Imperial Navy Uniforms

[Hemdian]

Maybe we need to think more out-the-box. (Sorry, I hate that term but it fits.) Uniforms were originally developed to clearly identify one side from the other in the confusion of massed melee on the battlefield. Back in the days when war was fought at arms length or closer. Modern warfare has evolved to the point where its better to hide when possible and thus uniforms for 'ground pounders' are camouflaged ... with brightly coloured uniforms kept only for ceremonial purposes. The navy and the airforce have kept historic ties in their uniforms to their predecessor's.

But in the 56th century those historic ties will be a dim memory indeed. And freed from that why constrain ourselves to a monocolour? I vote for the standard uniform of the IN to be a paisley. Yes, paisley! With different colours of paisley to denote department, and different sizes of marks to denote rank. There is even some scope for variation to indicate currently assigned ship.

Or not.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

That sounds more like the Scouts. Or Vargr.

 

[Ganidirsii O'Flynn]

But in the 56th century those historic ties will be a dim memory indeed. And freed from that why constrain ourselves to a monocolour? I vote for the standard uniform of the IN to be a paisley. Yes, paisley! With different colours of paisley to denote department, and different sizes of marks to denote rank. There is even some scope for variation to indicate currently assigned ship.

Or not.

The Space Defense Force formerly known as 'Prince'

 

[aramis]

Hemidan's idea is why I expect color coded uniforms for ship. Much like the current US carriers use.

 

[Ganidirsii O'Flynn]

Hemidan's idea is why I expect color coded uniforms for ship. Much like the current US carriers use.

Sure. I could see that as ship-suit trim or an undergarment like the polypropaline turtleneck that carrier crewies wear.

I should note, however, that as far as I know carriers are the only vessels that need that kind of color coordination. Mind you, I'll happily defer to anyone who knows better. Understand that carriers have two major units aboard: the ship's actual crew and the Air Wing, both of which form the ship's complement. Because of this, the sheer number of people aboard, and the hazardous nature of carrier decks while on flight ops, you'd have to color-code everyone to be able to spot at a moment whether or not someone is where they're supposed to be. You don't want the ordinance guys parking bomb trailers over the steam catapault after all.

If the IN is organized along US Navy lines, then the fighter squadron(s) aboard belongs to a Space Warfare Boat Wing who have their own organization separate from the ship's crew. That unit would have their squadron and wing insignia on their ship-suits and everyone aboard could have the color code of their activity (Flight Ops, Small Craft Control, Engineering, Boat Engineering, Gunnery, etc.) on the shoulders and cuffs.

And to be honest, I don't know what the ship crews aboard a carrier wear. I have no idea if they color code their uniforms in Engineering, for example.

Perhaps this isn't the way its done aboard a cruiser, the ship's complement being smaller, but aboard a dreadnought or carrier (with the huge number of small craft they carry), you'd almost have to.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Good show.

I must agree with Captain O'Flynn on this one.

 

[Hemdian]

Hemidan's idea is why I expect color coded uniforms for ship. Much like the current US carriers use.

My idea was not to be taken seriously. I was just bored. I have no paisley wearing IN officers IMTU. At least not while on duty anyway. I have infact voted 'red' on this topic (in line with StuffOnline).

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Oh please...

Everyone knows the beings with the paisley undershirts are the IN/IISS Liaison Scouts. Keeps the brass from getting all STRAC at them for "being Scruffy on Duty, Sailor". Just IMTU, or at least I am thinking about it, no really fellow Baron.

 

[Ganidirsii O'Flynn]

My idea was not to be taken seriously. I was just bored. I have no paisley wearing IN officers IMTU. At least not while on duty anyway. I have infact voted 'red' on this topic (in line with StuffOnline).

What? Did you think the 'Prince' reference was serious? :rofl:

Insofar as the StuffOnline, well, I didn't like StarBlazers (aka Star Cruiser Yamato) all that much... /shrug

 

[Maladominus]

 

[samuelvss]

Because of this, the sheer number of people aboard, and the hazardous nature of carrier decks while on flight ops, you'd have to color-code everyone to be able to spot at a moment whether or not someone is where they're supposed to be. You don't want the ordinance guys parking bomb trailers over the steam catapault after all.

