Prime Directive Traveller

[Nerroth]

I posted something about this over in one of the ACtA:SF threads, but I should point out that the SFU is, by the very nature of its license, not nearly as wedded to the on-screen versions of events as the Paramount/CBS Franchise is.

(To re-use an example, the Star Fleet Universe take on the unfortunate first contact between the Federation and the Gorns had "two brash young captains shoot first and face embarrassing questions later"; but states that "the event was dramatized for trivideo in a fanciful story involving an unknown super-race similar to the Organians".)

So, while the "trivideo" source material has a prominent place, it's not advisable to get too locked on to what is shown on screen it when it comes to understanding how things work here.

Star Fleet is not Starfleet.

 

[Mithras]

I was quite comfortable with the TOS and FJ Manual approach which seemed to depict a ship of officers. It harkens back to an airforce/space program mentality of officers are aircrew. And everyone seems to go to the Academy, where officers are made. In TOS the intent was probably to show the interesting lives of the 'officers' on screen, but also to show that you needed 'officers' for the complex systems on a starship.

It helps if you don't think of the Ensign rank as an officer (ie. junior manager), but as a highly trained expert (I suppose similar in role to a modern air force warrant officer, technical expert but without command responsibilities).

Why force ST into a modern US Navy mould?

 

[rust]

Why? You need ranks and a chain of command, but why shouldn't an organization be able to work perfectly fine without the arbitrary separation into two chains? Police and fire departments seem to manage just fine.

In our recent history the two main reasons for the existence of
the separation into officers and enlisted personnel seem to have
been the amount of education and the duration of the service.

Officers served for their entire career and received a higher edu-
cation on the university level, enlisted personnel served for a
number of years (here 12 years as the maximum) and received
the (usually technical) education required for their specific task.

Police and firefighters all serve for their entire careers, so there
is no need or use for a "temporary service level", although there
are still differences in pay depending on the education (criminal
investigations officers are better educated and get higher wages
than the normal police officers).

I think in a system with terms of service (like Traveller) it makes
sense to distinguish between officers and (temporary) enlisted
personnel, hardly any organization would consider it economical
to train people who stay for only a few years as well as those who
intend to serve for their entire careers. A free university level edu-
cation for someone who will leave the organization a few years la-
ter would seem a waste of resources.

As for Star Fleet, I have no idea whether all of its members serve
"for life", or whether there is also the option of temporary enlist-
ment - or whether the authors of the series even thought about
this. However, once Prime Directive uses the Traveller system, it
would in my view make sense to distinguish between officers and
temporarily enlisted personnel, because otherwise the term sys-
tem of Traveller careers could become absurd.

 

[BFalcon]

PD and the SFU realize that it takes both officers and enlisted personnel to make a ship work. The core rulebook will discuss that.

In fact, try this link: http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/index.shtml#PD

You'll find we have play aids so you know exactly what insignia is used with a rank.

I hope that helps!

Thanks Jean - I'm afraid it more degenerated into a "but there was, but there wasn't" argument for a while there... guilty as charged...

Also, looking through those, don't forget fellas - when a Marine Captain is on board ship, he's granted a temporary "for the duration" promotion to Major... there can only be 1 Captain on a ship.

 

[Hans Rancke]

Also, looking through those, don't forget fellas - when a Marine Captain is on board ship, he's granted a temporary "for the duration" promotion to Major... there can only be 1 Captain on a ship.

That's a myth. That is to say, I've seen anecdotal evidence that it was practiced aboard the ships the tellers served on and other anecdotal evidence that it wasn't practiced aboard the ships the other tellers served on, but even assuming the anecdotes were true, it's certainly does not seem to have been a widespread prectice, let alone an official one. It seems to go back to Heinlein's Starship Troopers and perpetuated by Pournelle and various other authors of military SF. I've never encountered it in any historical naval fiction I've read, from Forester to Callison.

I don't think the issue has ever come up in Star Trek, since Starfleet ships didn't carry marines (I could be wrong -- I'm no Star Trek expert). In Traveller I think it was mentioned in Mercenary as a mercenary custom. Whether it is also a naval custom has not, I believe, been established one way or another. For what it's worth (nothing whatsoever ) it isn't a naval custom IMTU.


