Imperial Marine and Imperial Army capabilities

[jec10]

Lots of interesting stuff posted recently.

Questions: how (beyond copying exisiting US military practice) are you determining the support, logistics, and maintenance for your forces gents? I note some of you seem to have a medic in every fireteam for instance - overkill maybe?
Any systematic determination of the maintenance requirements of your force or supply needs - or is it just "it looks about the same as the US Army would allocate"?
I know the US Marines guard US embassies - but have you considered that is quite an unusual practice in the rest of the world. And where are all these embassies in the Traveller universe - there aren't that many entities to send them to.

 

[Major B]

Jec10,

For the maintenance personnel I'm using a subjective and an objective calculation. For the maintenance company in the Assault Regiment I'm adapting the maintenance cost and point system I found when re-reading my Striker books recently.

But, to figure out the maintenance personnel down in the cavalry troop I drew from my experience as a mech infantry company XO. That is why I have two different mechanic specialties - one for turret and one for hull systems. Also, the numbers in the troop are limited because their workload will not be huge - the crews do operator preventative maintenance drawing on the expertise of the mechanics for problems beyond crew skill levels. The mechanics do what repairs they can with hand tools and diagnostic equipment but for complex repairs the vehicle has to go to the maintenance companies or a contact team gets sent to the vehicle. There is no good rule or house rule to figure how many is right to do that, so I made a guess that stayed within the number of seats I had to work with.

 

[sablewyvern]

Lots of interesting stuff posted recently.

Questions: how (beyond copying exisiting US military practice) are you determining the support, logistics, and maintenance for your forces gents? I note some of you seem to have a medic in every fireteam for instance - overkill maybe?

Any systematic determination of the maintenance requirements of your force or supply needs - or is it just "it looks about the same as the US Army would allocate"?

For me, I'm not terribly interested in going into that level of detail, although I'm pretty sure my structures are feasible.. For the Marines, I'm assuming the navy can cover major logistical needs adequately. For the army I've included Admin and Support Bns at Brigade and Divisional level. Regimental logistics is going to be organised as the Colonel of the Regiment sees fit. Higher level logistics is entirely abstracted into subsector and sector commands.

And, btw, I'm following more of a Commonwealth system than a US one with the Army.

I know the US Marines guard US embassies - but have you considered that is quite an unusual practice in the rest of the world. And where are all these embassies in the Traveller universe - there aren't that many entities to send them to.

Primarily, politcal assets guarded by the Marines would be Imperial "embassies", from whence the local nobles govern their systems/counties/sectors etc... I am assuming, and I believe the basic OTU premise is, that the Imperial Marines were very strongly influenced by the USMC when the Solomani were running things.

Finally, as an aside, I owe you some thanks for bringing up historical British Regimental structures early in the thread -- that was what began the train of thought that led to the Regimental structure I eventually developed.

 

[jec10]

I am assuming, and I believe the basic OTU premise is, that the Imperial Marines were very strongly influenced by the USMC when the Solomani were running things.

I wonder about this. This is certainly the direction the GURPS guys took things in Ground Forces, which is (sadly IMHO, but YMMV) just a 52nd Century rehash of the late 20th Century US military, which is great for the American audience but doesn't cut the mustard with me. It just strikes me as lazy and unimaginative.

However, I see few organisational parallels between the Imperial Marine Task Force in JTAS 12 and the USMC. To me JTAS 12 is the canon Imperial Marines, and they look like their own men, rather than clones of an earlier military.

EDITED to add that I'm working on digitising my Ithklur Marines, and you can see some of the vehicles in the page linked in my sig. I accept the canon Imperial Marines and Zhodani Marines (Adv 7) as written but see plenty of opportunity for designing 'other OTU Marines' that aren't detailed in canon. There are the Ithklur Marines and the Solomani Confederation Marines for starters, which we know from canon exist but aren't developed much further.

 

[sablewyvern]

I do agree that an original concept (that is also functional and sensible) is, in general, preferable to sticking closely to modern dynamics in a far future setting.

OTOH, sticking to the things that we know is a lot simpler, and the work-reward ratio for me, makes a more divergent system a less worthwhile option.

In general, I dislike the US-centric view commonly found in alt-history and futuristic settings (as it appears you do), but when it comes to military stuff, I tend to just replace that with a Commonwealth perspective, which isn't objectively any better. That does mean, though, that sticking to USMC-influenced Marines is actually kind of different for me.

