Prime Directive Traveller

[rust]

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

Right, but there usually were not that many ships of the line on
the seas, most of the time the big ships were kept in ordinary to
save the money for crews and repairs, which is why I considered
the situation with two captains as "a somewhat rare event" in my
post above.

 

[Hans Rancke]

I accidentally reposted a post that I was editing for grammar. I can't seem to find a way to delete this one again. Sorry.

Hans[/quote]

 

[Hans Rancke]

Oh, I never said it was official - just an "unwritten rule"

But it doesn't seem to be a US Marine tradition or Royal Marine tradition in the way Heinlein says it is a Mobile Infantry tradition and Pournelle says it's a Co-Dominium Marine tradition, etc. At most it's a tradition on some individual ships.

Come to think about it, this would really be a navy (whichever navy we're talking about) tradition, wouldn't it? Anyway, it's not a USN or Royal Navy tradition either, just some individual ships.


Hans

 

[BFalcon]

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?)

As I said, in battle - where a name might be hard to hear - if he hears "Captain", any naval rating would know instantly who he's talking about.

As for knowing whos orders to obey, even I know you follow your line of command in the event of a conflict.

And the quotes I gave DO mention them - I checked each before linking.

As for the USMC never having heard of it, does that mean it never happened or that the staff never heard of it happening? If so, are you asking enlisted men or officers? I suspect that most enlisted men would just use "sir" in any case or would be talking to their own men if using a specific rank.

Either way - with no evidence at all from yourself, I'm going to step away from this discussion before it becomes an argument.

 

[Hans Rancke]

And the quotes I gave DO mention them - I checked each before linking.

I checked the first one again, and you're right, it does say so. But the reference given in the wiki article does not. Rather, it refers to the custom that the commanding officer of a ship is addressed as captain regardless of his actual rank (and the XO as commander, which I didn't know). It then goes on to say that other captains and commanders aboard are addressed as rank followed by name.

I would quote the paragraph, but the site doesn't allow cut and paste.

As for the USMC never having heard of it, does that mean it never happened or that the staff never heard of it happening? If so, are you asking enlisted men or officers? I suspect that most enlisted men would just use "sir" in any case or would be talking to their own men if using a specific rank.

I have no idea. As I said, it wasn't I who got the answer.

Either way - with no evidence at all from yourself, I'm going to step away from this discussion before it becomes an argument.

It's pretty hard to prove a negative. All one can do is point out the flaws in the positive evidence.


Hans

 

[rust]

After a little more digging and another phone call I may
have found an explanation for the confusion.

It could be that the custom was purely a custom of the
officers' mess etiquette on a number of ships, used only
by the officers on board of the ship and only when at the
officers' mess, but neither outside of the mess nor by en-
listed personnel.

This would make it a courtesy thing at the officers' table,
and could perhaps explain why it is occasionally mentio-
ned, but was neither general nor very widespread, and
why there are no official sources for it.

 

[Rick]

After a little more digging and another phone call I may
have found an explanation for the confusion.

It could be that the custom was purely a custom of the
officers' mess etiquette on a number of ships, used only
by the officers on board of the ship and only when at the
officers' mess, but neither outside of the mess nor by en-
listed personnel.

This would make it a courtesy thing at the officers' table,
and could perhaps explain why it is occasionally mentio-
ned, but was neither general nor very widespread, and
why there are no official sources for it.

Very well done Rust - that would seem to provide a more believable answer and satisfy all of the sides! Wardroom/mess etiquette is one of those arcane mysteries that outsiders aren't supposed to understand fully! Nicely done, sir!

 

[Hans Rancke]

It could be that the custom was purely a custom of the officers' mess etiquette on a number of ships...

...that would seem to provide a more believable answer and satisfy all of the sides! Wardroom/mess etiquette is one of those arcane mysteries that outsiders aren't supposed to understand fully!

But is it true? The original claim would be perfectly satisfactory to me if it had been backed up by a quote from the USN "Handbook of Etiquette for Officers" from some other believable authority. So would this one if it was backed up by something other than anecdotal evidence and unsupported claims.


Hans

 

[Ishmael]

Title

Any naval officer who commands a ship (titled commanding officer, or CO) is addressed by naval custom as "captain" while aboard in command. Officers with the rank of captain travelling aboard a vessel they do not command should be addressed by their rank and name (e.g., "Captain Smith"), but they should not be referred to as "the captain" to avoid confusion with the vessel's captain.[1] According to US Navy wardroom etiquette, an embarked Navy captain is addressed in that setting as "Commodore," and a Marine captain as "Major."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_(naval)

Apparently, its done to prevent confusion between the rank/paygrade of 'captain' and the title of "captain".

