This message has been removed on request by the
poster
Printable View
This message has been removed on request by the
poster
Federation Army?
Well hmm . . . OK lets see how I solved this one. It's been a while so bear with me and give me your opinion as you all seem fit.
Alot of people here forget that there are such things called "Planetary Defense Forces". Whether you call them PDFs or more predominate member nations have a different name (Like the Andorian's and the Vulcan's Have), they all serve a basic purpose of local defense and jurisdiction enforcement. Now with that said, in my version of how I see it (Especially being a Reservist myself) is that ground forces would, during times of peace, would be found in these PDFs, and would be 'Federalized' until there is a War where they would be needed in a larger conflict.
As in real life, they would all have a uniform training requirement. Thus when activated they would all know the same thing, and thus would be able to work with other units from other member planets. Furthermore, like in real life, they would go through a training regiment and so their skills don't deteriate with time. Of course there'd be some type of refresher training before they hit the front lines and so, if they went to the AIT like 10 years ago, they can get updated, but that's a given.
This is why you don't see them on screen that often.
As for Marines, I have them wearing the normal uniform, with the normal ranks, but with a Green collar to designate them. They are not Starfleet Security. Starfleet Security fills the same role as US Army Military Police fill. Rather, like other people believe, they are more of a selective force trained for Initial Planetary offensives.
Think of this way. The Navy gets you there (Starfleet), the Marines give you the beachhead (The Marines), and the Army moves out from there (Ground Forces 'Federalized' from the PDFs). I'm in the Army (in real life), and that's how I understand it, so that's how I run with it.
SO where do Rapid Reaction Forces play into all this.
Again, they are even more specialized. Filling the role of Delta Force, or SAS. Small Squad sized independently operational units. For strategic strikes, close-quarter combat, or hostile ship takeovers, they are the ones you call on.
For the larger parties, call the normal folk.
So there you have it. That's my Star Trek quazi-military world.
As for all of you who use Rangers and Green Berats let us all get it strait once and for all. Rangers are specialized Infantry soldiers. They are independent, and don't need the support that other Infantry units need. They are quickly deployable.
Green Berats are special forces yes. However, their specialty is going in, and teaching friendly forces how to wage succesful guerilla warfare.
Got it? Get it? Good.
Drive on, Hooah!
I think the problem here is that people are (understandably, considering many of the TrekRPG regulars are military or ex-military) looking at the "Starfleet Marines vs Ground Forces/RRT" problem thru the eyes of modern military forces.
The Trek universe offers a fundamentally different paradigm thru which to view large-scale warfare. The existence of replicators, transporters and beamed-power completely change the way wars would be fought.
Let's look at a hypothetical example for a moment. Let's say Cardassian troops have occupied the world Hashbrown Prime. Cardie troops occupy key installations, like power generators, communications nexi, replicator/transporter nodes, government/administrative offices, etc.
Now, in the modern world, what would you do? (Assuming you have the intel to tell you what the enemy has there).
Softening up with airstrikes/missile strikes, which takes out enemy C3I and disrupts their ability to defend, then hit them with ground troops. The ground troops are necessary for several reasons:
1) You need numbers of them because the enemy will have numbers of them
2) You need guys physically "on the ground" to hold territory
3) You need to secure any captured territory by using guys with rifles to patrol it.
4) You need to establish a presence, demonstrate your authority over the secured area; "show the flag" if you will.
Now, in a Trek universe, there are quite a few differences.
For a start, you don't need an enormous supply corps - with replicator technology and beamed power, your troops are almost entirely operations, not logistics.
Secondly, you don't need vast amounts of transport battalions with their attendant fuel requirements to shift men and material. You have transporters.
Thirdly, your "airstrike" ability can come from orbit. Even in the 23rd Century, shipboard phasers were accurate enough to take out Apollo's temple with Kirk and McCoy 50 metres away; safely away.
