Starfleet Marine Corps

[T'Girl]

If we go to etymology, then Starfleet certainly will not have 'marines' as they do not operate at the sea.

How would that effect the use of "marines" today. Marines are much more likely to arrive in a combat area by way of transport aircraft, ships being the secondary method of arrival.

and OTOH Federation infantry is extremely rarely seen

It is a show that concentrates on "The Fleet." we saw the Starfleet JAG corp twice, never really saw the fighter squadrons (just the fighters themselves), a fair bit of the academy, the merchant marines once (Charlie X, imo), some time with a few other department.

But mostly the fleet.

************

Doesn't Israeli have the same names for their ranks, regardless if army or navy?

 

[Longinus]

How would that effect the use of "marines" today. Marines are much more likely to arrive in a combat area by way of transport aircraft, ships being the secondary method of arrival.

I know. It was merely a response to the claim that ground troops and navies have to have separate rank names because of the etymology.

As for Colonel West, he is only one guy who appears on deleted scenes, so I'd not base any far reaching conclusions on him.

 

[The Wormhole]

How would that effect the use of "marines" today. Marines are much more likely to arrive in a combat area by way of transport aircraft, ships being the secondary method of arrival.

I know. It was merely a response to the claim that ground troops and navies have to have separate rank names because of the etymology.

As for Colonel West, he is only one guy who appears on deleted scenes, so I'd not base any far reaching conclusions on him.

It's not a deleted scene. It was actually re-inserted into the movie for the VHS release, therefore making it canon.

 

[Star Wolf]

If we go to etymology, then Starfleet certainly will not have 'marines' as they do not operate at the sea.

How would that effect the use of "marines" today. Marines are much more likely to arrive in a combat area by way of transport aircraft, ships being the secondary method of arrival.

From a new government building up a force from scratch, why would they use the term?. The Earth's Marine Corps tend to get that name if the training cadre sent by a friendly nation was made up of US or Royal Marines. Those that were not tend to have other names like the Israeli Defense Force's Givati Brigade, and Naval Commandos. The Japanese Special Naval Landing Force The Russian Naval Infantry. But then we have The People's Liberation Army Navy Marine Corps, maybe it flows in the PRC's official Chinese dialect

 

[Darkwing]

There is no reason to believe that rank titles will not continue to evolve in ways that we might not predict. A good example is the Royal Ar Force. A "squadron leader" does not command a squadron today, it has just become the term for that particular rank. It's been around for almost a hundred years now and causes no confusion or difficulty, everyone is used to it.
Justin

If we stay in-universe, you have an argument. If we go meta-universe, when Roddenberry conceived it, he deliberately stuck to forms and structures his audience would be familiar with. Essentially, it was a dramatic re-creation, so likely most of the adventures happened to other people in-universe, but Kirk/Picard/et alia were the meta-characters we saw and related to. Similarly, while "Captain Picard" was our vehicle for viewing the 'verse, in-universe he was a conflation of Ship-Leader Grantham, Scout-Commander Renaille, and Roving Federation Agent T'Shirr, depicting the adventures of those three and dozens of others - kind of like how Hornblower, Aubrey, Drinkwater, and Bolitho are pastiches of various real Royal Navy officers, and their adventures are frequently drawn from actual logs of the napoleonic age.

 

[Timo]

Marines are much more likely to arrive in a combat area by way of transport aircraft, ships being the secondary method of arrival.

And in the 20th century, Cavalry arrives in armored cars or helicopters, having sold its last horses for meat in the very beginning of that century.

In some rare cases, there are tactical aspects to modern "Cavalry" that resemble those of horseback combatants of the 19th century. But much of the 19th century cavalry role is actually now performed by main battle tanks, while armored cars, helicopters and other such skirmisher elements are reminiscent of very different historical warforces. The term "Cavalry" is carried on despite and against historical roots, not because of them.

In that sense, space infantry might decide to call themselves Paras or Hoplites and actually hit closer to the mark than with "Marines".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

having sold its last horses for meat in the very beginning of that century.

US Army 1st Cavalry Division does maintain a ceremonial detachment of horse-mounted cavalry.

The term "Cavalry" is carried on despite and against historical roots

Mounted warriors, that makes them cavalry.

 

[Timo]

Mounted warriors, that makes them cavalry.