For Traveller, a basically modern military, with a "regression" to things like the Regimental system I presented earlier, serves to provide an easily understood frame of reference, with a few twists that reflect cultural and situational differences. I do, however, respect any effort to create a unique structure, built from the ground up to reflect the needs and attitudes of the Imperium.

Certainly, if I was setting out to actually write an official sourcebook on the Imperial Military, I'd be holding myself to a much higher standard.

Edit: BTW, I note upon further inspection that my division did appear a bit short on logistical support. I've consolidated several units into a Logistics Brigade, which now contains the following:

2x Transport Bn
Logistics Bn
Signals & Intelligence Bn
Field Hospital
Colonial Logistics Bn
Divisional Engineering Bn
Technical Bn

With only two fighting battalions, it's probably now a bit top heavy with logistics and support elements, but this allows room for the division to be filled out by further Colonial Brigades. And, of course, not all divisional assets will necessarily be operating at their full nominal strength.

 

[Renaissance Man]

The sigint bn will be a major, major component of any high TL force. Electronics and communications will be able to satisfy the almost insatiable appetite commanders have for battlefield information, and the bottleneck will be intelligent filtering and analysis.

 

[tbeard1999]

...In general, I dislike the US-centric view commonly found in alt-history and futuristic settings (as it appears you do), but when it comes to military stuff, I tend to just replace that with a Commonwealth perspective, which isn't objectively any better. That does mean, though, that sticking to USMC-influenced Marines is actually kind of different for me.

I do agree that an original concept (that is also functional and sensible) is, in general, preferable to sticking closely to modern dynamics in a far future setting.

OTOH, sticking to the things that we know is a lot simpler, and the work-reward ratio for me, makes a more divergent system a less worthwhile option.

In general, I dislike the US-centric view commonly found in alt-history and futuristic settings (as it appears you do), but when it comes to military stuff...

I think that the biggest failing in most military sci-fi TO&Es is to adequately consider the effect of enhanced communication and data processing capabilities.

The classic 20th century "triangular" unit was chosen due to the fact that a commander could seldom control more than 3-4 subordinate combat units. The US Army, with its 1950s Pentomic battlegroup experiment, exceeded the C3I capabilities of the time. Commanders simply could not control five subordinate combat formations, spread out over a large area to avoid atomic attack. So the US Army went back to the ROAD division organization in which each company had 3 line platoons, each battalion had 3 line companies, etc.

However, in the 1980s, improved command and control capabilities allowed US commanders to increase their span of control. The US Division 86 TO&E had five combat units in the Mechnized Infantry Battalion (4 rifle companies and 1 antitank company).

I think that this trend will continue so that commanders will be able to effectively command at least 5 subordinate combat units. I don't know what the upper limit is, but my guess is that armies would be conservative and probably 5 or 6 would be about it, especially considering the dispersion that is characteristic of very high tech armies.

Another effect of data processing and automation should be to dramatically increase the teeth to tail ratio. In my Commonwealth campaign, the Commonwealth Marines have about a 1:1 teeth to tail ratio.

What this means is that a Traveller infantry force (TL11+) might look a lot like the US Pentomic Infantry division:

5 squads per platoon
5 platoons per company
5 companies per battle group (a brigade sized unit)
5 battle groups per division

At each level above platoon level, there will be 1-2 support units. So each company will have 1-2 support platoons, etc. Note that this organization gets rid of the battalion, though this is just a question of nomenclature.

I also expect that units will be officially blended at a far lower level than today. Today, most armies organize pure infantry and armor battalions, with cross-attachments done by brigade commanders. This is primarily due to the fact that maintenance is more efficient with pure battalions (maintenance and C3I assets are concentrated at battalion level in most Western armies and at regiment level in Soviet style armies).

As technology improves, I'd expect to see this move down a level so that companies are the primary unit of maneuver and contain a combined arms mixture of assets. So a heavy infantry company might have 3 platoons of infantry with IFVs and 2 armored platoons. It would also contain a slice of maintenance and support assets that would make it at least as self-sufficient as a modern battalion task force. And the trend has been for units to become increasingly dispersed in normal operations. Going to a company sized maneuver unit would facilitate that.