Also, a marine ( usmc ) captain is an O3, whereas a navy (usn) captain is an O6

This site also makes a reference to this under 'command rank; navy' partway down the page
http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm

 

[Hans Rancke]

Title

Any naval officer who commands a ship (titled commanding officer, or CO) is addressed by naval custom as "captain" while aboard in command. Officers with the rank of captain travelling aboard a vessel they do not command should be addressed by their rank and name (e.g., "Captain Smith"), but they should not be referred to as "the captain" to avoid confusion with the vessel's captain.[1] According to US Navy wardroom etiquette, an embarked Navy captain is addressed in that setting as "Commodore," and a Marine captain as "Major."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_(naval)

Now check the reference given. It leads to a section of a book that doesn't actually say what the article claims it says. At least not in the section referred to; admittedly I haven't read the book from cover to cover.

Apparently, its done to prevent confusion between the rank/paygrade of 'captain' and the title of "captain".

It is claimed that it's done to prevent confusion. No reliable evidence is provided, though.

This site also makes a reference to this under 'command rank; navy' partway down the page
http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm

True, but that webpage doesn't provide any references at all.


Hans

 

[rust]

... if it had been backed up by a quote from the USN "Handbook of Etiquette for Officers" from some other believable authority.

While there certainly are some common traditions, the
mess etiquette on a specific ship is established by that
ship's captain, it is not something decided upon by the
admiralty and finalized in a handbook for the entire na-
vy.

This would not be unusual for matters of etiquette. For
example, I have never found any official rules for the
use of the term "skipper" in the German navy, although
there can be no doubt at all that many (on submarines
probably most) captains were addressed this way by the
members of their crews.

If the custom really was a part of mess etiquette, all you
can ever get is anecdotal evidence, for example from na-
val officers' biographies and thelike. While I would also
very much prefer to have some "harder" evidence of that
or another plausible explanation, I meanwhile have come
to doubt that such evidence does exist.

 

[Ishmael]

Mister Rancke,
Seeing as the main topic is about the Star Trek Prime Directive universe, shouldn't this issue be described by Star Trek sources?
Therefore...

Marines are addressed by their rank. They are not called 'Mister.' All generals, regardless of their rank, are addressed as 'General,' not 'Major General,' 'Brigadier General,' etc. In direct address, Lieutenant Colonel's are called 'Colonel' and Second Lieutenant's are called 'Lieutenant'. Note that a Marine Captain is roughly equivalent to a Starfleet Naval Lieutenant. The 'honorary' rank of 'Major' to said marines while on naval vessels is ignored as the marines are generally referred to as "Marine Captain" to avoid confusion with the naval Captain of the ship.

By Starfleet tradition, the Marine CO (MCO) defers to the Naval CO when aboard ship, and is generally outranked by him (although this is sometimes reversed for large contingents in some operations). Note: Marine Corps is listed for completeness. There are no full time Marines on board the USS StarQuest

http://webspace.webring.com/people/ue/ester_nl/rank/index.html

and.....

A STARFLEET Marine captain (O3) is very different from a STARFLEET naval captain (O6). In the real-
world military, anytime a marine captain serves aboard a navy vessel, he is referred to as major (one rank
above his actual rank). This is to prevent confusion during combat or emergencies, since there can only
be one “Captain” aboard a Navy ship. Likewise, whenever another naval officer with the rank of captain
was aboard, he was referred to as commodore.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=37&ved=0CEcQFjAGOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsfa.ussglory.com%2FFOS%2Fsfmc_mfm_2008.pdf&ei=JoR-TuOBAqLI0AH-senSDw&usg=AFQjCNHCG5ANE3fJiBKxwRFuqtcXXPSx-w&sig2=hK4qzNlfKtg4cEi7JXGkAA

as far as USN or other real world naval traditions go, it all depends on what traditions are acted upon.
The Crossing the Line ceremonies are not in any 'official' manuals afaik, but as a Trusty Shellback, I can testify that they do exist. Perhaps this little bit of rank/title trivia is the same? After all, Traditions may, or may not, be the same as regulations.

