Thought some of you gents might find this interesting. Hopefully it doesn't step on Lee's toes too much.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Wow. Nice article.
--Jonah
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
Great article.
You might want to add the three Vulcan transports the Romulans were using to transport 2,000 of their troops to invade Vulcan in "Unification: Part 2". If the Romulans would use the Vulcan freighters as troop transports maybe the Federation would as well?
I always thought that it was a bit optomistic on the part of the Romulans to try and take over an entire planet with only two thousand troops, but maybe they were just supposed to secure a landing zone for further troops to come in on Warbirds.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I figured the 2000 troops would just establish a presence (probably violently) and blend in with the population: Romulans probably scan as Vulcan on a tricorder.
Vulcans very likely have no personal weapons (aside from ritual ones, of course) so there wouldnt be too much resistance from the natives once they were shown how illogical it is to fight -weaponless- someone with a disrupror.
There could have been a few Warbirds (like the one that destroyed the transport for example) alnog as well to block any Federation aid to the planet.
Posted by Paladin181 (Member # 833) on :
In WW2 the US used regular merchant ships and cruise liners to transport troops across the atlantic through the merchant marines, but they also had dedicated troop ships of their own. I would think that Starfleet would be about the same, they would use their own ships and mobilize the merchant marines to suppliment them.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Troop transports might need to be dedicated war machines in they had to offload without "ports" while civilian passenger ships rely on friendly orbital facilities. Of course, even a civilian ship might have shuttles or transporters that are capable enough to transfer the whole load planetside - but special shuttles and special transporters might be needed for combat applications, even when the planet is already secured and the landing is not opposed. That might call for a dedicated mothership type, too.
And ships performing the initial opposed landing would have to be special beasts indeed. I like to think of e.g. the Steamrunners and Norways as planetary assault ships, due to their oddball construction: the form has to have some function, something different from your average multipurpose starship. I agree that a Galaxy *could* do the job, but like to think she wouldn't *have* to.
The three Vulcan ships probably weren't optimized for performing such an assault, or even for carrying the troops to an unopposed landing. Instead, they were optimized for deception, which may mean they were highly atypical for troop transports.
As for the Romulan intent, I see several alternatives to true planetary takeover by just a couple of thousand soldiers.
a) Dieppe Raid. A small-scale show of aggression intended to remind everybody that the Romulans still were an enemy of the Federation, and thus a good ally for other UFP enemies. The troops would hold key points on Vulcan for a while, or destroy some key targets, and then retreat, or commit suicide.
b) Children's Crusade. Romulans claimed the people on the ships were Romulan peaceniks coming to talk softly with Vulcans. Perhaps they *were*, and the idea was to slaughter them wholesale while making the Feds look bad? It would have been simple to lure in the peaceniks when the government showed them "Vulcan" ships...
c) Devious Decoy. Perhaps in combination with b), the Romulans would send a couple of thousand "sacrificial offerings" whose true purpose was just to create enough "noise" (sensor-wise and intelligence-wise) to cover the approach of dozens of cloaked warbirds carrying hundreds of thousands of troops with vehicles.
Incidentally, this means that a) would have been a modest failure (Romulan aggression *was* demonstrated, although not very impressively), b) an almost sparkling success (no peaceniks left, but the Feds didn't get blamed), and c) a promising failure (invasion failed, but nobody noticed that it did, so the concept was proven valid for a second try).
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote: (And, given that even a runabout can detect and map tunnels and other kilometers-deep underground structures from orbit ("The Sword of Kahless"[DS9-4]), with tricorders having shown similar effectiveness when on the ground, the tunnelling problems relating to those historical examples would be moot.)
Probably should note that in two separate ocassions ("Sword of Kahless", "Siege of AR551"), sensor jamming and spoofing was employed. The Jem'Hadar jammed Starfleet's sensors, and Starfleet did the same, until no one could see anything, tunnels or otherwise. I would assume this applies beyond tricorders, to starship sensors as well.
The H'urq manage to spoof sensors enough that certain rooms and passages could be hidden from scans. Also, ST rock deposite tends to have sensor proof qualities when the plot needs arise.
