IIRC, that can only be done on stun settings, and has a very limited range (around 10 metres, I think?).
The ultimate reason for how AR-558 went, however, is the simple fact that two roughly evenly-matched forces in the 24th century provide just as bloody results as those in the 20th. Mano-a-mano, with small-arms, the siege of AR-558 was nasty, bloody, destructive and frightening.
The point being, I think the writers were saying, was that from the Grunt's perspective, wars ain't gonna change much.
Aldaron, I could not agree more. The German forces on D-Day did not have sufficent resources to defend the Normandy beaches; that was why General Erwin Rommel was so eager to plug these gaps through the use of landmines and underwater obstacles to foil any possible landing attempt in that area. Also, the Germans were still convinced that Normandy was a diversion to draw the Panzers away from the Pas-de-Calais area where the invasion was always belived to occur (at least in the German's mind - check out The Longest Day).
The reason why the Germans did so well in defence on D-Day (particularly on Omaha Beach, as depicted in Saving Private Ryan) was that they had the high ground atop the bluffs at St. Laurent, like Sisko and Co. had in the episode Rocks and Shoals .
Just to point something out, the Marines that are posted on USN ships are not all necessarily "ground-pounders". A lot of them perform ship security functions, which can be seen in canon in ST IV. So, exactly what is it we want to see when we use this word "marine"? I'm just trying to get an idea. It seems logical, especially during the Dominion War, that the UFP would need to hold planets and retake planets. Although a starship goes a long way, ground forces are important to prevent loss of territory. However, I don't see the need for an independent ground force from Starfleet. It seems to me that it would be just another job that required more personnel detached from a starship. Starfleet crews are highly-disciplined, intelligent, and motivated; probably the three most important things in any military force. Give them some ground tactics and heavy weapons training (3-6 mos) and look out. Just an idea.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally posted by arndog1975
Just to point something out, the Marines that are posted on USN ships are not all necessarily "ground-pounders". A lot of them perform ship security functions, which can be seen in canon in ST IV. So, exactly what is it we want to see when we use this word "marine"? I'm just trying to get an idea. It seems logical, especially during the Dominion War, that the UFP would need to hold planets and retake planets. Although a starship goes a long way, ground forces are important to prevent loss of territory. However, I don't see the need for an independent ground force from Starfleet. It seems to me that it would be just another job that required more personnel detached from a starship. Starfleet crews are highly-disciplined, intelligent, and motivated; probably the three most important things in any military force. Give them some ground tactics and heavy weapons training (3-6 mos) and look out. Just an idea.
My opposition to the concept of "Federation Marines" is not a philosophical one, based on the idea that "marines are not in the spirit of Trek."
My opposition has always been purely pragmatic. I don't see that large numbers of ground troops are relevent any more in the 24th Century.
I've stated it before in various threads, but let me sum up...
Transporter technology means that nowhere on a planet is inaccessible, and everywhere is accessible within seconds.
Deflector shields and transport inhibitors can block localised areas - not large areas.
A starship in orbit can target very small areas with its phasers. Even in the 23rd Century, the E-NBABCOD managed to hit Apollo's temple only metres from the landing party.
With these facts in mind, it is apparent that the most vital part of 24th Century warfare is controlling orbital space. If you don't, you can't hit ground targets, use your ships sensors to track occurrences on the ground or beam troops (security forces, ground forces, whatever) down to the location of a problem.
What is the purpose of ground troops today?
1) To eliminate "dug-in" enemy troops unassailable by air-strikes.
2) To capture and secure vital locations - C3I, transportation, etc.
3) To maintain a "presence" - show the flag, if you will.
4) To prevent disorder and violence from either civilians or (as in Iraq today) enemy troops masquerading as civilians.
In Star Trek...
1) No need. Beam them up or target them from space.
2) Necessary. Key locations must still be held - communications and replicator nexi, government buildings etc.
3) Necessary, but with greatly reduced numbers (see point 4)
4) Necessary. However, with reliable, real-time communications and sensors watching from orbit coupled with transporters, it isn't necessary to garrison thousands of troops to do the job. Whereas a division or two (say, 30 to 40 thousand troops) might be necessary today, 24th Century technology would allow the same job to be accomplished with far fewer than a modern-day police force.
Out of all these, Point 1), digging out enemy troops, is the most costly in terms of manpower. Since it is no longer relevent, that immediately and drastically lowers the number of troops necessary.
