Ground troops and ground combat

[Anwar]

We've seen individual ships that can scramble sensors, so conceivably there can be planet based military devices for the express purpose of scrambling sensor scans and weapon targeting sensors as well. Thus a Aerospace force could be used for close-up reconnaissance if needed.

 

[Thor Damar]

If my memory serves me right in a early DS9 novel (I think it was antimatter), the Cardassian Empire experimented with warp capable fighters. I believe that Gul Ocett was the commander of that particular endeavor.

 

[Anwar]

Well, fighters aren't really worth much in Trek for space combat. Aerial combat on a planet, or even into the atmosphere, maybe.

You'd have to justify why the starships wouldn't handle bombardment, but if Star Wars can have planetary shields that prevent bombardment but not sending troops and fighters down I guess Trek can pull it off too.

 

[neozeks]

Well, we definitely know Starfleet does have fighters, after all, we've seen them prominently in 'Sacrifice of Angels'. Seems to me all Aerospace needs could be fullfiled by a combination of these fighters, shuttles and runabouts. Runabouts are supposed to be modular, so you could use them as everything from sensor platforms to air insertion (like today's helicopters). You could even use shuttles and runabouts as tanks, close to the ground and enveloping foot soldiers in their shields. Now whether these vehicles would be part of normal Starfleet fleets, attached to the Ground Forces (like the Army Air Corps) or even a separate organization, who knows?

 

[Caliburn24]

The problem with ground forces and ground combat in Trek(aside from the fact that we have never really seen it onscreen) is that Trek technology radical changes everything we know about how it would be fought, and what would be the objectives. And the writers have never really thought it out very well.

What are you defending on a planet? Population centers? Industrial Replicators? Both are easily portable with access to tractor beams and transporters. If you are remaining in place, how can you defend yourself against warpdrive missiles, meteor bombardment. Massed torpedo or phaser bombardment. Hyper velocity projectiles of all shapes and sizes, traveling at a good fraction of lightspeed or even at warp. How can you defend against your local star exploding(which we know various folks in Trek can pull off) or WMDs being beamed to critical locations?

Obviously you have to have massively strong planetary shields and massively long range tranporter scramblers. Neither has ever been seen in Trek, but lets assume they exist. It is logical.

So our theoretical ground troops are either infiltrating in to destroy these defensive systems, or defending said systems. But wait, how do you get a soldier or group of soldiers past shields or scramblers? Well, there are any number of technobabble solutions, but they all have one huge problem. If you can get a man past a planetary shield, you can get a WMD past that same shield, so what is the point of having ground troops?

Okay fine, so ground troops would be pointless in full scale planetary combat. But whatabout all the smaller-scale conflicts and battles, where utter destruction of the enemy is not the objective? Sure, you can have your Marines bouncing around doing this or that. But again Trek technology makes it all seemingly pointless. First you have incredibly powerful and accurate sensors(As a Cavalry Scout in the US Army, let me say that this alone negates a huge amount of what we grunts are used for today.). You also have incredibly powerful shields and weapons, advanced robotics, magical matter transporters, self replicating warheads, cloaking fields, artifical gravity, advanced AIs, mobile tactile holograms, and a whole slew of other systems

Today we say that you have to have boots on the ground to win a war. And it is true...today. I spent 15 months in Iraq, and yeah we grunts are definitely crucial. But given Trek technology, that just isn't true in-universe. Imagine a hostile Klingon planet, huge population, armed to the teeth. Well, we're going to beam down a handful of self-replicating combat drones, they hover, they're shielded, they have more firepower than a company of present day battletanks. They'll do the dirtywork for us. Then after the major population centers are subdued we'll send down an army of mobile holograms equiped with powerful weapons, and a direct link to whatever orbiting ships we have available. We've seen the pinpoint accuracy of Trek weapons, slaving the entire firepower of a Sovereign or Defiant-class starship to the command of a hologram or a single soldier on the ground would be no problem at all.

When you can put the firepower of a fleet of starships at the literal fingertips of a single drone or man what is the point of armies or units of any size?

