CT Only: Idea for Navy Commandos

[Diveguy]

Just one bit I have to add on, from real world -
Marines in MARSOC and SEALs are COMPLETELY different services.

Yes. Both have elements under SOCCOM. Yes, they have overlapping missions at times, and even work together - and train together frequently. And yes, there have even been instances of one servicemember joining another service and crossing over. (Think "second career" in Traveller terms).

But, they are separate units and separate services - and, at least by current structure in the U.S., never the twain shall meet (same w SF, Rangers etc.)

Because, without a total hijack - they all have separate PRIMARY missions. Yes, there is bleed-over, but the core "reason for being" is different for each.

More than willing to explain the "real world" aspects in more depth, for any who are curious.

But - to relate to the thread - why then would the IN have their own Commando unit?

Well, there are two potential options, as already hinted -
- the first, a mission set which is "Navy centric" and not in the IM charter, as it were. Perhaps as "wet work" for the Intelligence folks, when simple auto pistols won't cut it. Perhaps for specific sabotage/raid missions on other starships/star ports. Perhaps something where you want the raiders to also have shipboard operations skills such as pilot, navigation etc. - not exactly what we think of in terms of SEAL members, but crosses over to space well. For an alternate thought, visualize something in the Star Wars saga - raiding the Death Star and stealing plans would certainly be a Navy operation, as opposed to the Marines "Kill lots of people even if it's quiet" model.

- second plays into the politics of a particular setting. Every service has their own rivalries and secrets, so the IN would certainly want a group of heavy hitters available to handle certain problems. This actually has numerous real-world parallels in the various service SOF units and what has occurred through the years, with turf wars, political games and the like influencing both units and missions. So, while a Core fleet admiral would certainly have the resources of his local Marine Commando regiment to call on, there might also be times he wants to call over to the special Frigate in the squadron, and request that the unit assigned there handle a little "problem" instead...

 

[flykiller]

Perhaps something where you want the raiders to also have shipboard operations skills such as pilot, navigation etc ... the IN would certainly want a group of heavy hitters available to handle certain problems.

sounds like a job for the scout commandos.

 

[Whipsnade]

But - to relate to the thread - why then would the IN have their own Commando unit?

While your points about primary missions, mission/skill sets, and politics are all part of the answer, the largest part of the answer is time.

Given the telecoms and air transport available to us, the 168 hours per jump nature of FTL in Traveller is perhaps the hardest aspect of the setting to consistently "grok". I know I have to remind myself of it.

In the OTU any help, any assistance, any additional assets are at best two weeks away. Yes, sometimes you'll have the time needed to summon the "best" or "proper" tools for the job. Many times, however, you need to act now.

What's that old advice from AIT? Any plan now is better than a perfect plan too late? The IN will have naval commandos and will use naval infantry because because such assets are far more likely to be immediately on hand.

And that's the only reason that need apply.

 

[flykiller]

The IN will have naval commandos and will use naval infantry because because such assets are far more likely to be immediately on hand.

... well, not sure you could call them commandos or seals then. those sorts of people are not the kind you just send out with a task force "just because maybe" and they're hardly "hey you" details.

 

[Whipsnade]

those sorts of people are not the kind you just send out with a task force "just because maybe"...

At one week per jump, you will be sending them out with a task force "just because maybe" because you can't send for them later.

... and they're hardly "hey you" details.

While naval infantry aren't marines, they're not "hey you" details either. Infantry training was a part of naval training for quite a long time and it's even made a limited comeback since certain events too recent to mention. During the Imperial Age and up through the 1930s, formed bodies of sailors trained as infantry or artillery were routinely used in situations ranging from civil disorder to punitive expeditions to occupation to full blown wars.

 

[flykiller]

those sorts of people are not the kind you just send out with a task force "just because maybe"...

