> You wrote:
Speaking as an Englishman, I can't really see they Gurkhas becomming part of
the ESU. Although the British Army has made drastic cuts in Gurkha units the
Gurkhas are still an important unit with a rich history.
> One imagines that some
Again I for one would be VERY surprised if the British Army untis and the US
forces actually merge. th etactical doctrines for the Royal Marines and Paras
are so completely at odds with those for the American forces (hey, it would
mean that the US troops have to start tabbing with bergens
[walking
places with a big backpack] instead of catching a ride all the time, flame
barrier, this is a weak attempt a humour!) that, to me at least, it makes more
sense retaining these troops in thier specialised roles than attempting to
merge them as they are. Alternatively, instead of merging these units both
older units are completely scrapped and a new unit is started in its place,
though given the British traditions of holding on to stuff for the sake of it
i can't really see that happening.
> forward to someone making some modern day highlanders with Adv Cbt
Ah, at the thought of kilts I get flashbacks of "Carry On Up The Khyber"
[quoted original message omitted]
> Stuart Murray wrote:
> >Again I for one would be VERY surprised if the British Army untis
You're lucky I read that attempt at humor disclaimer. I had my M202 "flash"
device out and was ready to fire it off point blank. We've been "humping
rucks" as heavy and as far as anyone long as we've been an army.
Anyway, I believe that the best route is to retain the units in both sides
armies intact in the short term, I don't know how long but years. (the whole
idea of a conglomerated NAC is a little hockey to begin with but since we're
going with it,) I would keep historical designations from both forces since we
damn sure aren't gonna start calling ourselves the Queen's anything. <g>
> You wrote:
> Speaking as an Englishman, I can't really see they Gurkhas becomming
Why not? Since getting cut, there are more Gurkhas in the Indian Army than the
British.
> US forces actually merge. th etactical doctrines for the Royal
Do note that the Royal Marines and Paras are LIGHT infantry. Our LIGHT
infantry walks just as far, just as fast, with just as large a load.
Granted we like to involve helicopters--but the Brits do too, it's just
that during Corporate all the helicopters were on a ship that sank. Your
Mechanized types integrated pretty well ours during Desert Storm. And as far
as a lot of support types, it's pretty much interchangable. All those years of
STANAGs.
> Stuart Murray wrote:
Hmmm. Normally, I'd agree with Stuart, but under the NAC concept (i.e. the
concept of the United States all but self-destructs), there really isn't
a US Military any more to merge with. Or, at least, an official one. Thus, I
can see some sort of integration, especially with the small elite units; why
the hell have several zillion special forces units running about?
On the flip side, there is a major obstacle to integration, and that's the
relative size of the parent unit. Under British (and Canadian) systems, the
emphasis in the Army is on the Regiment, which is authorized to a size of a
large battlion in the US military. However, in the US Army, the emphasis
appears to be on the division i.e. 82nd, 101st, 1st Cavalry, 1st Infantry,
etc. Thus, integration would be a major headache, ignoring doctrine and other
differences.
Though, I would suspect that by 2300, everybody would ride to work, or at
least get a lift into the general area. (You want me to jump out of a
perfectly good working STARSHIP? (8-) )
J.
One practice that teh NAC should adopt from us is direct affilitaion between
aviation assets and ground units. There's a huge difference between getting
air suppport in the USMC if you are a marine than it is in eth USAF if your in
the army. Hell most USAF types thing that the Army serves little or no purpose
anyway except just to gurad bases and you should see the wizardry and magic
required to get air support (or even artillery support these days). It's
almost unheard of for some plt leader to be able and pick up the hook and call
in some suport. now ya gotta have FOs and FACs to do anything and support
fires are competing with brach specific interdiction fires. (Re: arty going
off and fighting it's own battles instead of supporting Infantrry or armor).
Read Robert Leonard's "The Art of Manuever" for a good look at this.
> Richard Slattery wrote:
> On 3 Jul 98 at 8:35, John Atkinson wrote:
> On 3 Jul 98 at 8:35, John Atkinson wrote:
[snipping for brevity]
> Do note that the Royal Marines and Paras are LIGHT infantry. Our
I think they have to ask the RAF to give them a lift in their helicopters when
they need them. Wouldn't it be more sensible to give the para's and marines
their own ones you ask? Naaah;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You wrote:
> And don't forget there are some large colonies that would be fielding
A lot of it depends on what your assumptions on colony growth are. Remember
the US has (1997) 267.6 million inhabitants, and the UK (1995) another 58.6.