 

[Hans Rancke]

Seeing as the main topic is about the Star Trek Prime Directive universe, shouldn't this issue be described by Star Trek sources?
Therefore...

Marines are addressed by their rank. They are not called 'Mister.' All generals, regardless of their rank, are addressed as 'General,' not 'Major General,' 'Brigadier General,' etc. In direct address, Lieutenant Colonel's are called 'Colonel' and Second Lieutenant's are called 'Lieutenant'. Note that a Marine Captain is roughly equivalent to a Starfleet Naval Lieutenant. The 'honorary' rank of 'Major' to said marines while on naval vessels is ignored as the marines are generally referred to as "Marine Captain" to avoid confusion with the naval Captain of the ship.

By Starfleet tradition, the Marine CO (MCO) defers to the Naval CO when aboard ship, and is generally outranked by him (although this is sometimes reversed for large contingents in some operations). Note: Marine Corps is listed for completeness. There are no full time Marines on board the USS StarQuest

Now, that is good solid evidence about the STPD Universe (Though I'm a bit confused by the bit about the honorary rank being ignored after all?!?). If that is what BFalcon was referring to, I apologise for assuming otherwise. I thought he was talking about the real world.

A STARFLEET Marine captain (O3) is very different from a STARFLEET naval captain (O6). In the real-world military, anytime a marine captain serves aboard a navy vessel, he is referred to as major (one rank above his actual rank). This is to prevent confusion during combat or emergencies, since there can only be one “Captain” aboard a Navy ship. Likewise, whenever another naval officer with the rank of captain was aboard, he was referred to as commodore.

See, that's just what I was talking about. This quote claims that ANY time a marine captain serves aboard a Navy ship, he is referred to as major, since "there can only be one captain aboard a Navy ship". That's the statement I object to, because I don't believe it is true.

as far as USN or other real world naval traditions go, it all depends on what traditions are acted upon.

Exactly my point. It's not a universally observed custom. So it's not any time a Marine captain serves aboard a Navy ship, as the statement erroneously claim. At most it's when a Marine captain serves aboard certain ships. And obviously it's perfectly possible for a ship to function with more than one captain aboard. One of the sources referred to in the abovementioned wiki article even states how that works: The commanding officer of the ship is addressed as 'Captain' regardless of his rank and is the only one referred to as 'the captain'. Other captains aboard are addressed and referred to as Captain <Name>.

Incidentally, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the custom is observed on some ships. I've had people telling me that they did so aboard their ships, and I've no reason to believe they were lying. Hey, maybe some ship's companies got the idea from Starship Troopers! .


Hans

 

[Jean]

In the SFU and PD, we cover many empires, not just Star Fleet. The Klingons do have enlisted ranks, many of which are filled by the "Subject Races" who don't usually reach the officer corps. Star Fleet does as well, reflecting the differing levels of education, training, and responsibility of different individuals.

What you do around your own gaming table is your business. SVC and I are not going to swoop down and issue an edict that you MUST have enlisted personnel or we will revoke your right to play the game! However, PD must remain true to its roots and those roots in the SFU fiction and background establish that there are both.

Can someone refresh my memory? Doesn't Traveller have both as well? (I'm away from my books, helping my Mom deal with some issues at her home or I'd check myself.)

 

[Hans Rancke]

In the SFU and PD, we cover many empires, not just Star Fleet. The Klingons do have enlisted ranks, many of which are filled by the "Subject Races" who don't usually reach the officer corps. Star Fleet does as well, reflecting the differing levels of education, training, and responsibility of different individuals.

What you do around your own gaming table is your business. SVC and I are not going to swoop down and issue an edict that you MUST have enlisted personnel or we will revoke your right to play the game! However, PD must remain true to its roots and those roots in the SFU fiction and background establish that there are both.

I'm not disputing that. As I said in my first post, I'm quite aware that the everyone-is-an-officer paradigm has been changed since the early days. However, your statement implied that not only was it changed (an indisputable historical fact), but also that such an arrangement could never ever work. It's the second part that I challenged. I don't think that follows at all.

Can someone refresh my memory? Doesn't Traveller have both as well? (I'm away from my books, helping my Mom deal with some issues at her home or I'd check myself.)

Yes, indeed. The Imperial Army, Navy, and Marines are practically cut-and-pasted from the corresponding 20th Century US organizations. Not terribly imaginative, and IMO the failure to give the navy two or three more ranks above Admiral (O10) is a bona fide mistake, but I've been trying (and failing) to convince any of TPTB of that for many, many years now, so I don't expect that to be retconned any time soon (If there was a smiley for it, I'd put in a rueful smile here ).