At one week per jump, you will be sending them out with a task force "just because maybe" because you can't send for them later.

no, my point is that you can't separate what is now called "seal" from our present strategic/tactical/logistic environment, which, as you point out, is lacking in the face of jump. sure, a task force will have SOMEthing, but very likely it would devolve down to "gimme whatever the best people you got for a snap assignment right now" and a plan for implementing that.

training was a part of naval training for quite a long time

well, yeah, because they had a lot of people "just standing around". I was reading one of those battle of jutland books and it mentioned the loss of a cruiser that had 932 people onboard. but a look at traveller naval ship manning and it's hard to see a lot of people "just standing around". in those ships if anyone is assigned to other details then the ship loses capability real fast - and if they're carrying "naval infantry" then there's no reason they can't be carrying marines.

 

[Whipsnade]

sure, a task force will have SOMEthing, but very likely it would devolve down to "gimme whatever the best people you got for a snap assignment right now" and a plan for implementing that.

My point is that because the task force "might" need something, it won't some half-assed ad hoc grouping. They'll have a trained asset. Whether that asset's primary job is commando/SEAL in nature is besides the point.

well, yeah, because they had a lot of people "just standing around". I was reading one of those battle of jutland books and it mentioned the loss of a cruiser that had 932 people onboard. but a look at traveller naval ship manning and it's hard to see a lot of people "just standing around".

My many issues with canonical manning levels of warships are well known and long standing. I view even HG2 manning requirements as more suited for commercial vessels and not naval ones.

As for the argument that they'll carry marines if there's room for them, HG2 explicitly discusses marines and ship's troops and even gives guidelines for how many there should be per dTon. Such troops would provide the primarily trained cadre around which secondarily trained naval infantry is formed.

 

[aramis]

While naval infantry aren't marines, they're not "hey you" details either. Infantry training was a part of naval training for quite a long time and it's even made a limited comeback since certain events too recent to mention. During the Imperial Age and up through the 1930s, formed bodies of sailors trained as infantry or artillery were routinely used in situations ranging from civil disorder to punitive expeditions to occupation to full blown wars.

The USN recently added NI back in formally. Called NECC.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htamph/articles/20071112.aspx

 

[Diveguy]

Quote:
Perhaps something where you want the raiders to also have shipboard operations skills such as pilot, navigation etc ... the IN would certainly want a group of heavy hitters available to handle certain problems.
sounds like a job for the scout commandos.

- Certainly plausible. Though, as I mentioned, might be avoided due to inter-service rivalries. Also, IMTU at least, Scouts are great at 400 ton & smaller craft - but don't have the fleet experience or large starship background that might be relevant here.



- As for those going with modern parallels, you're actually very much in line with what DOES occur. A Carrier Battle Group (US Naval task force) or Amphibious Group will have an assigned SEAL detachment as a commander's "just in case" force - this is a separate supplement to any marines, shipboard security etc. - so you could certainly port this concept in for your Naval Commandos in the Imperium. FWIW, at least back in the 90's it meant a lot of training time, some joint training/show the flag with other nations, and high-risk protective details for the Admiral and VIPs. I could certainly see that applying here.
Another relevant parallel - the Amphibious Group would ALSO have an integral Marine Recon element - but they would do mostly "Marine" stuff and the SEALs mostly "Navy" stuff. So, if you're postulating different services, then think accordingly.

Finally, there are Army parallels as well - with assigned areas having a "Commander's In-Extremis Force" of Special Forces troops for sudden events.

All of this goes well with Whipsnade's observation the more I think about it, and when applying proper Special Operations mindset.
-- you don't waste SOF guys on menial jobs, nor can you "create" SOF with a handwave of "You three pick up those guns and rescue the hostage." It takes time, effort, and continual training.
-- you go to war with the troops you have, not what you want. A small group of professionals available right now may make a serious difference, even if only to address vulnerable nodes and pivot points until larger forces arrive from weeks away.
-- SOF is a force multiplier. Those IN Commandos may only be 24 strong coming out of the Duke's flagship - but, their training and ability to train others can exponentially increase that in a short time - taking those "regular" IN shipboard types, or a shore detachment, or whatever to a level able to counter far greater numbers - especially with tech differences.

