StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Simply put I want to ask if those here that have served in the Military think that the Federation are effective as a military force?

This isn't a definitive rebuttal or anything sinister for the Pro-trekkers to worry about, it's just a continuation of a poll I've been conducting on and off since the 5th season of DS9 aired in the UK. Don't hesitate to say why you think they are or are not. I'll be interested to see if anyone bucks the trend to date.

They have never shown a actual army in the Federation. Small snippits of info point to one such as the Col. in ST 6, but an actual ground force AFAIK has never been shown. It has always been a group of people assembled from the ships crew that has served as a ground combatant.

Now, no offense to the Navy, but it would be difficult to say the least to train people for both the operation of a starship and the intricacies of ground warfare. To have both in one organization is folly.

Knife wrote:They have never shown a actual army in the Federation. Small snippits of info point to one such as the Col. in ST 6, but an actual ground force AFAIK has never been shown. It has always been a group of people assembled from the ships crew that has served as a ground combatant.

Now, no offense to the Navy, but it would be difficult to say the least to train people for both the operation of a starship and the intricacies of ground warfare. To have both in one organization is folly.

"Nor the Battle to the strong" and Particularly "Siege at AR-588" insulted my intelligence too much, it's then that i started asking around. IN TNG you'de have a laugh at "Worf the Spec-ops soldier" but in DS9 everyone went on combat missions.

You don't have to be a soldier to realizes that the Feddie ground forces are FUBARed.

No the Fed's lack any form of true ground support and control. We have never seen anything larger than small groups of people running about with hand help equipment. Also we have never seen any MBT or any IFV to support ground troops or in that fact any form of heavy equipment. In the new movie coming out they show what I would call a scout car. Maybe a very light IFV.

P.S.
Former Captain in the U.S.M.C Armor

92-98

IG-88E wrote:You don't have to be a soldier to realizes that the Feddie ground forces are FUBARed.

Yeah, but my poll's for the military to get informed opinions. Not really wanting to exclude others, but it kind of skews purpose and veracity of the poll if everyone votes.

Iggy, let them have their poll. It makes sense to me to see what REAL soldiers have to say about what we've been making fun of since the start. For me Siege of AR-whatever was the final nail in the coffin for Trekkies that kept pulling Crack Federation marines out of their collective asses when talking about ground combat, NOT ONCE have we seen actual soldiers on the entire run of ALL ST series.

Alright, alright, I was just saying! Jeez....

Wouldnt you want to limit this too ex-military in the combat arms? Just curious.

There are no troop deployment vehicles, not support vehicles, no vessels that would work for CAS or CIFS. There are no MBT, or light tanks, or LAV's, or personel transports. Have never seen or heard of infantry weapons heavier than a phaser rifle except that laughable excuse of a bazooka that Worf had in ST In.

Anytime any of the morons go on ground missions, they refuse to use any of the basic tactics that have been used for centuries. They do not know the concept of comsec, or of light and sound disipline. They all ways bunch up and make themselves easy targets for any rapid fire weapon the enemy might have. Cameoflauge has no meaning to them, as does cover and concealment.

They also lack a comprehension of the chain of command. The absolute senior officer avalible in ST alway's goes and leads the mission along with the next couple of senior officers. My god, one good gernade and the entire command structure is destroyed.

Obviously the Navy is not trained to be infantry combatants, as they should not be, but we never see any evidence of an actualy trained group of people to fill this role. And don't give me any of this "they have security personel" crap either. Many a Marine came to the infantry after a two year tour in the security forces around the world to include ship board security and embassy security. Everytime we got a Marine from security forces, they had to be seriously retrained. Security and ground combat are two different things.

As we would have said in the infantry: "They're non-tactical as fuck."

Knife sums it up pretty well. They fail to display even the most elementary knowledge of how a military organization really functions, especially when it comes to ground combat. I never served in the navy, but I can't imagine they look much better to the squids than they do to us grunts, since we've seen the captain and the XO on the bridge giving orders simultaneously, several examples of personnel questioning a superior officer's orders in front of other crew members, captains running a ship by holding meetings before a major decision is reached, contempt for conducting wargames to keep the combat skills sharp (and then running totally useless wargame scenarios when they go ahead and do it), lax discipline and many, many other offenses.

I know there are ex-military personnel in Hollywood who function as technical advisors to films and TV shows. You'd think they might have hired at least one to give them a few tips on how it's done.

Perinquus wrote: I know there are ex-military personnel in Hollywood who function as technical advisors to films and TV shows. You'd think they might have hired at least one to give them a few tips on how it's done.

Well they have a Science Advisor and how well does that work?

Actually it must be sweet to be ST's Science Advisor, none of the other coffee boys have such a great sounding title.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:Wouldnt you want to limit this too ex-military in the combat arms? Just curious.