Naah - that makes them mounted infantry. Or what dragoons were originally.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nerys Myk]

We should still have dragoons, because it sounds cool.

 

[T'Girl]

Dragoons rode to the site of the battle, dismounted, and only then engaged the enemy on foot. Their mounts were transportation, not "fighting vehicles."

So star-marine dragoons would arrive at a planet by starship, beam/shuttle down (dismount), and then engage the enemy on foot, on the planet's surface.

 

[timmy84]

Dragoons rode to the site of the battle, dismounted, and only then engaged the enemy on foot. Their mounts were transportation, not "fighting vehicles."

So star-marine dragoons would arrive at a planet by starship, beam/shuttle down (dismount), and then engage the enemy on foot, on the planet's surface.

Ok. If we get to call them Star Marine Dragoons, I will allow them to exist.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Dragoons rode to the site of the battle, dismounted, and only then engaged the enemy on foot. Their mounts were transportation, not "fighting vehicles."

So star-marine dragoons would arrive at a planet by starship, beam/shuttle down (dismount), and then engage the enemy on foot, on the planet's surface.

Ok. If we get to call them Star Marine Dragoons, I will allow them to exist.

Only in your fan fiction world =D

 

[Timo]

Dragoons rode to the site of the battle, dismounted, and only then engaged the enemy on foot. Their mounts were transportation, not "fighting vehicles."

Exactly why they are a pretty good analogy to Marines or Air Cavalry today: such forces possess no real fighting vehicles, just transportation vehicles with varying degrees of fighting shortcomings, pretty much how dragoons left the charging to those with proper (rare and expensive) warhorses and concentrated on other things such as raiding or holding. *

Starfleet Dragoons wouldn't need to go to battle on foot (even though with transporters, that's probably a valid type of tactical and strategic mobility), but their vehicles and craft wouldn't be real frontline "warhorses" or "tanks", either. Which would allow a TV episode to show a deployed SF Dragoon force by placing the usual eight extras in costumes in a dimly lit "outdoors" set, a cheapo location, or a rudimentary virtual environment, with the vehicles and craft done in miniature or background CGI or left out - while letting the depiction of actual vehicle rides or occasional vehicular fighting, with the related full-scale props and whatnot, to bigger-budget movies...

Timo Saloniemi

*) Of course, the glory of charging was too tempting, and eventually all dragoon forces began engaging in it. And as every Young Indiana Jones viewer remembers, 20th century Mounted Infantry sometimes succumbed to the temptation as well... I trust that SF Dragoons would be doing a lot of stuff beyond the real capabilities of their vehicles, too!

 

[Sci]

Should the alliance membership wish to draw up a charter that include guarantees on civil rights, something like the UDHR* ... they could.

* The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Is a treaty subject to sovereign state ratification, not a Constitution.

I never said anything about a constitution, or a treaty.

Then you brought it up for no reason, because it does nothing to rebut my point that alliances do not have Constitutions that guarantee civil rights for people in a sovereign territory the way the Federation does.

Although the member world governments would likely have had to ratify the charter at some point.

Meaning at this point you're just making

up.

Well, I wouldn't use the word shit

.

I'm sorry to hear that as an adult, you get so concerned about a single syllable that's commonly used as a synonym for "stuff."

I'm exploring a fictional universe Sci, it's a universe with rules. One of the agreed upon rules has to do with what's called "canon."

No. You're just making things up in order to justify an obvious inconsistency.

Like it or not Sci, twice the Federation was blatantly referred to as a alliance.

And like it or not, the actual depiction of the Federation in numerous episodes and films has been as a polity that possesses its own sovereignty and authorities that no alliance could possibly possess and still be just an alliance.

At a certain point, an alliance that has none of the limitations of an alliance and all of the powers of the state is simply no longer an alliance -- no matter how you try to justify it.

Picard in "Peak Performance" claimed that the Federation Starfleet is not a military. This is absurd -- the Federation Starfleet possesses all of the legal traits of a military, including a system of courts-martial. So when the preponderance of evidence says that Starfleet is a military, which is more likely -- that Starfleet is a not-military that just so happens to possess all of the traits that define a military, or that Picard was not speaking accurately?

Which is more likely: That the Federation is a not-sovereign-state that just so happens to possess all of the traits that define sovereign states, or that Kirk and Daniels are not speaking accurately?