In addition, tricorders can be modified to scan subspace, though it typically is not set up to do so.
quote: Back in early 2000, it was claimed by some of the more rabid members of alt.startrek.vs.starwars that a Canadian Army battalion would defeat an equal Federation force.
The idiot gives our mighty CF too much credit. The Federation would win on logistics alone, or the ability to summon a battalion without bankrupting the military.
[ March 28, 2004, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: David Templar ]
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Nice.
Regarding landing troops: Voyager was able to beam ~200 Klingons off their ship before it was destroyed by a core breach in a matter of seconds, and they were all beamed to one location, not to the transporter pads - as one could compare to the Romulan Warbird evacuation in "Timescape".
For that matter, Scotty beams ~50 El-Aurians off their transport onto the Enterprise-B in a matter of seconds, directly to sickbay (or so it seemed).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah but A) Voyager was horseshit and B) The transporter rooms on Enterprise B could be (and it would make sense) a stone's throw from sickbay.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paladin181: In WW2 the US used regular merchant ships and cruise liners to transport troops across the atlantic through the merchant marines, but they also had dedicated troop ships of their own. I would think that Starfleet would be about the same, they would use their own ships and mobilize the merchant marines to suppliment them.
That sort of thing's pretty much standard practice, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if Starfleet had the same sort of system. I could see problems with starships that wouldn't be present with modern Navies and may lead to a higher percentage of Starfleet owned transports. 1) Transporters: I can't see most merchant vessels being fitted with large numbers of personnel transports, with the possible exception of cruise liners. For troop landings I'd think Starfleet has it's own ships, although equipment transport could be done by civilian vessels.
2) Shields. Could Starfleet rig up military grade shields to every commandeered merchant ship? They would certainly end up more vulnerable in a combat area, requiring more ships to act as escorts, thereby diverting resources from other operations.
3) Compatability: Of all sorts of things; docking ports, computers, comms. I'm sure they could be fixed, but it'd take time and resources.
So I think that any Starfleet merchant reerve would be specially assessed ships and mostly used for 'second line' operations- resupply, heavy equipment landings, troop rotations on already captured planets, etc.
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: As for the Romulan intent, I see several alternatives to true planetary takeover by just a couple of thousand soldiers.
a) Dieppe Raid. A small-scale show of aggression intended to remind everybody that the Romulans still were an enemy of the Federation, and thus a good ally for other UFP enemies. The troops would hold key points on Vulcan for a while, or destroy some key targets, and then retreat, or commit suicide.
Or rather, Operation "Space Lion"? (Hmmm... would that be "Unternehmen Rauml�we"?)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:B) The transporter rooms on Enterprise B could be (and it would make sense) a stone's throw from sickbay.
BZZZZT
...beam them directly to sickbay
As for the article, I'm so happy that no mention was made of 'Starfleet Marines'. I hate that term with a passion, it's just so redundant. What are you going to use marines in space for? Attacking comets!? [/rant]
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: As for the article, I'm so happy that no mention was made of 'Starfleet Marines'. I hate that term with a passion, it's just so redundant. What are you going to use marines in space for? Attacking comets!? [/rant]
Hey Guardian, you missed something.
And I really don't see what the problem with the term Starfleet Marine is. It's just an attempt to suggest that Starfleet might have some troops that are a bit more elite than yellow shirts and is devoted to atmospheric combat operations. The term Marines apply fine just for that, especially if you're asking the troops to establish a planetary beachhead, or assault enemy ships. Regular infantry typically don't do the things Marines are suppose to be good at.
Posted by Paladin181 (Member # 833) on :
I believe there there would be Marines also, just like there are the MACO's in ENT who were specially trained. I seriously doubt a regular security officer is capable of Planetary Assualt, Hit nad Run ops, etc. Their to busy guarding the key componets of the ship... right?
Also we don't not have a ship that simply lands on the planet, a large scale landing craft of sorts. This could put your forces down quickly and work as a base of operations.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think there might be marines in the Kirk movie era (like those guys that raided Paradise City with Kirk) but when you watch the first few seasons of TNG, you definitely feel that starfleet has evolved past the need of a dedicated combat class.
And it hurt them in the (pre-TNG) Cardassian War and later in the Dominion War when crew and officers had to face horrors they were completely unprepared for.