So...we can immediately strip the "needed numbers" by around 67 - 75%, depending on the units and style; that's eliminating all the "back end" supply and logistics personnel. That's now provided by starships and replicators.
Enemy ground troops over a large area are a liability - with precision phaser strikes and transporters, it would be all too easy to either destroy them from orbit, or simply beam them out. Enemy troops would need to be clustered around sensor masks (to prevent weapons lock from orbit), and transport inhibitors (to keep from being beamed to a ship's brig).
So, in order to recapture an enemy planet in the Trek universe, you would need several things:
1) To establish orbital control with starships
2) To have small units of well-trained shock troops to hit the small, key areas being held by enemy troops
3) Troops to "show the flag" on the ground and demonstrate your authority.
To me, this suggests that the on-screen evidence is spot on. Small Ground-Forces units, transported by starship, ready to beam down and hit the enemy in small-scale engagements. Destroying enemy ships and establishing orbital control are crucial to the outcome of any 24th century planetary combat - without it, troops on the ground would be massacred. (Which is probably what happened to the Cardassian 4th Order or whatever it was in 2375, when the Dominion left them unguarded on a planet; I'd say Starfleet moved in an Excelsior and carved them up from orbit).
Comments? Suggestions? Flames?
Does anyone know what on screen or canon evidence we have of planet based defense systems? From my 10 years of Trek experience I am able to gather that some ground defense and offensive ability exist. My question is what is the extent of that technology. For example, could ground based shield systems sport enough power to defend against large scale orbital bombardment for a significant amount of time? Could ground based weapons sport enough fire power to rival the largest fleet? I would say yes based on just what we see of DS9's offensive and defensive capabilities. It only stands to reason that ground based stations could bring even more energy (from reactors) for use in its shields and weapons. What do others think/know?
This message has been removed on request by the
poster
"Ronald Regan Memorial Orbital Defense Base" :p
To me, that is pretty funny.
But seriously, what do we have to work with that is canon?
Well what we have cannonly, is mainly Cardassian in view in regards to to Planetary Defense.
Apparently, even though it's theoretically possible you don't find many ground based defenses, IE Planetary shields, Torpedo Batteries, Phaser batteries, etc. etc.
However, with Cardassia Prime and the Chitock (sp) system we do know that atleast the FMR CU has orbital defense platforms. These are capable of firing amazingly powerful phasers or disruptors . . . and possibly firing Torps (but I didn't see that happen, so that's speculation). Furthermore, they are VERY durable.
As for the Feds . . . all we've seen are those three insignificant automated defense pods that the first cube blew up near Jupiter. Funny, you think there'd be more protecting Sol, and other major systems. Guess SC didn't want to finance those things . . . oh well, I guess those who survived the Breen attack have now learned their lesson.
As for GF numbers I can see what you were saying. As with modern warfare "Whoever holds the high ground wins the war." However that is not the case, look at Vietnam. We held the high ground, we had the shier power. I mean not taking into the fact taht we made the majority of the civilian population detest our presence, and failled to listen to those who were in the thick of it, or our allies who knew the country best. So in theory we should of won the war. Wrong.
If you have a population that is still willing to fight, you still need people on the ground to go about and take them out. OK you have orbital control, after taking heavy losses from whatever defending FLT was there or orbital D was present. You've secured all that you mention. So in essence you control the planet? Yes? No?
No. What you'll end up with is like what happened in the PI during WWII. The Japanese held the major cities, and the majority of overland routes. But every where else, and if they weren't looking they'd be cut to death by your handy massedy (sp).
Granted . . . in the 24th century you'd be able to blast them from space. But, even with sensors, which as we have seen in multiple RPGs and on screen, can easliy be ineffective due to "atmospheric distortions". So in the end you still need a considerable force size during clean up ops.
