Imperial marines and battledress

[phavoc]

I would debate both the points you make above:

• Again, the U.S. is not the best example. We don't have the data resources to better allocate our expenditures in the U.S. I would expect that the Imperial military, with its access to TL-15 AI computers, would feature a more exacting approach to procurement of military hardware. In the U.S., a lot of our military expenditures are dictated by political and economic factors instead of logic.
• I believe the ubiquitous distribution of battledress among infantry marines at Capital makes even more sense. That's where you want to convey power and military supremacy. It prevents insurrection when the entire populace knows and sees firsthand how powerful and well-equipped their armed forces are. (Tell that to Dulinor. I know!)

Hrm. My first question to you is where are you finding the Imperium's taxation model & budget expenditures? The Imperial budget would be even MORE disorganized than the current US one. It's not a question of computers or data. It's never been. It's a question of people, politics and clashes in the bureaucracy and government. Just because it's the 52nd century why do you assume humans change? If anything the Imperium would be MORE illogical, based on the governmental model. It's highly illogical (using current standards) to allow megacorps to deploy armed forces and slug it out when they get pissed at each other, or overthrow world governments when it becomes profitable to do so.

Second question, why would Capital be deploying battledress equipped soldiers in the government halls? Using Dulinor as an example, it wouldn't have helped, Stephon (or his body double/clone) would still have died. Under your military model all the nobles on capital would have to have battledress-equipped bodyguards because you've pushed the standard all the way to the right. If they were properly armed (with fusion or plasma weaponry), everyone would have to be traveling in vehicles armored like tanks. And tanks to provide escort so they can disable or destroy attacking vehicles. Hell, everyone should just carry a nuke, right? It would be a firsthand and powerful example to the citizens (whom I assume you would not be allowing to be armed to increase the power of the troops?).

Would there be state-of-the-art equipped troops on Capital? Most certainly! Would they be stationed in highly visible areas, the Moot and the throne room? Probably not. Marines answer to the crown. Posting them everywhere would be an attempt by the Emperor to potentially influence and pressure the nobles to obey him. While on paper it works that way, in reality it does not. If the Emperor had ultimate authority he would have no need for nobles or the nobility. Though humans being what they are, some sort of mechanism would need to be there. The game postulates a noble class to help with governance. The Star Wars universe (#3-#5) postulated military governors as the method. It's all gaming, so anything is possible. But if you want the game to have some logical backgrounds then you need to apply some logic as your baseline.

But hey, it's Traveller. If it wasn't customized to your own desires it wouldn't be Traveller.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I still don't think you are understanding the fiscal point. Sure, if you can give every military person battledress and FGMP-15 weapons they'd be a fearsome force.

My fiscal point is that 10 troopers with DB is cheaper to deliver by starship, and more combat effective, than 20 troopers without BD.

If you need combat force it is cheaper to deliver fewer DB troops than many more lightly armoured troops.
If you do not need combat force, why deploy troops at all?

Just how often are you actually NEEDING battledress-equipped troops? I continue to cite real-world examples and you continue to want to use fake-world examples.

57th century fake-world works by 57th century fake-world logic, it is not 20th century Earth.

But if you want current examples, why are the US operating F22s when they are not needed until a major war and the AF could save a lot of money by putting them into storage and flying Tucanos instead?

The US hasn't needed an armoured division for the last decade, so why isn't all M1s put into storage and tankers driving much cheaper trucks?

 

[paltrysum]

Good points all, Phavoc. I don't think we're far apart. Thanks for taking the time to post. These conversations always help me shape MTU.

 

[baithammer]

I still don't think you are understanding the fiscal point. Sure, if you can give every military person battledress and FGMP-15 weapons they'd be a fearsome force.

The US hasn't needed an armoured division for the last decade, so why isn't all M1s put into storage and tankers driving much cheaper trucks?

The US experience in Iraq and the Canadians in Afghanistan have shown the need for heavy armour in both firesupport and assault operations.