[ March 28, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by Paladin181 (Member # 833) on :
I would agree with that Jason
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Very much so. After the Khitomer Accords calmed relations with the Klingons, and the Tomed Incident saw the Romulans retreat behind their borders, the only problems we had were the occasional Tholian attack (most likely only when we transgressed the borders that only seem to make sense to them) and decades later the Cardassians and Talarians and other minor threats on the outskirts of Federation space.
Given that political environment, the more pacifistic elements of Federation leadership almost certainly were able to engineer the disbanding of the Starfleet Marine Corps (whatever it was actually called). That was probably also about the time the uniforms changed back to a simple three-division-colour scheme from the TFS eight-colour scheme.
--Jonah
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:And I really don't see what the problem with the term Starfleet Marine is. It's just an attempt to suggest that Starfleet might have some troops that are a bit more elite than yellow shirts and is devoted to atmospheric combat operations. The term Marines apply fine just for that, especially if you're asking the troops to establish a planetary beachhead, or assault enemy ships. Regular infantry typically don't do the things Marines are suppose to be good at.
The word Marine refers directly to combat either on or from the sea. In a space environment this term is simply redundant. That aside I dislike the use of overtly military aspects of Starfleet, especially Earth centric. It's not as if that term is going to mean anything to a race has no significant history of sea bound combat. Like the Vulcan's for example, who's homeworld has little if any surface water. Aside from that, 'marines' just conjures up a gung-ho, jingoistic image that works just fine for a bug hunt on LV426 or British colonialism in the Caribbean, but really isn't appropriate for Star Trek. I know Gene certainly wouldn't approve.
I can except that there are those in Starfleet, even during TNG who's role is more oriented towards offensive actions. Indeed I think Ensign Ro went off on a 'Tactical Training Course' or something at one point and there's the fact that Kirk referred to his offensive team on Cestus III (Arena) as 'Tactical Troops' (I think.) Hence my preference for the term 'Starfleet Tactical Corps'. It's hair splitting I know, but that's what we're best at. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Gene wouldn't have approved of a lot of things, like, oh, 5/7th of DS9. All this spastic politicizing just to avoid ANY association with the practice of war strikes me as both incredibly stupid and blindingly naive.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
^^^ Colonel West would agree, that is before Scotty shot him and he was revealed to be a traitor with the Scooby Doo ending.
There's tons of "redundant" nautical terms used throughout Trek, so why should the term Marine be any different. The term could have evolved from the literal association with seagoing soldiers to mean troops that are trained to deal with operations in multiple environments.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
But they never used the term "Marines". The closest thing we have is a Colonel (West) involved in a planned attack on the Alien's Graveyard.
I agree with the "Starfleet Tactical Corps" idea.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: That was probably also about the time the uniforms changed back to a simple three-division-colour scheme from the TFS eight-colour scheme.
Don't we pretty much know when they changed back to the three-division colour uniforms? After Jack Crusher recorded his message 15 before the start of the series, but before whenever the Stargazer got shot down?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Yup, nothing ambiguous about that any more. The date this scheme was introduced is less clear, though.
I must agree with Reverend that calling the Marines "Marines" is a silly idea and indicates a lack of imagination. Which is why I'm removing such references from the Hitchhiker's Guide right away. Apart from that, though, I like the idea of dedicated ground action forces that are wholly separate from Starfleet Security. I'm not averse to the idea of fighting forces that bridge the gap between these two, though. And at least during the TOS movie era, I'd be quite ready to believe in a Babel of special forces, two or three per each "service branch"...
Whether the early 24th century was peaceful enough to see Starfleet de-escalation is debatable. In basically every new era we've been introduced to, the third or fourth season has revealed wars in the "recent past". I'm reserving a spot for an Enterprise-C show in this regard. Frankly, the UFP looks like a rather bellicose little setup, despite the outwardly pacifism, and would no doubt have stepped on a couple of tentacles during the early 24th, too.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Gene wouldn't have approved of a lot of things, like, oh, 5/7th of DS9. All this spastic politicizing just to avoid ANY association with the practice of war strikes me as both incredibly stupid and blindingly naive.