The opinions ot the tech guys and other military specialities is more than welcomed as they can comment on things that the rest might miss (proper maintenance of tech equipment, logistics, comms security, dets use and handling, etc) i know I said Ground combat but that's because it's my Bailiwick, however the points about bridge discipline are just as valid (especially due to the Dominion war). So any of those that do not specialise in Ground Warfare can change that to their own area of military expertise and simply mention it in thier replies and any qualifying statements they'd like to make about why they voted the way they did.

As far as I know there is nothing in the trek 'canon' to indicate that the Federation even has a large scale ground army or that there is such a thing as Starfleet Marines (very common in fanfics).
So I would have to say no, the Federation is not effective as a military in Ground Warfare.

If however we assume for arguments sake that there is a dedicated Federation ground army the problem will be that we know very little the capabilities of such an army.
Also the question becomes: Effective compared to what?
Compared to a modern army?
Now since the Federation is far more advanced then we are, I think it would be fair to assume that they can do anything we can and do it better + they could do stuff we can't.
So yeah, a Fed ground army would be more effective then a modern army.
Compared to some other sci-fi army?
Well that depends on what the other sci-fi army is like, but this ventures in to the realm of crossfire and I rather not go there.

BTW ground combat is the one area where sci-fi, and Star Trek among the worst, usualy drops the ball completely and the result is a "highly advanced" army that has weapons that aren't really any better then AK-47's and uses tactics that are simply moronic. Particulary the stupid tactics are VERY common, it would appear that no one in the future even considers 'hugging the ground' when bullets/laser bolts or whatnot start flying around. Also non-direct fire weapons appear to be quite rare in sci-fi, foxholes and trenches are rarely seen (thumbs up for TESB for showing the rebel trenches), you'd think that an advanced society would have effective means of communicating on the battle field, but no or not in sci-fi at least. The biggest problem is however the Civil War era like tactics, like attacking in open terrain with no cover in a broad front, not a good idea if the enemy has a few machine guns, but of course sci-fi weapons commonly have a pretty slow rate of fire and there a rarely any dedicated fire-support weapons.
And then there are of course all the common movie/TV-show fuckups. The bad guys are always poor shots, they always fall for every single trap the good guys cook up, the bad guys can always be flanked and the bad guys in general are just weak and stupid and are a threat only because of numerical superiority. Too bad the SS wasn't as helpless.

In general my oppinion of ground warfare in movies/TV-shows and sci-fi is pretty low and Star Trek is worse then most.

Oh, I forgot mines, mines are rare in sci-fi or they are used poorly. Properly used mines can however be very effective. Just though I'd mention that since I am an engineer.

Sir Sirius wrote:As far as I know there is nothing in the trek 'canon' to indicate that the Federation even has a large scale ground army or that there is such a thing as Starfleet Marines (very common in fanfics).
So I would have to say no, the Federation is not effective as a military in Ground Warfare.

If however we assume for arguments sake that there is a dedicated Federation ground army the problem will be that we know very little the capabilities of such an army.
Also the question becomes: Effective compared to what?
Compared to a modern army?

There is a section of Mikes Website that deals with that subject in detail
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... index.html

It even mentions mines. read it through, it deals with most of your points mentioned.

Oh and welcome to the Web Board, someone will be along shortly to poke you with a stick.

Well also speaking from a purely rear-area standpoint they simply never seem to udnerstand the concept of logistics and rea-area security. While they have some semblence of understanding how to dig in they do not create a COC, they do not manage a reserve/reaction force, they do not establish supporting fighting holes with heavy weapons to cover avenues of approach..etc. I know much of this has been said many times but the Federaiton on the ground does not seem to understand how to protect what little it can actually conquer, it depends almost entirely on aerial resupply and never shows any semblence of having the neccessary combat support troops to actually sustain an offensive of even defensive action against a determined foe.

Hell I can't even think of one time where they've conducted a proper security patrol.

CmdrWilkens wrote: Hell I can't even think of one time where they've conducted a proper security patrol.

Hehehe well you can always watch "Seige" and see the closest they've gotten. A recce patrol with a guy wearing Jem hadar White vials around his neck in day-glo necklace, a scout who shrieks like a girl when fired on, and an officer who did nothing but get shot.

Rob Wilson wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote: Hell I can't even think of one time where they've conducted a proper security patrol.

Hehehe well you can always watch "Seige" and see the closest they've gotten. A recce patrol with a guy wearing Jem hadar White vials around his neck in day-glo necklace, a scout who shrieks like a girl when fired on, and an officer who did nothing but get shot.

The defensive position where better. Did they even bother to pile up more rocks on top of the ones already there? At least the scripts author mentioned sandbags...