 

[Condottiere]

NOBODY expects the Imperium Marines! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Emperor .... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

 

[phavoc]

My fiscal point is that 10 troopers with DB is cheaper to deliver by starship, and more combat effective, than 20 troopers without BD.

If you need combat force it is cheaper to deliver fewer DB troops than many more lightly armoured troops.
If you do not need combat force, why deploy troops at all?
[/quote]

It would be better to deliver a SEAL team than two platoons of infantry. It would be better to deploy a Ranger battalion than a standard infantry battalion. It's always better to deploy the best, most expensive troops.

But reality doesn't work that way. You still don't seem to want to acknowledge that the majority of your operations don't need elite equipped troops. Nor do you seem to grasp how military deployments work. Seriously, it's not that hard.

57th century fake-world works by 57th century fake-world logic, it is not 20th century Earth.

But if you want current examples, why are the US operating F22s when they are not needed until a major war and the AF could save a lot of money by putting them into storage and flying Tucanos instead?

The US hasn't needed an armoured division for the last decade, so why isn't all M1s put into storage and tankers driving much cheaper trucks?

Why aren't all Imperial warships Tigress-class dreadnoughts? I can ask silly questions too.

If you know anything about the military you can answer your own F-22 question.

But, if you'd like a real-world example, I will point you to the history books and the fall of France. They had GREAT weapons on paper prior to the German invasion. Now why didn't those naughty krauts wait until the French could build their modern tanks and aircraft? Or maybe you should look up Russian infantry attacks in east during the Russo-Japanese war. Why did the Russians have one rifle for 10 men? Why didn't they give every man a rifle??

 

[phavoc]

NOBODY expects the Imperium Marines! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Emperor .... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Lol! Wait, are those Marines in RED battledress? With floppy hats?

 

[Condottiere]

 

[E4MC]

"It would be better to deliver a SEAL team than two platoons of infantry. It would be better to deploy a Ranger battalion than a standard infantry battalion."

That would depend on the mission. A USMC infantry platoon has 50 Marines. A SEAL team has 96 SEALs but the largest operational element assigned to a mission is usually a SEAL platoon of 16 SEALs. So a Marine infantry platoon outnumbers a SEAL platoon almost 3 to 1. And while SEALS are highly trained in a lot of things including infantry tactics, your basic SEAL is not the top tier operator of Team 6/DEVGRU or whatever they are calling themselves nowadays. And your basic USMC infantryman has more training in infantry tactics than your basic SEAL because that is all the Marine Infantryman does. SEAL's like all other lightly armed special operations units usually get their asses handed to them when they try to go toe to toe with larger units of trained infantry. A SEAL platoon would most likely get its ass handed to it by a US Marine infantry platoon.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It would be better to deliver a SEAL team than two platoons of infantry. It would be better to deploy a Ranger battalion than a standard infantry battalion.

For some missions, not for others, as E4MC points out. But why would I not use Rangers, if I had a battalion at hand and they would be more suited to the mission?

But reality doesn't work that way. You still don't seem to want to acknowledge that the majority of your operations don't need elite equipped troops. Nor do you seem to grasp how military deployments work.

I'm not talking about all or a majority of operations, but specifically about Imperial marines deployed aboard ships, where battle dress is a small fraction of the capital cost of the mission.

Seriously, it's not that hard.

I would agree.

Why aren't all Imperial warships Tigress-class dreadnoughts? I can ask silly questions too.

Because they are not cost-effective and can't project power to many places at once, i.e. ridiculous white elephants?

If you know anything about the military you can answer your own F-22 question.

We have to train with the equipment we are going to use in case of a major war, and we have to be prepared to go to war on short notice. So we do not put gloriously expensive warplanes or warships into storage to rot.

Just like with battledress. The Imperium has already bought the battle dress, since they are needed in case of war. So, instead of storing it at the nearest Depot, it is deployed with the troops for training and even the occasional use.

The Imperium has already bought them because it would be ridiculously cost inefficient to deploy warships with badly equipped marines. I am assuming some basic level of competence and lack of gross corruption in the Imperial Navy.