 

[T'Girl]

Exactly why they are a pretty good analogy to Marines or Air Cavalry today: such forces possess no real fighting vehicles

Attack helicopters, armored fighting vehicles, and I believe the Marines still have their own tanks.

Then you brought it up for no reason ...

I disagree and maintain my original assertion, if the species who formed the Federation wished to include in it's charter guarantees on civil rights, they could.

Might the guarantees include the items and language similar to the UDHR? If the Members wanted it too.

an obvious inconsistency

Sci, I have two clear unambiguous references to the Federation being a alliance.

That the Federation is a not-sovereign-state that just so happens to possess all of the traits that define sovereign states

The Federation also has a Membership that engaging in separate foreign policy, which a "sovereign state" wouldn't. Face it, the Federation has a few (but not all) the attributes of a state.

If you accept evidence from the episode Yesteryear, the individual Members exchange ambassadors directly with each other. Sarek is a "full blown" ambassador and was assigned to this duty.

In the 'for what it's worth" column, in the comic Countdown, Jean Luc Picard was the Federation ambassador to Vulcan.

Within the Federation, it sound like the Members are the sovereign powers.

... or that Kirk and Daniels are not speaking accurately?

No, it sounds like they were speaking accurately, clearly, and with forethought, when they both employed the descriptive term "alliance."

 

[Timo]

Attack helicopters, armored fighting vehicles, and I believe the Marines still have their own tanks.

That's the point, yes: an "armored fighting vehicle" is just a substandard tank that stands no chance in a "real" fight. And that's by design, not merely because General Motors would be poor at building tanks for Marines or something. It's the tactical intent that these vehicles should steer well clear of battle, and settle for hauling troops to fighting locations and then giving some firecover. Leaving out any actual armor or armor-piercing weaponry is a good thing in increasing mobility and carrying capacity - but also in discouraging the AFV commanders from trying to engage heavy enemy vehicles in battle.

Ditto with the helicopters of Air Cavalry. Not even the purpose-built gunships are viable vehicles for fighting their peers; they deliver firepower, but they are designed to avoid actual fights, except against grossly "asymmetric" targets.

Which makes perfect sense. Forces intent on deploying and supporting infantry should have no business taking part in battles against actual fighting vehicles, because that would be senseless endangering of the infantry to no real gain. Vehicle forces capable of fighting tit-for-tat in turn should have no business providing rides of infantry, not for any significant length of time anyway.

and I believe the Marines still have their own tanks.

True enough. And the M60 is undeniably an actual tank, rather than a mere armored fighting vehicle. But whether the presence of tanks in an opposed amphibious assault is justified is something military history is yet to prove, as their use so far has been limited to unopposed landings and disastrously failed raids. Once the Marines are past the beach, it's time to let the Army in with its much better (read: heavier) tanks, so...

Incidentally, what would be the best equivalent of a tank in the Star Trek environment? Would there be any benefit to, say, a vehicle that is incapable of flight or spaceflight? In the "taking the beach" phase, or in the "beach taken, bring in the actual tanks" phase? And what dramatic aspects should be considered here?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Incidentally, what would be the best equivalent of a tank in the Star Trek environment? Would there be any benefit to, say, a vehicle that is incapable of flight or spaceflight? In the "taking the beach" phase, or in the "beach taken, bring in the actual tanks" phase? And what dramatic aspects should be considered here?

Timo Saloniemi

From everything I've seen the Federation doesn't have any ground based vehicles. They have soldiers and shuttles for transport / support.

They basically can use shuttles like Russians use Hind's. Troop carrier / Close Air Support.

I don't see any value in ground based only vehicles by the time of TNG->VOY.

Air superiority / Fire Power / Mobility are all in shuttle / fighter platforms.

Ground forces only need to be there to hold positions.

If there was some sort of armor, it'd probably be some form of power armor to give each individual troop superior mobility, speed, defense, offense.

Power Armor would effectively be a huge force multiplier in making each troop that much more effective on the battle field.

 

[Timo]

Well, we have seen a few wheeled vehicles, one even being armed and used for cross-country purposes (ST:NEM). For some unknown reason, it was left without the ability to become airborne. Or perhaps it wasn't - Mythbusters ought to have made short work of Data's supposed jumping of the vehicle off a cliff into a waiting shuttle, unless there was actually an antigrav aboard the vehicle!