 

[neozeks]

Okay fine, so ground troops would be pointless in full scale planetary combat. But whatabout all the smaller-scale conflicts and battles, where utter destruction of the enemy is not the objective? Sure, you can have your Marines bouncing around doing this or that. But again Trek technology makes it all seemingly pointless. First you have incredibly powerful and accurate sensors(As a Cavalry Scout in the US Army, let me say that this alone negates a huge amount of what we grunts are used for today.)

Sensors can always (and, as we see, indeed often are) jammed. The enemy may be using dampening fields. Maybe the objective you want to take is in an area with natural sensor interference (minerals, etc). It's probably concealed, so just using visual observation isn't enough. Maybe they're using transport inhibitors, so you can't just beam stuff in, or them out.

You also have incredibly powerful shields and weapons, advanced robotics, magical matter transporters, self replicating warheads, cloaking fields, artifical gravity, advanced AIs, mobile tactile holograms, and a whole slew of other systems

I have no doubt robotic drones are used extensivelly. But still, every technology is susceptible to malfunction. The enemy can fry the drone's brain, jamm the comm line you use to control it, infect your networks with computer viruses etc. It's like - yes, the Enterprise's computer could probably fly the ship by itself without any crew, but you still need starship crews. Sometimes having a real human/alien being on the spot is still the best solution. (Oh, and I don't think holograms can be used as troops - remember, Doc's mobile emitter was an unique piece of hardware).

 

[The Wormhole]

But there is absolutely no need for marines or army at all. What would they need them for?

For the same reason that Marines and an Armies exist today?

Then again, MACO could be just a nickname anyway. Hoshi once said it stood for 'Military Assault Command' but that sounds even worse. I think they just invented that one after the fact (besides, it seems obvious - MACO = MArine COrps). The full, literal name is probably something like United Earth Marine Corps.

MACO is their official name, it's written on their arm patch (the one with the shark). It does indeed stand for Military Assault Command Operations, which is written on their other arm patch (the one with the command star from TOS).

On that note, since the MACOs had the star on their uniforms which would be associated with Starfleet's command division in the 23rd century, I guess that implies that the MACOs are absorbed into Starfleet at some point

 

[Caliburn24]

Sure, sensors can be jammed, drones and AIs destroyed or corrupted. But we humans and presumably the rest of Trek's carbon based lifeforms are even more frail. A little bit of overpressure, a little bit of mass moving at a relatively slow speed, radiation, gases, various other causes. And we are dead. Men die or are incapacitated far more easily than their vehicles and equipment, even today. The only thing preventing us from taking living breathing soldiers out of the equation is a lack of cheap effective robotics and reliable adaptable AIs. Neither of which is a barrier in Trek.

And just as an aside. Yeah Doc's holo-emitter was some sort of fancy future technology, but I'm sure Starfleet can reverse engineer it for mass production. Just knowing something is possible is a huge asset.

 

[neozeks]

Sure, sensors can be jammed, drones and AIs destroyed or corrupted. But we humans and presumably the rest of Trek's carbon based lifeforms are even more frail. A little bit of overpressure, a little bit of mass moving at a relatively slow speed, radiation, gases, various other causes. And we are dead. Men die or are incapacitated far more easily than their vehicles and equipment, even today. The only thing preventing us from taking living breathing soldiers out of the equation is a lack of cheap effective robotics and reliable adaptable AIs. Neither of which is a barrier in Trek.

Those are all valid arguments, and in the end I probably do agree with you. But how advanced are Trek AIs actually? We have Data, but he is an one-of-a-kind creation. We know the ship's computer is quite advanced, but it relies on a big computer core several decks high. Same with all the holograms we've seen (well, aside from the Doc's mobile emitter again). Have we seen any other robots or AIs in Trek? There may have been others less advanced, but I still don't think any of them was a match for human intellect and intuition (as Kirk so often liked to prove).

 

[Red Ranger]

^ It is entirely possible that by Trek's time, things are even more unified. In TOS, Kirk did say "We're a combined service".

I was just going to mention this.

Besides, the term "Starfleet Marines" just sounds cooler.