But, if you'd like a real-world example, I will point you to the history books and the fall of France. They had GREAT weapons on paper prior to the German invasion. Now why didn't those naughty krauts wait until the French could build their modern tanks and aircraft?

France did not have GREAT weapons, they had lots of weapons, enough to equip their large reserve army, as befits any competent power. And they deployed the weapons they had. They lost because of doctrine, a strategic mistake, and the Germans took a huge gamble and succeeded.

The Germans did wait from September '39 to May '40 to attack France giving everyone time to train and buy new equipment. The German army was way too weak to attack France in '39. What does this have to do with deploying existing armaments on spaceships in peacetime?

Or maybe you should look up Russian infantry attacks in east during the Russo-Japanese war. Why did the Russians have one rifle for 10 men? Why didn't they give every man a rifle??

Because the Russian Army was woefully unprepared (and probably corrupt). Sending badly trained soldiers into combat without equipment is an act of desperation, not cost calculation.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The US experience in Iraq and the Canadians in Afghanistan have shown the need for heavy armour in both firesupport and assault operations.

A few tanks here and there are obviously useful to run over insurgents, but that is very far from the concentrated power of a full armoured division.

And since the tanks are already deployed why not use them?

At a guess armour is deployed more to deter foreign, e.g. Iranian, adventurism than to kill insurgents.

 

[phavoc]

+1

 

[phavoc]

"It would be better to deliver a SEAL team than two platoons of infantry. It would be better to deploy a Ranger battalion than a standard infantry battalion."

That would depend on the mission. A USMC infantry platoon has 50 Marines. A SEAL team has 96 SEALs but the largest operational element assigned to a mission is usually a SEAL platoon of 16 SEALs. So a Marine infantry platoon outnumbers a SEAL platoon almost 3 to 1. And while SEALS are highly trained in a lot of things including infantry tactics, your basic SEAL is not the top tier operator of Team 6/DEVGRU or whatever they are calling themselves nowadays. And your basic USMC infantryman has more training in infantry tactics than your basic SEAL because that is all the Marine Infantryman does. SEAL's like all other lightly armed special operations units usually get their asses handed to them when they try to go toe to toe with larger units of trained infantry. A SEAL platoon would most likely get its ass handed to it by a US Marine infantry platoon.

Likewise, it would not necessarily be better to deploy a Ranger battalion if you can deploy a standard infantry battalion because the standard infantry is just as well trained in infantry tactics and is more heavily armed. BTW, although Rangers are under the SOCOM umbrella, they are not special operators. Their mission is to support special operations forces just as the Special Forces Support Group does in the UK. And the only difference between a Ranger and a US Marine infantryman is that Rangers are airborne and Marines are amphibuous; as far war-fighting capability, there's not much difference.

Well, I should have been more explicit there. A 'team' in SEAL terms, is variable in size, depending on how you are using it. I didn't use it very clearly.

There are some large differences here that aren't getting addressed. Rangers and SEALS are optimized to work in smaller units. They are elite units. Each of them started as a basic marine or soldier and did the same training (SEALs are exceptions, since you can be Navy). They then went through additional training and elimination processing. So, in effect, any SEAL can be a marine infantryman, but not every marine infantryman can be a SEAL. Take a 10 man USMC infantry platoon against a 10man SEAL platoon and the USMC would come out the losing end of that equation. SEALS are an elite unit and they train much more than a USMC infantry unit. Could the reverse happen? Sure, it's possible, just not very probable. Your theory goes against the evidence of elite vs. regular units throughout military history.

You are correct in that the average elite unit does not have the same TO&E as a line unit. Rangers and SEALS don't have mortar teams, heavy weapons teams, or other heavy support units. In an open field attack, the heavier weaponry may be able to overcome the skill and expertise of the lighter-armed units. Of course any unit that is outgunned in an open area faces the same. But elite units aren't deployed like line units. They are deployed and hit hard and fade away before they can be engaged. That has been the case since the beginning. Light cavalry could never stand against heavy cavalry, so the light cavalry didn't give heavy cavalry the opportunity to engage them. In more modern terms, my old unit, the 1st Cavalry division, would chew up the 10th Mountain (light) infantry division on the northern plains of Germany where they would have been deployed in the event of a Soviet invasion. Now move those two units to the mountains and the outcome would be reversed. Tanks and heavy weapons are useless when you can't drive up the mountain side.

