71 réponses à ce sujet

[Bartag]

No one even bothers to mention the Coast Guard. Stopping illegal trawling in the crab nebula, Red sand runner interdiction, Halting illegal migrant aliens (wait, we do that now rl), Answering the mayday calls when your engines fail... The list goes on. All this important stuff that no one really wants to handle.

[HTTP 404]

Clonedzero wrote...

i find it weird that the navy took over the space command instead of the airforce.

yah, in a lot of sci fi space themes, Navy seems to be the favorite for Space.  Frigates, cruisers, etc. are all naval terms.  In reality it really should just be Army and Navy in a space age era.  Air Force is relatively new being created in 1947 in the US.  During WWII, pilots were either army or navy.

http://en.wikipedia....tates_Air_Force

It would be far more streamlined if Army handled ALL defenses with their own Interceptors launched from bases.

[Shrayev]

jamesp81 wrote...

Black Raptor wrote...

I have always wondered why the Navy get the spaceships. It would make more sense if they belonged to the Air force, what with all the flying.
You find that a lot of science-fiction just makes planets into countries/islands and space into sea and then goes along with a naval analogy towards everything.

Because the air force is not trained or equipped to operate a vehicle in a hostile environment for months at a time without returning to base.

Furthermore, safe operation of a spaceship shares a number of similarities to operating certain naval vessels, most especially submarines.  Submarines and space ships operate in a three dimensional environment that is hostile to the crew, both must be able to provide breathable air and drinkable water in a closed environment for months at a time, both are built on a pressure hull, and both require crew that are mentally able to live in close quarters with others for extended periods of time.

Air Forces lack the institutional mentality or basic operational concepts to effectively operate a spaceship as well as a Navy could.

James provided the best response to this question that I've yet seen. It makes perfect sense, and justifies the terminology-- especially if you take into account his submarine reference. That just about sums it up.

Regarding the OP and subsequent discussion: those descriptions make sense. The utility of the Alliance Army is pretty clear, in my opinion...It'd serve the same role that ( for example) the US Army serves compared to the US Marines. The role is not the same, and both need to be addressed. In order to operate at optimal efficiency, both roles needs to be filled by separate branches.

[Vengeful Nature]

ModestmeNTaLmogul wrote...

Remind me of the Terra Firma party and that Charles what-his-name guy.I forgot to mention the Royal Navy,you think they have some kind of giant aircraft carriers?

Hah! I'd be surprised if the RN were in command of a bath toy and a rubber dinghy, 200 years from now, with the way these budget cuts are going. /loaded political comment.

The Man on the Moon wrote...

@Vengeful Nature:
After reading your following comments I believe we are arguing the same position but in different formats, your approaching from an in-game stance while I'm trying to take a real world position. Also, I do believe that there is a planet that the nations of earth have laid claim to but I forgot the planets name but the planets information states that America, Europe, and China have all claimed the planet and it was out of the sol system but I will have to get back to you on that.

Your probably right. For the most part, I'm happy to call it the Alliance Navy. It's just a name, after all. The meaning of the word "Navy" could have changed over the next 200 years. Like I said, language evolves to fit new roles over time.

The planet you're thinking about is Watson. Since it is in the Terminus Systems, I don't think the Alliance has full authority there. The only way the Alliance is involved on Watson is helping with a compromise about who settles what, when and where on the planet, which is in the Terminus and therefore isn't in Alliance jurisdiction.

Gabey5 wrote...

space is like an ocean

You are a heretic of the worst sort. And you shall be burned upon the stake for your crimes.

Modifié par Vengeful Nature, 23 mai 2011 - 11:10 .

[sartt]

what happened to the coast guard?

[corporal doody]

in regards to OP....

it is the same way in Macross.. it makes sense. Navy mans the ships. Marines stationed on board for security, to provide a reactionary force, and immediate ground based ops. Army which is not stationed on ships...but transported from spot to spot for ground ops and to garrison. Most fighter, bomber, and support wings fall under Air Force. though the Marines have fighters and what not...but are exclusively for supporting (CAS) Marine ground forces.
Coast Guard would fall under the Defense Forces title.

