People arguing about how a merc unit couldn't operate in the face of a hostile
national gov't, consider this:
1) Does the national government have that many spare ships? If so, and the
area is of enough significance, then the Mercs can't just float in.
2) If the Mercs are supplementing other forces, then they'll have to have the
same capabilities for assault (if that is what is planned). Presumably they'd
get main force fleet coverage, but they'd have to have assault landing
capability.
3) Most mercs (small to mid sized units or fragments of larger) that will
operate under the Mercenary Charter, will probably operate under rules similar
to the ones suggested by Sandline on the links Alan posted. In order to not be
stomped on by national gov'ts, they have to be careful who they take contracts
with, how they execute them, and usually they will have the permission of the
host government or the approval (and perhaps a paycheck) from an interested
and powerful outside patron. This helps keep there risks under control.
4) People talk about mercs (which rightly is really discussed as the private
military corporation) of using civilian transport. I heartily agree with
whoever it was said that if you don't have support, evac, dustoff, then you're
already screwed before you arrive. Civilian transport, as long as you are
operating in support of a legitemate gov't unlikely to be toppled, is fine. If
you've got to go to someplace where the stability of the administration is in
doubt, where you are going in without gov't sanction,
etc. - then you'd better
have the ability to punch in and punch out.
NO soldier in his right mind is content with the "well, our plan better work
or we're up the creek" option. No one plans for that. There are plans,
contingency plans, and contingent contingency plans. Only when forced by
circumstance would you do something potentially suicidal (and even not always
then) such as dropping into someplace you didn't have good confidence in your
ability to get out of.
You can be wrong. Your intel can be off. The enemy can do something
unexpected. But these assume you don't know. If you know the situation is bad
and you go into a situation with inadequate backup, support, and evac options,
you are participating in your own suicide.
5) We talk about Mercs on the ground. Mercs in space
are quite feasible too -
maritime recovery,
security and anti-piracy.
Ops on airless worlds. Even (anime fans take note) Area88 style Close
Aerospace Control missions
- mercenary pilots and
fighters.
And there is no reason both privateers and mercenary space fleets can't exist.
As the NAC, I'm as concerned (moreso) about the control of space than I am
about the control of the ground. If I can augment my navy with
some mercs - then that's a
good thing. I'm not
talking line-of-battle...
and maybe with limits on available tech. But I can see merc DDs, CVs, etc.
Ships armed with SMRs, PTs (if the tech can be
obtained), B-2s, and
perhaps some small escort carriers. Even if all they do is free up my own DDs
(with high tech) to fight
with their lines-of-battle
by taking over convoy escort, installation
security, patrol and anti-
piracy, then I'm still far better off.
In fact, hiring mercs and issuing letters of marque would be something you
would realy expect in the GZGverse. Some of those may be hired by gov'ts to
make war on the shipping of other gov'ts. Some by one corp taking on another
corps shipping to punish it.
> From: Thomas Barclay
> 4) People talk about mercs (which rightly is really
I've taken contracts like that, either because we had to have the cash *now*
or to get a foot in the door for later (granted no one was shooting at me, but
a contract with negative profit is much the same to a salescreature). It's not
the way you want to operate but that doesn't mean the situation will never
reach a tabletop. You could have a good
3-sided scenario: Merc A and Merc B are trying to reach the (single)
off-planet lift, while forces hostile to both are prusuiung (or ahead of
them, trying to secure the spaceport). Add in some civilians (do we fight off
the other mercs so we have room for the wealthy
bankers/politicians/industrialists? Do we offer shelter to the young
ladies from the nursing school up the road?) for extra color.
> 5) We talk about Mercs on the ground. Mercs in space
<snip> If I can augment my navy with some mercs - then that's a
good thing. I'm not talking line-of-battle...
Bear in mind what the mercs will want to be doing--ie things where
they're not likely to get those expensive ships damaged. The NAC can afford to
lose some destroyers screening the line of battle but a merc can't. That's why
my first merc designs were Nightvision class recon
corvettes--they're not intended to fight, just to see and report, and
run like heck if needed.