 

[Condottiere]

A desired outcome with the application of force within a specific framework of time and space.

Hopefully, with an endgame.

But specifically with the Marines, who have their own special forces, that time window is usually perceived to be very short, and that force applied in a small space.

Misapplication occurs all the time, such as sending an armoured corps to suppress an entrenched insurgency in a jungle environment.

 

[phavoc]

For some missions, not for others, as E4MC points out. But why would I not use Rangers, if I had a battalion at hand and they would be more suited to the mission?

I'm not talking about all or a majority of operations, but specifically about Imperial marines deployed aboard ships, where battle dress is a small fraction of the capital cost of the mission.

Because they are not cost-effective and can't project power to many places at once, i.e. ridiculous white elephants?

We have to train with the equipment we are going to use in case of a major war, and we have to be prepared to go to war on short notice. So we do not put gloriously expensive warplanes or warships into storage to rot.

Just like with battledress. The Imperium has already bought the battle dress, since they are needed in case of war. So, instead of storing it at the nearest Depot, it is deployed with the troops for training and even the occasional use.

The Imperium has already bought them because it would be ridiculously cost inefficient to deploy warships with badly equipped marines. I am assuming some basic level of competence and lack of gross corruption in the Imperial Navy.

France did not have GREAT weapons, they had lots of weapons, enough to equip their large reserve army, as befits any competent power. And they deployed the weapons they had. They lost because of doctrine, a strategic mistake, and the Germans took a huge gamble and succeeded.

The Germans did wait from September '39 to May '40 to attack France giving everyone time to train and buy new equipment. The German army was way too weak to attack France in '39. What does this have to do with deploying existing armaments on spaceships in peacetime?

Because the Russian Army was woefully unprepared (and probably corrupt). Sending badly trained soldiers into combat without equipment is an act of desperation, not cost calculation.

First off, i want to apologize for being snippy with you yesterday. Sitting through annoying meetings and taking it out on others isn't fair. So let's get on to the next set of replies.

Marines deployed as ships troops won't always need battledress. Marines who's mission is primarily customs enforcement and the occassional pirate can do their mission just as well in combat armor as they can in battledress. Battledress is most definitely superior to it. But battledress is also meant for one thing - battle. If you expect no battle, and there are no enemy states you need to deal with, there's no need for it.

As to the storage of the equipment and it being not useful in a warehouse... welcome to the military! Just because you have the weaponry doesn't mean you always take it out of the box for usage. Taking it out of the box means you have to start paying maintenance and support on it. While individually it's not super expensive, each set of battledress adds up for more costs. Your quote about going to war with what you have was the same one used by Rumsfeld when he was confronted by the troops deployed in Iraq and who were dying in IED attacks in HUMVEE's - vehicles never designed for that mission. Which spurred the creation of MRAP's. One might say 'ah-ha! see! the equivalent of battledress!' Which isn't unreasonable. But also, to point out, many MRAP's have been scrapped now that their mission is over and infantry units don't need to deploy in that environment. I would agree with anyone that the 'logic' of such a decision is questionable, however that is also the reality the military is in.

At the start of WW2, the French had put off building newer tanks and planes because the speed of change in the technology of weapons had the government making the decision that it wasn't financially smart to build planes and tanks that would most likely be obsolete within a few years of being built. The same thing had happened with the launch of the HMS Dreadnought, which immediately made all pre-dreadnought battleships obsolete. Ironically Dreadnought herself was obsolete within a few years of it's launch and it was scrapped after only 13 years. The French made a sound financial decision, which cost them (temporarily at least) their nation. The French had GREAT weapons - on paper. They chose to NOT build them.

