I'm so hopeful for the content of the Marines books, even though I'm very against the UEEF having a separate sub-service for infantry.
![El Bandito :bandit:](./images/smilies/bandit.gif)
Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones
Jerell wrote:While I can't wait to see what's in the UEEF Marine books. I come back to wondering if a unified space force really needs something called a marine (since they're not really water-based). Why not just UEEF infantry, soldiers, ect. Maybe if marines had even been mentioned in the any of the 3 series, I'd be more behind the use of the name.
I'm so hopeful for the content of the Marines books, even though I'm very against the UEEF having a separate sub-service for infantry.Please be good.
Kurseteller wrote:Because Marines are cooler sounding than soldiers? Which scares you more? Imperial guard plattons or SPACE MARINES?
Kurseteller wrote:Because Marines are cooler sounding than soldiers? Which scares you more? Imperial guard plattons or SPACE MARINES?
Colonel Wolfe wrote:Kurseteller wrote:Because Marines are cooler sounding than soldiers? Which scares you more? Imperial guard plattons or SPACE MARINES?
well if Robotech Marines are going to be 10ft tall genetic mutants with mutiple hearts and insane powered armours... sign me up for them... now if they are gonna be basically Imperial guards with the cool "marine" title... call a spade a spade
jaymz wrote:Colonel Wolfe wrote:Kurseteller wrote:Because Marines are cooler sounding than soldiers? Which scares you more? Imperial guard plattons or SPACE MARINES?
well if Robotech Marines are going to be 10ft tall genetic mutants with mutiple hearts and insane powered armours... sign me up for them... now if they are gonna be basically Imperial guards with the cool "marine" title... call a spade a spade
Colonial Marines with CyclonesColonial Marines were bad ass. I want one of their dropships.....I bet it could carry a 4 hovertank unit to a planets surface and give excellent ground support too
slade the sniper wrote:jaymz wrote:Colonel Wolfe wrote:Kurseteller wrote:Because Marines are cooler sounding than soldiers? Which scares you more? Imperial guard plattons or SPACE MARINES?
well if Robotech Marines are going to be 10ft tall genetic mutants with mutiple hearts and insane powered armours... sign me up for them... now if they are gonna be basically Imperial guards with the cool "marine" title... call a spade a spade
Colonial Marines with CyclonesColonial Marines were bad ass. I want one of their dropships.....I bet it could carry a 4 hovertank unit to a planets surface and give excellent ground support too
I think the UD-4 could carry maybe a singular hovertank...since it can carry the M577 APC. The air support aspect is pretty awesome in both the dropship and gunship model.
-STS
Kurseteller wrote:Because Marines are cooler sounding than soldiers? Which scares you more? Imperial guard plattons or SPACE MARINES?
Jerell wrote:[/i] Infantry is infantry,
glitterboy2098 wrote:while many countries their 'marines' are little more than army guys in boats to land ashore, or to board other ships, but compare this to the USMC or the Royal Marines.. who are not actually trained much in boarding tactics or beach assults as a primary, but as combined arms rapid reaction forces for any enviroment, and which are often "first in, last out" jacks of all trades.. unlike most army's.
generally the bigger the 'marine' forces a country has, the more thay become their own thing instead of just "soldiers in boats".. and since the UEDF and UEEF is the result of merging all the military's of the 1990's into one single over arcing organization, they'd need a way to handle the "their own kind of thing" that worked.. especially since in the early days it would have been little more than redesignation of units to be in specific UEDF branches. can you imagine what would happen if the Marine Corps of the world that were used to operating as their own branches suddenly were forced to conform to navy ranks, organization, and command? or assigned to the.. god forbid.. Army?
Deckard1973 wrote:Jerell wrote:[/i] Infantry is infantry,
Fraid not.
The US Army has been trying to develop their own Amphib capability to replace the USMC for years. Has not worked yet.
I was stationed at Dam Neck VA (96', 99'), used to watch the Army hovercraft speed to shore, and deploy their forces in their amphib exercises.
It was cringe worthy.
And if infantry is infantry, then why have SOF?
mech798 wrote:Also, if they're based on the US or British Marines, they're not just soldiers-- the USMC has it's own air support, dedicated support ships, heavy ground combat elements, etc. They're considerably more flexible and independent than the army, especially with their ability to get to the combat zone quickly and in the face of opposition.
If they are based on the USMC or British Marines, I do hope we find that they were no where near earth during the initial attacks on the Invid, because had they been, I expect the commanders would have been repeatedly smacked about for creating such a dumb plan.
guardiandashi wrote:it has to do with a historical /psudo historical precedent I think.
Zer0 Kay wrote:Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness.
jedi078 wrote:Personally I don't know why people have so much hate when it comes to utilizing the term 'Marine' for the UEEF's ground combat element.
Shawn Merrow wrote:jedi078 wrote:Personally I don't know why people have so much hate when it comes to utilizing the term 'Marine' for the UEEF's ground combat element.
Happens a lot when you bring up Marines for Sci-Fit settings. I have seen some really nasty fights over Starfleet having Marines or not. Its often a banned topic for how nasty it gets.
Zer0 Kay wrote:Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness.
Jerell wrote:Deckard1973 wrote:Jerell wrote:[/i] Infantry is infantry,
Fraid not.
The US Army has been trying to develop their own Amphib capability to replace the USMC for years. Has not worked yet.
I was stationed at Dam Neck VA (96', 99'), used to watch the Army hovercraft speed to shore, and deploy their forces in their amphib exercises.
It was cringe worthy.
And if infantry is infantry, then why have SOF?
Operation Torch. Sicily. Italy. Normandy. Okinawa. The Army has been able to do amphibious landings when the need was there. SOF is something different entirely, they are not standard infantry. I've supported US SF, SBS, and CIA, in my experience they operate differently than the standard services, and it's better that way. If a current US Army unity has trouble figuring out an amphibious landing, I'd blame the officers in charge. Because I haven't noticed a huge difference between US Army Infantry and Marines at the E1-E6 level.mech798 wrote:Also, if they're based on the US or British Marines, they're not just soldiers-- the USMC has it's own air support, dedicated support ships, heavy ground combat elements, etc. They're considerably more flexible and independent than the army, especially with their ability to get to the combat zone quickly and in the face of opposition.
If they are based on the USMC or British Marines, I do hope we find that they were no where near earth during the initial attacks on the Invid, because had they been, I expect the commanders would have been repeatedly smacked about for creating such a dumb plan.
They are not considerably more flexible than the army, who has their own CAS in the form of Apaches and Kiowas, para-infantry, air assault units, Rangers, SP (and SP Rocket) Artillery and dedicated medical, civil affairs and medivac assets. I'm not saying the one is better than the other, but operationally the Navy, Air Force, or UEEF for that matter, could get either Army or Marines to a theater just as quickly. The advantage the US Marines have over the US Army is being a much smaller force, they can be more selective as to which people they recruit. However some modern western armies such as Canada, have a single unified armed force. I got trained in basic winter warfare with them, and I like their unified system quite a bit. There's been much talk of unifying the all the US medical services into a single force, which I also think would be a good idea if we could just convince all the Admirals and Generals.
For heavy ground, combined arms units, you're not going to get better than units like US 3rd ID, or US ACRs or 1st US Armored Division. The 3rd ID blitz to Baghdad in 2003 is well known.
Respect and Oorah to all the Marines I get the feeling I'm talking to. Rock of the Marne.
slade the sniper wrote:Jerell wrote:Deckard1973 wrote:Jerell wrote:[/i] Infantry is infantry,
Fraid not.
The US Army has been trying to develop their own Amphib capability to replace the USMC for years. Has not worked yet.
I was stationed at Dam Neck VA (96', 99'), used to watch the Army hovercraft speed to shore, and deploy their forces in their amphib exercises.
It was cringe worthy.
And if infantry is infantry, then why have SOF?
Operation Torch. Sicily. Italy. Normandy. Okinawa. The Army has been able to do amphibious landings when the need was there. SOF is something different entirely, they are not standard infantry. I've supported US SF, SBS, and CIA, in my experience they operate differently than the standard services, and it's better that way. If a current US Army unity has trouble figuring out an amphibious landing, I'd blame the officers in charge. Because I haven't noticed a huge difference between US Army Infantry and Marines at the E1-E6 level.mech798 wrote:Also, if they're based on the US or British Marines, they're not just soldiers-- the USMC has it's own air support, dedicated support ships, heavy ground combat elements, etc. They're considerably more flexible and independent than the army, especially with their ability to get to the combat zone quickly and in the face of opposition.
If they are based on the USMC or British Marines, I do hope we find that they were no where near earth during the initial attacks on the Invid, because had they been, I expect the commanders would have been repeatedly smacked about for creating such a dumb plan.
They are not considerably more flexible than the army, who has their own CAS in the form of Apaches and Kiowas, para-infantry, air assault units, Rangers, SP (and SP Rocket) Artillery and dedicated medical, civil affairs and medivac assets. I'm not saying the one is better than the other, but operationally the Navy, Air Force, or UEEF for that matter, could get either Army or Marines to a theater just as quickly. The advantage the US Marines have over the US Army is being a much smaller force, they can be more selective as to which people they recruit. However some modern western armies such as Canada, have a single unified armed force. I got trained in basic winter warfare with them, and I like their unified system quite a bit. There's been much talk of unifying the all the US medical services into a single force, which I also think would be a good idea if we could just convince all the Admirals and Generals.
For heavy ground, combined arms units, you're not going to get better than units like US 3rd ID, or US ACRs or 1st US Armored Division. The 3rd ID blitz to Baghdad in 2003 is well known.
Respect and Oorah to all the Marines I get the feeling I'm talking to. Rock of the Marne.
Thanks Jerell.
IMHO, all the Army vs Marines (vs Navy and Air Force as well...but everyone does like the Coasties) stuff is usually relegated to bars (where it is good), internet forums (where it doesn't matter) and budget conferences (where it is very, very bad). To be truthful, professional military members all know their jobs and what their limitations are and it is very, very rare when one service or unit pretends they can "do it all." I have seen every branch and unit (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, multiple flavors of SOF, CSAs or Agencies) try it and fail. The WHOLE system is DESIGNED to work together and insisting that one branch can do everything all alone is either stupid or playing to an audience.