 

[Selandia]

Happy Holiday folks,
I have been reading a good number of books recently about the Sino-American Cooperative Organization, UDT, Scout Raiders, and Decima Flottiglia MAS.

Due to the latter, I thought it would be cool to add some sort of Special Operation career to the Navy career table.

• 
  
  ​
  END is the prime with DEX following

Looking for ideas...

Thanks.
JJ

The early MAS X was an infiltration force using exeptionnal assault vehicule (Under the RSI, later, they became de facto "Arditi") or tactic. As in many navies Midget subs, manned torpedo, explosive boats, UDT swimmer.

END and INT seems more appropriate to me than END and DEX

Name it "Special Boat Service" if it is fighting IN space rather than on dirt FROM space.

If: END A ans INT 9, = SBS open (louzy survival roll)
Ship boat, Eng, BtlDress would be the skills provided

have fun

Selandia

 

[jaz0nj4ckal]

The USN recently added NI back in formally. Called NECC.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htamph/articles/20071112.aspx

WOW... this has been a great conversation... thank you.

Aramis - you make an interesting point bringing up NECC, and how the Navy is providing more of an expeditionary force model once again. I guess it could be argued that the Navy wants more of a hand in future expeditionary fighting around the global. I believe this might model current British Naval doctrine since the Royal Navy never gave up on their expeditionary role, and still oversees, or did oversee the battle space for a zone of control.

In addition, you do not hear about them these days, but around the 18th to early 19th century the United Kingdom had the Naval Brigades, which provided a true rapid response force for expeditionary fighting in hot spots around the global. This could be argued that it was a requirement since a ship’s Marine contingency would have been small, or smaller than the number of sailors that could be pressed into “land fighting” service.

Thanks again for all the great posts and Happy New Year everyone.

 

[aramis]

Whether the Navy's internal forces wear the same uniform or not, most modern navies have ground combat forces at their disposal.

The USMC served that role until WW I... and changed missions. Then, after WWII, the USN leadership decided it didn't need it's own troops, and let the Marines go to fully separate forces... and after Korea, decided to stop training Navy white-stripes as infantry... "That's the job of the Army and Marines"... and, lo, 50 years later, realized, "Damn, we made a huge mistake..."

Expect similar in any long lasting government...

 

[kilemall]

In any event, I should think one would run the Naval characters through the Marine tables for the associated skill sets.

 

[jaz0nj4ckal]

In any event, I should think one would run the Naval characters through the Marine tables for the associated skill sets.

That is what I am currently doing; however, I also give one extra step. I have a table of 6 Army skills, which I allow skills to be gained at Level-1 if they roll a 5+ on 1d6. So the character makes a roll for each skill, and if the roll is 5+ they get the skill. I do this to give them special skill like abilities.

 

[BlackBat242]

In any event, I should think one would run the Naval characters through the Marine tables for the associated skill sets.

That is what I am currently doing; however, I also give one extra step. I have a table of 6 Army skills, which I allow skills to be gained at Level-1 if they roll a 5+ on 1d6. So the character makes a roll for each skill, and if the roll is 5+ they get the skill. I do this to give them special skill like abilities.

That's what the "cross-training" assignment under "special duty" in the yearly tables is for (pages 5, 6, 8 in LBB5).

 

[McPerth]

That's what the "cross-training" assignment under "special duty" in the yearly tables is for (pages 5, 6, 8 in LBB5).

Not really:

CT:HG page 5:

Cross Training: The character may roll once on the branch skills table in any other branch

So, he keeps rolling in Navy tables (albeit in another branch), not in Marines ones.

Nonetheless, JTAS 10 (page 29) presents us of the Flight Branch of the Marines, that can serve some terms in the Navy Flight Chargen, and I guess this could be inverted to use the Marines Chargen for Navy personnel in some instance, to represent those units.

This said, IMTU those units don't exist, the Marines performing this role (as Aramis tells us it was done before WWI).