You are correct in that the Germans had better tactics, soldiers and planning than the French or British and caught them unaware. Plus the French believed the Maginot line could hold the Germans back, which was incorrect. They simply avoided it. Equipment wise, the French Char and the British Matilda were superior to PzKw 1,2,3. But the Germans had superior leadership (Guderian & Rommel) and tactics. And the dreaded 88. The allies got caught flat-footed and made many mistakes. And they lost. Which is the nature of battle. Having technical or numerical superiority doesn't guarantee a win.

Bottom line is that every military has to live within budgetary constraints. This means no military can afford to have the latest and greatest equipment everywhere and all the time. Financial choices influence and control when and where the most advanced weapons go, and where the 'average' weapons go. This concept has remained current throughout human history (to date).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

First off, i want to apologize for being snippy with you yesterday.

Cool, we have all been there...

Marines deployed as ships troops won't always need battledress. Marines who's mission is primarily customs enforcement and the occassional pirate can do their mission just as well in combat armor as they can in battledress. Battledress is most definitely superior to it. But battledress is also meant for one thing - battle. If you expect no battle, and there are no enemy states you need to deal with, there's no need for it.

The AK5 assault rifle (or the M16) also has only one purpose: Combat; yet lots of soldiers carry them around in peacetime, even in the rear echelon (I guess, in the case of the US).
The US Navy has no use for torpedoes or anti-ship missiles in peacetime, wouldn't it make as much sense to store all of them somewhere safe in the Rockies to save wear and tear? (And how long would it take to get them to Guam or the Gulf by ship?)

I sincerely doubt the Imperial Navy bothers much with local customs enforcement, that is not Imperial jurisdiction.

Buying Combat Armour à kCr 160+ to save some wear and tear on the kCr 220+ Battle Dress you have already bought does not make financial sense. Especially as Combat Armour is basically useless against low tech ATRs.

Battle Dress is great for intimidating civilians and pirates alike.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

Nothing is cheaper than winning without a fight, both in men and equipment.

You also need to constantly train with the equipment you will actually use in war, and have it handy in case you actually need to fight. If it is stored "somewhere" it will be months into the next war before you get it, unless the storage facility is overrun, of course, in which case you never get it, either way it is unacceptable.

Your quote about going to war with what you have was the same one used by Rumsfeld when he was confronted by the troops deployed in Iraq and who were dying in IED attacks in HUMVEE's

"You go to war with what you have, not what you want" was an old tired cliché long before Rumsfeld. I'm sure Roman centurions told their men the same...

But also, to point out, many MRAP's have been scrapped now that their mission is over and infantry units don't need to deploy in that environment. I would agree with anyone that the 'logic' of such a decision is questionable, however that is also the reality the military is in.

That makes sense if you do not expect to combat insurgents any time soon, which seems quite optimistic...
Yet, I guess, the regular budget is supposed to pay for the Army's main purpose, conventional major power warfare, not hobbies like playing with recalcitrant civilians.

 

[E4MC]

"Well, I should have been more explicit there. A 'team' in SEAL terms, is variable in size, depending on how you are using it. I didn't use it very clearly."

A SEAL Team is not variable in size. It is a set unit made up of six platoons of 16 SEAL's each. A platoon is usually the largest group of SEALS that will be sent on a mission. So usually anything less than a platoon could be variable in size, which I'm assuming is what you're thinking of.

"Rangers and SEALS are optimized to work in smaller units."

SEALS are optimized to work in smaller units. Rangers not so much as they operate as light infantry and, although they are more highly trained than regular infantry and assigned to US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), they are not really special operators. Rangers support special operations forces just like the the Special Forces Support Group, made up of commandos and paras, does in the UK.

