Traveller: Army versus Marine versus Navy
Spm073
branches of Army, Navy and Marine (and any others ive left out?)
Im slowly working on my campaign but was wondering how large some of these
units would be and how they would fit together:
Crew of a starship-
Crew of a dropship-
Basic Marine units-
Marine Spec ops units-
Also what ranks apply to the leaders, XOs, etc of each group?
Im sure some of these will be answered in Ground Forces, but I could use any
help possible now to flesh out my campaign while im waiting to buy GF.
Bryan J. Maloney
(Spm073) wrote:
> Can someone explain to me the differences between each of the Imperium's
> branches of Army, Navy and Marine (and any others ive left out?)
The army walks around on a planet and kills anything on it.
The navy flies around between planets and kills anything there and
anything they can reach from there.
The marines do the navy's messy jobs.
Look at US military forces. They were obviously the model for those three
Traveller forces.
--
For those in the know, a potrzebie is a necessity.
Gregory L. Hansen
There are marines, and there are Marines. The United States Marine Corps
is an elite fighting force. Marines are ship-borne troops, which the USMC
also happens to be. But when every single soldier has to be ferried on a
starship and dropped or shuttled to the planet surface, it almost seems
like they're all marines. Except that Army wouldn't have permanent
positions aboard ships, while some Marines would.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Bryan J. Maloney
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> There are marines, and there are Marines. The United States Marine Corps
> is an elite fighting force. Marines are ship-borne troops, which the USMC
Y'see, according to Uncle Sam's Misbegotten Children, the USMC is an elite
fighting force. According to the Boatie Boys, the USN is an elite
fighting force. According to the Ditch-Digging Corps, the US Army is an
elite fighting force. According to the Air Farce, the USAF is an elite
fighting force.
It seems that we have nothing but elite fighting forces around here.
Gregory L. Hansen
Well, yeah. Certain units of the aforementioned may be elite (Rangers,
SEALs, etc.), but mostly they're just servicemen with recruiters. But I
think the USMC really is what they claim. At least, they're usually
listed in books on elite fighting forces.
Douglas Berry
spm...@aol.com (Spm073) warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>Can someone explain to me the differences between each of the Imperium's
>branches of Army, Navy and Marine (and any others ive left out?)
Well, you could always go get GT Ground Forces.. I wrote ~96,000 words
on the subject there; and I could use the 27 cents. :)
>Crew of a starship-
The ship would be crewed by Imperial Navy, with a Marine Force
complement either for security, or performing other shipboard duties.
Some vessels have Marine gun crews.
>Crew of a dropship-
By "dropship" are you referring to ships that carry jump troops for
meteoric entry, or a "landing craft" type vessel? The former is
crewed by the Navy, and such crews are looked upon as odd by the rest
of the fleet. The latter are also crewed by the Navy, but there are
examples where Marine or Army crews have been employed.
>Basic Marine units-
Each regiment is a pool of smaller component units that are formed
into task forces tailored to a specific mission.
>Marine Spec ops units-
The Marine Commandos. You are not cleared for what they spend their
time doing.
>Also what ranks apply to the leaders, XOs, etc of each group?
That's way too big a question! Leadership ranks run from a Corporal
leading a fire team to the Subsector Marshal commanding millions of
troops on a few dozen worlds!
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>Look at US military forces. They were obviously the model for those three
>Traveller forces.
The feel is actually more British. And in GF, I added in numerous
other influences.
Bryan J. Maloney
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> In article <bjm10-06030...@potato.bti.cornell.edu>,
> Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >In article <983b2i$3f9$3...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> >glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >
> >> There are marines, and there are Marines. The United States Marine Corps
> >> is an elite fighting force. Marines are ship-borne troops, which the USMC
> >
> >Y'see, according to Uncle Sam's Misbegotten Children, the USMC is an elite
> >fighting force. According to the Boatie Boys, the USN is an elite
> >fighting force. According to the Ditch-Digging Corps, the US Army is an
> >elite fighting force. According to the Air Farce, the USAF is an elite
> >fighting force.
> >
> >It seems that we have nothing but elite fighting forces around here.
>
> Well, yeah. Certain units of the aforementioned may be elite (Rangers,
> SEALs, etc.), but mostly they're just servicemen with recruiters. But I
> think the USMC really is what they claim. At least, they're usually
> listed in books on elite fighting forces.
USMC Recon is an elite force. It's not possible to have a truly elite
force as large as the USMC. Don't buy all the propaganda.
Bryan J. Maloney
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:20:05 -0500, a wanderer, known to us only as
> bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
>
> >Look at US military forces. They were obviously the model for those three
> >Traveller forces.
>
> The feel is actually more British. And in GF, I added in numerous
> other influences.
With the original Traveller, all the vets who I played with seemed to feel
it was very USA in flavor.
Tim Pollard
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-06030...@potato.bti.cornell.edu...
American vets or British vets? <g>
I guess it all comes down to whose cultural influences shaped your games.
Mark Miller comes from a naval family IIRC, and I'd guess the majority of US
players and GMs would also be more familiar and comfortable with a US style
interpretation (if only from movies and TV). I'd like to picture (for
instance) the Imperial Navy as the Royal Navy, being British myself, but
then again it would be enormously tricky not to be influenced by Star Wars,
US WW2 war movies (as well as our own) and even US TV series like (God help
us) 'JAG'.
--
Regards
Tim Pollard
www.timpollard.com
"The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it
made..."
--- Groucho Marx (1890-1977)
Shawn Wilson
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-06030...@potato.bti.cornell.edu...
> > Well, yeah. Certain units of the aforementioned may be elite (Rangers,
> > SEALs, etc.), but mostly they're just servicemen with recruiters. But I
> > think the USMC really is what they claim. At least, they're usually
> > listed in books on elite fighting forces.
>
> USMC Recon is an elite force. It's not possible to have a truly elite
> force as large as the USMC. Don't buy all the propaganda.
From what I gathered in my time in service, Marines aren't quite as good as
Army Light Infantry. At least that's what a trainer at one of the schools
both units attend (JOTC) said. He specifically mentioned one difference
being the tempo and pace of operations. Marine units would execute daily
and suffer massive 'casualties' (it is basically laser tag after all) in the
process. Light infantry units would execute every other day (plan and
rehearse on one day, execute on the next) but suffer much fewer
'casualties'. Not that that's a bad thing, when you need the door kicked in
NOW, call the Marines. When you need sustained operations, call the Army.
Of course, light infantry soldiers are unquestionably tougher than Marines.
We (no, I am not entirely unbiased) went everywhere on our own two feet
carrying all our gear. We didn't ride like namby-pamby Marines. Light
infantry units don't have organic transportation. (that's the concept,
maximum air transportability, anywhere in the world 48 hours after getting
the call) (not that there weren't helicopter and truck units available
should the need arise)
David Johnston
The major distinction would be that that Marines would be the first-in troops,
while the Army would follow up after the establishment of the beachhead (or
defend against the establishment of a beachhead). Thus Imperial Marines would
be an "elite" force, with special training and higher casualties. Of course
Marines would also have the job of doing any boarding actions and naval installation
defense.
Xiphias Gladius
>> Well, yeah. Certain units of the aforementioned may be elite (Rangers,
>> SEALs, etc.), but mostly they're just servicemen with recruiters. But I
>> think the USMC really is what they claim. At least, they're usually
>> listed in books on elite fighting forces.
> USMC Recon is an elite force. It's not possible to have a truly elite
> force as large as the USMC. Don't buy all the propaganda.
One possibly significant question would be, "Elite compared to whom?"
According to the CIA Factbook for 2000, the United States has an estimated
fertility rate of 2.06 children per woman -- a reasonable and sustainable
growth rate in my opinion, allowing on average plenty of parental
involvement, and resources devoted per child.
Somalia, on the other hand, has an estimated fertility rate of 7.16
children per woman.
This suggests to me, anyway, that if the United States gets into an armed
conflict with Somalia (as we have been), we need to make sure that *one*
of our soldiers can handle *several* of theirs.
Okay, it's not that simple: we've got a larger population base; however,
when you have as low a fertility rate as we do, you get disproportionately
fewer soldiers, and you have a tendency to be unwilling to accept
casualties.
Still, while the US has perhaps a little over 2 million soldiers, Somalia
has a little under 1 million. Heck, Kenya has about 4 million
soldiers. Rwanda (fertility rate 5+ children per woman) has nearly a
million people in their military, and they're smaller than Maryland.
What does this mean? This means that an American force going up any of a
number of African forces has *got* to be more effective on a per-soldier
basis than they are.
And I think most people suspect that if, say, the United States and Kenya
got into a war, the US would probably win, even though their military is
twice the size of ours.
Does that make American forces "elite"? No, probably not by any really
sensible definition of the term.
But they're "more elite" than any number of third world countries'.
- Ian
--
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. -- Ambrose Bierce
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
st3ph3nm
<3AA555...@telusplanet.net> :
>>
>
>The major distinction would be that that Marines would be the first-in troops,
>while the Army would follow up after the establishment of the beachhead (or
>defend against the establishment of a beachhead).
Not necessarily. IIRC, the USMC had little or no presence at the establishment of the beachheads on D-day, in Europe. However, they were VERY active in the Pacific theatre, where they were clearing islands. I guess it depends on the expectations of the mission. For Europe, it was land, and then walk for a LONG distance. The Marine's specialist landing/beach-head role would have had limited use in that theatre. When you're island hopping, however, there's little use in establishing a beach head, letting the Army clean up, and then moving on. Once you're on, you're on, and it (should) take relatively little time to secure the island, and then you're back on a boat.
So, for Traveller, I guess if it involves a full scale invasion and hold scenario, then it'd more likely be the Army taking the main role, with the Navy acting as orbital fire support and transport. Whereas a quicker, land & fight & bug out scenario might be better suited to the Marines. It probably also depends a little on which service is trying to look good for next years budget...
>Thus Imperial Marines would
>be an "elite" force, with special training and higher casualties.
Well, I'm sure the Army would have their special forces types, too.
>Of course
>Marines would also have the job of doing any boarding actions and naval >installation
>defense.
>
Absolutely.
Cheers,
Steve
______\____
:/_()_____()_;
>
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
st3ph3nm
<bjm10-06030...@potato.bti.cornell.edu> :
>it was very USA in flavor.
