www.ditl.org

Yeah I kind of just assumed "marine" was a generic term for soilders on ships.

That's pretty much what it originally meant.

Mikey wrote:That's pretty much what it originally meant.

It may be what it originally meant, though even then the Royal Marines where a far different entity than the standard Army soldier. The common use of Marine now is what I described. If that is what Deep meant than so be it, however in using that term he is creating an expectation in my mind at least of something that apparently doesn't exist.

You'd probably know better than I, so I will accept your correction, but IIRC the main difference (besides uni colors, etc.) between an 18th century Royal Marine and a redcoat was the type of shot used, the affinity for using boarding hooks/axes rather than sabers, and their use in press gangs.

Mikey wrote:You'd probably know better than I, so I will accept your correction, but IIRC the main difference (besides uni colors, etc.) between an 18th century Royal Marine and a redcoat was the type of shot used, the affinity for using boarding hooks/axes rather than sabers, and their use in press gangs.

That's a fair amount of difference for a pre-twentieth century military force. Most of these guys couldn't even read or do basic math after all. The average Army soldier also wasn't expected to sit in the masts and fire down at the enemy deck, that's a long way up when the average height a guy might climb was probably a story or two.

Fair enough. 18th century Royal Marines were also known for their viciousness over redcoats. But my point was that they weren't a recon or landing force specifically.

Mikey wrote:Fair enough. 18th century Royal Marines were also known for their viciousness over redcoats.

Eh? That's not one I've heard before - and I expect the inhabitants of Badajoz would disagree with it.

Captain Seafort wrote:
Eh? That's not one I've heard before - and I expect the inhabitants of Badajoz would disagree with it.

If it's true (and I don't think it is), I can see why: there's no where to go on a ship. But there's less chance of a mass rape and looting spree on the open ocean.

I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit; viciousness in HTH combat, not towards GP's. Also, there's the whole press-gang thing.

Mikey wrote:I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit; viciousness in HTH combat, not towards GP's. Also, there's the whole press-gang thing.

As in "recruiting" for the Navy? Yes, there's that but generally when your press-ganging someone you try not to kill them.

I forgot to address this though:

But my point was that they weren't a recon or landing force specifically.

It was part of their duties though. Soldiers back then were far more generalist than they are now with a wide ranging set of duties, with the Redcoats for example there were only a few different trades. The Marines where expected to perform landings, but being such a tiny force (indeed the entire Britsh Army was incredibly small at the time) their utility was limited. Marine usage has evolved since then obviously, yet we still see them employed as shipboard security on CVN's and such, which was one of the original duties of the Royal Marines.

Besides playing dumbass music during combat and landings.

Cpl Kendall wrote:...Besides playing dumbass music during combat and landings.

So, they're Metallica fans, eh?

So, then let's just call them Special Ops Commandos and leave it at that. 40 would be plenty. It's not like they'd be used to secure a planet or capture an enemy ship. They'd be the spearhead of the attack, infiltrating and taking the command centers and such.