USMC also has special operations forces which are just as highly trained as SEALs: Force Recon Marines, which do everything the SEAL's do but specializes in deep reconnaissance and are not attached to US Special Operations Command; and Marine Raiders, which have essentially the same mission as US Army Special Forces and are attached to USSOCOM. Force Recon has existed since the 1950's, long before the first Navy SEAL's, and Marine Raiders have only been around for about 10 years. When US Special Operations Command was started in the 1980's, USMC refused to let them have their Force Recon assets. Then, after 9/11, when the first forces into Afghanistan were from USSOCOM, USMC was pissed because they didn't have any forces there. So USMC created Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) and transferred Marines from their 1st and 2nd Force Recon Companies to use as the foundation for their new 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Marine Special Operations Battalions, which were attached to USSOCOM. Just recently, USMC re-designated the three Marine Special Operations Battalions as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Marine Raider Battalions under the Marine Raider Regiment. The special operators in these units were originally called Critical Skills Operators but are now called Marine Raiders.

 

[paltrysum]

While we're off topic (and it'll be easy to get back ON topic if I just mention battle dress, right?), how about Army Special Forces? Isn't their primary function training? I would imagine there would be less emphasis on fighting and stealth skills, but I really only know what I've read. I book I read on the subject several years ago painted the green berets as primarily working with an ally and training their armies to fight.

 

[Condottiere]

Modern special forces undertake a range of missions, beyond simple infiltration and sabotage, like cadre, humanitarian and disaster relief.

They are specific attempts at soft power projection in hard to get areas, compared to parking a carrier off shore and utilizing it's helicopters and Marine contingent in a more large scale effort.

 

[phavoc]

"Well, I should have been more explicit there. A 'team' in SEAL terms, is variable in size, depending on how you are using it. I didn't use it very clearly."

A SEAL Team is not variable in size. It is a set unit made up of six platoons of 16 SEAL's each. A platoon is usually the largest group of SEALS that will be sent on a mission. So usually anything less than a platoon could be variable in size, which I'm assuming is what you're thinking of.

"Rangers and SEALS are optimized to work in smaller units."

SEALS are optimized to work in smaller units. Rangers not so much as they operate as light infantry and, although they are more highly trained than regular infantry and assigned to US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), they are not really special operators. Rangers support special operations forces just like the the Special Forces Support Group, made up of commandos and paras, does in the UK.

USMC also has special operations forces which are just as highly trained as SEALs: Force Recon Marines, which do everything the SEAL's do but specializes in deep reconnaissance and are not attached to US Special Operations Command; and Marine Raiders, which have essentially the same mission as US Army Special Forces and are attached to USSOCOM. Force Recon has existed since the 1950's, long before the first Navy SEAL's, and Marine Raiders have only been around for about 10 years. When US Special Operations Command was started in the 1980's, USMC refused to let them have their Force Recon assets. Then, after 9/11, when the first forces into Afghanistan were from USSOCOM, USMC was pissed because they didn't have any forces there. So USMC created Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) and transferred Marines from their 1st and 2nd Force Recon Companies to use as the foundation for their new 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Marine Special Operations Battalions, which were attached to USSOCOM. Just recently, USMC re-designated the three Marine Special Operations Battalions as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Marine Raider Battalions under the Marine Raider Regiment. The special operators in these units were originally called Critical Skills Operators but are now called Marine Raiders.

ALL military units can be broken down into their smallest groups (such as a squad) and deployed for a specific mission - and each can be deployed in larger groups as well. That's the nature of a military structure and unit. Team has multiple meanings, and I referenced it in the most generic non-specific way. To be more specific, the 'team' has 6 platoons plus an admin team. Per the literature out there, it is very rare for more than a single platoon to be deployed for a specific mission. From this angle, a single SEAL platoon is likely to be deployed for a mission, whereas a single infantry platoon is likely to be deployed with it's larger unit. They have different goals and therefore their deployments would be different.

All of the US military branches (I don't know about the CG) have elite fighting units. SEALS are equated with US Army Delta Force. I'm not aware that USMC Raiders got deployed on the SSGN's, or at least I've never run across an article stating as that. I don't doubt that the elites of each of the branches are better than an equal number of regular troops. They all have specialized mission parameters and they are are probably equivalent in the light infantry/infiltration roles. Beyond that their specialized training would kick in. I'm not debating about which ones are ultimately the 'best', which I think is a relative term.