A contra argument would be to keep units pure for maintenance efficiency and use advanced simulators so that units a continent away can pratice fighting together. If the simulator technology is good enough, I don't see why this wouldn't work. Such units would resemble today's units -- organized as "pure" units, but would convert to a blended unit when deployed. (This is what happens today; but the groupings are theoretically ad hoc. Smart commanders cross attach the same units together over and over so that they can get experience working together.)

 

[sablewyvern]

Interesting thoughts, tbeard, which I will ponder.

 

[aramis]

As an interesting aside, the US regimental Model ca 1870 was 16 companies in a regiment, lettered. Each company was 3 or 4 platoons. Each platoon varied from 30-70 men, nominally 60 at full strength.

There was no formal intermediate unit, but the (then outdated) "Battaille" or Battallion was a default ad-hock formation of 4 companies lead by a major. The Regiment had a Colonel and Lieutenant Colonel, about 5 staff officers (most with specialty ranks), and a dozen enlisted specialists. Nominal companies were Captain and two Lieutenants (1st and 2nd), and often a cadet or a 3rd lieutenant (rank 2nd lt); platoons were lead by either the captain or lieutenant...

So the Pentomic model makes plenty of sense.

I have often used a modification of the US/UK mid-19th century models.

The UK had formal battalions... of which half were at home base! 3 in training and one as cadre.

IMATU (which I haven't run in a dozen years) I used 4 as my unit level.
4 men to the fire team, 4 fire teams to the section, 4 sections to the platoon, 4 platoons to the company, 4 companies to the Battallion, 4 battalions to the Regiment, and 4 regiments to the division. (yes, this should be a good bit heavy by modern standards). Unit XO's could either be senior staff or junior command grade.

I also had used Bk2 ranks for officers
R1: Platoon CO, Company Staff, R3's Adjutants
R2: Co CO, Bn Staff,
R3: Bn CO, Rgt Staff
R4: Rgt CO, Div Staff
R5: Div CO, Bde Staff
R6: Bde CO, Corps Staff
R6+: Corps CO, Army Staff
R6++: Army CO, Sector Staff
R6+++: Sector CO, Domain Staff
R6++++: Domain CO

I used a system of 1-5 bars then 1-5 diamonds, in Gold for command, silver for staff, red enamel for non-line. Branch of service and specialty marks were worn with rank insignia.

I don't think we'll see a return to much more than 6:1 ratios, but I think it likely that the practical depth of DIRECT command may become two layers deep (as it was in the 1870's US Army), for example, having on-paper battalions, but in practice the companies answer directly to the Regimental CO.

 

[sablewyvern]

Ok, then.

Between tbeard and aramis, I think I'm sold on making some changes to my structures.

 

[aramis]

Just for comparison, there was a point in the last 40 years where the Marines were using 3xFT squads, 3 to a platoon, while the army was using 2xFT squads, 4 to the platoon. (The army was fitting a squad per APC). In either case, a platoon was a nominal 8-9 fireteams.

Oh, and BTW, at the same time, Army Basic Training used 16man squads... 4 to a platoon... due to washout rates.

So don't be afraid to use MULTIPLE different organizational patterns if you see even a halfway reasonable rationale for it.

 

[sablewyvern]

I'll certainly be applying some differences. My Variable Action Marine sub-units will probably stay close to the way I've alredy presented, due to the fact that they are subject to the space limitations of the ships they are posted to, while my Marine Response Units will probably bulk out quite a bit at lower levels.

The army will certainly use a different structure again.

 

[Major B]

I've completely re-worked the vehicle design worksheet I was using and am re-tooling the vehicles for the assault regiment and ancillary forces.

I've posted the two light recon vehicles in the file library (look here) and have almost completed the first of the two heavy combat vehicles.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Another option might be to adopt a page or two from Jerry Pournelle's CoDominion. Two types of Marines, the Fleet Marines are Cops and Ship troops and the Line Marines are the Ground Force. Fleet is Spit and Polish while Line is the dregs from the Guardhouses.

 

[R_Chance]

IIRC Fleet marines serve aboard ship and in embassies. Line marines are regular combat units. The fleet marines are considered the elite. In my own game I've added garrison marine regiments which are tailored to defend specific imperial bases / installations. Jump troops are fleet marine units. IMTU the imperial army is locally raised at the sector level (except for the imperial guard which draws on veteran troops from all sectors). The IMC is the primary imperial controlled ground combat force, with sector governors having more control over the army.