Not to me. to me it sounds about as cool as calling something the "Navy Army". Just clunky coming out of the mouth.

I prefer Starfleet Commandoes myself.

 

[Anwar]

It's just that I'm so sick of "Space Marines" because that implies that the Navy is in total dominance of armed forces. "Federal Infantry" sounds too Starship Troopers but it at least implies that the Army still exists.

 

[Timo]

Why shouldn't the Navy be in total dominance? Today, services harm each other through rivalry. By doing away with all but one, one should eliminate rivalry.

Kirk does claim they're a "combined service" once, although we don't really know what he's speaking about, or even whether he's lying. Still, everything seems to support the idea that Starfleet handles everything: not just all fighting, but also things like policing and terraforming and search and rescue and most kinds of research. And often it seems to be the sole player doing so.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[The Wormhole]

In regards to the "combined service" line. If memory serves, when Kirk introduces himself to Captain Christopher, Christopher says something like "you're navy?" and then Kirk mentions the comnined service. Based on the context, it seems he meant Starfleet is some sort of amalgam of Army, Navy and Air Force.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I mean no disrespect to anyone in the real military, but strictly for fictional dramatic storytelling purposes, it does make sense to be as streamlined as possible. Don't have your military have six or seven different branches - do you really need that many? Ideally, you'd have maybe two. One to fly the ships, one to fight on the ground. Why complicate matters by having anything beyond that?

And yes, I do think you'd need those two. IMHO, it does not make a ton of sense to have, say, Admirals leading ground troops, because the very definition of the word 'admiral' is one who leads groups of ships (at sea or in space, it doesn't really matter - a ship is a ship). Similarly, Generals shouldn't be on ships, because the whole point of having them is to lead troops. There are some rank names that are only suitable for one or the other. You have your ground service with ranks like General, Colonel, Major, etc., because it wouldn't make sense to have ranks like that in a space service - that's not why they were invented in the first place. And your space service has ranks like Admiral, Commander, etc., because those ranks were invented *for* navies.

I guess I just don't see why having a Starfleet ground division would be such a big idea. It's simple, direct, efficient: Starfleet (no qualifier) for flying ships, Starfleet Marines (or whatever you want to call them) for ground fighting. You couldn't take your rank and file Starfleet naval personnel and expect them to fight on the ground...that would be like having a security guard at Wal-Mart get sent to the front lines in Afghanistan or Iraq. Out of their element, as it were. To combat (no pun intended ) this, specialization is the key.

 

[neozeks]

And yes, I do think you'd need those two. IMHO, it does not make a ton of sense to have, say, Admirals leading ground troops, because the very definition of the word 'admiral' is one who leads groups of ships (at sea or in space, it doesn't really matter - a ship is a ship). Similarly, Generals shouldn't be on ships, because the whole point of having them is to lead troops. There are some rank names that are only suitable for one or the other. You have your ground service with ranks like General, Colonel, Major, etc., because it wouldn't make sense to have ranks like that in a space service - that's not why they were invented in the first place. And your space service has ranks like Admiral, Commander, etc., because those ranks were invented *for* navies.

First of all, I agree you definitely need some dedicated units to fight on the ground. But I don't think names of ranks are really that important (aside from maybe tradition). All today's Army/Navy/Air ranks are equivalent. So you have say an officer with an O3 grade - that's a captain in the Army and the Air Force, a lieutenant in the Navy; an O6 is a captain in the Navy and a colonel in the other two etc.
Navy SEALS, I think, have naval ranks, but fight perfectly well on the ground. The Canadian Forces (including the Navy) all use the same ranks. The RAF (which, unlike many AF, has it's own ranks) has a RAF Regiment, a land INFANTRY unit tasked with protecting airfields, composed of squadrons and flights (RAF units) and made up of aircraftman, pilot officers and squadron leaders (those are all RAF ranks)!

The key thing then, is actually just the training and the different specializations. But even in this regard, ordinary shipboard Security guys are, aside from defending the ship, regularly tasked with away missions and combat on the ground, so it stands they already get at least some land combat training. Dedicated ground personnel would no doubt get even more specialized ground training, but not really THAT much more specialized (the metod of insertion is the same, equipment is the same etc). So maybe Starfleet just decides to do away with complicated differing ranks and use only one system for all.