[Vengeful Nature]

corporal doody wrote...

in regards to OP....

it is the same way in Macross.. it makes sense. Navy mans the ships. Marines stationed on board for security, to provide a reactionary force, and immediate ground based ops. Army which is not stationed on ships...but transported from spot to spot for ground ops and to garrison. Most fighter, bomber, and support wings fall under Air Force. though the Marines have fighters and what not...but are exclusively for supporting (CAS) Marine ground forces.
Coast Guard would fall under the Defense Forces title.

Nope. I'll quote this again.

the official codex wrote...

The divide between naval
personnel and ground forces ("marines") is small. Ground units are a
specialized branch of the fleet, just as fighter squadrons are. This
unity of command is imposed by the futility of fighting without control
of orbit; without the navy, any army is pointless. The marines, as a
matter of pride, maintain some of their traditional rank titles; for
example, marines have Privates and Corporals instead of Servicemen.

You don't need a dedicated Army branch if your entire territory is based in space. Because, if your entire territory is based in space, you're going to be utterly reliant on ships to ferry any of your ground troops around. So you may as well call them all Marines anyway.

As a wholly subjective point from my subjective opinion, I'd like to point out that Macross is an anime. And when has an anime ever made sense?

[corporal doody]

Vengeful Nature wrote...

corporal doody wrote...

in regards to OP....

it is the same way in Macross.. it makes sense. Navy mans the ships. Marines stationed on board for security, to provide a reactionary force, and immediate ground based ops. Army which is not stationed on ships...but transported from spot to spot for ground ops and to garrison. Most fighter, bomber, and support wings fall under Air Force. though the Marines have fighters and what not...but are exclusively for supporting (CAS) Marine ground forces.
Coast Guard would fall under the Defense Forces title.

Nope. I'll quote this again.

the official codex wrote...

The divide between naval
personnel and ground forces ("marines") is small. Ground units are a
specialized branch of the fleet, just as fighter squadrons are. This
unity of command is imposed by the futility of fighting without control
of orbit; without the navy, any army is pointless. The marines, as a
matter of pride, maintain some of their traditional rank titles; for
example, marines have Privates and Corporals instead of Servicemen.

You don't need a dedicated Army branch if your entire territory is based in space. Because, if your entire territory is based in space, you're going to be utterly reliant on ships to ferry any of your ground troops around. So you may as well call them all Marines anyway.

As a wholly subjective point from my subjective opinion, I'd like to point out that Macross is an anime. And when has an anime ever made sense?

Nope


for no reason.

[Aedan_Cousland]

According to the books the Alliance sort of combines the functions traditionally performed by the Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Army into a single entity. 'Marine' is more of a category of ground-based/amphibious operational specialities than a member of a seperate service.

Personally I'd prefer the Alliance was devided into different services (it makes more sense), but that would be going against established canon.

If the Alliance was divided into different services, I would break their roles down into something like this:

Navy: The Alliance Space Fleet. Pound for pound the most important of the services, since wars would ultimately either be won or lost depending on whether or not you control the space above friendly and enemy controlled worlds. In WW2 Erwin Rommerl said of the importance of air superiority, "Anyone who has to fight, even witht he most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete control of the air, fights like a savage aginst modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." Replace 'the air' with 'space' and the quote would still hold true.

Marines: Altough a seperate service essentially the ground arm of the Alliance Navy, with the Marines' shipboard role making them a rapid reaction force that could be deployed to hot spots and combat zones at a moment's notice, before the Army could be mobilized. During sustained military operations it's primary role would be in seizing an initial foothold on enemy occupied planet's (a.k.a. amphibious warfare) from where the larger and more heavily mechanized Army could land safely and punch through. It would also have a ship-to-ship role in being responsible for protecting Alliance vessels and space stations from enemy boarders, and in boarding disabled enemy/pirate/slaver vessels and stations. Lighter, smaller, and more infantry-based than the Army.

