Author Topic: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne  (Read 7012 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Garfunkel (OP)

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« on: November 21, 2019, 02:23:48 PM »
With ground invasions becoming more common place in C# as well as more complicated, I'm thinking we're going to need a new term to describe that space-to-planet invasion/landing and the units meant for it. In current military, we have amphibious invasions/operations and forces/units for sea->land stuff and airborne for air->land stuff. So amphibious ships and airborne rangers and so on, you get what I mean.

But I have no idea what term to use for space and I feel like it would be cumbersome to use amphibious. Maybe spaceborne? Vacuumphibious? Any linguists here?  ;D
 

Offline JustAnotherDude

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • J
  • Posts: 114
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2019, 02:37:29 PM »
Given that oceangoing navies are apparently not really a thing, I think that "Amphibious" would pretty readily transfer over. It's not technically correct but it makes sense thematically, and the basic concept is still there.

But if I had to use another word, "Aerospace" is what I'd go for, given that even ground support fighters don't really fight on the ground.
 

Offline Garfunkel (OP)

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2019, 12:12:45 PM »
Some point in the distant future, Aurora will model planets properly and we're going to have oceans with wet navies and all that jazz  :P

Aerospace invasion.
Aerospace ranger.
Aerospace landing.
Aerospace fighter.
Aerospace operation.

Yeah, that sounds good.
 
The following users thanked this post: JustAnotherDude

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2019, 05:50:31 PM »
Wet navies are not going to be much of a thing unless there's an active threat on that planet that is based on the seas. You are more likely to see an upscaled Coast Guard equivalent with global reach, and a very limited, most likely submarine focused navy, if any, whose singular purpose is to deny the planet to the enemy, either by acting as mobile and hard to find STO missile batteries or as submersible and hard to find transportation for military operations to act as nuisance elements that have to be chased down during invasions and occupation.

Anything else would get flattened from orbit in all likelihood.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2019, 12:29:14 AM »
Space-to-planet landing troops will, of course, be called Turtles. . . 

. . .'Cause they're Leathernecks, yo!

 

Offline GodEmperor

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 312
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2019, 05:34:51 AM »
Orbital Drop Infantry ?
."I am Colonel-Commissar Ibram Gaunt. I am known as a fair man, unless I am pushed.
You have just pushed me."
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2019, 06:55:52 AM »
Orbital Drop Infantry ?

ODI, us?  Odious.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2019, 02:04:39 PM »
ODST. Oorah!
 
The following users thanked this post: shepard1707

Offline Akhillis

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • A
  • Posts: 46
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2019, 06:36:10 PM »
I like Aerospace.

I've used 'Expeditionary' and 'Assault' in the past i.e. the Assault Carriers of the 2nd Expeditionary Group carry enough Assault Transports to simultaneously land four brigades.
The Sorium must flow
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2019, 07:52:53 PM »
I typically refer to them as "Dragoons", as historically this has been used as a term to refer to cavalry troops which deployed rapidly to battle on horseback, but dismounted to fight. I envision a planetary assault force with equivalence to Marines (who create beachheads for additional troops) and Airborne (who drop behind enemy lines to hold key positions until the rest of the military can fight to them) to function in much the same way that Dragoons functioned. Ride in, dismount, fight like hell.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2019, 07:47:36 AM »
Dragoons historically weren't dismounted cavalry, they were mounted infantry, and equipped accordingly. Gunpowder weapons had enough of a kick that a full infantry musket or rifle would dismount a cavalry man even if the horse was stationary, never mind when moving. Cavalry weapons were notably shorter, and it was very common for the actual cavalry of the era to instead be equipped with a brace of pistols and sabers, or lances and sabers, to break enemy lines and rush through.