>
CHMC
Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote in article
<pwdp6.7041$E57.2...@news4.aus1.giganews.com>...
I think that we would beat Somalia based on our technology, rather than any
particular soldier studliness. Their numbers don't mean much if the other
side flies over their heads spraying them with napalm, or launches missiles
from a distance.
Xiphias Gladius
> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote in article
>> What does this mean? This means that an American force going up any of a
>> number of African forces has *got* to be more effective on a per-soldier
>> basis than they are.
>>
>> And I think most people suspect that if, say, the United States and Kenya
>> got into a war, the US would probably win, even though their military is
>> twice the size of ours.
>>
>> Does that make American forces "elite"? No, probably not by any really
>> sensible definition of the term.
>>
>> But they're "more elite" than any number of third world countries'.
> I think that we would beat Somalia based on our technology, rather than any
> particular soldier studliness. Their numbers don't mean much if the other
> side flies over their heads spraying them with napalm, or launches missiles
> from a distance.
No doubt. But isn't superior equipment part of what makes an elite force
elite? And isn't superior training another part?
Douglas Berry
>Y'see, according to Uncle Sam's Misbegotten Children, the USMC is an elite
>fighting force. According to the Boatie Boys, the USN is an elite
>fighting force. According to the Ditch-Digging Corps, the US Army is an
>elite fighting force. According to the Air Farce, the USAF is an elite
>fighting force.
Exsqueeze me? As a former Dogface, let me assure that most of the
Army is under no illusion about our status.
There are elite units, like the Special Forces and the Rangers, and
some units that have a level of notoriety to them, such as the 82nd
Airborne or the 3rd US Infantry, but we aren't all elite.
Joseph Michael Bay
It's easy to tell that, because they all wear black berets.
--
Joe Bay We are the Stanford University.
Space Robot University We are here to protect you.
Palo Alto CA
Rupert Boleyn
I always saw them as being modelled on the British military of the Age
of Sail period. This explains why the Army was never seen in my old
Trav games.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Rupert Boleyn
<shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Of course, light infantry soldiers are unquestionably tougher than Marines.
>We (no, I am not entirely unbiased) went everywhere on our own two feet
>carrying all our gear. We didn't ride like namby-pamby Marines. Light
>infantry units don't have organic transportation. (that's the concept,
>maximum air transportability, anywhere in the world 48 hours after getting
>the call) (not that there weren't helicopter and truck units available
>should the need arise)
Typical US - over-equipped with transport. :) Helicopters for
infantry? What do you think you are? Birds? Come join us Kiwis - 120
lb loads (before extras) and trucks that only take you halfway (so you
don't get soft). Such fun.
Rupert Boleyn
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 06 Mar 2001 16:04:37 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
>spm...@aol.com (Spm073) warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>
>>Can someone explain to me the differences between each of the Imperium's
>>branches of Army, Navy and Marine (and any others ive left out?)
>
>Well, you could always go get GT Ground Forces.. I wrote ~96,000 words
>on the subject there; and I could use the 27 cents. :)
On order, so when the (Aussie) distributor gets off his backside...
Rupert Boleyn
<donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote:
>bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote in article
><bjm10-06030...@potato.bti.cornell.edu> :
>>With the original Traveller, all the vets who I played with seemed to feel
>>it was very USA in flavor.
>>
>Perhaps because US military organisation was based on a British model?
In some ways, yes. In others, no. This is especially obvious in Army
and Air force NCO structures. It takes a _lot_ longer to get to
Sergeant in a British style force than a US style force, and the
duties, etc of Sergeants and below are also different. As a Lance
Corporal in the NZ Army I was acting as a Section Commander
(theoretically a Corporal's job), which I understand is often a
Sergeant's job in the US military (correct me if I'm wrong).
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>It's easy to tell that, because they all wear black berets.
Ha! Our infantry are all green berets. Does this mean that we're all
as elite as we always thought we were?
Tim Pollard
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:984uab$1...@epic1.Stanford.EDU...
> bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
>
> >In article <983b2i$3f9$3...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> >glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
> >> There are marines, and there are Marines. The United States Marine
Corps
> >> is an elite fighting force. Marines are ship-borne troops, which the
USMC
>
> >Y'see, according to Uncle Sam's Misbegotten Children, the USMC is an
elite
> >fighting force. According to the Boatie Boys, the USN is an elite
> >fighting force. According to the Ditch-Digging Corps, the US Army is an
> >elite fighting force. According to the Air Farce, the USAF is an elite
> >fighting force.
>
> >It seems that we have nothing but elite fighting forces around here.
>
>
> It's easy to tell that, because they all wear black berets.
But so do the French.
Joseph Michael Bay
>> >It seems that we have nothing but elite fighting forces around here.
>>
>>
>> It's easy to tell that, because they all wear black berets.
>But so do the French.
TH3 FR3NCH R N0T 3L33T!!11!!! TH3 FR3NCH SUX0R!!!1!!
Mirko Armelyan
> > I think that we would beat Somalia based on our technology, rather than
any
> > particular soldier studliness. Their numbers don't mean much if the
other
> > side flies over their heads spraying them with napalm, or launches
missiles
> > from a distance.
>
> No doubt. But isn't superior equipment part of what makes an elite force
> elite? And isn't superior training another part?
It is a rather interesting example. But it doesn't take into account
several very important considerations, such as:
- intensity of the confrontation
- diverging "victory conditions" definitions
- motivation
- intelligence.
If we define the last time American soldiers were in Africa as a
low-intensity war, and we consider that the two sides had rather different
definitions of victory, we have to agree the American forces were utterly
defeated, notwithstanding superior technology, firepower, equipment and
training (most of the losses were incurred by one of those elite units,
BTW).
On the other hand, the American forces would have fared better with more
accurate intelligence; although, in the long run, I suspect the final
outcome would have been similar to what happened.
The same can be said about Vietnam. In that case, the USA _did_ spray
napalm and fire missiles from a distance, and yet lost the war.
So, if we role-play as space marines, we should remember equipment,
training, motivation and intelligence have to be adequate for what our
planners consider the right intensity and for achieving the victory
conditions we want. The Skinnies' planet could have been nuked from the
space, right? But that wasn't the right intensity and would not have
achieved the victory conditions the generals intended.
Regards,
Mirko
Tim Pollard
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> "Tim Pollard" <timpo...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> >> >It seems that we have nothing but elite fighting forces around here.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's easy to tell that, because they all wear black berets.
>
>
> >But so do the French.
>
>
> TH3 FR3NCH R N0T 3L33T!!11!!! TH3 FR3NCH SUX0R!!!1!!
But not only do they wear black berets, they ride bicycles, wear stripey
shirts and have onions around their necks.
Surely they are to be feared, nonetheless.... <g>
Shawn Wilson
"Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3aa60241...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> >Perhaps because US military organisation was based on a British model?
>
> In some ways, yes. In others, no. This is especially obvious in Army
> and Air force NCO structures. It takes a _lot_ longer to get to
> Sergeant in a British style force than a US style force, and the
> duties, etc of Sergeants and below are also different. As a Lance
> Corporal in the NZ Army I was acting as a Section Commander
> (theoretically a Corporal's job), which I understand is often a
> Sergeant's job in the US military (correct me if I'm wrong).
Since I'm not sure what a 'section' is in NZ, in the US-
Enlisted are Private E-1 (fresh recruit, <6 months), Private E-2, Private
First Class E-3, Specialist E-4.
Fireteams (3-4 men) are led by Corporals E-4 (same pay as Specialist, but an
NCO) or Sergeants E-5.
Squads (2 fireteams) are led by Staff Sergeants E-6 or (rarely) Sergeants
E-5.
Platoons (3 squads) are led by a Platoon Sergeant E-7 or (rarely) Staff
Sergeant E-6.
(E-7s who aren't the senior NCO in a platoon are called Sergeants First
Class)
(platoons and higher are actually led by officers, but the phrasing is
awkward)
Companies are led by First Sergeants E-8 or (rarely) Platoon Sergeants E-7
Battalions, brigades, divisions, corps, etc are led by Command Sergeants
Major E-9. A battalion might (rarely) have its senior enlisted be an E-8
First Sergeant, but higher units won't.
(E-9s who aren't senior enlisted in a battalion, etc are just Sergeants
Major)
The senior enlisted of the entire US Army is Sergeant Major of the Army, but
he's still only an E-9.
(there ain't no such thing as an E-10)
Enlisted are addressed as 'hey you' (formally- Private or Specialist)
Corporals are addressed as Corporal
E-5s through E-7s are addressed as 'Sergeant'.
E-8's are 'First Sergeant' (occasionally 'Top' if he leads a company AND he
doesn't object to being called 'Top')
("Do I look like I'm spinning on my ass?" "No, First Sergeant . . .")
E-9s are addressed as Sergeant Major.
Bryan Maloney
>I think that we would beat Somalia based on our technology, rather than
You mean, just like we beat North Viet Nam?
Bryan Maloney
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> There are marines, and there are Marines. The United States Marine
>> Corps is an elite fighting force. Marines are ship-borne troops,
>> which the USMC also happens to be. But when every single soldier has
>> to be ferried on a starship and dropped or shuttled to the planet
>> surface, it almost seems like they're all marines. Except that Army
>> wouldn't have permanent positions aboard ships, while some Marines
>> would.
>
>The major distinction would be that that Marines would be the first-in
>troops, while the Army would follow up after the establishment of the
>beachhead (or defend against the establishment of a beachhead). Thus
Oh, right, there were NO army forces hitting the beaches under fire at
Normandy. Likewise, all that slogging through Europe to the Rhine and
beyond didn't actually happen. There was the beach, three yards, and
Berlin.
Kevin Lee
And don't you dare make the mistake of calling them anything else...
<shudder>
K.
Kevin Lee
> on the subject there; and I could use the 27 cents. :)
>
Well, he did say he was buying it... :) here's yer .27.
<duck>
Gregory L. Hansen
st3ph3nm <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote:
>David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in article
><3AA555...@telusplanet.net> :
>>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>
>>The major distinction would be that that Marines would be the first-in troops,
>>while the Army would follow up after the establishment of the beachhead (or
>>defend against the establishment of a beachhead).
>
>Not necessarily. IIRC, the USMC had little or no presence at the
>establishment of the beachheads on D-day, in Europe. However, they were
>VERY active in the Pacific theatre, where they were clearing islands. I
>guess it depends on the expectations of the mission. For Europe, it was
>land, and then walk for a LONG distance. The Marine's specialist
>landing/beach-head role would have had limited use in that theatre.
>When you're island hopping, however, there's little use in establishing
>a beach head, letting the Army clean up, and then moving on. Once
>you're on, you're on, and it (should) take relatively little time to
>secure the island, and then you're back on a boat.
As a minor historical note, the point of "island hopping" was to *not*
secure the island before you move on. That would have taken far too much
time. They established a beachhead and then moved on to the next island
before the last island was secure.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Gregory L. Hansen
And Marines in Vietnam that didn't do a whole lot on the beaches.
Gregory L. Hansen
Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Well, yeah. Certain units of the aforementioned may be elite (Rangers,
>>> SEALs, etc.), but mostly they're just servicemen with recruiters. But I
>>> think the USMC really is what they claim. At least, they're usually
>>> listed in books on elite fighting forces.
>
>> USMC Recon is an elite force. It's not possible to have a truly elite
>> force as large as the USMC. Don't buy all the propaganda.
>
>One possibly significant question would be, "Elite compared to whom?"
>
>According to the CIA Factbook for 2000, the United States has an estimated
>fertility rate of 2.06 children per woman -- a reasonable and sustainable
>growth rate in my opinion, allowing on average plenty of parental
>involvement, and resources devoted per child.
>
>Somalia, on the other hand, has an estimated fertility rate of 7.16
>children per woman.
>
>This suggests to me, anyway, that if the United States gets into an armed
>conflict with Somalia (as we have been), we need to make sure that *one*
>of our soldiers can handle *several* of theirs.
It's a long, long war if fertility matters.
Douglas Berry
jm...@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) warmed at our fire and told
this tale:
>It's easy to tell that, because they all wear black berets.
Heresy! And if W actually does something about this, he might
actually get my respect!
(For the uninitiated.. in the US Army, only Rangers were black berets.
But now they want *everyone* to have them as standard headgear for
reasons best described as bullshit. Needless to say, the Ranger
Association is royally pissed off, as are most of us who actually
earned that piece of felt.)
Xiphias Gladius
> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>>According to the CIA Factbook for 2000, the United States has an estimated
>>fertility rate of 2.06 children per woman -- a reasonable and sustainable
>>growth rate in my opinion, allowing on average plenty of parental
>>involvement, and resources devoted per child.
>>
>>Somalia, on the other hand, has an estimated fertility rate of 7.16
>>children per woman.
>>
>>This suggests to me, anyway, that if the United States gets into an armed
>>conflict with Somalia (as we have been), we need to make sure that *one*
>>of our soldiers can handle *several* of theirs.
> It's a long, long war if fertility matters.
Fertility rates *always* matter -- because they determine how a culture
sees human life, and influence the culture's attitudes towards war.
If the United States lost 20 soldiers while taking out 1,000 enemy
soldiers, we might well have a feeling back home that "our boys are dying
-- bring them home."
Douglas Berry
"Mirko Armelyan" <mia...@tin.it> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>If we define the last time American soldiers were in Africa as a
>low-intensity war, and we consider that the two sides had rather different
>definitions of victory, we have to agree the American forces were utterly
>defeated, notwithstanding superior technology, firepower, equipment and
>training (most of the losses were incurred by one of those elite units,
>BTW).
Once again, we were hamstrung by inadequate rules of engagement, and a
mandate to do things that we weren't really able to do.
Had the Rangers been given carte blanche to do what needed to be done,
Adeed would have been taken. There would have been hundreds of
civilian casualties, but we would have succeeded in the mission.
But that wouldn't have played well on the evening news, so a ROE was
in place that pretty much ordered everyone not to shoot if there was
even a chance of hitting a "non-combatant." If you could find a
non-combatant in Mogi at that time, I'll pin all my medals on you.
>On the other hand, the American forces would have fared better with more
>accurate intelligence; although, in the long run, I suspect the final
>outcome would have been similar to what happened.
Well, if you are outnumbered 50-1, and are completely surrounded, I
don't think that any unit could have done better than the Rangers and
Delta did under the circumstances.
>
>The same can be said about Vietnam. In that case, the USA _did_ spray
>napalm and fire missiles from a distance, and yet lost the war.
Once again, because of political considerations. We let the enemy
have safe bases to retreat too, and never brought the full weight of
the military into the fight.
Imagine a situation where the US declares the Gulf of Tonkin a war
zone, and starts sinking ships heading for Haipong, the 3rd Marines
start fighting up through the southern reaches of North Vietnam, and
the 82nd Airborne is preparing for a mass tactical drop near Hanoi.
Oh, and when we left? There wasn't a single RVN city in communist
hands. The VC/NVA hadn't gained an inch until we turned the fight
over to the ARVN.
Gregory L. Hansen
Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>>According to the CIA Factbook for 2000, the United States has an estimated
>>>fertility rate of 2.06 children per woman -- a reasonable and sustainable
>>>growth rate in my opinion, allowing on average plenty of parental
>>>involvement, and resources devoted per child.
>>>
>>>Somalia, on the other hand, has an estimated fertility rate of 7.16
>>>children per woman.
>>>
>>>This suggests to me, anyway, that if the United States gets into an armed
>>>conflict with Somalia (as we have been), we need to make sure that *one*
>>>of our soldiers can handle *several* of theirs.
>
>> It's a long, long war if fertility matters.
>
>Fertility rates *always* matter -- because they determine how a culture
>sees human life, and influence the culture's attitudes towards war.
>
>If the United States lost 20 soldiers while taking out 1,000 enemy
>soldiers, we might well have a feeling back home that "our boys are dying
>-- bring them home."
Fertility rates don't necessarily have anything to do with how a culture
sees human life. Why should parents with more kids care less about life
than parents with few or no kids?
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Tim Pollard <timpo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>news:98519p$3...@epic23.Stanford.EDU...
>>
>
>
>But not only do they wear black berets, they ride bicycles, wear stripey
>shirts and have onions around their necks.
>
>Surely they are to be feared, nonetheless.... <g>
Yeah, they've got all those huge loaves of bread with katanas inside.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Xiphias Gladius
>>Fertility rates *always* matter -- because they determine how a culture
>>sees human life, and influence the culture's attitudes towards war.
> Fertility rates don't necessarily have anything to do with how a culture
> sees human life. Why should parents with more kids care less about life
> than parents with few or no kids?
Why should they? I have no idea. But that seems to be the way it works
out.
People have *theories* about it -- there are theories that people are less
willing to lose their *last* kid to war than any of the other ones (not
that anyone *likes* losing kids in any case.) There are theories that
smaller families means more resources pumped into each kid, and therefore
a greater reluctance to lose them. People theorize that, in societies
with high birthrates, there are fewer ways to distinguish oneself, and
military service is more attractive thereby.
I don't have any idea if any of these are true. But there is a strong
correlation between fertility rate and militarism.
Gregory L. Hansen
Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>>Fertility rates *always* matter -- because they determine how a culture
>>>sees human life, and influence the culture's attitudes towards war.
>
>> Fertility rates don't necessarily have anything to do with how a culture
>> sees human life. Why should parents with more kids care less about life
>> than parents with few or no kids?
>
>Why should they? I have no idea. But that seems to be the way it works
>out.
>
>People have *theories* about it -- there are theories that people are less
>willing to lose their *last* kid to war than any of the other ones (not
>that anyone *likes* losing kids in any case.) There are theories that
>smaller families means more resources pumped into each kid, and therefore
>a greater reluctance to lose them. People theorize that, in societies
>with high birthrates, there are fewer ways to distinguish oneself, and
>military service is more attractive thereby.
>
>I don't have any idea if any of these are true. But there is a strong
>correlation between fertility rate and militarism.
Fertility rates and our regard for the children follow from the culture we
live in. A culture with jobs, long periods of schooling, Barney the
Dinosaur, an Environmental Protection Agency, etc. Perhaps it has
something to do with security, and expectations that something is wrong if
every child doesn't grow old. Fertility rates might be an indicator, but
I doubt they're the causative factor.
Tim Pollard
"Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y" <lei...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:985mju$gdr$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
> In article <6Ynp6.681$sV.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> Tim Pollard <timpo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> >news:98519p$3...@epic23.Stanford.EDU...
> >>
> >> TH3 FR3NCH R N0T 3L33T!!11!!! TH3 FR3NCH SUX0R!!!1!!
> >
> >
> >But not only do they wear black berets, they ride bicycles, wear stripey
> >shirts and have onions around their necks.
> >
> >Surely they are to be feared, nonetheless.... <g>
>
> Yeah, they've got all those huge loaves of bread with katanas inside.
Yup. Plays havoc with your dental work when you eat 'em.
Douglas Berry
"Kevin Lee" <qen...@nhvt.net> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>> E-9s are addressed as Sergeant Major.
>
>And don't you dare make the mistake of calling them anything else...
><shudder>
Aint that the truth! The only thing touchier about being called by
the correct rank is a newly-promoted Corporal. :)
Ingo Siekmann
Douglas Berry schrieb:
>
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:20:05 -0500, a wanderer, known to us only as
> bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
> >Look at US military forces. They were obviously the model for those three
> >Traveller forces.
>
> The feel is actually more British.
Huh? So every weekend our heros have to get totally drunk after three
beers, starts to annoy the other guests in the bar and get kicked out by
the barkeeper and the regulars? :-)
Yes, living in a city with British Troops can be fun. Sometimes. ;-)
Bye
Ingo
--
Ingo Siekmann <i...@ncc1701.owl.de> *** Paderborn *** Germany
Ingo Siekmann
"Gregory L. Hansen" schrieb:
-snip
> Well, yeah. Certain units of the aforementioned may be elite (Rangers,
> SEALs, etc.), but mostly they're just servicemen with recruiters. But I
> think the USMC really is what they claim. At least, they're usually
> listed in books on elite fighting forces.
Well, at least they have an elite public relation department.
Bryan J. Maloney
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2001 01:16:59 -0800, a wanderer, known to us only as
> jm...@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) warmed at our fire and told
> this tale:
>
> >It's easy to tell that, because they all wear black berets.
>
> Heresy! And if W actually does something about this, he might
> actually get my respect!
>
> (For the uninitiated.. in the US Army, only Rangers were black berets.
> But now they want *everyone* to have them as standard headgear for
> reasons best described as bullshit. Needless to say, the Ranger
> Association is royally pissed off, as are most of us who actually
> earned that piece of felt.)
I've gotta agree. The whole point of the beanies is that one is a beanie
badass. Everybody else should be required to wear the fishing hats.
--
For those in the know, a potrzebie is a necessity.
Bryan J. Maloney
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 10:12:00 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
> "Mirko Armelyan" <mia...@tin.it> warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
> >If we define the last time American soldiers were in Africa as a
> >low-intensity war, and we consider that the two sides had rather different
> >definitions of victory, we have to agree the American forces were utterly
> >defeated, notwithstanding superior technology, firepower, equipment and
> >training (most of the losses were incurred by one of those elite units,
> >BTW).
>
> Once again, we were hamstrung by inadequate rules of engagement, and a
> mandate to do things that we weren't really able to do.
>
> Had the Rangers been given carte blanche to do what needed to be done,
> Adeed would have been taken. There would have been hundreds of
> civilian casualties, but we would have succeeded in the mission.
> Once again, because of political considerations. We let the enemy
> have safe bases to retreat too, and never brought the full weight of
> the military into the fight.
It is not the place of the military in a Democratic Republic to set
policy. The military sets policy in military dictatorships. If that
means that "missions" are not successful, that is one of the costs of a
democratic form of government.
A policy may turn out to be in error, but it is still not the place of the
military to set policy.
CHMC
Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote in article
<ygfp6.22599$lj4.5...@news6.giganews.com>...
> CHMC <ch...@chmc.org> wrote:
>
>
> > Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote in article
>
<snip>
> >> But they're "more elite" than any number of third world countries'.
>
> > I think that we would beat Somalia based on our technology, rather than
any
> > particular soldier studliness. Their numbers don't mean much if the
other
> > side flies over their heads spraying them with napalm, or launches
missiles
> > from a distance.
>
> No doubt. But isn't superior equipment part of what makes an elite force
> elite? And isn't superior training another part?
>
I suppose you could define it that way.
Xiphias Gladius
And the Rangers didn't, and got hurt. But they followed the rules of
engagement set down.
Douglas Berry
bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>It is not the place of the military in a Democratic Republic to set
>policy. The military sets policy in military dictatorships. If that
>means that "missions" are not successful, that is one of the costs of a
>democratic form of government.
Exactly. But on the other side of the coin, it is vital that the
government only use the military in situations where they will be
allowed to do what they do to the best of their abilities.
In Desert Storm, the military was given a clear directive (remove Iraq
from Kuwait, and eliminate as much of their force as possible) and
then the civilian leadership stood back and let us do our jobs! The
result? Perhaps the most lopsided victory of the 20th Century.
In Somalia, the original mission (protect relief supplies and workers)
took a sudden left turn into the twilight zone, as for some insane
reason we decided to play kingmaker, and the Army was given missions
that we knew to be outside the range of our capabilities considering
the ROE. Result? Dead Rangers.
>A policy may turn out to be in error, but it is still not the place of the
>military to set policy.
No, but the military has the right to have that policy be set in such
a way as to result in realistic scenarios.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >It's easy to tell that, because they all wear black berets.
>>
>> Heresy! And if W actually does something about this, he might
>> actually get my respect!
>>
>> (For the uninitiated.. in the US Army, only Rangers were black berets.
>> But now they want *everyone* to have them as standard headgear for
>> reasons best described as bullshit. Needless to say, the Ranger
>> Association is royally pissed off, as are most of us who actually
>> earned that piece of felt.)
Hmmm, I thought that Rangers wore Maroon Berets.
But in any case, Tankers wore Black Berets not too long ago.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
David Johnston
Somalia isn't noted for having wonderful hiding places and powerful foreign
allies. Also, let's face it, your objectives were kind of vague there.
David Johnston
You appear to be confused. I wasn't talking about the United States.
I was talking about the Imperium. Further, that isn't to say that the
Imperial army would _never_ make landings. If you don't have enough Imperial
Marines to pull off a landing operation, obviously you drop in Imperial
Army forces as well.
Zach
>Can someone explain to me the differences between each of the Imperium's
>branches of Army, Navy and Marine (and any others ive left out?)
First bit of advice- whatever you do, do not fall prey to the "Marines are
tougher army soldiers" stereotype. It's simply untrue. A marine and an
army soldier receive virtually identical basic training, and then receive
the same amount of training later on. It's a thing of movies and video
games that Marines are all gung-ho Special Forces types.
>Im slowly working on my campaign but was wondering how large some of these
>units would be and how they would fit together:
>
>Crew of a starship-
As many as are needed to run the ship, times three or two depending on the
lengths of shifts, with some reserve, plus civilians. Figure, if the ship
needs 1000 people to run, 3500 is a good number. Not rigidly organized,
they are just assigned a job on a ship.
>Crew of a dropship-
If dropships are small and can be crewed by one or two people, figure a
pilot and copilot, maybe add in a navigator, and the ship will be piloted by
officers who are very skilled at what they do. Otherwise, a capital ship on
a small scale.
>Basic Marine units-
Basic size is a company, and then you get regiments, battalions, and
divisions. Find a reference book to find the exact numbers, they vary from
unit to unit. A basic Marine unit the players will be involved in will
probably be between 30 to a hundred men. Most soldiers are Privates.
Squads are run by Corporals, platoons are run by Sergeants. If the players
are Marines, place them in a platoon. Marines are often used for shipboard
security.
>Marine Spec ops units-
Don't have Traveller, but if it is anything like a modern military Marine
Special Operations are not exactly a major force. Most - well, practically
all - of America's special opeartions needs are done with Rangers, Special
Forces (also known as Green Berets, but that name is often incorrectly
applied to people who are not Green Berets) and Delta. Force Recon did some
work in Vietnam, and I believe a little in Desert Storm. Other than that,
not much has happened with them. Coincidentally, all of the major Special
Operations disasters have been involving the Army, but that could just be
because they are used so often, and they don't let you find out about the
operations people don't die on.
Special Forces units in general are very trying. Don't let anyone in
without at least 12s or 13s in ALL of his attributes - they like smart
soldiers more than dumb ones. The players will often be tasked with
training missions for operations that will never take place due to a
peaceful resolution, and in a unit like Delta will use cover identities.
(Picture a 300 pound soldier in a bar frequented by military folk telling
you he writes childrens books or programs computer games) The latter is
more for keeping reporters away than playing James Bond. Also, keep in mind
that the "The Agency will disavow any knowledge of your actions" thing
pretty much doesn't happen. Any commander knows that at least one soldier
will talk, and if he doesn't they'll figure out what country they are from
anyway. It is pretty easy to figure out what their mission was - how many
secret air bases does an army have?
Therefore, every effort will be made to rescue them. Special Forces will
often have to work with natives of planets to accomplish their goals. They
are often issued something like the "blood-chits" given to pilots in Korea.
It would contain common phrases with phonetic pronunciation, and probably an
offer of a reward to anyone who helps him escape. They are given E&E kits -
Escape and Evade - that contain cash, maps, spare compasses, flares, and
other supplies in the event he loses his main gear. Special Forces are
typically given missions that will require a great deal of planning on the
players behalf.
>Also what ranks apply to the leaders, XOs, etc of each group?
Assuming I can find the book I'm looking for, let me get back to you on
that. I can get basic unit sizes, organizations, and the commanding officer
of each unit. All I can offer to you now is this - A captain in the Navy is
higher ranking than a captain in the army, the navy uses weird names for
everything because they don't like Marine's to be able to figure out what
the hell they are talking about, and overall the military is a lot more
boring than the Go Army commercials make it out to be.
>Im sure some of these will be answered in Ground Forces, but I could use
any
>help possible now to flesh out my campaign while im waiting to buy GF.
>
>
Shawn Wilson
"Zach" <h...@gf.com> wrote in message news:986fi2$r6u$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Coincidentally, all of the major Special
> Operations disasters have been involving the Army,
Not all of them. There was a major fuckup by the Navy SEALS in the invasion
of Panama (specifically Patilla Airfield) that left 4 dead and 8 wounded.
http://www.blarg.net/~whitet/patilla.htm has a good synopsis.
> Special Forces units in general are very trying. Don't let anyone in
> without at least 12s or 13s in ALL of his attributes - they like smart
> soldiers more than dumb ones.
There's room for variation. Intelligence is more important to Special
Forces (Green Berets) than to Rangers. Endurance is more important for
Special Forces than for Rangers. Dexterity is good to have, and you can't
be clumsy, but it doesn't have to be high (though weapons skills will be).
Facerip
> >> But now they want *everyone* to have them as standard headgear for
> >> reasons best described as bullshit. Needless to say, the Ranger
> >> Association is royally pissed off, as are most of us who actually
> >> earned that piece of felt.)
>
> Hmmm, I thought that Rangers wore Maroon Berets.
>
> But in any case, Tankers wore Black Berets not too long ago.
I had heard that this was a 'morale' building exercise in true Dilbert
fashion.
PHB: The elite guys have great morale. The elite guys wear black berets.
Therefore black berets = high morale. We can improve everyones morale
by making them wear black berets!
Its kind of scary that you have people in the military at levels high enough
to
make these kinds of decisions. Even a civie like me can see that the people
who came up with the idea, and then implemented the idea, didn't have a clue
about their own culture.
walks away muttering to self...
Joseph Michael Bay
>> It's a long, long war if fertility matters.
>Fertility rates *always* matter -- because they determine how a culture
>sees human life, and influence the culture's attitudes towards war.
>If the United States lost 20 soldiers while taking out 1,000 enemy
>soldiers, we might well have a feeling back home that "our boys are dying
>-- bring them home."
Or the story that has the Chinese general saying "Ah, good. Pretty
soon, no more Japanese".
--
Joe Bay We are the Stanford University.
Space Robot University We are here to protect you.
Palo Alto CA
Gregory L. Hansen
And, if Imperial politics follows the familiar model, the Imperial Army
probably practices landings and tells the Imperium they should have been
using Army forces all along. The Army would probably have its own "any
time, any place" forces analogous to the 82nd, 101st, and Rangers.
st3ph3nm
(this'll be sketchy, though)
"Shawn Wilson" <shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<g6pp6.7389$UN5.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> :
>
>Fireteams (3-4 men) are led by Corporals E-4 (same pay as Specialist, but an
>NCO) or Sergeants E-5.
I think in Australia, this would be led by a lance-corporal (if indeed they have such a breakdown - I'm not sure they do).
>
>Squads (2 fireteams) are led by Staff Sergeants E-6 or (rarely) Sergeants
>E-5.
That's a Corporal here. And they're called sections, not squads.
>
>Platoons (3 squads) are led by a Platoon Sergeant E-7 or (rarely) Staff
>Sergeant E-6.
And THAT's what we call a Sergeant. So (IIRC) there's one sergeant per platoon.
One corporal per section, and I guess there's a lance corporal under him who would lead the other half of the section when needed.
Above that I get confused with the NCO's. We have Warrant Officers (Staff Sergeants?) and then there's a Regimental Sergeant Major - which I believe is the highest NCO available.
The main point though, is that there seems to be a few less Sergeant titles.
Cheers,
Steve
______\____
:/_()_____()_;
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
Gregory L. Hansen
>Spm073 wrote in message <20010306110437...@ng-fl1.aol.com>...
>>Can someone explain to me the differences between each of the Imperium's
>>branches of Army, Navy and Marine (and any others ive left out?)
>
>First bit of advice- whatever you do, do not fall prey to the "Marines are
>tougher army soldiers" stereotype. It's simply untrue. A marine and an
>army soldier receive virtually identical basic training, and then receive
>the same amount of training later on. It's a thing of movies and video
>games that Marines are all gung-ho Special Forces types.
Marines may not be tougher, but I've gotten the impression that they're
more likely to have a mental attitude that accepts the concept of winning
by attrition.
>Don't have Traveller, but if it is anything like a modern military Marine
>Special Operations are not exactly a major force. Most - well, practically
>all - of America's special opeartions needs are done with Rangers, Special
>Forces (also known as Green Berets, but that name is often incorrectly
>applied to people who are not Green Berets) and Delta. Force Recon did some
>work in Vietnam, and I believe a little in Desert Storm. Other than that,
I understand SEALs keep pretty busy. In Vietnam they cleared... I want to
say Mekong Delta, but I can't remember the name... formerly a place where
the VC could hide and the conventional troops were not wise to follow.
>Therefore, every effort will be made to rescue them. Special Forces will
>often have to work with natives of planets to accomplish their goals. They
>are often issued something like the "blood-chits" given to pilots in Korea.
Since it might come up in the game, and I think it's interesting in its
own right, it's probably worth mentioning that
working with people is really what Special Forces do. They're trained to
run commando missions and wage guerilla warfare, but unlike Rangers or
SEALs, their job is really to contact the natives and teach them how to do
all of that stuff, and how to gather intelligence. Special Forces go in,
and they might stay there for six months at a time. Or they'll take
whatever direct action is needed, but working with and training the locals
is really what makes them not redundant with Rangers and similar units.
Rupert Boleyn
>> In article <59mcatksosud10bf4...@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
>> <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> >It's easy to tell that, because they all wear black berets.
>>>
>>> Heresy! And if W actually does something about this, he might
>>> actually get my respect!
>>>
>>> (For the uninitiated.. in the US Army, only Rangers were black berets.
>>> But now they want *everyone* to have them as standard headgear for
>>> reasons best described as bullshit. Needless to say, the Ranger
>>> Association is royally pissed off, as are most of us who actually
>>> earned that piece of felt.)
>
>Hmmm, I thought that Rangers wore Maroon Berets.
>
>But in any case, Tankers wore Black Berets not too long ago.
British and NZ troopers still do. Infantry wear green (a duller green
than the US special forces), Artillery sand (IIRC), paratroops maroon,
MPs a bright not quite UN blue, SAS a tan (not the same as arty's
sand), and everyone else (the 'support' corps) a deep navy blue. The
cap badges are real metal ones, ratheer than the dumb US cloth things,
and if you're (for example) a medic serving with the infantry you'd
have a green infantry beret with a medical corps badge.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Rupert Boleyn
<shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:3aa60241...@news.paradise.net.nz...
>
>> >Perhaps because US military organisation was based on a British model?
>>
>> In some ways, yes. In others, no. This is especially obvious in Army
>> and Air force NCO structures. It takes a _lot_ longer to get to
>> Sergeant in a British style force than a US style force, and the
>> duties, etc of Sergeants and below are also different. As a Lance
>> Corporal in the NZ Army I was acting as a Section Commander
>> (theoretically a Corporal's job), which I understand is often a
>> Sergeant's job in the US military (correct me if I'm wrong).
>
>
>Since I'm not sure what a 'section' is in NZ, in the US-
>
>Enlisted are Private E-1 (fresh recruit, <6 months), Private E-2, Private
>First Class E-3, Specialist E-4.
>
>Fireteams (3-4 men) are led by Corporals E-4 (same pay as Specialist, but an
>NCO) or Sergeants E-5.
These don't exist on the TO. Sections are often divided in two for
fire and maneuver purposes, and the section 2IC (nominally a Lance
Corporal, often a senior private - not a rank, BTW) would then be in
command of one half (usually the 'support' group with the GL, MG,
etc).
>Squads (2 fireteams) are led by Staff Sergeants E-6 or (rarely) Sergeants
>E-5.
That's our Section, the smallest actual unit on our TO.
>Platoons (3 squads) are led by a Platoon Sergeant E-7 or (rarely) Staff
>Sergeant E-6.
>(E-7s who aren't the senior NCO in a platoon are called Sergeants First
>Class)
>(platoons and higher are actually led by officers, but the phrasing is
>awkward)
A platoon has an OC (officer commanding), and a platoon sergeant (an
appointment, not a rank - he'll be a sergeant).
>Companies are led by First Sergeants E-8 or (rarely) Platoon Sergeants E-7
A WO2 (? maybe WO1, I can never remember which and that's despite
being reminded all of about three weeks ago). Was once a sergeant
major, but they changed them to WOs (warrant officers, which are
simply the top end of the normal NCO structure, unlike the US ones).
They're still refered to as Sergeant Majors, and addressed as "Sarn't
Major", though.
>Battalions, brigades, divisions, corps, etc are led by Command Sergeants
>Major E-9. A battalion might (rarely) have its senior enlisted be an E-8
>First Sergeant, but higher units won't.
>(E-9s who aren't senior enlisted in a battalion, etc are just Sergeants
>Major)
RSMs (Regimental Sergeant Majors) are WO1's and are addressed as
"Sir", like an officer (an NCO is _never_ called "Sir", even by
recruits), and wears and officer's uniform. RSM is an appointment, and
you refer to him as "the RSM", and other WOs would be things like "the
TWO" (Training Warrant Officer), etc.
>Enlisted are addressed as 'hey you' (formally- Private or Specialist)
Private, except: Trooper (armour) and Gunner (artillery)
>Corporals are addressed as Corporal
So are Lance Corporals. Arty has Bombadiers.
>E-5s through E-7s are addressed as 'Sergeant'.
>
>E-8's are 'First Sergeant' (occasionally 'Top' if he leads a company AND he
>doesn't object to being called 'Top')
>("Do I look like I'm spinning on my ass?" "No, First Sergeant . . .")
>
>E-9s are addressed as Sergeant Major.
We don't use any of these E-? numbers, and the enlisted structure goes
as follows:
RiT (Recruit in Training - you're only one of these until your Basic
is completed)
Private (Trooper, Gunner)
Lance Corporal (Lance Bombadier)
Corporal (Bombadier)
Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
WO2 ("Sergeant Major")
WO1
Thus there are only seven 'real' enlisted ranks in our army.
Rupert Boleyn
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:24:15 -0800, a wanderer, known to us only as
>"Kevin Lee" <qen...@nhvt.net> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>
>>> E-9s are addressed as Sergeant Major.
>>
>>And don't you dare make the mistake of calling them anything else...
>><shudder>
>
>Aint that the truth! The only thing touchier about being called by
>the correct rank is a newly-promoted Corporal. :)
Same over here, though make that a Lance Corporal, addressed as
"Corporal" unless you're in a position of power (usually, but not
always meaning of higher rank).
Rupert Boleyn
<donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote:
>I don't have military experience, but Ill give an Australian setup:
>(this'll be sketchy, though)
>"Shawn Wilson" <shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><g6pp6.7389$UN5.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> :
>>
>
>>Fireteams (3-4 men) are led by Corporals E-4 (same pay as Specialist, but an
>>NCO) or Sergeants E-5.
>
>I think in Australia, this would be led by a lance-corporal (if indeed they have such a breakdown - I'm not sure they do).
They didn't in '92 (that I noticed).
>>Squads (2 fireteams) are led by Staff Sergeants E-6 or (rarely) Sergeants
>>E-5.
>
>That's a Corporal here. And they're called sections, not squads.
>>
>>Platoons (3 squads) are led by a Platoon Sergeant E-7 or (rarely) Staff
>>Sergeant E-6.
>
>And THAT's what we call a Sergeant. So (IIRC) there's one sergeant per platoon.
>One corporal per section, and I guess there's a lance corporal under him who would lead the other half of the section when needed.
And does most of the section admin. Like here in NZ.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>
>
>Douglas Berry schrieb:
>>
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:20:05 -0500, a wanderer, known to us only as
>> bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) warmed at our fire and told this
>> tale:
>>
>> >Look at US military forces. They were obviously the model for those three
>> >Traveller forces.
>>
>> The feel is actually more British.
>
>Huh? So every weekend our heros have to get totally drunk after three
>beers, starts to annoy the other guests in the bar and get kicked out by
>the barkeeper and the regulars? :-)
>
>Yes, living in a city with British Troops can be fun. Sometimes. ;-)
Three beers? They're not very good troops then. We used to figure on
about a dozen to get warmed up, and another dozen to go on with.
David Johnston
Very true. I suppose all in the most important role of the Marines would be
to provide the Navy with a ground force in their chain of command so they
can pull off operations without having to involve the Army.
Mirko Armelyan
Gregory, Xiphias,
> >> Fertility rates don't necessarily have anything to do with how a
culture
> >> sees human life. Why should parents with more kids care less about
life
> >> than parents with few or no kids?
> >
> >Why should they? I have no idea. But that seems to be the way it works
> >out.
Fertility rates might be an indicator, but
> I doubt they're the causative factor.
1. Have you considered _mortality_ rates? High mortality often goes hand in
hand with high fertility, and mortality could have more to do with the
willingness to die while serving in an army. I mean, if as a civilian you
have high chances of dying young out of starvation, illnesses, and
civil-war accidents, you might just as well risk your life in a militia. At
least you get more food than the civilians and an AK-47.
2. I think it's very obvious, but I want to mention that your political
system also has to do with the willingness to sacrifice your own soldiers.
Aidid and Saddam did't worry about re-election.
Regards,
Mirko
Mirko Armelyan
I wrote:
>
> >If we define the last time American soldiers were in Africa as a
> >low-intensity war, and we consider that the two sides had rather
different
> >definitions of victory, we have to agree the American forces were
utterly
> >defeated, notwithstanding superior technology, firepower, equipment and
> >training (most of the losses were incurred by one of those elite units,
> >BTW).
>
you answered:
> Once again, we were hamstrung by inadequate rules of engagement, and a
> mandate to do things that we weren't really able to do.
(cut)
> But that wouldn't have played well on the evening news, so a ROE was
> in place that pretty much ordered everyone not to shoot if there was
> even a chance of hitting a "non-combatant." If you could find a
> non-combatant in Mogi at that time, I'll pin all my medals on you.
That's why I mentioned victory conditions and intensity level. They are
much more important than technology, equipment, training etc., because you
can have the best mobile infantry in the universe and yet have victory
conditions that, by applying the intensity you may use, are impossible to
achieve, no matter what.
>
> >On the other hand, the American forces would have fared better with more
> >accurate intelligence; although, in the long run, I suspect the final
> >outcome would have been similar to what happened.
>
> Well, if you are outnumbered 50-1, and are completely surrounded, I
> don't think that any unit could have done better than the Rangers and
> Delta did under the circumstances.
> >
I wasn't criticizing the soldiers, nor was I saying that the _battle_ was
going to end that way; I was saying that the _war_ ("in the long run")
would probably end that way. Suppose the intelligence was good enough and
the ROE flexible enough to allow Aidid to be caught; what then? Somalis
have a long tradition of warring tribes under local warlords, as these last
8 years after the Mogadishu battle easily testify; an Aidid aide, ;-),
would have stepped in.
> >The same can be said about Vietnam. In that case, the USA _did_ spray
> >napalm and fire missiles from a distance, and yet lost the war.
>
> Once again, because of political considerations.
Of course; a war must be fought on the basis of political considerations,
victory conditions. The point is that gone are the days of "total war",
i.e. unlimited victory conditions. That's why wars can be trickier. And
that's were the space marines come in again; if all SF wars were total
wars, nobody would need them at all, just a fleet and planet-killing
weaponry. But, since this isn't likely, you need space marines; and if you
commit space marines, you also need wise political decision makers and
careful military planners. Otherwise, you could end up with a planet-sized
Vietnam or Mogadishu.
Mirko
Mirko Armelyan
>
> In Desert Storm, the military was given a clear directive (remove Iraq
> from Kuwait, and eliminate as much of their force as possible) and
> then the civilian leadership stood back and let us do our jobs! The
> result? Perhaps the most lopsided victory of the 20th Century.
A lopsided victory, yes... militarily. But not a complete victory. Again
one should consider the long-term political results, too, when one talks
about a war (as opposed to a battle).
Total wars, like WWII, are zero-sum games. The Gulf War wasn't. You listed
two Coalition victory conditions that were achieved, but an unstated one
was: do not remove Saddam from power. This was achieved, too...
Saddam obviously had his own victory conditions, that were partly specular
(hold on to Kuwait's wells) and partly on a rather different plane (boost
and keep up his own popularity among all Arabs) than the Coalition's ones;
and of course, it happened that his primary victory condition was... remain
in power.
So you see, no matter what the Coalition could achieve militarily, Saddam
was going to fulfill at least some of his victory conditions. The
popularity one was largely independent from military victory or defeat, and
so he achieved that; as to his primary victory condition, well, since the
Coalition also wanted that, of course... in a non-zero-sum game, both sides
can score points. In this case, both sides achieved their primary victory
conditions (Kuwait, power). So both could claim victory, but, politically
speaking, it wasn't lopsided.
In a future setting, if you have space forces that have to fight wars that
aren't total (i.e., they are limited by victory conditions, intensity
level, or ROE if you prefer), that will make for much more interesting
gaming.
Regards,
Mirko
Bryan Maloney
<3aa75ab4...@news.paradise.net.nz>:
>British and NZ troopers still do. Infantry wear green (a duller green
>than the US special forces), Artillery sand (IIRC), paratroops maroon,
>MPs a bright not quite UN blue, SAS a tan (not the same as arty's
>sand), and everyone else (the 'support' corps) a deep navy blue. The
>cap badges are real metal ones, ratheer than the dumb US cloth things,
>and if you're (for example) a medic serving with the infantry you'd
>have a green infantry beret with a medical corps badge.
>
And when berets become that common, they mean nothing in and of themselves.
Bryan Maloney
<01c0a7b2$102ee560$LocalHost@rqzmlnhf>:
>Douglas,
>
>>
>> In Desert Storm, the military was given a clear directive (remove Iraq
>> from Kuwait, and eliminate as much of their force as possible) and
>> then the civilian leadership stood back and let us do our jobs! The
>> result? Perhaps the most lopsided victory of the 20th Century.
>
>A lopsided victory, yes... militarily. But not a complete victory. Again
>one should consider the long-term political results, too, when one talks
Irrelevant. The military in a democratic state has no business meddling in
long-term political results. That is a policy issue and any military in a
democratic state has no business determining policy and no responsibility
for a failed policy. That is the repsponsibility of the politicians.
>In a future setting, if you have space forces that have to fight wars
>that aren't total (i.e., they are limited by victory conditions,
>intensity level, or ROE if you prefer), that will make for much more
>interesting gaming.
Total warfare is very unusual in the scope of human history. Limited
warfare has been the norm. Like much of the 19th-20th centuries, warfare
is an aberration. Look at history of the 16th-18th centuries for a world
in a state of near-constant limited war.
Gregory L. Hansen
Mirko Armelyan <mia...@tin.it> wrote:
>In a future setting, if you have space forces that have to fight wars that
>aren't total (i.e., they are limited by victory conditions, intensity
>level, or ROE if you prefer), that will make for much more interesting
>gaming.
In that spirit, what is the role of ground forces in a space campaign?
You can nuke an enemy from orbit. You can blockade a planet. If you
can't control the sky above a planet, you can't maintain ground troops on
it because the enemy will nuke your troops with impunity. If you control
the sky above a planet, you don't really need to care what they're doing
on the surface because it's not getting out.
There's no need for ground troops unless you actually have a reason to
control the ground. Maybe for digging out an enemy that has taken your
territory and managed to hide themselves, after you've gained control of
the sky and if they haven't surrendered. But that's more of a mopping-up
operation.
Unless you're out for conquest, their role would probably look a lot more
like the post-Cold War roles that politicians have been talking about
lately. Police actions, counter-insurgencies, peacekeeping between
hostile factions on the same planet, and otherwise dealing with
populations that you can't just eradicate. Like the American Revolution,
the British could have just left us alone with no fear of harm to the
motherland. But they wanted to control the colonies and resume economic
relations. Even if they had the capability, it would have defeated their
purpose to just kill everyone or blockade them and forget about it.
Military actions on planets held by other governments might be more of the
commando raid variety, where your mission is to kidnap someone, rescue
someone, gather some information, etc., and then get out.
But I think these scenarios have a lot of RPG potential since they'd often
involve small groups of troops whose mission is more complicated than just
shooting anyone wearing the wrong uniform. I also think the British
Empire would make a great model for a space game.
Ground troops might also man weapons systems on a planet and her moons,
for planetary defense. I don't really know if that's an Army or Navy
thing, but Army could handle it if they just had really big guns.
Shawn Wilson
> >Enlisted are Private E-1 (fresh recruit, <6 months), Private E-2, Private
> >First Class E-3, Specialist E-4.
> >
> >Fireteams (3-4 men) are led by Corporals E-4 (same pay as Specialist, but
an
> >NCO) or Sergeants E-5.
>
> These don't exist on the TO. Sections are often divided in two for
> fire and maneuver purposes, and the section 2IC (nominally a Lance
> Corporal, often a senior private - not a rank, BTW) would then be in
> command of one half (usually the 'support' group with the GL, MG,
> etc).
So US units have an extra NCO at small levels. (two team leaders and a squad
leader instead of a squad leader and a 2IC)
Apparently US units also have heavier firepower, squads in the US having 2
GLs, 2 LMGs, and a GPMG.
> >Platoons (3 squads) are led by a Platoon Sergeant E-7 or (rarely) Staff
> >Sergeant E-6.
> >(E-7s who aren't the senior NCO in a platoon are called Sergeants First
> >Class)
> >(platoons and higher are actually led by officers, but the phrasing is
> >awkward)
>
> A platoon has an OC (officer commanding), and a platoon sergeant (an
> appointment, not a rank - he'll be a sergeant).
Platoon Sergeants are also technically jobs rather than ranks in the US Army
too, the actual rank being Sergeant First Class)
> >Companies are led by First Sergeants E-8 or (rarely) Platoon Sergeants
E-7
>
> A WO2 (? maybe WO1, I can never remember which and that's despite
> being reminded all of about three weeks ago). Was once a sergeant
> major, but they changed them to WOs (warrant officers, which are
> simply the top end of the normal NCO structure, unlike the US ones).
> They're still refered to as Sergeant Majors, and addressed as "Sarn't
> Major", though.
I should have mentioned that First Sergeant is also technically a job rather
than a rank, the rank being Master Sergeant (but the insignia are slightly
different). I suppose that if I hadn't been in an infantry unit the
distinctions between first sergeant and master sergeant and platoon sergeant
and SFC would have made more of an impression on me.
> >Battalions, brigades, divisions, corps, etc are led by Command Sergeants
> >Major E-9. A battalion might (rarely) have its senior enlisted be an E-8
> >First Sergeant, but higher units won't.
> >(E-9s who aren't senior enlisted in a battalion, etc are just Sergeants
> >Major)
>
> RSMs (Regimental Sergeant Majors) are WO1's and are addressed as
> "Sir", like an officer (an NCO is _never_ called "Sir", even by
> recruits), and wears and officer's uniform. RSM is an appointment, and
> you refer to him as "the RSM", and other WOs would be things like "the
> TWO" (Training Warrant Officer), etc.
In the US Army Warrant Officers do things like fly helicopters. They aren't
really in a chain of command. They get saluted like commissioned officers,
but no unit would be led by one.
> >Enlisted are addressed as 'hey you' (formally- Private or Specialist)
>
> Private, except: Trooper (armour) and Gunner (artillery)
US Army paratroopers and cavalry can be addressed as trooper, and groups of
enlisted are often called troops (as in "round up the troops", not 'a troop
of infantry', though the cavalry has troops as units), but regular infantry
soldiers are never addressed as trooper.
> >Corporals are addressed as Corporal
>
> So are Lance Corporals. Arty has Bombadiers.
The US Army doesn't have Lance Corporals, but the Marine Corps does. Marine
Lance Corporals are E-3s.
Ingo Siekmann
> Three beers? They're not very good troops then. We used to figure on
> about a dozen to get warmed up, and another dozen to go on with.
We are talking about Englishmen who drink german beer (The best in the
world, that愀 a fact), not a beerlike looking digestive product of a
horse. -veg-
And by the way, it is served cold. Maybe that愀 the reason why they can
not face it. ;-)
Bye
Ingo
--
Ingo Siekmann <i...@ncc1701.owl.de> *** Paderborn *** Germany
F.P. Groeneveld
: Rupert Boleyn schrieb:
:> Three beers? They're not very good troops then. We used to figure on
:> about a dozen to get warmed up, and another dozen to go on with.
: We are talking about Englishmen who drink german beer (The best in the
: world, that´s a fact), not a beerlike looking digestive product of a
: horse. -veg-
Errr. You're telling an Ozzie that German beer is best? What a mistake to make! Besides,
everybody knows dutch or belgian beer is best ;)
: And by the way, it is served cold. Maybe that´s the reason why they can
: not face it. ;-)
Ah. And that is the only thing other than 'our beer is best' you'll get dutch, germans and
ozzies to agree on ;) Oh, that, and Brits don't know how beer should be drunk
Cheers,
Derk
--
Derk Groeneveld
http://derk.op.het.net/
PGP-public key: finger de...@cistron.nl
Tim Pollard
"F.P. Groeneveld" <de...@cistron.nl> wrote in message
news:988qb4$v2i$2...@ncc1701.cistron.net...
:> Three beers? They're not very good troops then. We used to figure on
:> about a dozen to get warmed up, and another dozen to go on with.
: We are talking about Englishmen who drink german beer (The best in the
: world, that愀 a fact), not a beerlike looking digestive product of a
: horse. -veg-
Errr. You're telling an Ozzie that German beer is best? What a mistake to
make! Besides,
everybody knows dutch or belgian beer is best ;)
: And by the way, it is served cold. Maybe that愀 the reason why they can
: not face it. ;-)
Ah. And that is the only thing other than 'our beer is best' you'll get
dutch, germans and
ozzies to agree on ;) Oh, that, and Brits don't know how beer should be
drunk
Come on, be fair! The beer's the only warm thing in this bloody country!
--
Regards
Tim Pollard (UK national for 37 happy years!)
www.timpollard.com
"The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it
made..."
--- Groucho Marx (1890-1977)
F.P. Groeneveld
: Come on, be fair! The beer's the only warm thing in this bloody country!
You're not welsh then, are you?
John Y. Lee
timpo...@ntlworld.com says...
>
>
>"F.P. Groeneveld" <de...@cistron.nl> wrote in message
>news:988qb4$v2i$2...@ncc1701.cistron.net...
>Ingo Siekmann <i...@ncc1701.owl.de> wrote:
>: Rupert Boleyn schrieb:
>
>:> Three beers? They're not very good troops then. We used to figure on
>:> about a dozen to get warmed up, and another dozen to go on with.
>
>: We are talking about Englishmen who drink german beer (The best in the
>: world, that愀 a fact), not a beerlike looking digestive product of a
>: horse. -veg-
>
>Errr. You're telling an Ozzie that German beer is best? What a mistake to
>make! Besides,
>everybody knows dutch or belgian beer is best ;)
>
>: And by the way, it is served cold. Maybe that愀 the reason why they can
>: not face it. ;-)
>
>Ah. And that is the only thing other than 'our beer is best' you'll get
>dutch, germans and
>ozzies to agree on ;) Oh, that, and Brits don't know how beer should be
>drunk
>
>
>
>Come on, be fair! The beer's the only warm thing in this bloody country!
>
What about the women? MMMMMMM Gail Porter
John Y. Lee
Xiphias Gladius
> Errr. You're telling an Ozzie that German beer is best? What a mistake
> to make! Besides,
> everybody knows dutch or belgian beer is best ;)
My sister claims that the only drinkable beer in all of Austrailia is
Victoria Bitters. She says that the one with the slogan, "Good as gold,
mate" (of which I forget the name) is just colored water.
- Ian
--
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. -- Ambrose Bierce
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
Tim Pollard
"John Y. Lee" <jy...@intergate.ca> wrote in message
news:3aa7...@newsserver1.intergate.ca...
> In article <TjSp6.1806$pR3.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> timpo...@ntlworld.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >dutch, germans and
> >ozzies to agree on ;) Oh, that, and Brits don't know how beer should be
> >drunk
> >
> >
> >
> >Come on, be fair! The beer's the only warm thing in this bloody country!
> >
>
> What about the women? MMMMMMM Gail Porter
I'm really, REALLY hoping that 'MMMMMMMM' is American for 'except that
vacuous tart', but somehow I bet it isn't... <g>
--
Regards
Tim Pollard
Tim Pollard
> Tim Pollard <timpo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> : Come on, be fair! The beer's the only warm thing in this bloody country!
>
> You're not welsh then, are you?
The Welsh Miser at Christmas: Baaaaaaaaaaaaahh!! Humbug! <g>
--
Regards
Tim Pollard
Andy Luker
"Tim Pollard" <timpo...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:TjSp6.1806$pR3.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "F.P. Groeneveld" <de...@cistron.nl> wrote in message
> news:988qb4$v2i$2...@ncc1701.cistron.net...
> Ingo Siekmann <i...@ncc1701.owl.de> wrote:
> : Rupert Boleyn schrieb:
>
> :> Three beers? They're not very good troops then. We used to figure on
> :> about a dozen to get warmed up, and another dozen to go on with.
>
> : We are talking about Englishmen who drink german beer (The best in the
> : world, that愀 a fact), not a beerlike looking digestive product of a
> : horse. -veg-
>
> Errr. You're telling an Ozzie that German beer is best? What a mistake to
> make! Besides,
> everybody knows dutch or belgian beer is best ;)
>
> : And by the way, it is served cold. Maybe that愀 the reason why they can
> : not face it. ;-)
>
> Ah. And that is the only thing other than 'our beer is best' you'll get
> dutch, germans and
> ozzies to agree on ;) Oh, that, and Brits don't know how beer should be
> drunk
Open mouth, glass to lips, control flow rate by varying angle of tilt,
remeber not to try and breath at the same time as swallowing: repeat as
necessary - seems simple enough.
>
> Come on, be fair! The beer's the only warm thing in this bloody country!
Ah, that myth about "warm british beer". Decent bitter should be stored at
the 11-15 deg mark (thats 55ish farenheit). Anybody who thinks thats warm
obviously hasent heard of that new-fangled invention central heating
Tim Pollard
news:988ur4$jgi$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> Ah, that myth about "warm british beer".
You don't drink at my local, mate! <g>
--
Regards
Tim Pollard
Andy Luker
> "Andy Luker" <an...@apjluker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:988ur4$jgi$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Ah, that myth about "warm british beer".
>
>
> You don't drink at my local, mate! <g>
>
>
Stephanie M. Pennington
> >
> > RSMs (Regimental Sergeant Majors) are WO1's and are addressed as
> > "Sir", like an officer (an NCO is _never_ called "Sir", even by
> > recruits), and wears and officer's uniform. RSM is an appointment, and
> > you refer to him as "the RSM", and other WOs would be things like "the
> > TWO" (Training Warrant Officer), etc.
>
>
> In the US Army Warrant Officers do things like fly helicopters. They aren't
> really in a chain of command. They get saluted like commissioned officers,
> but no unit would be led by one.
>
pilots, they aren't all pilots. The theory behind WO's in other branches
to retain expertise in a job field. For example, I was in Intel, and once
you hit Sergeant your ability to spend time doing intel was lessened in
order to be a leader of soldiers. This is fine and well, but the Army
doesn't necessarily want to loose the expertise of all their intel people,
so Sergeants have the option of becoming Warrant Officers. This allows
them to basically continue to do their MOS and not have to worry about
being a leader. Also note we didn't tend to have fire teams. We also
didn't usually have Corporals--we did have a few, when we were low on
E-5's and an E-4 had to be a squad leader because of it. But, Squads were
almost always led by Sergeants E-5 in my experience. Staff-Sergeants were
usually S-1/S-2/S-3/S-4 or in charge of operational sections. Sergeants
First Class were platoon sergeants, We didn't have a lot of Master
Sergeants who were not serving the function of First Sergeant. The only
one I can remember was in charge of the TCAE (Tactical Control and
Analysis Element). I have only served as tacticle intel, so I'm sure it's
different in strategic intel, or REMF-type units.
steph
********
Knowledge is Power
Power Corrupts
Study Hard, Be Evil.
Current Characters:
-Constance Talmadge, Famed Silent Film Star with a heavy Flatbush accent
-Therrin Terragin, Big Dumb Blacksmith with a Revolutionaly Dwarvin Wife
-Leatham MacDonaugh, Medieval Herdsman
Stephanie M. Pennington
> > >
> > >Come on, be fair! The beer's the only warm thing in this bloody country!
> > >
> >
> > What about the women? MMMMMMM Gail Porter
>
>
> I'm really, REALLY hoping that 'MMMMMMMM' is American for 'except that
> vacuous tart', but somehow I bet it isn't... <g>
Okay Tim, you are awarded a "Made Steph Laugh Point"
Steph
Tim Pollard
I'll set me whippets on ya, ya namby southern ponce. <g>
<raises glass of warm beer>
Tim Pollard
"Stephanie M. Pennington" <pe...@mills.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.01030...@ella.mills.edu...
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Tim Pollard wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Come on, be fair! The beer's the only warm thing in this bloody
country!
> > > >
> > >
> > > What about the women? MMMMMMM Gail Porter
> >
> >
> > I'm really, REALLY hoping that 'MMMMMMMM' is American for 'except that
> > vacuous tart', but somehow I bet it isn't... <g>
>
> Okay Tim, you are awarded a "Made Steph Laugh Point"
Hurrah! I was always told the way to a ladies heart was to make her laugh,
but that's the first time I've managed it with my clothes *on*... <g>
Cheers!
Onno Meyer
>You appear to be confused. I wasn't talking about the United States.
>I was talking about the Imperium. Further, that isn't to say that the
>Imperial army would _never_ make landings. If you don't have enough Imperial
>Marines to pull off a landing operation, obviously you drop in Imperial
>Army forces as well.
Traveller Ground Forces makes this pretty clear. There are transport
ships for a lift (i.e. contragrav-mobile) army brigade and dropships
for an army battalion each. There are the Sylean Rangers, who go in
with the first wave (possibly together with the Marine Commandos).
By and large, Imperial Army units don't move all that much between
different worlds, subsectors and sectors. Sometimes they go to some
world to train local defense forces, sometimes they rotate into or
out of garrison duty and sometimes they do counterinsurgency some-
where, but by and large the Army only gets into starships to go
from A to B (possibly with an opposed landing on B).
The Marines, on the other hand, contain units which live on their
transport ships in constant readiness for action, other units which
are security/landing forces on warships and detachments as guards
for Imperial embassies and the like.
Onno Meyer
--
* Onno Meyer - Kastanienallee 40 - 26121 Oldenburg - Deutschland *
* e-mail: Onno....@informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE *
Bryan Maloney
<9889h4$d33$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>:
>But I think these scenarios have a lot of RPG potential since they'd
>often involve small groups of troops whose mission is more complicated
>than just shooting anyone wearing the wrong uniform. I also think the
>British Empire would make a great model for a space game.
Cool. Atrocities committed in the name of White Man's Burden. But what
would be the Traveller equivalent of packing ammunition with pork fat?
Bryan Maloney
>branches to retain expertise in a job field. For example, I was in
>Intel, and once you hit Sergeant your ability to spend time doing intel
>was lessened in order to be a leader of soldiers. This is fine and
>well, but the Army doesn't necessarily want to loose the expertise of
>all their intel people, so Sergeants have the option of becoming Warrant
This was also the theory behind the Spec grades. You got the pay but no
hard stripe.
Bryan Maloney
>Errr. You're telling an Ozzie that German beer is best? What a mistake
>to make! Besides, everybody knows dutch or belgian beer is best ;)
Only ONE country in the 20th century has had her brewing equipment be
considered spoils of war by an invader: Belgium.
Bryan Maloney
>Ah, that myth about "warm british beer". Decent bitter should be stored
>at the 11-15 deg mark (thats 55ish farenheit). Anybody who thinks thats
>warm obviously hasent heard of that new-fangled invention central
>heating
>
The problem is that there are so many philistines who don't understand that
the temperature has to match the beer.
Marc Etienne Lachance
> "Tim Pollard" <timpo...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> >> >It seems that we have nothing but elite fighting forces around here.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's easy to tell that, because they all wear black berets.
>
>
> >But so do the French.
>
>
> TH3 FR3NCH R N0T 3L33T!!11!!! TH3 FR3NCH SUX0R!!!1!!
You are B1FF, and I claim my Commodore 128 with 2400baud modem.
Or was this the wrong 'froup?
--
/\ Marc Etienne Lachance, HOKuM, LMAA
/<>\ Episkopos without a cabal,
/____\ Non-Leader of Something or Another.
Marc Etienne Lachance
> Yeah, they've got all those huge loaves of bread with katanas inside.
Those baguettes are far superior to muffins! And the wine, ah, the
wine...
If it wasn't for the flatulence that [Cooking/TL6 sp. Provençe]
inspires, I'd abandon my Irish/Quebecois roots and just MOVE. Instead
I'm staying in Franconia with its Cooking/TL9 and Brewing/TL16.
--
/\ Marc Etienne Lachance, HOKuM, LMAA
/<>\ Episkopos without a beer,
Marc Etienne Lachance
> (For the uninitiated.. in the US Army, only Rangers were black berets.
> But now they want *everyone* to have them as standard headgear for
> reasons best described as bullshit. Needless to say, the Ranger
> Association is royally pissed off, as are most of us who actually
> earned that piece of felt.)
I still have mine from the days when the armored cavalry regiments were
allowed to wear 'em. The general restriction is a fairly young one, and
illustrates how dynamic dress uniform styles can be.
To bring this back onto theme, you could easily expect 3Imp. dress
uniforms to be horribly out-of-date, at least to local tastes. The
Imperial forces just don't have neither the time nor the resources to
change costumes every 3 decades or so. Local forces like Huscarls would
have more leeway, and uniforms may only be valid for 50 years or so.
Why is this important? Well, PC's are almostr always trying to sneak
into some base, and players almost always trot out the "let's put on
Army uniforms" trick. GM's need to be prepared for the Traveller
mentality, especially when you calculate the communication times. Fnord.
--
/\ Marc Etienne Lachance, HOKuM, LMAA
/<>\ Episkopos without a cabal,
Douglas Berry
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) warmed at our fire
and told this tale:
>In that spirit, what is the role of ground forces in a space campaign?
>You can nuke an enemy from orbit. You can blockade a planet. If you
>can't control the sky above a planet, you can't maintain ground troops on
>it because the enemy will nuke your troops with impunity. If you control
>the sky above a planet, you don't really need to care what they're doing
>on the surface because it's not getting out.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I cover this in Ground
Forces.
To be brief, we discovered that air power alone cannot win a war. The
German forces remained a strong, organized force back by strong
popular support until the allies entered Germany. That's when the
desertions began, support vanished in favor of survival.
Nearly four years of near constant strategic bombing failed to have
the effect of actually seeing allied tanks and troops entering the
Fatherland.
Unless you are on a genocidal rampage, I assume that you want this
planet for some reason. Perhaps it has extensive deposits of
strategic minerals (lanthanum in Traveller), is a massive food
supplier, has shipyards you can use... whatever.
Under those circumstances, the enemy can frustrate you by simply
hanging close to your desired targets. If the enemy holds something
you need relativity intact, you need to get it without destroying it.
Or perhaps you want this state to be viable after the war. Starting
nuclear winter tends to put a chill on future relations.
>There's no need for ground troops unless you actually have a reason to
>control the ground. Maybe for digging out an enemy that has taken your
>territory and managed to hide themselves, after you've gained control of
>the sky and if they haven't surrendered. But that's more of a mopping-up
>operation.
On a world where life-supoort is needed, sure. But on a world that
can support life?
I will point out that from the very start of the war, the United
states had almost uncontested air supremacy over Vietnam. The best
fighter the NVAF had was the Mig-21, and wasn't a match for the
USN/USAF planes.
Yet we failed to win the ground war.
>Unless you're out for conquest, their role would probably look a lot more
>like the post-Cold War roles that politicians have been talking about
>lately. Police actions, counter-insurgencies, peacekeeping between
>hostile factions on the same planet, and otherwise dealing with
>populations that you can't just eradicate. Like the American Revolution,
>the British could have just left us alone with no fear of harm to the
>motherland. But they wanted to control the colonies and resume economic
>relations. Even if they had the capability, it would have defeated their
>purpose to just kill everyone or blockade them and forget about it.
>Military actions on planets held by other governments might be more of the
>commando raid variety, where your mission is to kidnap someone, rescue
>someone, gather some information, etc., and then get out.
Traditionally, this is what the Imperial has done. The actual wars of
conquest for the Imperium ended 800 years ago in the Pacification
Campaigns. The Solomani Rim War was fought to regain territory that
had been Imperial before the Solomani Sphere had been created. The
Frontier Wars were all started by the Zhodani, and only the first two
saw large-scale conquest (and those were of Zhodani worlds that had
Imperial colonies on them.)
>But I think these scenarios have a lot of RPG potential since they'd often
>involve small groups of troops whose mission is more complicated than just
>shooting anyone wearing the wrong uniform. I also think the British
>Empire would make a great model for a space game.
We think alike. :)
>Ground troops might also man weapons systems on a planet and her moons,
>for planetary defense. I don't really know if that's an Army or Navy
>thing, but Army could handle it if they just had really big guns.
Depends upon the system. It might be one of those place where
services trip over each other in defense of the prerogatives (and
budgets.)
Real-world example. The USAF was born out of the US Army Air Corps.
In an agreement, it was decided that the Army could keep unarmed
aircraft for spotting and liaison duties. Later, Boys in Blue decided
that we could also have helicopters.
Free from the Army, the new Air Force quickly became dominated by
fighter pilots. These zoomie generals kept demanding more and better
fighters to the exclusion of everything else.
One of the Air Force's duties is to provide close-air support. The
best plane ever built for this is the A-10 Thunderbolt II (aka The
Warthog.) This plane eats flak for breakfast, carries tons of
ordinance, and is built around a 30mm chain gun that fires
depleted-uranium Coke bottles. Seeing one of these things doing a
live fire made one really happy that you weren't a Soviet tanker.
Anyone want to guess how many times the Air Farce has tried to kill
the program? Warthogs aren't *sexy* enough. The planes are ugly as
sin, unless you're about to be overrun.
So the Army offered to take the birds, lock, stock, and personnel.
They'd become Army Aviators, the birds would bet new insignia, and
everybody would be happy.
Except the Air Force screamed like a stuck pig. So now they're
keeping a system they hate, just to keep the Army from having armed
fixed wing aircraft.
In a planetary defense situation, I can imagine there being tons of
turf fights over who "deserves" systems and resources.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
ra...@westnet.poe.com warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>Hmmm, I thought that Rangers wore Maroon Berets.
Airborne qualified personnel serving in an Airborne unit, and certain
non-Airborne personnel serving in an Airborne unit wear the maroon
beret.
Personnel serving in the Ranger Training Brigade, 75th Infantry Rgt
(Ranger), or in the 1/75th (Airborne), 2/75th (Airborne), or 3/75th
(Airborne) battalions are authorized to wear the black beret.
>But in any case, Tankers wore Black Berets not too long ago.
True, but since the Vietnam War, it has been our symbol.