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote: Hell I can't even think of one time where they've conducted a proper security patrol.

Hehehe well you can always watch "Seige" and see the closest they've gotten. A recce patrol with a guy wearing Jem hadar White vials around his neck in day-glo necklace, a scout who shrieks like a girl when fired on, and an officer who did nothing but get shot.

The defensive position where better. Did they even bother to pile up more rocks on top of the ones already there? At least the scripts author mentioned sandbags...

He'd have been better off mentioning Fire-control orders! Sisko's one and only Fire-Control order "Fire!".

Rob Wilson wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote: Hehehe well you can always watch "Seige" and see the closest they've gotten. A recce patrol with a guy wearing Jem hadar White vials around his neck in day-glo necklace, a scout who shrieks like a girl when fired on, and an officer who did nothing but get shot.

The defensive position where better. Did they even bother to pile up more rocks on top of the ones already there? At least the scripts author mentioned sandbags...

He'd have been better off mentioning Fire-control orders! Sisko's one and only Fire-Control order "Fire!".

The pure technobabbel beams did has good accuracy against the overlapping massed charge at 25 meters.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:
The defensive position where better. Did they even bother to pile up more rocks on top of the ones already there? At least the scripts author mentioned sandbags...

He'd have been better off mentioning Fire-control orders! Sisko's one and only Fire-Control order "Fire!".

The pure technobabbel beams did has good accuracy against the overlapping massed charge at 25 meters.

Actually after approx. 10 seconds of firing (in slow motion no less) they are reduced to CQC as the Jems are in their defensive position. In fact they have to kill all the Jems upclose and personal because Sisko and the NCO's failed to manage the defense properly (why they didn't set up a ield of fire down the Mined valley is beyond me - hey lets have a fire-zone less than 20m in length )

Fucktards the lot of them.

Rob Wilson wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: The pure technobabbel beams did have good accuracy against the overlapping massed charge at 25 meters.

Actually after approx. 10 seconds of firing (in slow motion no less) they are reduced to CQC as the Jems are in their defensive position. In fact they have to kill all the Jems upclose and personal because Sisko and the NCO's failed to manage the defense properly (why they didn't set up a ield of fire down the Mined valley is beyond me - hey lets have a fire-zone less than 20m in length )

Fucktards the lot of them.

It was worse than that...

Sisko should have been to the rear in a COC along with a reaction platoon of at least 2-3 squads ready to respond to any problem sector. He should have had presighted weapons with principal lines of fire along the rather obvious avenues of approach. Beyond that he should have had barriers of some sort...constatina wire, trip wire, claymores, barb wire obstacles, etc. Beyond THAT he should have had LP/OPs thatcould have been telling him how and where the forces were coming, beyond THAT he should have had security patrols with Comm back to the COC telling Sisko where the enemy was massing. Christ my Company is a bunch of reservists with NCOs and Officers leading with a total of about 5 combat years between all of them (all 5 in one man) did a better job of setting up a perimiter.

Rob Wilson wrote:

Perinquus wrote: I know there are ex-military personnel in Hollywood who function as technical advisors to films and TV shows. You'd think they might have hired at least one to give them a few tips on how it's done.

Well they have a Science Advisor and how well does that work?

Actually it must be sweet to be ST's Science Advisor, none of the other coffee boys have such a great sounding title.

Supposedly (though I haven't seen any such interviews myself) the tech advisors have complained that the people there frequently ignore them.

Which leads me to wonder if they even have advisors anymore... what with B&B's penchant for distancing themselves from Star Trek as much as they can, it wouldn't surprise me if they figured "Well, we never listen to them anyways, so why should we bother paying them anymore?"

Uraniun235 wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:Actually it must be sweet to be ST's Science Advisor, none of the other coffee boys have such a great sounding title.

Supposedly (though I haven't seen any such interviews myself) the tech advisors have complained that the people there frequently ignore them.

Yeah, but tht's not as funny.

Which leads me to wonder if they even have advisors anymore... what with B&B's penchant for distancing themselves from Star Trek as much as they can, it wouldn't surprise me if they figured "Well, we never listen to them anyways, so why should we bother paying them anymore?"

Oh they'll have him still, so they can trot him out and say "see we are scientifically accurate." This from a programme where a ship can't find Deuterium in space (where it is only slightly less prevelant than Hydrogen) or even make the stuff! Oh and the tired old DNA has Memory that appears every series.

I will give them one point that they got right: The green officers that get introduced are cocky and arrogant, which pretty well matches up with my experiences with the Officers fresh out of Annapolis so far. Aside from that, I can't really say anything that hasn't been said already. Piss poor communication, murky chain of command a good part of the time, the reactor is pure shit (on an early run GCS atleast), and the Bridge officers are ninnys.