Hans

 

[Nerroth]

Bear in mind that the website being used as a reference for those quotes is based on fan material created for a setting which is part of the Paramount Franchise, but which is not a part of the Star Fleet Universe. This really is an important point to consider.

(That said, they do seem to echo some of the SFU data in places; an O6 is a Captain in Star Fleet and a Colonel in the Marines; an O3 is a Star Fleet Senior Lieutenant and a Marine Captain. Well, when I say "and" I should be saying "or"; the Klingons are more likely to cross-train their officers in both the Deep Space Fleet and their own Marine forces, which can result in a Klingon officer having a separate rank in each service.)

Aside from the links which Jean offered (which are directly linked to pre-existing PD material) the details about what kind of force structure used in the Federation are in the various PD core rulebooks, and Federation sourcebooks, for each currently-supported game engine. (For GURPS, that would be these files; the D20M ones are here and here.)

The Federation as portrayed in the SFU does indeed have a Marine Corps; they will even have their own game published by ADB in the not-too-distant future. (The Marine squads deployed to Star Fleet ships are all part of this organization.) The UFP also has more than just Star Fleet to call upon; the major member planets have their own National Guards (spiritual successors to the old planetary forces they had prior to the founding of Star Fleet), plus there is the Federation Police, who operate in a manner akin to the U.S. Coast Guard (but also have a Marshal service to help deal with crimes involving multiple planetary jurisdictions).

Yes, that does all show a heavy influence from the real-world United States on the Federation; but there are important differences in the details which show the UFP in the SFU is still more than just the USA in space.

 

[Rick]

Yes but - going back to the origins of the SFU for a moment - just talking about Starfleet as portrayed in TOS. It's a very egalitarian ship - no separate mess facilities for Senior Officers, no wardroom, no salutes, minimal rank/service insignia - even traditions such as being piped aboard ship were developed after TOS. Now, I'm all for adding more detail and tradition in there, and I applaud putting Marines on board rather than Security, but importing Naval tradition and background just because some navies nowadays do it that way seems too lazy and a bit of a backwards step to me. On the other hand - I find the idea of the ship from TOS practically unworkable as is - I would like to see more detail and background - but something more-or-less new, please.

 

[zozotroll]

Hans here is a bit of a military tradition you probably have not heard of. I learned this when I was going through Army ROTC training, just before I dropped out and enlisted, and infact it help me realize I was not going to be a very good officer.

One afternoon we spent a couple of hours going over a few unwritten, but non the less really dutys. One was the leaving of the card. A new officer, I suspect primarily LTs, when first visiting thier new Bn Commander, are supposed to leave thier card, on the silver platter left out for that purpose. But, even though everybody knows what is going on, they are not supposed to be observed do so by the CO. There is quite the elaborate game that revolves around this. Seemed very silly to me and a major waste of time but I was solumnly assured by the captain teaching the class that messing it up would be a bad mark on you, even if it was unofficial.

But, other than eye witness testimony, you will never find hard evidence that it is real. I was led to believe that it was clear across the Army, not just some units, else it would not have been taught to all of us.

And yes you cant prove a negative, but equaly, there are things that happen for which there is no hard proof, but they still happen. I could list a bunch more army traditions, blood wings, red socks, red suspenders, burned powder smeared on your face bllod stripes, wetting down stripes, that are not written down but sure do happen. Militarys seem to love them.

Owen

 

[rust]

Militarys seem to love them.

Not just the military, all traditional organizations love these
savoir-faire games which distinguish the old hands from the
newcomers, probably an example of "knowledge is (a little)
power". For example, the numerous "unwritten rules" of or-
ganizations from craft guilds to churches are just as intrica-
te (and mostly absurd) as those of the military.

 

[Hans Rancke]

And yes you cant prove a negative, but equaly, there are things that happen for which there is no hard proof, but they still happen.

On the other hand, I have heard anecdotal evidence every bit as good (or bad) as the evidence for the existence of the custom from people who say they've served aboard naval ships and had never heard about this custom. And I do have written evidence to the effect that aboard ship captains other than the captain are addressed and referred to as Captain <Name>.

So I still object to any unequivocal statement to the effect that this is indisputably so.


Hans