As for the Ronald Reagan Memorial Defense Platform . . . I Like it. Rather make it a defense ring around the Moon, like in Starship Troopers. But wait, this is trek, it wouldn't work. NM
Wow - 4 pages and we're still getting along :)
I've gone along with JALU pretty much in my game system:
Many member worlds have local defense forces that may or may not include a "coast guard" type force tasked with local customs/law enforcement type duties. If they don't provide this than SF will do so, usually in a much "thinner" way. (i.e. remote colonies will likely be left unprotected from pirates/smugglers allowing the PC ship to save the day while Terran system has local space enforcement ships that harrass our "free trader" game). These local defense forces can be Federalized in emergencies and thus fall under Star Fleet.
I don't have an Army of the UFP as such. In the (rare) instances when such a thing is needed they Federalize local forces.
I do have a very small, very professional "marine" force that serves as a sub-department of Star Fleet in a sort of USN/USMC sort of arrangement.
I'm actually in the USN so I've based it a little bit on how the USMC actually is, but more on how (I think) the USMC would be in such a situation.
If you ever talk to a very senior NCO in the USMC you'll find that they are *NOT* brainless fighting machines - far from it. They are intelligent thinking people who have spent a lifetime in support of ideals and values they feel are important. They generally don't want to have to fight a war - but even more than that they certainly do not want to lose one as that would endanger the expression of those cherished values.
So, my UFP Marines are focused on one of the exact same missions as SF - protecting the values of the UFP and the freedom to express those values. In a very real way they are trained and prepared to fight to acheive this. A primary (usually THE primary) role is to train and equip the local defense forces. When SF is called into its defensive military role the UFPMC is called to provide the experienced core of the Federalized "ground" forces to augment the Fleet.
They do not act as "space borne infantry" i.e. manning security on ships or (usually) stations but rather protect and/or recapture UFP worlds threatened or invaded by outside forces.
I don't use Rapid Reaction Forces or anything Navy SEAL like in my game, but would if the plot called for it I suppose.
My very wordy two cents.
This message has been removed on request by the
poster
This message has been removed on request by the
poster
I tend to agree with JALU...I don't see a Federation Ground Force so much a number of planetary forces provided by member worlds...however, it would make sense for the Federation to have some kind of HQ/Admin structure to coordinate, transport and supply the various ground forces in time of war.
As for Starfleet, one idea I've been considering is a branch called the Starfleet Special Space Services (or S4 for short). I based the unit on the British SAS forces...it would be similar in concept to and perform missions like those of the Starfleet Rangers or Rapid Reaction Forces (it would in fact replace those forces). I have an excellent book on the SAS which I'll probably borrow from heavily in creating this organization.
Personally, considering that the 'ringed' defence of the Mars defence perimetre has failed against all 3 assaults on Earth, I particularly doubt that Starfleet HQ would consider the same defence again just close enough to allow the enemies to sit outside the perimetre (if they happen to be too weak to breach it like everyone else), and pepper the Earth with long-range torpedos from there.Quote:
Originally posted by StyroFoam ManQuote:
Originally posted by JALU3
As for the Ronald Reagan Memorial Defense Platform . . . I Like it. Rather make it a defense ring around the Moon, like in Starship Troopers. But wait, this is trek, it wouldn't work. NM
Then again after the thrashing that three Borg vessles and the Breen have given earth, prehaps they will take your advice!
(In our game universe they have! :p)
However surely this is by the by. And no longer a topic on Marines. Might this planetary defence topic serve better as its own thread, one that doesn't scare people away with the word Marine in the thread title?
Well I'm happy to see that someone agrees with me. As for the S4 thing . . . interesting. And well, I haven't transfered to CODA, so as for me, there is no Dag Gone Starfleet Rangers.
And for the Love of God! Why can't people realize that Rangers aren't special forces. Any servicemember here in the States can tell you that.
They're just very well trained, self-sufficient, hardcore, quickly-deployable, Hooah Infantry.
And Liz, shame on you for thinking of FMR PRES Reagan like that. But, you have a point, 20th Century Gov't. Sign this, this and this, duplicate. Send here, here, and here. And accompany with Form DA XXXX.
