Restarting my Starfleet marines post (sans controversy)

[Justice]

OK, i like where the thread was starting to go so im restarting it to hopefully avoid the marines debate and get some good input (which i have loved so far):

Here's what i;d like to know:

Size/organization of a SFMC unit?: Sizes, staffing and positions within each division (company, Squad, etc)

Equipment?


Strategies/methods? Would they always transport to the surface or would they have vehicles. How would tactics like those from SFB be better fleshed out in LUG?

[Diamond]

Don't miss the excellent Rapid response team materiel at http://members.aol.com/talonstudio/treks/

Just look in the Starfleet Security suppliment. And our thanks again to the ex-LUG staffer who made it available!

[Antonsb214]

The Marines in SFB were descended from the USMC for the most part, right down to the saber. The marines were usually given more training in planetary survival in multiple environments and tactics for different battlefield (urban, jungle, etc.)
The ranks were the same as modern USMC,
Enlisted:
Private
Lance Corporal
Corporal
Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Gunnery Sergeant and so forth...
Officer:
Liuetenant
Captain
Major
Lt. Colonel
Colonel
Brig. General

The basic unit would be a squad of 6 the max for transporters and the most you could probably get into a large shuttle or runabout. Three or four squads would form a platoon, two to four platoons would form a company.
Equipment would be the same as for RRTs in Players Handbook with the addition of a combat/fighting knife.
Some sort of armored transports would be nice for hostile LZs. Maybe upgunning a shuttle.

[Antonsb214]

Prime Directive had some armor available for Marines(think personal ablative armor). Something to take the sting out of the disruptor bolts. Limited protection, maybe 4 to 6 shots before armor is slagged and useless.
Marines also have a few traditions about battle. NO Marine (dead or wounded) it left on the battlefield. They pride themselves on marksmanship. Might have snipers with modified Phaser IIIs or a rail gun. Would also need the Starfleet equivalent of a claymore mine.

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

[Eric R.]

Really not want to talk to much about equipment and such as when the Dominion War Sourcebook gets put up on site we will have some unofficial Official material to deal with.

As for me I do see a place for old style Ballestic weapons in Trek rpg. In fact the force which I am developing will rely more on Energy/chrage weapons than on pure energy ones. The goal being that if you think of the number of power packs used in a fire fight with phasers and then determine the amount of time needed to constantly recharge them afterwards a unit could be out of service for as much as a day. So that means an exchange system is set up where by the used packs are sent back for charging and new ones brought up. Needless to say the recharge area would be a top priority for the enemy gunners which would move them back further. So in the end what gain do you really get from a force armed solely with pure engery weapons?

Also too as MorganKeys mentions in post to this site and else where "do you really want Anti/matter weapons or shuttlecraft on a battlefield"? Something goes wrong and you compnay is nothing but a couple km long crater. Further the advantage of Ballestics for shock effect can't be underestimated either, not to be gross here but the effect of a buddy being phasered into nothingness is not quite as dramtic as having the same buddies inside splattered on the squad when hit with a couple of 11mm rounds. As while as say a good old fashioned Artillery barrage over a pin point orbital phaser one.

[calguard66]

See my post in the other thread for what I think a GROUND FORCE detatchment aboard ship would entail. I would be very suprised if a general- duty starship carried more than a platoon.

A starbase, station or ground installation might have a company.

I'm taking this from the tack of these being light general purpose detachments, not heavy units, intended for raids, rescues and so forth.

I imagine that the SF GROUND FORCES have cavalry, artillery and engineer formations stationed on critical worlds, or prepared to board assault transports. I also imagine that the Federation "Federalizes" planetary armed forces to reinforce the SF GROUND FORCES in the event of a real war/ invasion.

However, play involving heavy mechanized/ armor units is WAY outside a normal Trek campaign. I would be suprised of most starships ever had more than a single squad or platoon of light troops attached except when required for a specific mission.

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

[toadkiller]

I agree that "armor" is outside of normal trek - and thinking about the technology it would have to be outside the realm of current "armor" too. Ship based bombardment is going to be murder on anything that can't move *fast*. I'd imagine something more like helo gunships could work. The logistics are going to get pretty hard to game though (IMHO).

I can see a huge role for specialized boarding parties - i.e. marines from the age of sail would participate as boarders.

In fact, like the age of sail that would be were I'd focus my "marine" characters. It just is a more focused venue for the GM/narrator. Countering a state-sponsored terroism/piracy threat (say from the Orion Syndicate) that is hitting small outposts, ships, etc. could easily lead to a small MEU being deployed on your handy Galaxy class or whatever.

The big question for ground forces is can you actually get enough in system to make a difference though. I mean even if they are super armed 3000 people can't hold modern day Earth in any meaningful way.

------------------
TK

[Antonsb214]

In the Prime Directive Star Trek RPG, each ship had a "Prime Team", this is because too many valuable officers were being lost when the captain and first officer lead away teams. A "Prime Team" was especially trained to handle any situation; first contact, hostage rescue, recon, infil/exfiltrate, just about any type of SEAL operation. The grunts of the unit were usually Marines lead by Command personnel and supported by the other branches (medics, engineers). A heavily armed shuttle could be the transport for these teams, they are usually armed with type IV phasers and microtorpedo launchers. The opposition may have shields or a dampening field up, so some means of transport besides "beaming in" has to be available. Ballistic weapons are a must in the above situation. As well as old fashioned chemical explosive devices(C-4).
A unit must be able to get in and then spread out, yet still maintain unit cohesion. I suppose "chameleon" armor with a helmet equipped with a HUD they showed where each unit member was would allow units to remain cohesive even with a 100 meters between troops. Something like the dropship from Aliens would be nice for a transport. It would get the troops in and be able to loiter to provide air support.

