How would you utilize a Federation army?

[biostem]

If you are using the ship to land forces directly, then it is reasonable to assume the enemy will try to contest this landing with whatever artillery and air cover they have available. So you want the ship to be able to withstand a reasonable amount of force, especially if you are extending the shields to cover the landed forces until they can set up theatre shields.

Yes, what I'm envisaging is a quick-response vessel, but given the idea that this is a primarily defensive force, being able to move between garrisoned worlds and trouble spots quickly strikes me as being one of the most important factors.

I would imagine a ship which is kept on the ground, crewed, with the ramp down, could load a lot of soldiers much more quickly than trying to beam up all of them, while not keeping said troops "cooped up" in space all the time.

[Crazedwraith]

Why are we assuming we'd be using landing ships?

To my mind, the solution is to built galaxy saucer sections (or nebula pods as someone else suggested) to house troops, supplies and a heck of a lot of transporters to rapidly put them down where they need to be.

Yes, I know things can block transporters but if it's actual inhibitors fields. I think you'd have much more luck with many small craft rather than landing a whole starship which is an all or nothing proposition, who can then take out the inhibitor fields and beam reinforcements in/enemies out.

[Knife]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Federation decided to revive the idea of the MACOS from Enterprise, and went into a full recruitment and deployment rollout, including revamping the concepts of personal armor and troop transports/shipboard compliments.

1. How would you actually go about recruiting soldiers, (must be volunteer only)?

I would initially pull from the same group Starfleet does until the new organization can stand on it's own, taking heavily from Starfleet security peeps. I would emphasize national pride and ideals of the Federation as well as perhaps some travel opportunities. I would set it up so that each portion/sector/quadrant of the Federation has a recruitment center on their 'main world' with some satellite installations on larger population worlds as well. Not sure of the standard length of service, probably in units of five or so years for enlisted, similar rules with officers in Starfleet.

2. How you you equip them, (can only use technology demonstrated in the various media, no 1-off superweapon stuff).

Similar to Starfleet, each soldier receiving one or two uniforms o the day, a dress uniform, and then a combat kit of whatever is deems necessary for their deployments. As many have said, probably develop what ever phaser resistant material into light armor/flak jacket type gear. Each trooper will have a M type set of gear for 'earth like planets' with inclement weather gear, options for a enclosed and sealed suit/armor for non earth like environments or for personnel who don't work well with M type atmospheres.

Each trooper will have a phaser rifle and a phaser pistol issued to them. A survival kit/medical kit. Frankly the rest of gear depends on mission particulars not outlined in this thread.

3. What vessels would you have retrofitted or build additional, (again, keeping within established and fully realized technology)?

Again, depends on mission requirements for the army. That said, I can see using or making more Olympic class ships for large transport ships for massive deployments of Regiments and Corps. I would also look into smaller ships like the Raven type ships as small unit vessels able to take platoon sized groups from site to site, or base to ship operations.

I would also look into the possibility of using old Constellation class ships as assault ships, using the large hangar decks to launch off runabouts and shuttles with troops on a landing.

4. Where would you station said soldiers, (keep a contingent on board all vessels, keep them in reserve to deployed only when needed, etc)?

Again, depends on mission, but breaking the Federation into sectors and quadrants or whatever, and put a defensive force on/in each part. Trouble spots along the boarder might get garrisons as well but I see it more as putting a force in each area of the Federations to be able to respond within that area.

5. How or where would you train said soldiers?

I would recruit them in sectors, all personnel in that sector would then report to the main world of that sector where an initial training ground would be set up. That initial training would be somewhere in the 30-45 day area and mostly garrison type training. Troops would learn to dress, rules and regs, laws, units, and marching training. The basic 'tear them down and build them up as a team' type philosophy getting 30-40 people to march in a straight line together, turn at the same time and basically work together.

Phase two would take those recruits and send them off world to another facility on a less populated world for another 30-45 day training cycle where they are trained in combat operations on the unit level. Squad, platoon, and then larger groups training. Basic marksman, small unit tactics, survival and combat medicine, then into larger training with Battalion and larger tactics.

After completion of phase two, units are then disbanded and individuals are reassigned to an active unit per need of the unit.