Army: Responsible for the ground defense of Alliance controlled worlds. Offensively as a larger and more heavily mechanized force than the Marines, it would play the main role in ground combat operations once the Marines had seized and secured a 'beach head' (or landing zone, if you prefer) on enemy controlled worlds. Often in explaining the the different roles of the modern US Army & Marine Corps, it is said that the lighter, smaller Marine Corps is designed to win battles and the larger, heavier Army to win wars. I'd have the same be true in the Mass Effect universe.

All three would also have some Spec Ops capabilities.

There would no longer be a need for a seperate 'Air Force.' Whoever controls the space above a planet would also have air superiority, so the air superiority role of the Air Force would have been assumed  by Navy carriers and their fighters, with the Army fielding fighters for planetary defense, & both the Army and Marines fielding fighters & bombers for their close air support needs. Strategic bombing of planets would also fall to the Navy.

There also would no longer be a need for a 'Navy' in the traditional sea-based sense. Space vessels would make seagoing vessels largely obsolete. A sea based carrier or cruiser could easily be destroyed from orbit, and 'amphibious assaults' more likely than not, come from space rather than from the seas. That isn't to say that there wouldn't be some sea-going warships, but I would think they would largely be small and fast and their use would more in line with the duties tasked to the Coast Guard today. (local maritime law enforcement, search and rescue, border patrol, ect)

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 25 mai 2011 - 03:41 .

[Yakko77]

ModestmeNTaLmogul wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Black Raptor wrote...

I have always wondered why the Navy get the spaceships. It would make more sense if they belonged to the Air force, what with all the flying.
You find that a lot of science-fiction just makes planets into countries/islands and space into sea and then goes along with a naval analogy towards everything.

Because the air force is not trained or equipped to operate a vehicle in a hostile environment for months at a time without returning to base.

Furthermore, safe operation of a spaceship shares a number of similarities to operating certain naval vessels, most especially submarines.  Submarines and space ships operate in a three dimensional environment that is hostile to the crew, both must be able to provide breathable air and drinkable water in a closed environment for months at a time, both are built on a pressure hull, and both require crew that are mentally able to live in close quarters with others for extended periods of time.

Air Forces lack the institutional mentality or basic operational concepts to effectively operate a spaceship as well as a Navy could.

Exactly. Air Forces not trained for space warfare and they operate aircrafts not spacecrafts...

The U.S. Air Force operates a Space Command.  They're testing a space plane right now.

[Vengeful Nature]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

According to the books the Alliance sort of combines the functions traditionally performed by the Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Army into a single entity. 'Marine' is more of a category of ground-based/amphibious operational specialities than a member of a seperate service.

Yup, that's the way they do things.

Personally I'd prefer the Alliance was devided into different services (it makes more sense), but that would be going against established canon.

It doesn't make more sense. The Alliance is spread out over a large region of space, and are therefore wholly dependant on their ships. The Navy makes the backbone of all Alliance operations, since they are the only way to get around. Therefore, all your troops are bound to those ships. That's why they're called Marines.

Think of it this way: I'm the top military commander of a nation that is spread out over hundreds of small islands hundreds of miles apart in the middle of a massive ocean, with no mainland. My entire defence strategy is based upon my navy, because without it, all my other forces are lame ducks. So what is the point in seperating my armed forces branch into a navy and an army? I may as well establish a unity of command where both branches can act together as a unified force. So all I need is my sea-borne ship-based troops.

If the Alliance was divided into different services, I would break their roles down into something like this:

Navy: The Alliance Space Fleet. Pound for pound the most important of the services, since wars would ultimately either be won or lost depending on whether or not you control the space above friendly and enemy controlled worlds. In WW2 Erwin Rommerl said of the importance of air superiority, "Anyone who has to fight, even witht he most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete control of the air, fights like a savage aginst modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." Replace 'the air' with 'space' and the quote would still hold true.

100% agree with you. That's a great quote, by the way. 

Marines: Altough a seperate service essentially the ground arm of the Alliance Navy, with the Marines' shipboard role making them a rapid reaction force that could be deployed to hot spots and combat zones at a moment's notice, before the Army could be mobilized. During sustained military operations it's primary role would be in seizing an initial foothold on enemy occupied planet's (a.k.a. amphibious warfare) from where the larger and more heavily mechanized Army could land safely and punch through. It would also have a ship-to-ship role in being responsible for protecting Alliance vessels and space stations from enemy boarders, and in boarding disabled enemy/pirate/slaver vessels and stations. Lighter, smaller, and more infantry-based than the Army.

Uh huh, with you so far.

Army: Responsible for the ground defense of Alliance controlled worlds. Offensively as a larger and more heavily mechanized force than the Marines, it would play the main role in ground combat operations once the Marines had seized and secured a 'beach head' (or landing zone, if you prefer) on enemy controlled worlds. Often in explaining the the different roles of the modern US Army & Marine Corps, it is said that the lighter, smaller Marine Corps is designed to win battles and the larger, heavier Army to win wars. I'd have the same be true in the Mass Effect universe.

All three would also have some Spec Ops capabilities.

But if all of your troops are bound and totally dependant on your ships, why not just make your Marine force bigger so they can perform both roles?

As for "establishing a beachhead", you don't need to do that either. Since your ships are hovering above the planet, they've got the benefit of both being able to see your enemy clear as day, like a satellite can, and being able to bombard your enemy with impunity, like artillery or air support can. So you pound the living doody out of them, and send your Marines to mop up in case the enemy are entrenched in tunnels or bunkers, which is what happened on Torfan.

Of course, things get tricky when your enemy are occupying one of your cities or your trying to win over the hearts and minds of the people who are on the planet to begin with. That's when you send in the Marines to do the heavy lifting, using your ships to make sure they can be anywhere on the planet very quickly. This is also when you'd need your tanks, which can be a specialised branch of the Marines (Marine Mechanised), again because of the unity of command that space travel imposes.

There would no longer be a need for a seperate 'Air Force.' Whoever controls the space above a planet would also have air superiority, so the air superiority role of the Air Force would have been assumed  by Navy carriers and their fighters, with the Army fielding fighters for planetary defense, & both the Army and Marines fielding fighters & bombers for their close air support needs. Strategic bombing of planets would also fall to the Navy.

Bang on, except you wouldn't need fighters because you've got your ships in orbit sitting pretty and armed to the teeth with kinetic weapons (that "Newton is the deadliest SOB in space" thing you saw on the Citadel). You'll pobably need gunships, which can easily be drones, to support the Marines in urban operations.

There also would no longer be a need for a 'Navy' in the traditional sea-based sense. Space vessels would make seagoing vessels largely obsolete. A sea based carrier or cruiser could easily be destroyed from orbit, and 'amphibious assaults' more likely than not, come from space rather than from the seas. That isn't to say that there wouldn't be some sea-going warships, but I would think they would largely be small and fast and their use would more in line with the duties tasked to the Coast Guard today. (local maritime law enforcement, search and rescue, border patrol, ect)

I like you. Apart from about the Army, you think like me.

Of course, you'd probably still see ocean-going ships on Earth, purely because the infrastructure's already in place. The terrestrial nations might well still have ocean-going navies as well, for good old fashioned drug interdicting and anti-piracy operations.

[Vengeful Nature]

Yakko77 wrote...

ModestmeNTaLmogul wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Black Raptor wrote...

I have always wondered why the Navy get the spaceships. It would make more sense if they belonged to the Air force, what with all the flying.
You find that a lot of science-fiction just makes planets into countries/islands and space into sea and then goes along with a naval analogy towards everything.

Because the air force is not trained or equipped to operate a vehicle in a hostile environment for months at a time without returning to base.

Furthermore, safe operation of a spaceship shares a number of similarities to operating certain naval vessels, most especially submarines.  Submarines and space ships operate in a three dimensional environment that is hostile to the crew, both must be able to provide breathable air and drinkable water in a closed environment for months at a time, both are built on a pressure hull, and both require crew that are mentally able to live in close quarters with others for extended periods of time.

Air Forces lack the institutional mentality or basic operational concepts to effectively operate a spaceship as well as a Navy could.