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

[Eric R.]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by toadkiller:
I agree that "armor" is outside of normal trek - and thinking about the technology it would have to be outside the realm of current "armor" too. Ship based bombardment is going to be murder on anything that can't move *fast*. (IMHO).
</font>

As you have not been prevy to the many times this topic has come up let me summerize some basic answers to your position which those of us who are for ground forces (& armor) and large scale ground combat have agreed on.

1.) To use orbital bombardment in a large scale conflict such as say the Dominion War when the enamy still posses a large active fleet "out there" is a waste of valuable assests. That if you wish to liberate or exploit the planets resources going about destroying it by orbital bombardment of the planets surface is NOT the way to do it.

2.) Chances are most important targets on a Planets surface (Transporter Scamblers, HQ facilities and etc) will be deep underground and likely under civilian areas or heavily shielded. So there fore orbital bombardment will only lead to "bad Press" to put it mildly.

3.) Conversely a large scale invasion can not occure until a.) the fleet has established total control of local space, in some cases this could be as much as a sector's worth. and b.) any orbital defense system is knocked out permanently.

4.) Outposts, colonies and still developing major worlds are the most likely targets for invasion/liberation due to the fact that blockade would only be partially effective until the worlds invest sufficent resource to overcome the blockade and that they would posses fewer fixed defenses.

5.) The old engineer saying of there is "no fixed fortification (read well defended World) which time, resources and patients can not overcome" will still be true even in the 24th century.

[Antonsb214]

As for positions in the units, the squad may also be broken down into two three-marine fire teams. One fire team leader is also the squad leader, usually a sergeant. The other team leader is a lance corporal or corporal.Every platoon has a platoon sergeant, usually a gunnery sergeant, and a platoon leader, a lieutenant. The company sergeant is usually a first sergeant. The company commander is a Marine captain (equal to a Starfleet Lieutenant).Battalions have Sergeants Major and Colonels. General run the whole show.

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

[JALU3]

I recommend that everyone interested in Marine organization looks up the FM7-8 which is open to the public at the TRADOC sight . . . it has Platoon, and squad organization . . . basic infantry tactics . . . and a couple other interesting tidbits of information.

------------------
"See Everything; overlook a great deal; correct a little." -Pope John XXIII

[Mad Cow]

I'm a bit leery about 6 man squads in this type of environment. I had ginned up a marine complement for the old Chandley class frigates under the FASA rules and stuck to 10 man squads.

The biggest problem with a small squad is casualties. The fighting efficiency of the smaller squads is whittled away pretty quickly when friendlies start going down. This multiplies when other members of the squad provide support, first aid or protection for a wounded comrade. A six man squad may easily find itself only being able to have half their members fighting after one man goes down.

10 man squads can hold more ground. Deploying a squad in depth means 3 pairs in a 6 man squad with 2 up and 1 back. A 10 man gives 3 up and 2 back, extending the frontage and effectiveness of the depth.

10 men can carry more and varied equipment. Sharing the loads around means that the average load per soldier decreases while the net whole increases.

I don't want to blow my own horn, but as an ex-section commander from the Australian Army I've worked with squad sizes of 10, 9 and 5. 10 was great, nine was good and five was an absolute pain in the arse. Trying to get 5 guys into a picquet overnight (when we had to double up to make sure that no-one fell asleep) after a full days work turned everyone into zombies after 7 days. If there'd been honest to goodness combat thrown in I think I would have just given up!

I hadn't honestly considered the fact about the standard 6 man transporter pad, but I think this would be a case where the hardware is designed around the software (the soldiers). Dicking around with the combat effectiveness of a squad/section because you can't be bothered making a bigger transporter is just stupid. And if worse comes to worse, you can deliver your "Starship Troopers" in true Robert Heinlein style by firing them into the atmosphere out of a mass driver in an ablative egg!

[JALU3]

All information following is from the FM 7-8 Published by TRADOC, US Army (Copyright APR1992). The link shall follow.

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...fm/7-8/toc.htm


Squad Composition Illustration:

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...ppa.htm#figa_6

Hope this helps.

Furthermore, there is alot of useful tactical information, such as infantry Squad Organization . . . SOPs . . . and small-unit tactics that any die hard grunt should already know.




------------------
"See Everything; overlook a great deal; correct a little." -Pope John XXIII

[calguard66]

Along with the idea that 3000 people can't hold a planet... combined with the massive destruction even personal weapons cause in ST, I believ that ground combat in ST would be a form of "nodal warfare".

Forces would not fight over terrain... there's too much of it, and with starships orbiting overhead there is very little terrain that is vital. Rather, battles will be fought over command centers, powerplants, defense installations and the like.

These would be fought by "small" highly trained teams, rather than massed troop formations. "Cavalry" may still have a place, but I expect that infantry would be the primary force due to the nature of the battlefield.

The few ground combat scenarios we have seen in Trek are just plain silly. There is no reason to fight over a cave system, when there is nothing important there... the actual ground itself is irrelevant. Combat will take place in starships, space stations, defense complexes, and perhaps urban areas... that is where the assets vital to the defense of a planet would be located.

The Federation would likely build most "defense related" installations far from popluation centers, but some governments will build them in the middle of such areas, banking that enemies won't take the risk of orbital bombardment.

EVA and Zero-G training would be high-priority for such troops... you can't count on the gravity working when phasers are slagging control panels.

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

[Eric R.]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by calguard66:
I believ that ground combat in ST would be a form of "nodal warfare".</font>

Frederick the Great & Marshall DeSaxe would have known it well they would have called it "Positional Warfare" or just plian 18th Century Style Warfare.

1.)Establish a base of operations

2.)Manouver around the target to gain position

3.)Attack or invest the target.