Which would be a valid arguement were this conversation to be focused on the US Armed Forces.Quote:
Originally posted by JALU3
And for the Love of God! Why can't people realize that Rangers aren't special forces. Any servicemember here in the States can tell you that.
Pity that instead we are talking about Starfleet, a Fictional Paramilitary/Scientific Organisatio set 300 years after a member of the US Armed forces was responsible for WWIII.
Chances are, based on that history that the Rangers bear little similarity to the US Armed forces out of sheer shame at the magnitude of the cock-up.
And considering that the Rangers too are non canon, for all we know they could simply be a Vulcan Special Forces whose name (in Vulcan) directly translates to 'Rangers'...
But comparing them to todays military is like arguing that the Infantry should be called Longbowmen and that Tank Crews are Knights. Or trying to see the Connection between the Phlanx of the ancient Greek armies and the Anti-Missile defence system... See how ludicrous the comparrison is when put like that...
At the end of the day its a word. you dont like it, you change it... As you already have done... Now PLEASE can we all get over this Marine/marine/Infantry/Special Forces issue?
hehe... Vulcan Special Forces...
Bolian Special Air Service...
For the most part, I go with the Dominion War Sourcebook and its description of Starfleet Groundforces, and the LUG Player's Guide for RRT's. So, out of the millions of beings in Starfleet, you only have about 200,000 in Ground Forces. Ground Forces uses "infantry" ranks.
It has never been stated which armed force Greene belonged to for all we know he could have been a Foregien officer serving in the Russian Military or the British or the Canadians for all that matter.Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Gurden
Which would be a valid arguement were this conversation to be focused on the US Armed Forces.
Pity that instead we are talking about Starfleet, a Fictional Paramilitary/Scientific Organisatio set 300 years after a member of the US Armed forces was responsible for WWIII.
Actually the Starfleet Rangers have more in common with the 18th Century Rangers of Rogers and the 19th century Texas Rangers than with Darby's 20th century one's.Quote:
Chances are, based on that history that the Rangers bear little similarity to the US Armed forces out of sheer shame at the magnitude of the cock-up.
Quote:
But comparing them to todays military is like arguing that the Infantry should be called Longbowmen
No, but Germany calls its light Infantry Jagers a term originally from the 16th century, Grenadiers from the late 17th Century is a term which is still around in the British army and in the US military still bears some relation to is original meaning.
Not knights, though the p[ublic has always viewed them as such, but at least the US, Brits and French still uas traditional cavalry terms, Lancers, Chavel'legers, Hussars and Cavalry to describe armor units. Trooper still refers to someone either who is a Paratrooper (Including Air Assualt) or a member of a Cavalry unit. The French use Legionier even though the last Roman Legionier was last seen in France over 1500 years ago.Quote:
and that Tank Crews are Knights.
Quote:
Or trying to see the Connection between the Phlanx of the ancient Greek armies and the Anti-Missile defence system
The connection is easy, The Phlanx AD system is designed to put out a shield of bullets which nothing can penetrate much like nothing could penetrate a Greek or Macedonian Phlanx of spear men.
Nope. :DQuote:
... See how ludicrous the comparrison is when put like that...
Actually military terminology has a way of sticking around long after the original purpsoe has gone away. So it is quite concieviable that Starfleet, which uses ship names going back to the Ancient Greeks, would continue to use our modern terms in describing there forces. As having been stated the USMC is not the only Capitol M in the crowd, there is the British, Dutch, and Korean Marines.
A most excellent response.
I guess this topic IS worth discussing???
Let's invent a new and PC term for the Starfleet Marines :D
"Spacines" I mean, "Marine" implies seaborne :O
Actually, there are astronauts from all 5 US armed forces, including the US Army and Coast Guard.
Quote:
Originally posted by Polanski
Ever wondered why NASA only takes Air Forces personnel?
Ever seen a Colonel or Naval officer in NASA's ranks?