Exactly. Air Forces not trained for space warfare and they operate aircrafts not spacecrafts...

The U.S. Air Force operates a Space Command.  They're testing a space plane right now.

Thankyou! I was hoping someone would remember that when I didn't.

[CroGamer002]

ModestmeNTaLmogul wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Army.

Because I'm sick of Marines.

You think the Alliance Army got their own special forces unit similiar to the N7 Marines,like "Special Service Group" or something?

Why not?

[Kusy]

The Navy - Ship analogy comes naturaly into sci-fi. I'm not saying it's necesairly right but just natural.
It's a spaceship, not a spaceplane, you have space fleets, spaceship combat in classical sci-fi is more similar to naval battles (where fighters start from bigger vessels).

I'm cool with that. Star Wars did it, Mass Effect does it, every other science fiction does it... I think it's a tad too late to debate about it making sense.

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 25 mai 2011 - 10:00 .

[Yakko77]

Vengeful Nature wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

ModestmeNTaLmogul wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Black Raptor wrote...

I have always wondered why the Navy get the spaceships. It would make more sense if they belonged to the Air force, what with all the flying.
You find that a lot of science-fiction just makes planets into countries/islands and space into sea and then goes along with a naval analogy towards everything.

Because the air force is not trained or equipped to operate a vehicle in a hostile environment for months at a time without returning to base.

Furthermore, safe operation of a spaceship shares a number of similarities to operating certain naval vessels, most especially submarines.  Submarines and space ships operate in a three dimensional environment that is hostile to the crew, both must be able to provide breathable air and drinkable water in a closed environment for months at a time, both are built on a pressure hull, and both require crew that are mentally able to live in close quarters with others for extended periods of time.

Air Forces lack the institutional mentality or basic operational concepts to effectively operate a spaceship as well as a Navy could.

Exactly. Air Forces not trained for space warfare and they operate aircrafts not spacecrafts...

The U.S. Air Force operates a Space Command.  They're testing a space plane right now.

Thankyou! I was hoping someone would remember that when I didn't.

And you can better believe they're testing the practicality of loading that things cargo bay with tungsten rods (Rods of God) to drop on enemy targets from orbit.  The kintetic energy alone negates the need for a warhead.

[Halfdan The Menace]

Yakko77 wrote...

ModestmeNTaLmogul wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Black Raptor wrote...

I have always wondered why the Navy get the spaceships. It would make more sense if they belonged to the Air force, what with all the flying.
You find that a lot of science-fiction just makes planets into countries/islands and space into sea and then goes along with a naval analogy towards everything.

Because the air force is not trained or equipped to operate a vehicle in a hostile environment for months at a time without returning to base.

Furthermore, safe operation of a spaceship shares a number of similarities to operating certain naval vessels, most especially submarines.  Submarines and space ships operate in a three dimensional environment that is hostile to the crew, both must be able to provide breathable air and drinkable water in a closed environment for months at a time, both are built on a pressure hull, and both require crew that are mentally able to live in close quarters with others for extended periods of time.

Air Forces lack the institutional mentality or basic operational concepts to effectively operate a spaceship as well as a Navy could.

Exactly. Air Forces not trained for space warfare and they operate aircrafts not spacecrafts...

The U.S. Air Force operates a Space Command.  They're testing a space plane right now.

What about the Chinese? Can someone give me links about their space program?  

[Vengeful Nature]

Yakko77 wrote...

[Edit: snipped the ugly quote pyramid.]

And you can better believe they're testing the practicality of loading that things cargo bay with tungsten rods (Rods of God) to drop on enemy targets from orbit.  The kintetic energy alone negates the need for a warhead.

If a military is well on it's way to making an Boeing 747-based-laser cannon, I can fully believe that it's trying it's hand at orbital bombardment, as well.

Modifié par Vengeful Nature, 25 mai 2011 - 10:27 .

[Yakko77]

Vengeful Nature wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

[Edit: snipped the ugly quote pyramid.]