What the appropriate term is for space/ground forces is kind of difficult to determine because there's two major factors at play. First, all terrain you are likely to engage in is directly the 'shore line', because from space the question is only how much atmosphere you have to go through, and that's not a question whose answer substantially changes wherever you are on the planet. Second, planets are rather big and come with a lot of different terrain types that on the ground offer different challenges, and it's just not efficient to train for all possible terrain types with all formations. As such, it'd be expected that a formation trains and is equipped to perform extremely well under some circumstances, perform adequately under more circumstances and perform extremely poorly for those circumstances its training and equipment are utterly unsuited for.
 

Offline Garfunkel (OP)

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2019, 11:48:27 AM »
I like Aerospace.

I've used 'Expeditionary' and 'Assault' in the past i.e. the Assault Carriers of the 2nd Expeditionary Group carry enough Assault Transports to simultaneously land four brigades.
Yeah I'm pretty sure I'll finally be using the Assault Carrier classification but for aerospace landings - CVA will carry the ground-support fighters that'll support the Assault Transports/Landing Crafts.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2019, 08:31:45 PM »
I first used Space Marine Corp for my intended marine equivalent organisation but changed it the the Void Marine Corp instead... Space Marine sound a bit to much like 40k... not a bad word but sort of take your mind elsewhere.

For the ships themselves I would probably be using Assault Carrier for the main troop transport ships as I intend to use commercial hangars in them as well as troop transport modules. I also intend to put enough maintenance facilities to actually tend to any military ships in their hangars, they are not meant to carry combat fighters more than dedicated ground fighter,  armoured drop-ships and boarding crafts. But these will be like the elite troops. The Void Marine Corp will be its own organisation with ships, fighters (Both space and ground fighters) and troops.

Regular Army transport ships will be allot simpler and cheaper type vessels, these are the one who go down after the marines established the first foothold and most planetary to space weapons have been suppressed. The Void Marines go in with guns blazing and will rely on chock more than finesse... ;)
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2019, 09:47:38 PM »
Nope, according to the Wikipedia entry they were originally used as mounted infantry that dismounted to fight on foot, later on they became traditional cavalry. Therefore Dragoon is suitable as a space equivalent to Marine/Airborne role... Although it is a bit of a stretch.
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: Space equivalent term for amphibious/airborne
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2019, 03:00:32 PM »
Spacebourne. Though I'm more partial to just calling them plain ol marines myself.

I make distinctions between security forces, army regulars, and marines. Security forces are regular navy personnel that act as MPs and guards. They're less well trained than army grunts and significantly worse than marines. They are counted as part of the regular crew and can be found on all ships and naval installations .

Army regulars are your standard grunts. They were the people too stupid to become crewmen and now have to fight it out in the mud and blood below. As an individual solider they are inferior to marines, but there are more of them and they are backed up with much heavier weapons. The army is mostly used on the defense. On the offense marines are preferred because army units are much 'heavier' and therefore difficult to deploy on a planets but in protracted sieges they are required. Army units will only be deployed on ships when they are being transported en-mass and they'll usually be in cryo to cut down on their logistical footprint.

Marines are those too stupid to just stick with the army. Despite popular misconception marines are not responsible for policing ships and are more likely to start fights than end them. What marines are for is to act as one of the ships primary weapons for ground combat. Marines are, to a man, rated for vacuum combat. Most capital ships have at least a company of marines on board which, in concert with fire support from the ships other weapons, is usually enough for it to overcome any planetary threats. When assaulting a heavily defended planet, a naval task force would pool all of its marine units together under a unified command to coordinate a planetary assault. During serious campaigns deep into enemy territory ships might have their marine contingents revoked so they could be incorporated into larger division sized units deployed from planetary assault ships.

Despite their clearly superior combat prowess, marines can easily be overwhelmed by larger forces of lesser combatants due to their small number and relatively light equipment, which favors speed and firepower over protection. It is common for marines more than any other branch to modify said equipment to suit the various environments they find themselves fighting in.

Stuff like ODST are an elite branch of marines but usually fall immediately under the supreme commander rather than the leader of ground operations as they are for special missions vital to the overall campaign.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2019, 03:36:57 PM by BasileusMaximos »