6. How would the chain of command function, (reports to ship's captain, has separate directives, give them their own vessels to operate)?

The Army would have it's own command structure, but at the highest levels it would be combined with Starfleet for coordination. I guess you can make a Navy/Marine type system where Starfleet runs a 'gator navy' for the Army but really see no need and no problem with Army ships being crewed by Army staff.

7. Any other significant points you'd address or policies you'd enact? Would you further break this force down into more specialized squads/corps, perhaps?

Depends on mission. If the Feds want armored corps of space tanks, then cool, it can be done after a good tank is made. That said, basic organization would be more of a Calvary unit today. Highly mobile units of infantry with various types of tactical mobility to shuffle them around a planet with air/orbital support. Utilizing transporters or small shuttles/hoppers, or larger ships to move light infantry to where it is needed. Light infantry trained in fire and maneuver with CAS or orbital fire for support. CQB and MOUT being a heavy focus, along with NEO. Offensively, point and area destruction raids via tactical mobility.

[Adam Reynolds]

One idea that might be interesting would be a context in which this new army is subordinate to Starfleet. The army could be somewhat analagous to the modern US Marines, but with the twist that they have almost no support forces of their own and use Starfleet personnel for support functions like medical and even technical and engineering support so as to avoid having divergent schools. Starfleet Academy could still remain the military academy, but could gain an additional ground forces training track.

As Knife indicates, the best strategy is elite light air/spacemobile forces. Given that no one else in Star Trek has large ground armies it is likely to not be worth it in terms of the overall strategic impact. Likely because they would tend to get blown away by naval gunfire or air strikes.

[Lord Revan]

I think it's more of a case since transporters allow pinpoint strikes to critical locations so it's more practical to have smaller teams defending/assaulting key objectives then to have large army defending a "frontline" that gets bypassed anyway, so I suspect that it's not case orbital/air strikes makes armies obsolete but rather transporters making it so that most battles will more or less urban ones around a key objective rather big army versus army battles in open fields.

it would also explain why tanks and APCs are non-existant vechiles are at distinct disadvantage in urban terrain.

[Borgholio]

Well if we're allowed to design the makeup of the army ourselves, I think most of us would choose to have large-area transport inhibitors as standard equipment...preventing pinpoint strikes.

[Lord Revan]

Well if we're allowed to design the makeup of the army ourselves, I think most of us would choose to have large-area transport inhibitors as standard equipment...preventing pinpoint strikes.

do we know that a) such devices exist b) cannot be bypassed with relative ease.

After all we're not allowed to use technology that doesn't exist.

Also that's probably not gonna switch combat back into large scale army versus army, only causes the inhibitors to be a critical objective and that's assuming we build those in a way that doesn't make them trivial to be knocked out by orbital bombardment or air strikes. After all just because something isn't used we should not assume it's not use because everyone is wearing their underwear on their head stupid/insane.

[Borgholio]

We do know they exist, they have been seen in several episodes and movies including ST 6 and Insurrection. Also, area shields would be able to block transport.

The only ways seen to get past them is to destroy them or just get out of their range.

[Lord Revan]

We do know they exist, they have been seen in several episodes and movies including ST 6 and Insurrection. Also, area shields would be able to block transport.

The only ways seen to get past them is to destroy them or just get out of their range.

At least in insurrection they used tags to beam people out while with the effect of the inhibitors. You'd probably seen small strike teams land/beam in outside (if possible) the inhibitors then sneak in to destroy them and that's assuming you can't just destroy them from orbit. Having large scale armies isn't worth it.

a more effective use would to shield the objectives so that you can funnel the attackers into choke points. Basically instead of trying to force the conflict into battles with large formations of troops clashing, control where the enemy can strike and how, that way you don't have to worry about gaps in you inhibitor coverage as much either as you create "holes" in the coverage to make certain the enemy appears where you want them to be.

Also IIRC it was alot easier to beam in then to beam out.

[Borgholio]

a more effective use would to shield the objectives so that you can funnel the attackers into choke points. Basically instead of trying to force the conflict into battles with large formations of troops clashing, control where the enemy can strike and how, that way you don't have to worry about gaps in you inhibitor coverage as much either as you create "holes" in the coverage to make certain the enemy appears where you want them to be.

Yeah that would be the 24th century variation of using minefields and terrain to funnel the enemy into a kill zone.

[Lord Revan]

a more effective use would to shield the objectives so that you can funnel the attackers into choke points. Basically instead of trying to force the conflict into battles with large formations of troops clashing, control where the enemy can strike and how, that way you don't have to worry about gaps in you inhibitor coverage as much either as you create "holes" in the coverage to make certain the enemy appears where you want them to be.

Yeah that would be the 24th century variation of using minefields and terrain to funnel the enemy into a kill zone.

technically speaking yes, basically that combinied with using fake retreats to get the enemy expose their weak points (for massive damage ), though obviously not literally that but the princible remains the same.

[Adam Reynolds]

The problem with inhibitors is that they are jamming systems. By definition, all jamming systems must send out signals. That makes them rather obvious targets against a competent enemy*. Though clever tactics can prevent orbital strikes from neutralizing them to some degree, it can't prevent precision air strikes.

It's similar to the way that GPS jammers exist today but are not very militarily useful due to the fact that they are a priority target and are easily found as indicated above. Many weapon sensors even have home on jam features.

* Though you could argue the nature of Star Trek militaries is such that this is never the case.

[Elheru Aran]

Federation army? We have a Federation army? *checks list of available realities*

Well, if I've got to work with this one...

The fact is that the army isn't as important as the navy. Power projection is going to trump ground-pounding any day of the week.

That said. Ground-pounding is regrettably necessary on occasion.

As such. A Federation ground military would have two primary detachments: first, a heavy strike, front-line invasion unit, similar to the Space Marines or the Starship Troopers' Mobile Infantry, though probably not power-armoured. These are the guys who crack forts and make the initial landings. Second is a larger consignment of line troops, basic infantry. These are the guys that hold the conquered territory, because when you're talking galactic scale or even sector scale, you're gonna have a lot of planets you're going to have to hold. Essentially 'Marines' and 'Army'. Air support is provided by Starfleet, of course. An argument could be made for air-to-ground support being driven by a separate detachment in its own right.

No bones about it, it would have to be a BIG military if you go that route though. And in Trek, most planetary battles that we've seen (and we haven't seen that many IIRC, which suggests strongly that the majority of warfare happens in space-- if you lose in space, it's only a matter of time before you lose on the ground) are one-and-done affairs-- have a big battle, someone loses, the planet is considered conquered.

The Federation Marines (for lack of a better term) could also perform Starfleet ship security functions as well, perform boarding actions and such.

[PREDATOR490]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Federation decided to revive the idea of the MACOS from Enterprise, and went into a full recruitment and deployment rollout, including revamping the concepts of personal armor and troop transports/shipboard compliments.

1. How would you actually go about recruiting soldiers, (must be volunteer only)?

2. How you you equip them, (can only use technology demonstrated in the various media, no 1-off superweapon stuff).

3. What vessels would you have retrofitted or build additional, (again, keeping within established and fully realized technology)?

4. Where would you station said soldiers, (keep a contingent on board all vessels, keep them in reserve to deployed only when needed, etc)?

5. How or where would you train said soldiers?

6. How would the chain of command function, (reports to ship's captain, has separate directives, give them their own vessels to operate)?

7. Any other significant points you'd address or policies you'd enact? Would you further break this force down into more specialized squads/corps, perhaps?

1. If you are in a security position - You get MACO training. If they like it or show good aptitude you offer advanced training. Technically, the Federation already has this kinda of shit since Ro Laren was put forward for 'Advanced Training' or something just before she went AWOL. Thus the Federation does have some sort of advanced courses. It would be a case of changing the training to include things the Federation seem to lack.
Essentially, I can effectively see Stafleet being split into a Civilian / Military divide like Stargate Atlantis.


2. Giving them some kind of protection is fairly obvious. Even if it is basically a remake of modern infantry loads. How you equip them is really dependent on logistics. Using a logical progression of what has been seen in Star Trek.
- For intense combat action then a full suit body protection makes sense which results in something close to a storm trooper. The Federation has been shown to make space suits so I consider that valid depiction that they can take that platform and modify it for combat.
- If you want to cut the equipment to the minimum. Then give them all Enterprise era Pulse pistols that are update to the times and the same for the rifles. No fancy bullshit with 400 settings that do jack shit. Stun / Kill / Vaporise will do just fine. If you really want to get fancy then use all that extra space to bulk up the rifles so they are sturdy for intense combat use over a prolonged period.
- If you want to go into heavier weapons like LMGs, Sniper Rifles etc. then fair enough but that is a bit dicey to me because the weapons would be depend on what your army is suppose to do.

3 - Any starship will do but I would stick with a bulked up Defiant. Failing that the Akira class or Prometheus Class.
- Bottom line is a ship that is designed for combat and scraps the useless shit.

4 - Since all security is now trained like an army then they get placed on everything that needs security. All redshirts / gold shirts are now trained soldiers. The advanced training would produce the MACO units that get sent for high value targets or act as a separate mobile force that responds as needed.

5 - Holodecks are literally everywhere and you can do whatever you want with them. You can literally train anywhere. If you are looking for a central location then Sol makes sense since that is where Starfleet Academy is anyway.
- Training would be tons of simulations both fictional and base on real encounters Starfleet has encountered. The Federation has sensors and records shit for a reason so it kinda makes sense to take that information and use it to train people for what they might encounter.
- I do not see much sense in shuttling people around to different planets for environments unless it is part of the advanced training / final exam kind of things. Holodecks can be as large as you want them to be and if you built an independent training station you could literally alter life support to mimic various environments like gravity. The Hirogeon literally built a gigantic holodeck play park so the Feds should be able to pull that off,

6 - I can see this working like Stargate Atlantis. Anything to do with military / security falls to the ranking security person I.E Worf. Otherwise Captain Picard is in charge of everything else. I suppose it could work the other way around. Advanced units that operate their own ships would make sense as well. Ironically, this kinda solves that DS9 dude that got upset because Security folks get shafted if they want to command ships. They might not get to command Galaxy classes but with independent army ships they can progress to being in charge of a Defiant etc.

7 - Security and MACO is simple enough. Going further is certainly viable but destroys the spirit of Star Trek and harder to enact.

[biostem]

Given that Worf was able to cludge together a very limited duration personal forcefield with his communicator and some 19th-century tools on the holodeck, I wonder how hard it would be to create something more purpose-built.

[Tribble]

And speaking of Worf, I would split the roles of tactical officer and security officer into two separate jobs. It was always ridiculous watching Worf and Tuvok head off the bridge during a crisis to go deal with something. If you dealing with the ship's weapons and shields, you're the tactical officer. If you are dealing with ship's security, you're the security officer.

[biostem]

And speaking of Worf, I would split the roles of tactical officer and security officer into two separate jobs. It was always ridiculous watching Worf and Tuvok head off the bridge during a crisis to go deal with something. If you dealing with the ship's weapons and shields, you're the tactical officer. If you are dealing with ship's security, you're the security officer.

Along these same lines, would anyone happen to know if the chief engineer of a vessel would be responsible for everything from the main engine to the environmental and communications systems?

[Borgholio]

And speaking of Worf, I would split the roles of tactical officer and security officer into two separate jobs. It was always ridiculous watching Worf and Tuvok head off the bridge during a crisis to go deal with something. If you dealing with the ship's weapons and shields, you're the tactical officer. If you are dealing with ship's security, you're the security officer.

Along these same lines, would anyone happen to know if the chief engineer of a vessel would be responsible for everything from the main engine to the environmental and communications systems?

Technically yes...the maintenance and repairs of a ship would ultimately be the responsibility of a single senior officer, but the jobs would be delegated to different groups of specialists.

[SilverDragonRed]

Communications, no. That should fall under Operations. Not sure about the environmental systems; that might be science.

[biostem]

And speaking of Worf, I would split the roles of tactical officer and security officer into two separate jobs. It was always ridiculous watching Worf and Tuvok head off the bridge during a crisis to go deal with something. If you dealing with the ship's weapons and shields, you're the tactical officer. If you are dealing with ship's security, you're the security officer.

Along these same lines, would anyone happen to know if the chief engineer of a vessel would be responsible for everything from the main engine to the environmental and communications systems?

Technically yes...the maintenance and repairs of a ship would ultimately be the responsibility of a single senior officer, but the jobs would be delegated to different groups of specialists.