 

[whartung]

The whole "based on the US/Commonwealth/*" issue (as well as the technology issue) brings up the fundamental aspects about why these structures are in place in the first place, and how are they derived at. What factors influence their design?

On the one hand you have technology (as the structures have changed over time from pikes and shield to mechanized infantry), but also there are doctrine aspect to consider. Even with similar technologies (not identical, but similar), the Soviet doctrine and organization is far different from the US system. The Soviet doctrine influenced by the view of the State, the nature of their troops, and simply lessons learned (such as the echelon system, and bloody offense, while expensive at first, is, long term, cheaper than defense).

While "make the world England" has some value in terms of enforcing a structure mandated from above, do you think it will practically scale on a space as large as the Imperium? Did that doctrine really work well in the past during the assorted large Imperial period, or was there necessity to adapt to local areas as well. This may well be more a concern for the Army, and perhaps their reliance on local forces vs the Marines.

There's a scene in the movie "Last of the Mohicans" where the local General is talking with the local militia, and a Officer fresh from England walks in on it and is appalled "The crown negotiating the terms of service?" because that's just the realties of dealing with a diverse empire, especially one that is so out of touch.

(Mind, I'm no military historian, I'm pulling all of this out of ...umm... the Rift sector, so to speak...)

So, from a "TOE-head" point of view, I think this stuff is semi-interesting, but I think more interesting is the doctrine and guidelines that surround the background for the organizations that are being described here.

 

[Renaissance Man]

Very true. So what can we infer from what is known about 3I culture and the exigencies of an interstellar empire?

I think every empire has to develop a cosmopolitan attitude in order to operate over a significantly heterogeneous area. This was part of the genius of Alexander the Great - he had a philosophical education and realized that local custom and practice had to be accommodated and adapted to. The Roman Empire promulgated Roman law, but were willing to tolerate differences in custom and cultural practice outside of that sphere. So too with the British empire.

So this has an important influence on imperial military doctrine regardless of TL. Beyond that I get lost. My knowledge of canon is weak.

 

[Major B]

I've posted revisions to the two recon vehicles and also posted the two versions of the heavies over in the file library, campaigns forum.

 

[david.wendelken]

Men from the Gurkha tribes in Nepal and northern India have been volunteers in the British Army for generations - even to this day. The money they send home supports their families and their pensions support them when they return home to rejoin their families.

 

[abomination]

I've been thinking about this recently. IMTU the Marines are ships troops, shock troops for something short, messy & punitive. Anything longer term (invasions, occupations, police actions etc) is the job of the army. The imperium has several types of troops available to it.

The Imperial Army , the basic unit is the battalion, consisting of eight companies if 80 men.*
Each battalion is part of a parent regiment consisting of at least two, but generally many more battalions. It is rare for two battalions from the same regiment to serve alongside each other. The regiments will have a "home" depot after which they are usually named, along with a regimental number. There is often strong bond between the local nobility & the local regiment. Not least because their sons will form a large part of its officer corps. Although, at least in theory, any Imperial citizen may apply to join any Imperial Army Regiment.

So the eighth battalion of one of Regina’s infantry regiments would be known as the 8th Batt 2257th North Princeps, or 8/North Princeps for short.

Each regiment will usually have Reserve battalions of retired soldiers on half pay and Yeomanry / Militia battalions of part time soldiers ready to be called up in an emergency. Giving 17/North Princeps reserves & 31/North Princeps Yeomanry etc.

While the head CinC of the Imperial army is the Emperor, it is more usual for it to take its orders from the sector / subsector dukes.

On top of the imperial army there other troops regularly used in Imperial formations.

Military contractors. **
Local commanders will often draught in Mercenaries to bolster IA formations. Since they often consist largely of former Imperial military & are frequently in action they may often be among the tougher units, however some are lacking in up to date equipment & discipline.

Company Forces ***
Many mega corporations maintain troops under imperial licence. Despite being almost identical in all respects to IA units, serving in them is often considered to be of a lower status. These troops are often attached to regular IA formations.

Local forces
Locally raised by planetary governments & varying wildly in terms of training, equipment & enthusiasm.

*mostly based on British late colonial / WW1 Like everyone else I tend to stick to the era I am most familiar.

** Yeah yeah, I know I read too much David Drake.

*** I felt no Imperial power should be without John Company