Once again it comes down to realism and canon... it is your very own call how realistic your vision of Star Trek is, and based on that believe you have to make up your mind on operations and the methods used by Starfleet...
Kind Regards
Daniel
Not to mention civilians as well.
Two reasons:Quote:
Originally posted by Lt Cmdr Matt
Why do we call engineers, engineering officer?
They are a part of the operations branch, so why not call them operations officers? They do one part of the operations, maintenance and development.
(snip)
1) Operations personnel deal with resource allocation from all divisions. Engineers deal exclusively with the workings of the ship and must work with what they are given.
2) According to an ex-Navy Lt. friend of mine, on most ships, engineering personnel constitute half to two-thirds of total personnel on board ship. It would make sense from a logistical and record-keeping standpoint to make engineering separate.
Well, to bend the Star Trek universe competely out of shape, a friend of mine once ran a game with a *Klingon* Marine (Klingon Marine forces) exchange officer commanding the Federation Starship U.S.S. Schwarzkopf.Quote:
Originally posted by E W Dawson
"Ronald Regan Memorial Orbital Defense Base" :p
To me, that is pretty funny.
But seriously, what do we have to work with that is canon?
Of course, it was an alternate universe where the Collective consciousness of ALL Borg was hijacked by the computer SkyNet (from the Terminator films). Can you imagine Borg with Terminator combat chassis'?
Well, I'll guess I'll revive this thread after a long absence. The Starfleet Security personnel could be trained like Air Force Security Forces personnel. My brother does this job. They usually carry out law enforcement duties on base, but do get trained up to do patrolling in Iraq too. They went to some extra training for a month or so and then went to Iraq for 6 months. So Starfleet Security could also do this, in peace time they act as security and law enforcement. During war time they shift into a more infantry type mode. Afterward, they go back to being "regular" security. They also have their specialized units too; spec ops and SWAT teams, combat controllers, and para rescue. So Starfleet Security can do all these jobs, just during wartime their numbers would swell exponentially.
A ship usually carries enough security personnel to maintain security on ship, the larger the ship, the larger the security contingent. Maybe a platoon sized element on a Constitution-class and a company or two for a Galaxy-class.
I'd imagine an assignment to a ground-forces type position would be the same as any other collection of Starfleet types; you'd have the command/admin/nav division, the engineers, the security/defense specialists, the medical division and the science peeps. Like a combat mission in space, everyone would go in with the understanding that combat would occur–they're unlikely to assign someone who's never been in a firefight to an important ground assault.
Being a US Navy veteran myself, my Trek campaigns were always more militaristic than Canon. Starfleet is for all intents and purposes, the Federation Navy.
And I have plenty of Marines, especially deployed aboard FASA Chandley Class ships.
Well, I strongly doubt that Air Force personnel are doing anything very "infantry type". They are still doing the kind of thing they did before: providing security ro Air Force bases. It's just a different job depending on where you are: is your job mostly to check IDs at the gate and chase down the occasional moose who has somehow jumped the fence, or are you patrolling the fence with orders to shoot anyone who comes within 100 meters of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonsb214
MPs in the Army are the police force on Army bases, but in a war zone they are tasked with securing and guarding prisoners-of-war, and guarding prisons both agaisnt escape and agaisnt outside attacks.
And what we've seen of Starfleet Security, their job is pretty similar to those: on a ship, they enforce order, guard prisoners, and find and neutralize boarders. On a planet, they protect crewmembers from hostile forces. Sometimes they're cops, sometimes prison guards, and sometimes bodyguards.
And logically, "Federation Ground Forces" would probably answer to Security. Unless the Ground Forces were so large as to warrant a seperate division, either equal to Security or larger than Security.
That's all so subjective as to be "season to taste". :)
But that's assuming they'd ever have a mission that was totally under the aegis of Security–and very few missions in the 23rd or 24th century will be like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyone
Actually, my brother did go on patrols way outside the wire. He's gone through MOUT training, NTC, and infantry school, along with law enforcement aspect of his job.