 

[Anwar]

Well, we KNOW there are still Army Ranks used since we saw "Colonel West" in TUC even though his rank insignia was that of an Admiral.

So I take it there are ground troops. I, in my own fanwank, have the Federation Starfleet with Navy ranks, Federal Infantry with Army Ranks, and maybe an Federation Aerospace force/Aeroforce with Army Ranks as well.

Maybe the Infantry and Aerospace branches can be the of the same planetary force while space is all Starfleet.

 

[neozeks]

Well, we KNOW there are still Army Ranks used since we saw "Colonel West" in TUC even though his rank insignia was that of an Admiral.

True, but there are problems with that:
-we never saw him (refered to as a Colonel) in the theathrical cut.
-a Colonel would be merely a Captain in the Navy, so those Admiral insignia are somewhat misplaced.
My own fanwank would be that he's a Colonel in the MACO (Earth's military) and was given an advisory position with Starfleet and so got the uniform (and maybe a 'promotion' to Admiral while serving in that position). Yeah, it's ridiculously complicated, but it's a fanwank after all.

EDIT: Besides, all the other races seem to be using just one rank system. True, Klingons have both army and navy ranks but General Martok (and Chang) commanded ships and fleets. Major Kira was stationed on a space station and commanded the blockade fleet against the Romulans. Maybe the Cardassian fans will correct me, but the Cardassians were also always mentioned with a single rank system.
Who knows, maybe having different ranks for the different branches is just a silly human curiosity?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

all the other races seem to be using just one rank system. True, Klingons have both army and navy ranks but General Martok (and Chang) commanded ships and fleets.

Could simply be a translation issue. There were, after all, Admirals shown in the Klingon fleet (ENT "Affliction"/Divergence").

Major Kira was stationed on a space station and commanded the blockade fleet against the Romulans.

The Bajoran Militia has army ranks, the same as our Army does. As for the blockade fleet, well, the Bajorans actually *have* no fleet (not anymore, not after the occupation) so they haven't had the time to develop the appropriate ranks.

Maybe the Cardassian fans will correct me, but the Cardassians were also always mentioned with a single rank system.

Yep. Which is unique in that their own words for their ranks aren't translated (although we do know the appropriate equivalents).

As for Colonel West:

1) He was named after a real Marine - Oliver North (west, north, get it? ).
2) As for his uniform: The costuming department probably didn't have the time or the budget to come up with a unique Marine uniform that would most likely never be worn again.
3) His rank might not be a rank, it might be a title. He could hold the rank of Vice Admiral, say, but have the title of 'colonel of the regiment' or something like that. Linky Specifically:

There is another practice for an officer ranked higher than colonel being referred to as such - in the British army, a general officer (equivalent in rank to an admiral officer, that West wore the pin of) can be called colonel as a titular commander of a regiment. The full title given to said general is "colonel of the regiment".

 

[iguana_tonante]

So I take it there are ground troops. I, in my own fanwank, have the Federation Starfleet with Navy ranks, Federal Infantry with Army Ranks, and maybe an Federation Aerospace force/Aeroforce with Army Ranks as well.

Personally, I'm fond of British/Commonwealth ranks for Air Forces, instead of Army Ranks like used in the USAF (and Italian Air Force). It adds flavour and distinctiveness to the branch (comparison).

I mean, with ranks like Air Marshal, Wing Commander or Squadron Leader, you can't go wrong.

 

[The Wormhole]

Major Kira was stationed on a space station and commanded the blockade fleet against the Romulans.

Just a minor correction, Kira was a Colonel when she commanded that blockade.

Who knows, maybe having different ranks for the different branches is just a silly human curiosity?

Romulans also have two sets of rank structures. Military uses navy ranks, while the Tal Shiar uses army ranks.

Could simply be a translation issue. There were, after all, Admirals shown in the Klingon fleet (ENT "Affliction"/Divergence").

That guy happens to be the only Klingon admiral seen in all of Trek.