Plus an industrial base that's been 200 years in the making. Another few
decades (18 or so) might increase that. A colony
with even 10 or 15 million people and a 100-year old industrial base is
a fairly poor second in economic terms.
Er, hello, this is not far off Australia as we are now.
Look at the example of Australia in about the 60s, population around 15
million and quite a thriving economy. Use a similar model for the middle aged
colonies and it seems quite reasonable.
[quoted original message omitted]
> You wrote:
> Look at the example of Australia in about the 60s, population around
Right. And Australia has a GNP (1995) of 337.9 Billion US dollars. Compare to
US's (1996) $7,567.1 Billions. If we amalgamated tomorrow, who do you think
would dominate the union economically? I find it exteremely likely that Terra
will continue to be the economic (and also 'spiritual', for lack of better
term) heart of the Human Race for at
_least_ the next two centuries, especially if you suppose no
colonization until the 2070s.
Yes, you have proven my point exactly, Australia is a part of the Commonwealth
(at least for the time being) yet due to the geographic dislocation it is very
much independant. In the 50's and 60's Australia took a lot of guidance from
the UK but was not dominated by it.
In 2180 the colonies are going to be slave to teh same tyranny of distance.
Given a population of 10 or 15 million, one can safely assume some level of
self sufficiency. So, it would be reasonable to accept
that colonies of this size would be co-operating with rather than
dominated by the Earth based nations.
Owen G
[quoted original message omitted]
> Anyway, I believe that the best route is to retain the units in both
And don't forget there are some large colonies that would be fielding
thier own units. I could forsee a strong anti-Earth bias on many of the
major colony worlds. "What does Earth bring to the NAC? A partial continent
and an island. We represent a whole frigg'n WORLD!"
MANY of the discussions on this list show an obvious (and understandable)
Earth bias. Remember that the AC government moved to Albion in 2135. And in
2136 renames itself and declairs colonies as independant members. (Is the US,
Canada, England, Scotland, Wales,... all independant members or only planets
considered independant members?)
> On 7 Jul 98, at 23:10, John Atkinson wrote:
Hmm.. Depends on your capability to /apply/ that much larger economic
muscle. We've
had this arguement before, but just to make a supposition - Australia
was possibly much more 'independant' as a colony when you had to spend 4
months (or whatever) on schooner to get there and so did any form of
communication. Same goes for planet colonies to a degree. Doesn't matter that
you have a much more powerful economy if trade is next to nil. Doesn't matter
if you have a bigger Navy if the nearest ship is 3 weeks travel away. Unless
you start thinking about permanent garrison forces (with all the possible
problems that entails) then I would suspect the planet colonies to be pretty
much left to their own devices a lot of the time. Of course, given the vast
majority of humanity seems to have been at war for the recent past, I suppose
garrison forces (either by an occupier or the 'correct' faction for defensive
purposes) are a very real possiblility.
TTFN
Jon
> Hmm.. Depends on your capability to /apply/ that much larger economic
faction for
> defensive purposes) are a very real possiblility.
Australia also had a tendency towards independence I suspect, as it was used
as a prison colony. Perhaps some of the colonies in the FT universe are also
used to put political miscreants and any one else who disagrees with state
policy out of the way?
Distance is a real problem with regard to the control of a colony whatever the
size of the empire or state. Despite a somewhat rebellious population (on
occasion) Ireland remained under British control for approximately 700 years.
While America being only a fledgling country managed to obtain its own
independence relatively quickly.
Also surely one of the best ways of controlling a colony is to point out that
independence will not be tolerated, and use various oppressive measures. The
troops may not be on planet but if you stamp on one of them hard the rest may
well get the message.
The simplest way too ensure a safe return on your investment might be to
"privatise" the colony to corporate interests who would provide a percentage
of profits to the founding power. The corporation "buys" protection from the
powers fleet and can call in regular army units if required.
With regard to to garrison forces: A garrison couldn't be drawn from locals as
they may turn against the power(taking all their equipment with them), so you
have to use garrison troops from offworld, rotating different garrison troops
in and out. This could become expensive. Of course in a universe as full of
hurt as the FT one it seems sensible to have some sort of garrison of regular
army troops in war situations. Perhaps large reaction forces would be based at
a sector capital for redeployment where they are needed?
Colonial independence seems inevitable according to the lessons of history. It
just depends on how long you delay it.