Hans

 

[rust]

I've never encountered it in any historical naval fiction I've read, from Forester to Callison.

In the Age of Sail it would have been a somewhat rare event
anyway, since few ships (mostly first rate ships of the line)
carried a contingent of marines big enough to justify a cap-
tain as the commanding officer, and many of those ships we-
re commanded by officers of flag rank, not by captains.

 

[Da Boss]

I did read that the Romans had a system that the Captian of the ship and the commander of the Legionary detachment shared command which would have been "interesting".

 

[BFalcon]

I've never encountered it in any historical naval fiction I've read, from Forester to Callison.

In the Age of Sail it would have been a somewhat rare event
anyway, since few ships (mostly first rate ships of the line)
carried a contingent of marines big enough to justify a cap-
tain as the commanding officer, and many of those ships we-
re commanded by officers of flag rank, not by captains.

Actually not - a flag officer almost never directly commands the ship he uses for his Flag... the Captain does, under his orders. The Flag Officer is there for the command of the fleet, not an individual ship.

The honorary Major rank is there to prevent confusion in the middle of battle - by calling him Major, a Marine rank, it eliminates the confusion. Also, the presence of a Captain in the Marines isn't going to be that unusual - it's only an O3 rank...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_%28naval%29 is one reference...

http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm is another... (look under Navy - Captain)

http://www.ehow.com/info_8263248_pins-military-officer-rank.html

It may be an "urban legend", but given how frequently the USN changes ranks (cf Commodore - at some times is a senior Captain, at others has been the reference for a 1-star admiral (apparently according to one of the sites I found - mainly in the 50s I think) and at other times doesn't exist at all) and procedures, I wouldn't be surprised if we're both right - just according to different times.

Sorry Rust - just noticed that you're referring to the Age of Sail...

Da Boss: I think that was because, where the two needed each other, neither wanted to yield command of their own unit, so extended a courtesy to the other and it just became tradition... not least because often, a legion cohort would be dependant on the ship for supplies (giving the naval captain some leverage, but also necessitating that the Legion officer not allow it to leave or be damaged), but also the ship was dependant on the Legion for protection and, given how the Romans liked to keep their Legionaries busy, for the oars too - I'm not entirely sure that slaves would have provided all the power for a ship carrying Legionaries - not if Hadrian's Wall in Cumbria/Northumbria was built by Legionary muscle... following that logic, it might be that the Legionaries weren't dead weight while on board ship. Certainly, though, they'd have been needed for defense of the ship...

Would indeed make for some interesting situations though... and if I recall, one such example was used in a Clive Cussler book, if I recall.

 

[rust]

I did read that the Romans had a system that the Captian of the ship and the commander of the Legionary detachment shared command which would have been "interesting".

The opposite happened sometimes in the Royal Navy of the
Age of Sail, there quite a few naval officers also had a rank
as marine officers, and there was at least one case where
the commanding officer of a ship was both the navy captain
of his ship and the marine captain of his ship's contingent
of marines.

 

[Da Boss]

IIRC the Legionary units were at least initially simply land units serving on board ships.

Also I don't think that the oars were manned by slaves but by trained crew - although in times of need they may have been pressed into service I guess.

 

[rust]

Sorry Rust - just noticed that you're referring to the Age of Sail...

No problem.

In the Age of Sail the "rule of thumb" for the number of marines on
a ship was something like "one gun, one marine", so the marine con-
tingents usually were quite small - for example, only about 30 men
on a typical frigate, usually not enough to spend the pay of a marine
captain on their command.

The marines were not yet the numerically strong amphibious invasion
forces of nowadays, this mostly still was the task of regular army units
transported by the navy, the main task of the marines was as the ship's
security force (especially in times when a majority of the sailors did not
serve voluntarily) and as snipers in battle.

This is why I would think that the custom you mentioned, if it existed,
probably had a comparatively recent origin, in my view it would not fit
in well as an older naval tradition.

 

[rust]

Also I don't think that the oars were manned by slaves but by trained crew - although in times of need they may have been pressed into service I guess.

Yep, those (very few) ancient navies which used slaves to man
the oars all had made very nasty experiences with slave revolts
during sea battles, so slaves as oarsmen were extremely rare, at
least on ships taking part in a war.

