Why are Starfleet Marines so poorly recieved?

[Ineti]

A couple questions out of curiosity...

Originally posted by marty4286
Starfleet Security is the "Marines": Small number, specialized in planetary assault

How would you explain Worf switching to Command and taking the Strategic Operations post on DS9? In your game universe, did he transfer from the Marines into Starfleet?

Or was he not a security officer?

A separate Federation Army: They do the same mission as the Starfleet security, but others too: like occupation and disaster relief, among other things

When would the Federation need to occupy a planet?

[calguard66]

Well, the fire-and-movement tactics would resemble skirmisher tactics of the Roman times somewhat, but not the main-battle formation... though if you picked US Civil War as the era he would recognize that.

All in all you're correct... the underlying priciples are the same, the method of application changes. For example, the Romans certainly understood the principle of "fixing " the enemy by engaging him with one force while manuvering with another... but in their time they would have fixed the enemy by engaging him at arm's length with infantry while manuvering with cavalry.

Archery at the time was used more like field artillery is now... it provided attrition and confusion at range, but the best defense against it was to move out of the impact area, rather than taking cover. The idea of fixing the enemy with archery would have required a huge number of archers... a force which had that many archers compared to the enemy likely would outnumber them so signifigantly that there would be little question of the outcome anyway.

Originally posted by Eric R.

His weapon is different yes, but it can be referenced to a Bow or ballastia as it has range and striking power. give him a day or two to understand basic fire and movement tactics and he will see some simularity to his own fire and movement tactics with the Pilum and Gladius. The tactyics of there foew would resemble the bandits and zealots he fought in either Britian, Spain or Judea

[calguard66]

Invasion of Cardassia?

Retaking Betazed?

Originally posted by Ineti

When would the Federation need to occupy a planet?

[Ineti]

Originally posted by calguard66
Invasion of Cardassia?

Retaking Betazed?

I don't see either of those as occupations, though. Go to Betazed, push the baddies off. Go to Cardassia and mop up. I don't think the Federation would place a permanent military presence on Cardassia.

IMO of course.

[StyroFoam Man]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

[Ineti]

ROTFL...

Ah, thanks, Styro! I know my answer.

Though I'll repeat an opinion voiced ages ago... R. Lee Ermey would be a fine Academy instructor.

[E W Dawson]

I think you meant all of that as a joke, Styrofoam Man? In either case, this is what I have been talking about. Why must Marines be equated with mindless, senseless warriors (but then again, war brings out the worst in anyone)? I am not inferring that todays Marines are mindless, blood thirsty warriors. But you must admit that is the popular assessment of them 9wanted or unwanted). Must this assessment be dragged years into the future?

If Starfleet personnel serve as our model of the average Federation military type, could it not be logically argued that the Federation's planet-side warriors would be held to the same standards. We know Starfleet personnel, on average, to be rational, educated, and ethical beings. Why would these qualities/standards cease to exist simply because they have a different name and fill a different role? Of course all the sound effects associated with Styro's post would probablly apply.

I am quite interested in any role Federation ground forces would play in planet occupation. I can't think of any reason why they would; that is why I am interested. For now, if the Federation would ever need to 'occupy' a planet they would use non-military forces (i.e. the Federation Peace Corps). Of course, the conditions in which the Federation would ever see it necessary to 'occupy' a planet would be quite selective. Isolated armed conflicts (a single planet at war) would be settled by Federation diplomats as sceen on screen. "Planet building" missions would probably be handled by non-military Federation organizations.

[Owen E Oulton]

Though I am a supporter of Marines, I'm pretty sure they would be a separate arm. If there were "Marines" closely associated with Starfleet, we would have seen them by now. A "Federation Marine Corps" perhaps, but not a "Starfleet Marine Corps".

That one's fairly easy to deal with - Kirk explicitly stated that the United Federation of Planets fields a unified service, rather than separate branches.

[Owen E Oulton]

Actually, I disagree completely that Starfleet Security are Marines. In fact, it's been demonstrated over and over again on screen that they are much more like what we used to fondly (or not) call "meatheads" in the Canadian Forces - MPs. When we have seen Federation Ground Forces, they were wearing all three department colours. Security wears operations gold.

[marty4286]

Originally posted by Ineti
A couple questions out of curiosity...



How would you explain Worf switching to Command and taking the Strategic Operations post on DS9? In your game universe, did he transfer from the Marines into Starfleet?

Or was he not a security officer?



When would the Federation need to occupy a planet?

Starfleet Security is waaaaay different from shipboard security.

In my game universe, like the real-life(tm) United States, the "Marines" are a sub-branch of Starfleet.

In my game universe, Worf was a tactical officer who happened to be the chief of shipboard security in the USS Enterprise... much like the TV series...

Originally posted by Owen E Oulton
Actually, I disagree completely that Starfleet Security are Marines. In fact, it's been demonstrated over and over again on screen that they are much more like what we used to fondly (or not) call "meatheads" in the Canadian Forces - MPs. When we have seen Federation Ground Forces, they were wearing all three department colours. Security wears operations gold.

I don't mean the shipboard security we see on-screen, I should have elaborated. I just call Starfleet's equivalent of the US Marine Corps (which is a sub-branch of the US Navy) Starfleet Security.

[StyroFoam Man]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

[JALU3]

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!

[Aldaron]

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 <i>completely</i> 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 <i>beam</i> 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 <i>spot on</i>. 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 <i>crucial</i> to the outcome of any 24th century planetary combat - without it, troops on the ground would be <i>massacred</i>. (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 <i>Excelsior</i> and carved them up from orbit).

Comments? Suggestions? Flames?

[E W Dawson]

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?

[StyroFoam Man]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster