Who CAN the Federation Ground Troops beat?

[Stravo]

There go those "crack" Fed marines again...the ones who turned the tide at AR-whatever. The ones who did battle on Cardasia Prime? No? I guess they have to be SOMEWHERE right, they are after all millions of those Fed marines....SOMEWHERE.

[Imperial Federation]

It's sad they don't even have marines, their ground forces being Starfleet officers in those pyjama uniforms.
Officer who spent their time at Starfleet Academy learning about Exobiology and getting fluent in Latin no less

I'd just like to say that, win or lose, the very fact that this supposedly space age army is being seriously compared to Napoleonic troops and such is sad in and of itself. Poor Feddies.

[beyond hope]

I think all that needs to be said about Federation ground forces is that we're talking about the Napoleonic Army or knights on foot, and a Fed victory comes down to "do they have transporters?"

Maybe, with luck and a lot of casualties, 1000 Fed Marines could take out the Smurfs.

[Coyote]

Its been pointed out that the only time we've seen the Trek folks fight on ground, its been an "Away Team" of starship crewers with their Dustbusters o' Doom sidearms. We've never seen actual ground troopies but we can infer that there are some (although only by the barest threads of evidence) simply bcause the Fed has ben involved in a variety of wars and managed to survive intact.

But what we've seen is essentially Navy personnel that dismount their ship to do a shore landing. Suppose the bridge crew of the USS John F. Kennedy, with M9 Beretta pistols in hand, left the carrier and took a launch to an island where they were promptly wiped out by spear-wielding aboriginals? Would we say that the incompetent usage of 'technical troops' in a landing party (for which they are ill-trained) would be an accurate gauge of the effectiveness of the US Military in general? Of course not-- we'd demand a more even playing field, with more properly matched opponents.

So I have to say that the Fed Marines-- alluded to but never seen-- have got to exist in some form or another and if so, they would probably be properly trained in tactics, strategy, and so forth-- unlike the Navy/Starfleet pajama guys that the ST universe has focused on. These unseen Marines would surely pound the hell out of a pack of Napoleonics, although I'd wager that even these Marines would be shaken up considerably after the bloody, noisy carnage of 19th-Century warfare. And in their After-Action Review, they'd realize that they probably took an unacceptable amount of casualties due to this 'shock value'.

Another thing to bear in mind regarding Starfleet personnel in a fight-- Spock in TOS once stated that "Starfleet was modeled after the old United States Coast Guard"... so these guys are, at best, cops rather than combat naval forces.

My two credits worth...

[Stravo]

I don't think there is a SINGLE reference in TOS and up of the word Marine. Sure in the Dominion War they mentioned troop ships and ground troops taking ground here and there but never once the word marine. In fact whenever one of the SF officers talks about his memories of ground combat its him and other SF personnel, NEVER a mention of an army, marines etc.

[tharkûn]

1.) TOS kicks the crap out of TNG et al for ground fighting.
2.) The major problem with off-camera marines is Ar-whateverthehellthenumbers are. You have facility described as horrifically important, yet gaurded by morons and even when being resupplied by Sisko and company ... nobody brings along the bare essentials ... HMG's, mortars, bloody frag grenades, night vision goggles, *COMBAT KNIVES*, etc.

Personally I think you pretty much *have* to have *some* intelligent ground forces in the armed forces, however this position is inconsistent with AR.

Solution ... shoot B&B and 3/4ths of the writing staff.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I don't think there is a SINGLE reference in TOS and up of the word Marine. Sure in the Dominion War they mentioned troop ships and ground troops taking ground here and there but never once the word marine. In fact whenever one of the SF officers talks about his memories of ground combat its him and other SF personnel, NEVER a mention of an army, marines etc.

Like I said the only existing Starfleet ground and navel forces are in a <Bleeping? board game! SFB has many ideas that the series jacks up. Too bad starfleet wasn't more like SFB

[Isolder74]

the care bears?

[Sea Skimmer]

the care bears?

I doubt it. The Red shirts could never bring them selves to kill such cute things. However I'm willing to bet they have some pretty sharp teeth&#8230;

[Coyote]

Actually, when Trek novels first started coming out I got a bunch of them 'cause I thought they'd be cool, like some of the James Blish novelizations. I was soon to find the folly of my wishes. But there were a few that were okay, and one of them involved a pair of references to TOS.

In the book, the crew visits the Guardian of Forever (the giant glowing time-bagel) and goes back in time to retrieve a kid that Spock made with an Eskimo Babe he shacked up with briefly when he went back into some planet's ice age (TOS episode). and in the end they all end up battling it out with a bunch of Romulans who discover the Guardian of Forever and want to sieze control of it. A bunch of Federation Marines are stationed there to guard it while Fleet studies it, and the fight ensues. Feds win, of course, but no word on if Kirk had to go into Ripped Shirt Mode.

Anyhow, there's the reference that sticks out in my mind-- I can't recall the episode name and needless to say I packed away all my ST books and got rid of them long ago when I converted to StarWarsism. I know that in ST the books are not cosidered 'canon' but this book was TOS and fairly consistent with the spirit of the series, that was why I liked it. There was no Ensign Mary Jane or Super Cute Kid that Saves the Enterprise, and the way the writer presented the characters and actions of the Feds fit fairly seamlessly with TOS, or so I felt at the time.

...for what it's worth...

[beyond hope]

Some of the novels have some interesting toys that would help the Feds in this: either "Dreadnought" or "Battlestations" (I forget which) had some "field transporters" that could be deployed to a planet to provide transporter capability in the abscence of a starship overhead, as well as armored Fed Marines (and yes I had quite a few of the novels, I used to like Trek before TNG.) The unpublished Dominion Wars sourcebook for the ST roleplaying game also had some interesting ideas like repulsortanks and tripod-mounted support phasers that would make ST ground combat a *lot* more interesting. Too bad all that EU stuff for ST is "unofficial"... it would spice the debate up.

On an incidental note, I heard an explanation for the infamous redcoats. It was explained to me as a psychological tool: blood would not show as well on the red fabric, so the morale of conscripts would not suffer so badly when their comerades start getting torn apart by cannons or musket fire (it doesn't explain the damn white belts forming a "shoot me!" cross over the chest.) Red also has been determined to have an impact on people viewing it: bright reds cause the pulse of the viewer to rise. That's why you always see blues and greens in places like psych wards, they're "soothing" colors.

[starfury]

The unpublished Dominion Wars sourcebook for the ST roleplaying game also had some interesting ideas like repulsortanks and tripod-mounted support phasers that would make ST ground combat a *lot* more interesting. Too bad all that EU stuff for ST is "unofficial"... it would spice the debate up.

seems alot like the b5 EU, the b5 wars Gropos had various types of tanks for the major powers, they would at least provide a actual visual referece for b5 as opposed to just the VTOl seen in "Gropos".

[Sea Skimmer]

On an incidental note, I heard an explanation for the infamous redcoats. It was explained to me as a psychological tool: blood would not show as well on the red fabric, so the morale of conscripts would not suffer so badly when their comerades start getting torn apart by cannons or musket fire (it doesn't explain the damn white belts forming a "shoot me!" cross over the chest.) Red also has been determined to have an impact on people viewing it: bright reds cause the pulse of the viewer to rise. That's why you always see blues and greens in places like psych wards, they're "soothing" colors.

That&#8217;s pretty stupid, some dark Blue shades wont even show blood as a wet spot, which is why they are used for executions by firing squad. Dark blue would also blend in at least a little better then bright red in most terrain.

What the make the enemies pulse rise? Shoot at them with a machine gun, a real one so they can hear the sonic booms of the bullets going by and see dust being kicked up around them.

[Coyote]

On an incidental note, I heard an explanation for the infamous redcoats. It was explained to me as a psychological tool: blood would not show as well on the red fabric, so the morale of conscripts would not suffer so badly when their comerades start getting torn apart by cannons or musket fire .

Okay, I can't resist-- the RED SHIRT JOKE...

One day Captain Picard is cruising through space and spots a Cardassian warship. He turns to one of his Ensign Swabbies and says, "Ensign, fetch me my Red Shirt."
"Aye, Captain," the Ensign says, "But why do you need your Red Shirt, sir?"
"Well, if I am wounded, the crew will not see me bleeding, and lose their courage." The Ensign thinks this is a capital idea and fetches the Captain's Red Shirt.

The next day, they spot a Romulan Warbird and again th Captain says, "Ensign, fetch me my Red Shirt so the crew will not see me bleed and lose their courage." The Ensign does so and again their attack is a success.

The day after that they spot a Borg cube and again Picard says, "Ensign, bring my Red Shirt so the crew will not see me bleed." Of course, the attack is a great success.

And finlly, the Enterprise hurtled through space and suddenly there appeared before them the ISD Chimera. "Ensign," Picard says, "Fetch my my BROWN PANTS."

--Heeheehee

[Master of Ossus]

I find it more likely that red shirts were originally worn to help make the troops MORE visible. Remember that stealth back in the era of lobster-backs was considered to be more or less irrelevent, as "real men" fought battles in tight ranks and files that were impossible to conceal anyway. Thus, visibility during combat would actually help, because soldiers who were lost during a charge or who lost their bearings while moving through black-powder smoke might have been able to relocate their comrades. Also, visibility allowed Generals to instantly recognize where their troops were, and send orders accordingly, even to small groups of soldiers who did not carry colors, or who were part of a larger group which for some reason did not have their colors with them. Thus, the red coats are now kind of a symbol of a bygone era of combat, during which visibility was a strength rather than a weakness.

[Coyote]

The explanation I heard was that the red (and blue, and green, etc) went along with the big hats and plumes that the troops wear. They look comical today, but in the days when an entire battle front was less than a mile wide, all the bright coats and different-shaped hat plumes allowed the general from the nearby hilltop to see at a glance where his fdifferent formations were. In other words, it was a command-and-control device.

Standing up and fighting in a courageous fashion probably had little to do with it, really. They fought in standing formations because it was best to mass firepower and make up for the inaccurcy of individual musket balls, plus, once those big long spike bayonets were fixed, the riflemen could form squares and become ersatz pikemen once enemy cavalry approached.

Once the rifled musket and the minie ball and finally the conical bullet appeared, that stand-and-fight formation became an express ticket to the afterlife for all involved. The Confederates found that with their mostly dun-colored clothing (not so much grey) they blended in with the terrain easier, which the Union Bluebelly troops did not...

History Coyote

[Patrick Ogaard]

Red wool coats, along with blue wool coats and bleached white linen breeches, were used for two reasons: expense and identification.

Before aniline dyes and other wonders of chemistry, most affordable dyes could not be fixed in a manner that resisted more than a cleaning or two before fading visibly. Blues and reds were cheap and affordable and resisted fading. That would be the reason why the US Marines, whose uniforms were originally forest green, soon switched to dark blue like the Royal Marines. It is also the reason why Confederate soldiers often wore uniforms that were a brownish-gray color called butternut: the cheap dyes quickly washed out of the uniforms, leaving the butternut color.

(Incidentally, this is also the reason why American barns are almost universally red: red paint just happened to be the cheapest color of paint available in bulk.)

Camouflage was not a consideration, except for sharpshooter and ranger units like those maintained by many militaries of Europe as well as the US during the 18th and 19th centuries. The troops of those units often wore forest green uniforms, of which the better types were made colorfast with expensive mordants.

Regarding identification, black gunpowder quickly obscured the battlefield with its thick clouds of opaque smoke, and battlefield communications were primitive and made more difficult by the noise of gunfire reducing the utility of voice commands. Entire battalions of troops armed with smoothbore muskets had to fire en masse on enemy battalions to have a reasonable chance of inflicting casualties at ranges of 150 meters or less. Smoothbore muskets are effective against individual targets only at ranges of 50 meters or less, a range easily covered by a bayonet charge while an enemy is trying to reload. Reloading a musket or blackpowder cannon is a full-time occupation leaving no time for other considerations, and in the haze of battle it was easy to get confused and subject friendly forces to fire, a condition that distinctive uniforms and conspicuous banners helped work against. Bright, contrasting colors like white on red or white on blue made troops distinctive and visible, reducing the likelihood of their own allies shooting them to pieces.

[Coyote]

Yeah, my thought on the Confedertae use of 'camouflage' was that it was an accidental discovery, due to the dun-coloring (or 'butternut' as you said) of their uniforms-- an incidental thing that turned out to be handy.

But as for smoothbore musketry, there are a lot of sources, but the one I am working off of is "The Napoleonic Sourcebook" by Philip Hawthornethwaite. He uses a historical reference, a letter written by an 0fficer, to note that 'the average un-trained musketeer has difficulty engaging targets accurately beyond a hundred yards, but the well-drilled musketmen can obtain hits a majority of the time at ranges as great as 300 yards'. I can find the actual quote and bring it in...

Of course, the German Jaeger-Meisters knew tha value of camo and used it in their green hunting leathers; and by the time the Civil War rolled around in the US people were beginning to use powder that didn't generate so much smoke when fired-- although I understand that the Civil War was a curious mix of both rifled and smoothbore muskets, and the percussion cap (less smoky by design) had largely taken hold among the rank-and-file...

[Witness]

If nobody has said it before.. the Taliban?

.. Nah. A couple twenty people in a desert setting wearing earthtones and donning Kalashnikovs would easily dominate a couple of red/black-shirted ninnys with a 'gun' that doesn't even have as simple an aiming device as iron sights. I'm surprised they can accurately aim the thing at all beyond 20 feet.

And yes, I am aware of the existence of rifles in ST, I'm just now getting back into the loop of things, so pardon any ignorance.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

The Fed marines could overwhelm a small SW-based opposing force so long as they used the principle of mass, much as the Chinese soldiers during the Korean War did against UN forces (also called the "human wave") -- similar to what the Soviets did against German forces in WW2. A better than three-to-one advantage would be necessary, and given the offset abilities of weapon systems, that advantage would likely require at least five-to-one (current SOSE operations conventionally call for a nine-to-one advantage).

That would require a significant advantage in numbers of troops and the will of those troops to sacrifice themselves for a cause, heedless of casualties. An interesting example was when Turkish soldiers would wrap themselves completely in leather in order to charge machine guns and deliver a grenade. the leather wrappings served only to maintain integrity of the soldier's body, while machine gun bullets ripped into his organs, just long enough for him to reach his objective.

Additionally, if the marines could achieve total tactical surprise, they could engage an opposing force before they were prepared for combat.

Wrong. E-Webs, grenades, and armour would slaughter them easily.

[Master of Ossus]

GAT, don't forget all of the weapons from Dark Forces and the Jedi Knight games that kill lots of people real fast. Also recall their other repeating weapons, like the light repeating blaster seen briefly in ANH.

I actually think that the point is reasonable, it would just be incredibly impractical to mass the sheer number of Feddie soldiers required to kill a group of stormtroopers. I would be astonished if it took less than a ten to one number advantage for the Federation to overwhelm stormtroopers, and it probably takes as many as fifteen or twenty to one numbers up situations. Considering that the UFP would be facing hundreds or even thousands to one numerical DISadvantages if there was a war with the Empire, they would have no chance of winning any but the most localized engagements, and even there they could only win temporarily.

[Patrick Ogaard]

Yeah, my thought on the Confedertae use of 'camouflage' was that it was an accidental discovery, due to the dun-coloring (or 'butternut' as you said) of their uniforms-- an incidental thing that turned out to be handy.

But as for smoothbore musketry, there are a lot of sources, but the one I am working off of is "The Napoleonic Sourcebook" by Philip Hawthornethwaite. He uses a historical reference, a letter written by an 0fficer, to note that 'the average un-trained musketeer has difficulty engaging targets accurately beyond a hundred yards, but the well-drilled musketmen can obtain hits a majority of the time at ranges as great as 300 yards'. I can find the actual quote and bring it in...

Of course, the German Jaeger-Meisters knew tha value of camo and used it in their green hunting leathers; and by the time the Civil War rolled around in the US people were beginning to use powder that didn't generate so much smoke when fired-- although I understand that the Civil War was a curious mix of both rifled and smoothbore muskets, and the percussion cap (less smoky by design) had largely taken hold among the rank-and-file...

I think we're in agreement. Rifled muskets used by well-drilled soldiers should have had no trouble hitting a human-sized target more often than not at 100 to 300 yards.

The Civil War was also apparently one of the first conflicts in which troops discovered that enemies with rifle-muskets, Henry rifles, revolvers and other modern conveniences made the old system of "stand and deliver" in ordered ranks pure suicide, and the ability to pick out individual targets made colorful field uniforms less popular as the war went on. It also made officers on horseback favorite targets of snipers.

As for the odd mix of weapons old and new during that conflict, Robert E. Lee at one point was supposed to have proposed recruiting regiments of pikemen to make up for the lack of arms in the Confederacy. Pikemen standing against rifle-muskets, repeating rifles and 12-pounders would likely have been slaughtered to a man.

[Coyote]

Another thinga about Fed Marines vs. Stormies--

It is said that the Feds would have to apply 'human wave' tactics but lets face it, that is not Federation style. Their philosophy of warfighting places a great deal of value on sapient life and they would rather see masses of live troops in PW camps than masses of dead ones in a futile cause or a Pyrrhic victory.

But in SW, I'd say that it is more likely that the battle-hardened troops of the Empire, constantly fighting inurrections and seing pain and suffering on a planetary scale, would not hold back in this way. They are WARRIORS, whereas the troops of Trek are SOLDIERS. The Stormies, I'm sure we can agree, would not be put off by the thunder and carnage of the 19-th century battlefield and would suffer no negative morale effects in such an environment as the Feds would.

The Feds read Machiavelli; the Empirials read Sun Tzu and Clausweitz.

[Master of Ossus]

Federation tactics don't appear to place any value on human lives. The Federation (and other ST soldiers) forces refuse to move in organized groups ignore cover, do not participate in ANY simple combat maneuvers (ie. flanking), and frequently take up exposed positions for no reason. They also do not appear to even take up prone positions when given the chance, and sometimes do not even flex their legs to provide smaller profiles. They completely disregard firing angles and frequently do participate in human wave tactics, except with a large group of very small waves when one wave would overwhelm their enemies.

The people writing, acting, and directing ST have no concept of tactics.

[Howedar]

But in SW, I'd say that it is more likely that the battle-hardened troops of the Empire, constantly fighting inurrections and seing pain and suffering on a planetary scale, would not hold back in this way. They are WARRIORS, whereas the troops of Trek are SOLDIERS.

I couldn't disagree more. Soldiers are a group of trained individuals who work together to achieve a military goal. Warriors are untrained individualistic barbarians who have no concept of teamwork, combined arms tactics, or anything else. Oddly enough, Federation "marines" are more warriors than soldiers.

This has no effect on the basic point that the Feddies would be slaughtered of course.