True, Gene was sometimes naively optimistic about humanity's not too distant future and the though of a pacifist non-military starship that had naval ranks and weapons of mass destruction is more that a little self contradictory. Still...further to my previous objections Marines are simply too limited a group of soldiers to be Starfleet's dedicated fighting force. A 'Tactical Coup' is nice and all emcompassing of defensive and offensive activiity and can include activities historically undertaken by terrestiral marines (excuse the pun) as well as special forces groups like the US SEALS and the British SAS. Also as has been started before, the word 'Marines' has never been used in Star Trek to my knowledge, while the word 'Tactical' gets thrown around all over the shop. If I recall correctly, the closest they've come to saying the 'M' word was in ST:V when Kirk said something about 'Federation Soldiers'.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think the "stepping on tenticles" occurs because while basically pacifistic, the Fed is seen by the other powers as "aggressivly expansionistic" (as the Romulans put it in The Neutral Zone")
Posted by Paladin181 (Member # 833) on :
Well they essentially "assimilate" other cultures, take all the resources, and move on. The people they run across are given hand outs of technology and a promise of Utopian partnership. But lets be honsest, if your not human, vulcan, or one of the founding members how much power would you really have?
So I would have to say that Starfleet would have, and currantly has, a group of special operations troops that are tasked with keeping systems within the Federation "pro-Federation", via assassinations , sabotauge, ect.
Wow, the Federations is a dirty dirty thing... VIVA ROMULAN!!!
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Pax Consociatio and all that?
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
The word "Marines" can be easily converted to the peaceful sounding word "Mariners", perfectly inline with Starfleet's exploratory mission.
However, a word like "Tactical Corps" can only easily form words like "tactics" and "corpse", which are very naughty words, because they imply Starfleet has something specifically meant to hurt and kill people, and that's mean.
Who else want some of this hair splitting? Huh? Huh? You? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Templar: The word "Marines" can be easily converted to the peaceful sounding word "Mariners", perfectly inline with Starfleet's exploratory mission.
Untill they make first contact with the Albatross-Men of planet Coleridge Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Egad . . . quite a response! Thanks! Forgive me as I catch up:
1. I considered using the Vulcan transports, but since the context of that was a sneak attack of claimed peace envoys, I decided that probably didn't constitute a standard invasion vessel at all.
2. The Hur'q devices, IIRC, were not so much a spoofing technique as they were a holo-cloak . . . a forcefield pretending to be a wall. Similar in principle to the "rock" forcefields employed by the Vidiians, or the duck blinds used by the Federation. Hey now, maybe I should mention those . . . but, alas, we haven't seen them employed in a tactical manner as far as I know.
3. The speed of beaming large numbers of people is something I do need to quantify. It'll vary between large-number examples and some of the smaller ones as in "Descent, Pt. II"[TNG7].
4. The idea of Starfleet Marines is something I'm of two minds about. I can see the potential for coolness, but it has always seemed contradictory to the sort of universe the show presents, and far too easily rendered silly.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
It's still a nasty galaxy, and you need to have people and ships out there who are willing to do the ugly stuff necessary to keep the utopian peaceniks back home on Terra or Aldebaran or Tau Ceti or Alpha Centauri happily blissed out that they know a peaceful existence. Diplomacy goes a long way, but can never be guaranteed to be effective.
As for the canonicity of dedicated combat forces within Starfleet, remember that the assault force led by Kirk in TFF had a department colour of dark blue, never seen on anyone else before or since. Whatever they were called, they were there to kick ass and take names. And I think it more effective to maintain a force like that than to give other regular serving Starfleet personnel cross-training in tactical ops and call them your fighting force.
--Jonah
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: 3. The speed of beaming large numbers of people is something I do need to quantify. It'll vary between large-number examples and some of the smaller ones as in "Descent, Pt. II"[TNG7].
I think it's important to take into account the possibility of extra transporters being used at those times as well--- and extra transporters not being used. In Descent, for instance, the E-D was left with a skeleton crew, was there anyone left to press the buttons on the cargo transporter to turn it into a human transporter? Were there enough people to run the regular transporters?
Also, when there are massive and/or quick evacuations [like that at the beginning of Generations] the other ship might be able to contribute to getting those people out. Remembering that emergency transporters are one-way [off ship] and they could be set-up for easy use by nearby personnel, because they are emergency transporters.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)