As I understand the Marines, they are under Naval overall command, and they have two main deployements:

• As Marine units, as those represented in FFW or IW, rarely in formatins larger than regiment, almost never over división.
• As ship's troops, as the dirtside arm of any fleet unit, being independent units rarely larger tan company-sized, almost never over battalion-sized

In the first case, they are the strike branch of the Imperium at large, and under the Imperial HQ in the zone command, in the second one they are integral to the ship crew, and under the command of its Captain (or the Squadron Commodore). See that even the tiny (in HG terms) Kinunir has a full platoon of them...

In most Squadrons, this include a small team of comandos (usually as part of the Flagship troops) just in case.

See that in most cases, comando actions are quite quick response ones or against opportunity targets (at least outside a full war)¹, and (unlike in current Earth, whree you can deploy them at any point in less tan 24 hours) in Traveller setting, if you don't have them at hand, you'd need at least two weeks to send a comando team, and by then the opportunity is likely to have been past. That's why I believe each major Fleet unit (squadron) has some of them (among the Marines), instead of having some Navy Infatry units in their bases, where they will be too slow to deploy.

Note 1: I know comandos also develop other, more planned actions, as recon or cadre missions (hence recon and instruction skills are given at their school), but when I talk about comando actions here I mostly refeer t odirect combat ones, as raids.​

 

[BlackBat242]

In practice, "any other branch" has always been interpreted, by every Traveller Ref I have ever played with, to match the US military terminology, where the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines are considered "branches of the US Armed Forces" - therefore someone training "with another branch" certainly could include a Navy person training with the Marines, or Army - as well as an engineer training with the flight section, etc..

 

[aramis]

In practice, "any other branch" has always been interpreted, by every Traveller Ref I have ever played with, to match the US military terminology, where the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines are considered "branches of the US Armed Forces" - therefore someone training "with another branch" certainly could include a Navy person training with the Marines, or Army - as well as an engineer training with the flight section, etc..

Branch is defined in book 4...
with that meaning.

 

[McPerth]

In practice, "any other branch" has always been interpreted, by every Traveller Ref I have ever played with, to match the US military terminology, where the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines are considered "branches of the US Armed Forces" - therefore someone training "with another branch" certainly could include a Navy person training with the Marines, or Army - as well as an engineer training with the flight section, etc..

That's quite argueable:

LBB4, page 5:

1: Cross Training: (...) Army personnel may not cross train as Marines (...)

While the reverse is not true, see that Marines is a different MOS in LBB4, while the Marines can cross Train in other branches, we can asume that they are those branches in the Marines (Cavalry, Support, Artillery, etc), while the regular Marines table being for its Infantry, so keeping them in the Marines, not the Army.

Likewise, allowing a character to cross train into another career ranch would be allowing him to switch careers, as he can then reenlist in the branch he has cross trained.

 

[mike wightman]

There is also no mention in LBB4 of Army or Marines being able to cross train with the Navy. In fact it specifically states that cross training is in other MOS specialties - there is no mention of training in other 'branches'.

1. Cross-Training: The player rolls once on the MOS table of any other service
arm than his own. He further notes that he has been cross-trained in that arm.
Neither army nor marine personnel may cross-train as commandoes. Army personnel
may not cross train as marines. At the conclusion of any term after a player has
cross-trained in another arm, and provided the player successfully reenlists, the
player may switch to that arm. Thus while the only combat arm that a marine may
initially enter is infantry, it is possible to transfer into cavalry or artillery through
cross-training.

So we have to crack open LBB5. It uses the term branch differently to LBB4:

Branches: When first enlisting, a character may choose one of the several
branches of the Navy by consulting the branch selection table. Once a branch is selected,
transfer to another branch is extremely difficult.

The word Army does not appear anywhere in the text of LBB5, and marines are only mentioned in the ship design and combat sections.

I think the key is the bit I put in bold from LBB4 - I have always taken it to mean an army character can cross train in any MOS branch or even be seconded to the Navy (if you allow that in your game), but not the marines. A marine can be seconded to any MOS or be seconded to the navy. It stands to reason that someone in the navy could be seconded to the army or marine MOS, yet there is no provision in the LBB5 rules for this.