On the other hand, the ground fighting in "Nor the Battle to the Strong" involved something called "hoppers" rather than "shuttles", apparently capable of moving an entire platoon (as a Lieutenant was able to usher his men into one).

But that would be Dragoon/Air Cavalry/Marine stuff, as both vehicles appeared vulnerable to small arms fire. The question of fighting vehicles remains open.

Supposedly, weapons fire in Trek is stopped by shields, and shields alone. So a "Main Battle Tank" of 24th century fare might look like a sand buggy for all we know, and the difference between it and an "Infantry Fighting Vehicle" or "Light Reconnaissance Vehicle" of the era would be purely in the contents of the little black box in the trunk, the one containing the shield generator and the phaser capacitor.

Power armor is a big question mark. We actually see some in DS9 "Business As Usual", but only of an alien type. We don't hear exactly how Cardassians have mechanized their Mechanized Infantry (might be half-tracks or electric bicycles for all we know), but if O'Brien were facing Cardassian Mechas at Setlik III, we would do well to suppose that he himself knows how to operate the corresponding Starfleet model, too.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Star Wolf]

Attack helicopters, armored fighting vehicles, and I believe the Marines still have their own tanks.

That's the point, yes: an "armored fighting vehicle" is just a substandard tank that stands no chance in a "real" fight. And that's by design, not merely because General Motors would be poor at building tanks for Marines or something. It's the tactical intent that these vehicles should steer well clear of battle, and settle for hauling troops to fighting locations and then giving some firecover. Leaving out any actual armor or armor-piercing weaponry is a good thing in increasing mobility and carrying capacity - but also in discouraging the AFV commanders from trying to engage heavy enemy vehicles in battle.

Ditto with the helicopters of Air Cavalry. Not even the purpose-built gunships are viable vehicles for fighting their peers; they deliver firepower, but they are designed to avoid actual fights, except against grossly "asymmetric" targets.

Which makes perfect sense. Forces intent on deploying and supporting infantry should have no business taking part in battles against actual fighting vehicles, because that would be senseless endangering of the infantry to no real gain. Vehicle forces capable of fighting tit-for-tat in turn should have no business providing rides of infantry, not for any significant length of time anyway.

and I believe the Marines still have their own tanks.

True enough. And the M60 is undeniably an actual tank, rather than a mere armored fighting vehicle. But whether the presence of tanks in an opposed amphibious assault is justified is something military history is yet to prove, as their use so far has been limited to unopposed landings and disastrously failed raids. Once the Marines are past the beach, it's time to let the Army in with its much better (read: heavier) tanks, so...

Incidentally, what would be the best equivalent of a tank in the Star Trek environment? Would there be any benefit to, say, a vehicle that is incapable of flight or spaceflight? In the "taking the beach" phase, or in the "beach taken, bring in the actual tanks" phase? And what dramatic aspects should be considered here?

Timo Saloniemi

Actually the USMC started reequiping with M1s during the first Gulf War when reserve battalions used them in combat. What an Army company sized combat team has in its favor over a Marine infantry copany with an attached tank platoon is that they operate in a larger task force with equally mobile support forces able to keep up with the M1s.

 

[StarTrekMan]

Hi eveyone, I'm new! Admittedly I haven't read past the fourth page on this, and there's a lot of comments! But a lot of them seem beside the point. PLEASE forgive me if I'm rehashing something. I'll read the rest as I have time. There are established ground forces personnel in Star Trek - period. It's canon. "Colonel" west is evidence (note the ground forces rank title for those who have strongly argued against it), along with "the soldier" that Dr. Bashir had a run in with in the DS9 episode. So it doesn't matter whether someone agrees or disagrees, or "likes" or "dislikes" it. The only question is, what are they called? It appears nothing has established that. MACOs are an Earth term since they were established before the United Federation charter, but were they incorporated into the United Starfleet? I agree that because of Roddenberry's initial thought to make Starfleet ranks appear familiar, that he would probably have done the same with the Army/Marine ranks too -- MACOs follow that (with PVTs, SGTs, Majors), so it should follow that Marines would do the same, though the actual name of the branch of the Federation doesn't seem to have been established.