Yes, there should be Marines in the REF (yes, outdated term, but I like it), but there should also be some Army analog that has the capability to do an opposed space insertion and be capable of conducting sustained 24/7 combat operations at Corp level for years as long as the supply lines are open. The idea that 5,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 troops showing up from space can take and hold a planet is ludicrous...technology superiority only grants so much of an advantage. Marines are great for seizing spaceports, or several important objectives in a city and holding them for a few days in combat or even large size raids (clear X space dock in 6 hours then leave), but attacking and holding a planet...that is a job for an Army with a LOT of orbital fire support.
-STS
slade the sniper wrote:Yes, there should be Marines in the REF (yes, outdated term, but I like it), but there should also be some Army analog that has the capability to do an opposed space insertion and be capable of conducting sustained 24/7 combat operations at Corp level for years as long as the supply lines are open. The idea that 5,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 troops showing up from space can take and hold a planet is ludicrous...technology superiority only grants so much of an advantage. Marines are great for seizing spaceports, or several important objectives in a city and holding them for a few days in combat or even large size raids (clear X space dock in 6 hours then leave), but attacking and holding a planet...that is a job for an Army with a LOT of orbital fire support.
-STS
Jerell wrote:slade the sniper wrote:Yes, there should be Marines in the REF (yes, outdated term, but I like it), but there should also be some Army analog that has the capability to do an opposed space insertion and be capable of conducting sustained 24/7 combat operations at Corp level for years as long as the supply lines are open. The idea that 5,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 troops showing up from space can take and hold a planet is ludicrous...technology superiority only grants so much of an advantage. Marines are great for seizing spaceports, or several important objectives in a city and holding them for a few days in combat or even large size raids (clear X space dock in 6 hours then leave), but attacking and holding a planet...that is a job for an Army with a LOT of orbital fire support.
-STS
![]()
This makes sense. That is a well reasoned response, and has actually persuaded me that UEEF could have/use a Marine force. While I now can see the point of Marines in Robotech, I'm still in favor a unified command structure, like the Canadian Forces uses. What about having UEEF marines limited in unit size to about battalion or regiment like contemporary Rangers? That way they could be easily mobile and transferred from command to command where needed, with not a huge asset allocation. I could be in favor of something like that.
Now that I think about, I think that the UEEF could probably use some Ranger units. Ground units for infiltration and survival where supply in limited. They could recruit a lot of Wilderness scout types after Reflex Point. Train a whole bunch of Rands to work in a unit, add in some troops with lots of extra-terrestrial experience. Supported by SF experts at starting resistance type campaigns. From a GM perspective that could also make for a cool unit to use of for a campaign too.
I still have high hopes for these books. Come on... great content!
Jerell wrote:What about having UEEF marines limited in unit size to about battalion or regiment like contemporary Rangers?
slade the sniper wrote:At the risk of being...overzealous, I can pretty much break down the phases and operational requirements for invading and holding a planet in some depth. The problem with a generic phase 0-5 operational construct is that it lacks details that would add to the understanding of the plan.Spoiler:
-STS
glitterboy2098 wrote:Scott does refer to "army flyboys" at the battle of reflex point, but since earlier descriptions of the assualt indicate trops already on earth are doing most of the ground work (also explaining the lack of shadow tech in that force) it is likely most of them were ASC troops with UEEF equipment obtained from Mars Division wrecks.
jedi078 wrote:slade the sniper wrote:At the risk of being...overzealous, I can pretty much break down the phases and operational requirements for invading and holding a planet in some depth. The problem with a generic phase 0-5 operational construct is that it lacks details that would add to the understanding of the plan.Spoiler:
-STS
Why not use one of the REF outposts featured in the old REF field guide (page #46)? Or the base on page 48?
jedi078 wrote:This thread is turning into the age old 'Army vs Marine' debate. Yes both branches have overlapping duties, but there are others in which they don't overlap.
Personally I don't know why people have so much hate when it comes to utilizing the term 'Marine' for the UEEF's ground combat element.
Deckard1973 wrote:jedi078 wrote:This thread is turning into the age old 'Army vs Marine' debate. Yes both branches have overlapping duties, but there are others in which they don't overlap.
Personally I don't know why people have so much hate when it comes to utilizing the term 'Marine' for the UEEF's ground combat element.
Agreed.
Us Marines are very particular when some chowderhead tries to regulate us to "infantry is infantry."
Chris0013 wrote:I am just hoping the new mecha is not crappy.
Jerell wrote:I kinda liked the Sentinels destroids, except the Excaliber. The original was far superior to the Sentinels. The REF Radar-X, Spartan and Gladiator were pretty cool though. MAC III wasn't bad.
I like the look of this one - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XdP6Lp2ceqY/Sz2IBNRjd4I/AAAAAAAAF3s/32kcmBJ5CUw/s400/mospeada7.PNG