Now, considering shields and transport inhibitors can only affect small areas, I can't see why the key locations from Point 2) cannot be held by relatively small units, using shields and inhibitors, while the rest is protected from orbit.
I guess the main thrust of what I'm saying is that large forces of troops on the ground without orbital support - or worse, with hostile orbital control, are just great, big, unmoving targets.
For this reason, I believe that ground forces in Trek are used to capture the key locations which may be protected by transport inhibitors, while any enemy troops wandering about the country-side or in the cities will simply be beamed up - or worse.
As a modern-day example, one only need look as far as Iraq. Despite being considerably outnumbered, Coalition forces were able to (literally, at times) run and fly rings around the Iraqi forces because they had excellent real-time communications and complete control of the air. It's an example of how a much smaller force can outmanouvre and outgun a (on paper) much more powerful force.
Now imagine the same scenario in the 24th century, except that now the Coalition has access to constant orbital surveillance, transporters and replicators.
Supply lines? Hey, we have replicators, we don't need no stinkin' supply lines! :)
You spot an enemy formation? Beam a RRT strike-team into their command bunker vicinity (assuming the bunker itself is shielded or inhibited) while using your shipboard phasers to destroy their heavy weapons emplacements.
My belief, however, is that this wouldn't happen, because nobody would be stupid enough to try an field a huge ground army. You're better spending the resources on starships to control the high ground, because without them, your huge ground force is a big fat target and little else.
YMMV, of course! :D
I agree with your points. What the hell is E-NBABCOD?Quote:
Originally posted by Aldaron
its phasers. Even in the 23rd Century, the E-NBABCOD managed to hit Apollo's temple only metres from the landing party.
In my game I have Marines, although they are officially named the Federation Defense Force but that takes too long to say :D, They are not part of Starfleet and use the different ranking system then Starfleet does. On the Starbase in my game there are about 50 total troops. Of those fifty nine are always stationed on the Support ship whenever it leaves dock. The other 41 stay around so that in case a large incursion hits the Starbase they will be well equipped with the nifty guns and know how to use them.
I don't believe that in the 24th Century you need all that many to have a large contingency. Fifty I consider to be standard for this smaller starbase. On each ship during a wartime there might be less then 15, even on the biggest ships. (The Pinnacle is a Saber but right in the middle of a war so that is why there are nine always stationed to her.)
I don't believe they would be used in any time except for a war time.
Your Mileage May Vary though :)
Aldaron,
I couldn't agree more. I always wondered why anyone would bother with the creation of large infantry formations when a starship could simply vaporize (or stun) them from orbit.
With technology of this caliber, the creation of regular army units has become obsolete.
In the cases where some troops are necessary, they certainly wouldn't be large enough to attach anything like a "division" keyword to them. They would be glorified security forces.
Those 50 troops sound more like a security detachment meant to keep the peace inside the starbase.Quote:
Originally posted by Lt Cmdr Matt
In my game I have Marines, although they are officially named the Federation Defense Force but that takes too long to say :D, They are not part of Starfleet and use the different ranking system then Starfleet does. On the Starbase in my game there are about 50 total troops. Of those fifty nine are always stationed on the Support ship whenever it leaves dock. The other 41 stay around so that in case a large incursion hits the Starbase they will be well equipped with the nifty guns and know how to use them.
Would you consider Worf and the Enterprise security teams (which surely number at least 50 total) to be marines?
Enterprise-No Bloody A B C or DQuote:
Originally posted by Ineti
What the hell is E-NBABCOD?
I think what I said was wrong and I was not awake nor feeling particularly good after severe dehydration last night. IN any case, what I mean to say was the Marines are there to protect the Starbase's planetary interests, and to be used as boarding teams, etc. Security could be used for this and they are, but during a wartime these extra trained marines are sent in so that things can be dealt with easier. In essence they are highly trained Security personnel, I just prefer to call them the FDF or Marines.
:) Sorry...Quote:
Originally posted by Ineti
I agree with your points. What the hell is E-NBABCOD?
Enterprise - No Bloody A, B, C Or D
:D
Hitting a stationary target is easier than a sensor jamming ,moving target that could be shielded. Think armored and heavily armed shuttlecrft that hugs the ground. Not since TOS have they shown the ability to stun a target from orbit also transportes as easily stoped funny ores in the hills ECM shields .