I use "zip gun", as in, "he's been unzipped".
I didn't create this, but don't remember where I saw it...
A Proto-Traveller Conundrum: pre-Mercenary Marines!
- Thread starter Mithras
- Start date
I use "zip gun", as in, "he's been unzipped".
I didn't create this, but don't remember where I saw it...
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Since it's derived from the name of a German scientist, it ought to be pronounced the German way, so rhymes with house.
Hiver Lord, AIUI, the term 'zip gun' has a different meaning, and refers to 'home made' weapons produced by and for resistance groups etc using materials to hand, but I could be wrong there.
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss
The guy the gun is named after. Think it rhymes with house (gouse).
The guy the gun is named after. Think it rhymes with house (gouse).
I actually prefer to think that ALL Marines are trained on Combat Armor, and all those (save for those that have Battledress) that go into combat have them. Support Marines, maybe not, but they wouldn't go into combat, necessarily. I don't see the Marines sending their troops into combat without Combat Armor.
Of course, I prefer to have my PGMP-13 and FGMP-14 not be tied to having Battledress; while I think that there can be connections to it, I prefer to have it with a tripod and controls so unarmored troops can use it. (Sort of like a machine-gun, but better.)
I like to MISpronounce it "gau-uu-uu-se." But I believe that, when NOT mispronounced, it's "gowse." At least, that's what I do.
IMHO, as all marines (even support) may be shipboard troops, I think all of them are vacc suit trained (as are all Navy and Scout personnel). I don't believe the Navy would allow any crewmemeber (incluiding the Marines, that, as I understand them, are into naval command) to board its ships without (at least rudimentary, so level 0) Vacc suit training.
This raises (IMHO again) another question that, although don't applies to this campaign, we always had in my gaming group. Is the CharGen Marine career about Imperial Marines or also about Colonial Marines?. If the former is true, then the +1 to MOS skills on Bk4 should be automatic (I don't envision IM being less than TL15), if the latter is, then it would depend on the planet/subsector they're from (and if Subsector Fleet Marines, I guess in most cases they should too have the +1 to MOS skills, as I guess most of them are maximum subsector TL).
Perhaps Marine career (in Bk4/MT CharGen) should be divided in Imperial, Subsector/reserve and Planetary, as Navy is. But maybe this could be better discussed elsewhere...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
LBB4 predates LBB5 (bit of an obvious statement that 
)
It was LBB5 that really started to define the naval organisations that would become the norm for the OTU.
LBB4 marines are ship based troops.
LBB5 introduces planetary, subsector and Imperial navies.
There could well be the same designation for marines.
)It was LBB5 that really started to define the naval organisations that would become the norm for the OTU.
LBB4 marines are ship based troops.
LBB5 introduces planetary, subsector and Imperial navies.
There could well be the same designation for marines.
LBB4 predates LBB5 (bit of an obvious statement that
It was LBB5 that really started to define the naval organisations that would become the norm for the OTU.
LBB4 marines are ship based troops.
LBB5 introduces planetary, subsector and Imperial navies.
There could well be the same designation for marines.
Then you agree it would be coherent to house rule some discrimination about Imperial Marines, Subsector/Reserve Marines and Planetary Marines?
BTW, I cheated a little
, while is true in Bk4 the various levels of the Navy had not yet been defined, but I included MT in my post, and by the release of MT they were well defined (even if the conversion/discrimination, is not clear, from Subsector Navy to Reserve Navy created some confusion). And in MT there's no such discrimination among Marines.Then you agree it would be coherent to house rule some discrimination about Imperial Marines, Subsector/Reserve Marines and Planetary Marines?
BTW, I cheated a little
I would say that Imperial and Subsector Marines are drawn from the same pool - i.e. a Marine is a Marine. However, Planetary Marines are classified as part of the Imperial Army because they're part of the planet's own defense forces - they're simply trained to the Marines standard.
Wrong. It's very clear about them being two separate but similar services... just like the US Army and the USMC.
Remember that Paul is looking at a proto-traveller universe, sans Bk4/bk5, but with S4.
Now, given that the publishing order of those books was B1-3 (77), B4 (79), B5-79 (79), S4(79)... I'd say using the weapons of Bk4 makes sense, and the skills lists of B4/B5 also makes sense (as S4 will require changes if you don't)...
Depending on how Paul wants to run his prototraveller, there might be...
1) Only the Imperial Fleet, Imperial Marines, and Imperial Army - the "Ignore B4/B5 completely option
2) Only Imperial and Planetary Fleets, Marines, and Armies. - The Book 4 implied model. Also implied in the 1981 Striker.
3) Imperial, Subsector and planetary Fleets, Marines, and Armies - The Bk5 implied model
4) the OTU model - Imperial, Subsector, and Planetary Fleets, only local armies, and only imperial marines.
5) Imperial, SS, and Planetary fleets and marine corps, Local and standing imperial armies.
There's a lot of potential variations.
Never heard that one before; I'll have to remember that one. Thanks!
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
That is ringing a vague bell. Some sci-fi novel... I want to say Stainless Steel Rat series but I'm really not sure. And I've got a definite machine-pistol vibe tied to it.
Yep, at least originally it was a small homemade simple single fire gun. Sometimes multiple barrels to avoid reloading or for limited machine-pistol performance. And very often meant for concealment and/or disguised (aka pen-gun etc.).
In Traveller (CT at least) the Body Pistol can fit the definition pretty nicely for the multiple barrel version.
US is a bad example, because of the way the constitution is written, is why the separation, the USMC are actually part of the Navy. It isn't a logical organizational separation from a military theory point of view, many modern militaries do not do it that way. You only need two commands, planetary and space, task oriented.
Bk1 gives an ill defined separation, Bk4 gives a one line separation and then has no separate arms. It also calls armor cavalry, while my name is mounted infantry, armored brigades would be your typical unit formation; even the Maines OTU have it that way, which then they don't have by chargen.
Last edited:
Sorry, but wrong.
Russians have a similar issue. So do the Brits. There's literally 3 of the top 5 militaries in the world (at least, as ranked at http://www.globalfirepower.com/). The Red Chinese have a marine corps, as well... under the navy, and intended for ground combat in the littoral zone. So does the Republic of Korea.
Many nations have separate marines or naval infantry services from the army, and have them trained for ground warfare. Spetznaz, USMC, Royal Marines, RoK Marines, Troupes de marine...
A few have BOTH. Like the US until after WW I ...
US Naval Infantry were in fact sailors, not marines. Marines were naval-carried separate sub-service from inception, which predates the US Constitution, and were originally ship-boarding specialists. Naval Infantry were Naval personell seconded to ground combat duties, and were usually ad-hoc units.
See the "US Navy Landing Forces Manual" which google books has...
Read it before.
The US is the way it is because the way the constitution separates the budget between the navy and army; it's a bad example.
Troupes de Marines are French Army and Spetsnaz are FSB (the descendant of the KGB), just to show how different countries do it. However, a thousand years of it's own tradition and the Imperium will most likely be doing it it's own way.
Mithras should do it how he feels comfortable. Logically it would be task oriented, with the attendent separate logistical commands.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Actually in french "Fusillier marin" refer to sailors performing as armsmen or landing force. Troupe de marine were shipboard troops in the age of sail; since the colonies were under the minister of navy (Ministre de la marine), they became mostly infantry on colonial duty as the empire growed; when the Ministère des Colonies was created, Most became part of "l'Infantrie coloniale" however, "l'esprit de corp" being "l'esprit de corp" (nobody dies for a pay check or because it make technocratic sense) "la coloniale" kept nearly all traditions of the Troupes de marine. Nowaday, when there are no colonies anymore the remaining Troupes de marine are part of the army as was said.
Selandia