> --- Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
> 2) If the Mercs are supplementing other
I'm assuming that most mercenary units will probably not be hired by central
governments of major powers. They will be hired by breakaway colonies,
regional governors, and communities on balkanized planets. Those parties do
not have the sort of resources that the mercenaries replace. As a result,
planetary assault will be pretty rare.
> 4) People talk about mercs (which rightly is really
> to someplace where the stability of the
Hrm... I doubt any minor power would touch
third-party shipping or spaceport facilities. Too
important to the economic viability of the planet in question. Given that,
once you get to a spaceport, your PMCers can cash their repatriation bonds
(held by
reputable non-involved financial institution) and get
off planet. Of course, you might have to hold a bit of an Anabasis. But that's
good scenario fodder.
> NO soldier in his right mind is content with the
> plans. Only when forced by circumstance would you do
> something potentially suicidal (and even not
You'd be surprised. Hell, take a look at Market Garden.
> 5) We talk about Mercs on the ground. Mercs in space
> are quite feasible too - maritime recovery,
It's really capital-intensive to start a spacefleet.
It also requires highly trained personell--you can run
a small-scale training platoon in your merc batallion.
You can't run a training ship in your destroyer squadron. It's too dangerous
to have untrained personell aboard a fighting warship.
I can't recall a single instance of a modern naval or aviation (excepting
Executive Outcomes with a handful of Hinds, bought cheap from the South
African government after they captured them.) mercenary unit. The time of
privateers and letters of marque was the time when the only expense in
converting a merchantman to a warship was cutting holes in the side and
mounting cannon (Yes, I know purpose-built warships
were better. But they weren't required.)
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> I can't recall a single instance of a modern naval or
Sandline was bringing in some Mil-24 Hind-Ds and Mil-8 Hip-Es
for use in Bougainville.
Their suppliers were supposed to deliver the more modern Mil-17s,
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au>
wrote:
> How do we know? They trans-shipped them via Darwin,
Note to self: Do NOT transport combat aircraft via Australia while they have a
liberal government.
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> > How do we know? They trans-shipped them via Darwin,
Actually it was a Labour Government IIRC, but could be wrong The Liberals are
in power now.
Rules when gunrunning through Australia:
a) Don't consign them to destinations in our backyard. b) Don't send equipment
so huge (helos etc) that we can't ignore it. c) Seven times Never ship unsafe
ammunition! d) Don't get caught.
Of these, the most important is c). The rest is forgiveable, excuseable or
plausibly deniable with time. But c) ruins your reputation, you
> Actually it was a Labour Government IIRC, but could be wrong
Sorry to contradict - was/is the same Liberals we have now - however,
the
Government wasn't really to ones that made the call to sieze the goods -
it was done bycustoms and would have taken an act of parliament to prevent the
siezure...
> Rules when gunrunning through Australia:
I believe that it would have been possible to ship the Helos to PNG with a
little paperwork, but the ammo? Sandline is not a recognised body under any
UN treaty that I could think of - I did ask the Canadian High
Commissioner
here in OZ when he passed through my shop at the time - he roared with
laughter and said that this sort of thing happened all the time - next
time they might try it through another commonwealth country with very strong
policing and some of the individuals might get extradited to face criminal
charges.
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au>
wrote:
> Actually it was a Labour Government IIRC, but could
So tell me, to a conservative (ie: still feels strong loyalty to the Sole
Rightful Autocrat) is there a difference?
> Rules when gunrunning through Australia:
OK, I can handle this.
> b) Don't send equipment so huge (helos etc) that we
Uhhh... true.
> c) Seven times Never ship unsafe ammunition!
Yeah, well this is pretty important. I can live with this rule.
> d) Don't get caught.
I thought that would be d).
From: "Brendan Pratt" <bastard@oalink.com.au>
> > Actually it was a Labour Government IIRC, but could be wrong
Sorry? Thanks for the correction!