Re: [FT] Replacement Boarding Rules v1.0b

>Jared spake thusly upon matters weighty:

>> It was accurately pointed out on the FTML that it is contrary to
current
naval
>> practice for vessels to carry trained teams for boarding actions.

>Um. I beg to differ. I know of several Canadian ships that have a
>staff of trained experts in boarding actions (they give extensive
>courses on this) that can be assembled at short notice by the Bosun.
>I have a friend who has recieved this training. The ships routinely
>field boarding parties from the crew when executing assistance to
>customs and excise, blockade enforcement (think Persian Gulf), and
>drug inspections. The training involves training the naval personel
>in boarding tactics, small unit tactics, legalities, risks, use of
>SMGs, assault carbines, assault shotguns, and pistols, and CQB,
>amongst other things.

OK, amend to read "contrary to current naval to carry trained and
equipped
boarding teams on _every_ vessel."  Some may, many (or most) don't.

>I sort of assume other navies follow suit... either that or Canada
>has what seems to be a pretty good plan. These are not 'defence
>teams' as they are constituted for many types of mission in an
>'excursive' role where they depart the vessel to board other vessels.

Well, Phil Pournelle pointed out in October or November of last year
that the US
Navy does not specifically carry troops for this purpose.  Not having
seen any
counter arguments to his statements then, that's what I used.  His
additional
comment at the time, with which I agree, is (paraphrased) "If you want
them, buy
em and pay the space".	Certainly it may be viable to design specialty
boarding
ships, but a few teams on all your cruisers is another
possibility...YMMV  Below
is the factor that may most likely distinguish future practice from
current:

>Now, equipment is an issue. Any ships locker will contain firearms
>(rifles, possibly a SAW or two, and maybe some shotguns). The SMGs
>and other specialized BP tools will only be brought aboard when the
>ship expects to undertake boarding actions - customs duty, blockade,
>interdiction or the like.

Yes, Equipment is probably the larger factor, and the equipment for a
team of
boarders that have to jump across vacuum in a potentially hostile
enviroment to
breach a hull and engage in combat in a definately hostile environment
(both
vacuum and active defenders fire) will be much more extensive.	Giving
your crew
members a standard duty EVA suit and a pulse rifle, even if they are CQB
trained
(what's the B for specifically?) is not the same as proper equipment for
the
task...

>These are NOT marines, but they are very serious, very dangerous,
>well trained boarding parties. And they are drawn, at need, from the
>ship staff. (Now, I'm not sure the doctrine for combat boardings as
>I'm sure the ship wouldn't want to spare key people if engaged
>actively... but I don't know).

I can certainly accept that.  I have no doubt they are effective
fighters, and
effective in their element.  I contend that their element is within
their ship,
where they are not hampered by their lack of specialized boarding
equipment
(perhaps PA with heavy duty EVA maneuvering systems to power them at
high speed
between vessels, as well as Hull breaching equipment, etc.)

Marines Boarding Parties are more intensively trained, but just as
important,
and distinguishing in the rules we set up, is the fact they are properly
prepared for the particular job at hand.

><Otherwise, your ideas about boarding parties are interesting and
>perhaps viable>.

Hopefully thought-provoking at least...

Jared