> You wrote:
> Hmm.. Depends on your capability to /apply/ that much larger economic
> colonies to a degree. Doesn't matter that you have a much more
I guess it all comes down to how interconnected is your interpretation of the
background. In mine, based on the number of convoy escort
scenarios, there's a lot of trade, and tight-knit nations with strong
central governments. But YMMV, and from the prior discussion the list is
pretty well spread from one extreme to the other. It's a matter of taste. As
for me, I like playing convoy escort scenarios (it's so much more interesting
than Fleet A flys at Fleet B and they try to bash eachother into the ground)
so I'm going to write my background so they are frequent.:)
> At 21:03 08/07/98 -0500, you wrote:
> I guess it all comes down to how interconnected is your interpretation
> more interesting than Fleet A flys at Fleet B and they try to bash
It is rather satisfying to smash up or capture enemy supplies. Blockade
running scenarios can be the most interesting in many ways. Trying to break
through the blockade with a small concentrated force while the larger enemy
fleet (most likely being spread out) tries to regroup to prevent the supply
run.
As to the FT universe I would have presumed a lot of trade takes place but
between larger colony worlds mainly. Until they built up a reasonable
manufacturing base on new colonies I doubt it would be worthwhile to make the
trip out to these new worlds for most traders.
This might depend on who actually owns the freight capacity in the FT
universe. Are there lots of free traders large shipping lines or a solid mix
of both? Or does it all rely on merchant navies?
[snip]>
> It is rather satisfying to smash up or capture enemy supplies.
Blockade
> running scenarios can be the most interesting in many ways. Trying to
Definitely a mix of them all. Commercial shipping lines large and small,
mainly on "safe" routes between core worlds and major colonies,
Government-operated Merchant Navies, and lots of small one- or two-ship
outfits and independants (probably on the marginal routes). Lots of scope
for fun.... :)
".....In 2157 he was First Mate on the tramp starship MS Greasy Bastard,
hauling rubber goods and Things for the Weekend between Centaurus Station and
New Rangoon....." (with apologies to Michael Palin)
> You wrote:
> It is rather satisfying to smash up or capture enemy supplies.
Yeah--so much so that I have to impose a break-off limit for the
attacking force (50% of points and they go home) AND define victory be
comparing percentage of cargo destroyed and percentage of raiders, under the
premise that fragging a battleship is likely to be worth more
than a couple light freighter-loads of whatever's in the convoy.
> As to the FT universe I would have presumed a lot of trade takes place
Well, trade per se, you'r right. However newly established colonies will see
immigration (how many colonists can we stuff in a heavy freighter? I dunno,
but we've reinvented steerage [Leonardo daCaprio not included]), colonial
sponsor's supply runs (which in my background
includes pre-fab industrial facilities--there's a nasty war going on
and the Empire needs all the help it can get), and other reasons to go there.
> As to the FT universe I would have presumed a lot of trade takes place
> but >between larger colony worlds mainly. Until they built up a
> Well, trade per se, you'r right. However newly established colonies
Sounds like the merchant navy would be the most likely to go there. Going out
with a hold full of frozen colonists and coming back empty would be expensive
for the private sector. At least until the prefabs are up and
running. Hiding a few Q-Ships amongst those helpless merchants could be
a nice surprise for the raiders. It might make for an interesting scenario. As
well as cutting down on the potential for raids. Is that a big juicy transport
or a heavy cruiser in disguise? Theres only one to find out.
> You wrote:
> Sounds like the merchant navy would be the most likely to go there.
Definitely.
Going >out with a hold full of frozen colonists and coming back empty
Not quite empty, just not with massively profitable cargos. Some
things might be easy to extract in a short time--furs, agricultural
cargoes, etc. But in interstellar trade that's not exactally big-money
items unless there's, say, a special recreational drug--think Virginia
Colony with tobacco. Or perhaps unique gems--glowstones from
Zarathustra. (Which weren't true gems, but fossilized remains of jellyfish
that glowed when heated)
> running. Hiding a few Q-Ships amongst those helpless merchants could
I was thinking the easiest type of Q-ship to do up would be a fighter
carrier based on a heavy transport hull. Rip out the cargo space, and you can
stick four fighter groups, a bit of armor, and some weapons to boot. This is
good because first, Privateers and pirates aren't likely to have large ships
out there, and we all know fighters are much more lethal vs. small ships, and
second, raiders won't likely have fighters 'coz they'd be difficult to
replace. Also: Are those launch tubes or cargo loading hatches? "Do you feel
lucky, punk?"