 

[Rick]

Actually - the Roman system is the complete opposite of what you guys have been saying! There were indeed 2 commanders on board a Roman warship - but you have to remember that a Roman warship's primary mission was to close with an enemy vessel and deliver the Marines onto it! The trierarch was the ships 'captain' - but he was really the sailing master, he was in charge of sailing the ship and the crew; the Marine officer was the 'fighting captain' and he took over in battle and commanded the ship and marines in the battle (thank you Simon Scarrow). Marines were pretty much on the same level as auxiliary troops as regards pay and status - Legionaries were of higher pay and status but were 'cargo' when on board ship; they did their fighting on land apart from 1 or 2 notable exceptions.

 

[Rick]

From what I understand - the Marine Captain being called a Major on a ship may just be an urban legend; the commanding officer of a ship is "the captain" (irrespective of his actual rank) and a Marine Captain would be "captain ..." (his name). Heinlein was the first source that I know of to use it - unless anyone knows of an earlier example?

 

[BFalcon]

Well, we'll soon know, hopefully - I sent an information request to the USMC...

That or I'll be dragged away for trying to find out military secrets...

But a couple of the sources I saw were (supposedly) ex-servicemen... but like I said, it may be a practice that fell out of use in recent years or may have only been in use where the marine contingents were both large enough to have Captains, but small enough that they weren't near the top of the command chain for their unit.

 

[rust]

After doing a little more research, I think that the custom did
indeed exist in the US Navy, although not as anything official,
and therefore probably not everywhere. Most other navies al-
most certainly had no equivalent, simply because in many of
them the two ranks and functions are named differently any-
way.

 

[BFalcon]

Oh, I never said it was official - just an "unwritten rule" to remove the risk of confusion - after all, if someone screams out in the middle of a battle that the captain is dead, even with a name, that could be a disaster for the morale of a crew. You don't have time to explain that you meant the USMC captain and not the one making the decisions to (hopefully) keep them all alive...

So it does make sense - marine officers are, by and large, redundant on board ship unless manning the weapons - whereas the naval officers are the ones keeping everyone alive and trying to destroy the enemy... of course, as soon as those boots hit the sand, that all changes...

 

[rust]

Yep, I asked someone who knows a lot more about navies
than I do, and he meant is was once a thing of unwritten
etiquette, and compared it to the tradition that in German
navies the Kapitän (= Captain) of a ship is always addres-
sed as the Kap'tän, it would be a serious etiquette blunder
to pronounce the "i" in "Kapitän" ...

 

[Hans Rancke]

The honorary Major rank is there to prevent confusion in the middle of battle - by calling him Major, a Marine rank, it eliminates the confusion.

So does adding the name of the captain on those rare occasions when it might be relevant (Basically when both captains happen to issue contradictory orders to the same people, forcing the unfortunates to chose which order to obey). This explanation (which IIRC appears in Starship Troopers and/or Pournelle) has always struck me as having all the earmarks of folk etymology (though for customs the word wouldn't be etymology, would it? Folk ethnography perhaps?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_%28naval%29 is one reference...

http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm is another... (look under Navy - Captain)

http://www.ehow.com/info_8263248_pins-military-officer-rank.html

First one didn't mention it (unless I missed it), second one doesn't seem to list any references, and neither of the references the third one gives mention it.

Though I have to admit that this is the first time I've been furnished with any written references at all. However, most articles I read about stuff I know about from personal experience contains an average of three big mistakes.

It may be an "urban legend", but given how frequently the USN changes ranks (cf Commodore - at some times is a senior Captain, at others has been the reference for a 1-star admiral (apparently according to one of the sites I found - mainly in the 50s I think) and at other times doesn't exist at all) and procedures, I wouldn't be surprised if we're both right - just according to different times.

Friend of mine asked the USMC Information office about it. They'd never heard about it. (Yeah, I know; now it becomes hearsay. What can I say, the time I tried to ask the USMC myself they weren't taking e-mail questions).


Hans

 

[Hans Rancke]

In the Age of Sail the "rule of thumb" for the number of marines on a ship was something like "one gun, one marine", so the marine contingents usually were quite small - for example, only about 30 men on a typical frigate, usually not enough to spend the pay of a marine
captain on their command.

So 64 or more marines on a Line-of-Battle ship. That's enough for two officers, one of which would be a captain.


Hans