And you can better believe they're testing the practicality of loading that things cargo bay with tungsten rods (Rods of God) to drop on enemy targets from orbit.  The kintetic energy alone negates the need for a warhead.

If a military is well on it's way to making an Boeing 747-based-laser cannon, I can fully believe that it's trying it's hand at orbital bombardment, as well.

Last I  heard that program had its funding cut.

[Vengeful Nature]

Yakko77 wrote...

Vengeful Nature wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

[Edit: snipped the ugly quote pyramid.]

And you can better believe they're testing the practicality of loading that things cargo bay with tungsten rods (Rods of God) to drop on enemy targets from orbit.  The kintetic energy alone negates the need for a warhead.

If a military is well on it's way to making an Boeing 747-based-laser cannon, I can fully believe that it's trying it's hand at orbital bombardment, as well.

Last I  heard that program had its funding cut.

Indeed it has, but the first platform is still being tweaked. As the years go by, the technology will become feasible again and the project will be resurrected.

Says ma crystal ball.

[Yakko77]

Vengeful Nature wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

Vengeful Nature wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

[Edit: snipped the ugly quote pyramid.]

And you can better believe they're testing the practicality of loading that things cargo bay with tungsten rods (Rods of God) to drop on enemy targets from orbit.  The kintetic energy alone negates the need for a warhead.

If a military is well on it's way to making an Boeing 747-based-laser cannon, I can fully believe that it's trying it's hand at orbital bombardment, as well.

Last I  heard that program had its funding cut.

Indeed it has, but the first platform is still being tweaked. As the years go by, the technology will become feasible again and the project will be resurrected.

Says ma crystal ball.

I hope so.  Lasers seem to have potential in real life military scenarios and not just in Sci-Fi.  The USN recently tested a shipboard laser CIWS  (Close In Weapon System) to down a target drone.  Something quick and instant would be life saving as modern warships are very vulnerable to low and very high speed anti-ship missiles.  The Falklands War between the Brits and Argentina demonstrated that in a deadly manner as the Brits lost a few destroyers/frigates to Exocet anti-ship missiles.  The U.S.S. Stark comes to mind as well.  The threat of swarms of high speed attack boats is also a threat especially in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf.  The threat of a terrorist with a suitcase nuke is on a lot of terror experts minds but the threat of ICBMs isn't zero so something like the ABL seems like a viable and worthy defense initiative.

[Vengeful Nature]

Yakko77 wrote...

Vengeful Nature wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

Vengeful Nature wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

[Edit: snipped the ugly quote pyramid.]

And you can better believe they're testing the practicality of loading that things cargo bay with tungsten rods (Rods of God) to drop on enemy targets from orbit.  The kintetic energy alone negates the need for a warhead.

If a military is well on it's way to making an Boeing 747-based-laser cannon, I can fully believe that it's trying it's hand at orbital bombardment, as well.

Last I  heard that program had its funding cut.

Indeed it has, but the first platform is still being tweaked. As the years go by, the technology will become feasible again and the project will be resurrected.

Says ma crystal ball.

I hope so.  Lasers seem to have potential in real life military scenarios and not just in Sci-Fi.  The USN recently tested a shipboard laser CIWS  (Close In Weapon System) to down a target drone.  Something quick and instant would be life saving as modern warships are very vulnerable to low and very high speed anti-ship missiles.  The Falklands War between the Brits and Argentina demonstrated that in a deadly manner as the Brits lost a few destroyers/frigates to Exocet anti-ship missiles.  The U.S.S. Stark comes to mind as well.  The threat of swarms of high speed attack boats is also a threat especially in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf.  The threat of a terrorist with a suitcase nuke is on a lot of terror experts minds but the threat of ICBMs isn't zero so something like the ABL seems like a viable and worthy defense initiative.

This laser version of the Phalanx system sounds exactly like the GARDIAN laser systems of Alliance Navy ships. The problem is the cost of modern lasers. Again, though, weaponised lasers will almost certainly become more feasible as technology improves over time.

[Halfdan The Menace]

Russian Flying Fortress




You think the Air Force would operate something like this?