I guess it'd be boring if, everytime something broke on the ship, all we'd cut to was a shot of Geordi calling for an environmental team here, or a sensor specialist there...

Kind of reminds me how, in Andromeda, you'd basically see the ship take a hit, and Capt. Hunt basically calling for damage teams to respond, (which were composed of android drones, IIRC).

[Simon_Jester]

The chief engineer is likely to become closely involved in whatever repair or damage control jobs are most important, however- and those are usually the plot-critical ones.

So if the ship takes damage and the engines break, sure, Geordi is responsible for a lot of things other than the engines, but it's very likely that Geordi will be the one to personally go down and make sure the engine repairs are going as fast and smoothly as possible.

[Tribble]

The chief engineer is likely to become closely involved in whatever repair or damage control jobs are most important, however- and those are usually the plot-critical ones.

So if the ship takes damage and the engines break, sure, Geordi is responsible for a lot of things other than the engines, but it's very likely that Geordi will be the one to personally go down and make sure the engine repairs are going as fast and smoothly as possible.

Along the same lines, IMO having the security/tactical officer roles split wouldn't be boring from a narrative perspective, you'd just have to have another character. I'd rather have Tuvok stay on the bridge and have another named character deal with security/away missions than watch Neelix cook.

[Adam Reynolds]

The role problem was always one of the things I found most annoying in Star Trek. With Chain of Command probably the worst example, in which an elite commando mission includes a ship's captain, a ship's doctor, and a ship's security officer. When it comes down to it is a failure of characters to rely on delegation.

Mass Effect has a similar problem in which literally ever major character is a commando grade soldier in addition to being an engineer, biologist or archaeologist. Not to mention that the ships commanding officer personally leads every ground mission when there are a dozen fully qualified commandos that could do the mission on their own.

More generally though, this is actually epidemic to fiction in general, especially TV shows that want to make the most out of their primary casts. Look at CSI having a detective handle literally ever part of an investigation, from analyzing the crime scene and testing evidence to arresting and interrogating suspects. Or the fact that military lawyers in JAG(despite the fact that excepting the marines, they are rarely line officers*) fly fighter jets and get involved in commando raids. When it comes down to it, it is due to the fact of stories of wanting to see the main characters be the ones involved in actions.

* Which is actually a distinction the original Star Trek gets correct, McCoy mentions that he is not a line officer more than once and is largely not in a position of acting like one.

[hunter5]

Wouldn't an easy solution for both infantry armor and NCBR be solved by the Hazard suit from the Hazard Team games?

[Panashe]

How would you actually go about recruiting soldiers

Much like recruitment today. People enter the service for a variety of personal reasons, to protect others, to start their lives, to be a part of something important, travel, adventure.

How you you equip them

This would depend (of course) on what it is they would be doing, or expected to do. Some missions wouldn't require extensive equipment, and the ability traveling light could be important. One thing not mentioned (iirc) so far is a tricorder equvilent, perhaps something worn on the forearm to keep the hands free. Or it could be built into the soldier's main weapon.

What vessels would you have retrofitted or build additional

Something along the the lines of these cargo canisters, the tow ship could be operated by Starfleet, or directly by the (Star)Army. If need be they could be established in orbit (like a space station) and the tow ship sent away for other duties. The internal arrangements would vary as needed, barracks, medical facilities, command, control communications, shuttles, logistics. They could each be equipped with a small "warp core" to power orbital weapons (fire support), shields, transporters, etc..

Errand of Mercy, "... several hundred men have appeared near the citadel. They bring many weapons."

The ability to beam down several hundred soldiers simultaneously, with their equipment, would be an advantage.

Where would you station said soldiers

In addition to being a expeditionary force, the Army might be assigned to planetary defenses, ground and orbital phasers, shields, sensors, on Federation member worlds.

Another duty could be long term planetary surveys. Starfleet does it's "scan and dash," and then the Army comes in and does the multi-month/year in depth investigations.

The Army would respond to natural disasters. Starfleet might get there first, but the Army would undertake long term recovery operations.

Nothing says that Starbases are solely the domain of Starfleet, and you would see the Army there as well.

How would the chain of command function

A separate chain of command.