If the IN is organized along US Navy lines, ......everyone aboard could have the color code of their activity (Flight Ops, Small Craft Control, Engineering, Boat Engineering, Gunnery, etc.) on the shoulders and cuffs.

I agree with you more than you do, I think!

The historical trend is that where specialization [vertical or horizontal] is important, uniforms visually conveyed that. From the distinct uniforms of the musicians in the days of primarily audible (musical) signalling, to the excellent carrier flight deck example, to the tactical methods (typically local SOP's) of identification of different subunits.

Thinking of the IN, factor in the cold watch, huger ships, damage control parties coming from one area of the ship to another. Color coding may even get more complex. Who in engineering has small boat experience? Who has medical? Who in flight has electrical? These may be skill badges, or smaller stripes above or on the actual section stripe/cuff.

When ear drums are gone and most in the transport have been sprayed with molten spalling, "Excuse me, but is there a [medic] in the house?" doesn't cut it.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

A quick thought.

Frankly, after thinking about this for a while and in keeping with the great Thornwood Rules of Military History, I have decided, color is not the most important thing...that they are UGLY is far more important.

Why? Because the side with the coolest uniform is obviously the bad guy! Really look at history, US Revolution, WWII, etc (OK the first two that come to mind), the badguys have the really cool, nifty looking uniforms and no real moral grounds for what they are doing and the scrubby guys in the boring and drab uniforms have the moral justifications of right and goodness on their side, they don't need to look cool, they are fighting for a good cause.

I mean I bet the Vargr Military units have damn spiffy uniforms, and the Solimani for sure...Zhodani...well theirs are some where in the middle.

OK, so only half...well, say about a quarter....ok fine, an eighth kidding, but really it does seem that way. Still this bodes not good for the US in our latest engagements....*shrugs*

So, he wonders how long before some shoots a bunch of holes in this theory?

 

[samuelvss]

Hmmmm.... WWI, the French had really cool, spiffy looking uniforms, and the Kaiser's folks had field grey. The Marines are evil, without moral justification because they sow up the Air Force, who look like a bunch of meter maids in their dress...whatevers. (Followed closely by the Army, in our green frickin' polyester.)

I think you're onto something Magnus

 

[BlackBat242]

U.S. Navy Enlisted Rates:

The use of the word "rank" for Navy enlisted personnel is incorrect. The term is "rate." The rating badge is a combination of rate (pay grade, as indicated by the chevrons) and rating (occupational specialty, as indicated by the symbol just above the chevrons).

The insignia here represents a Petty Officer First Class (the rate) who is a Boatswain's Mate (the rating). A rating badge is worn on the left upper sleeve of all uniforms in grades E-4 through E-6. Chief Petty Officers (E-7 through E-9) wear collar devices on their white and khaki uniforms, and rating badges on their Service Dress Blues.

An explanation of the the enlisted rates is here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=260 and an explanation of the various Navy occupational specialities is here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=259 in this case the crossed anchors.


Officer's Specialty Insignia

Officers in the Navy are either Line officers or Staff Corps. Among these are also Limited Duty Officers and Commissioned Warrant Officers. Staff Corps and Commission Warrant Officers wear Insignia in place of the Line officer's star. These insignia are:
Staff Corps http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=267
LDO and Warrant Officers http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=268

 

[Hemdian]

I've just remembered something. Regarding departmental colour schemes: IIRC there are some races in the 3I who see colour differently from us humans. That's why the 3I flag has no official colour (cf. one of the MT rulebooks mentioned it somewhere). So what's the point of departmental colours when half a ship's crew is effectively colour blind? (Okay, maybe not half, but a significant portion.) If you are going to departmentally differentiated uniforms (which at the moment IMTU I don't) it would make more sense to go with different high contrast patterns rather than different colours. Just a thought.

 

[samuelvss]

IIRC there are some races in the 3I who see colour differently from us humans. So what's the point of departmental colours when half a ship's crew is effectively colour blind?... If you are going to departmentally differentiated uniforms ... it would make more sense to go with different high contrast patterns rather than different colours. Just a thought.

Well, we are talking visible spectrum for us, because that is what we see. The colors/textures etc, would need to discernable by the major races serving in any significant numbers in the IN. At TL8, not really hard. At TL15, not even a challenge for a first semester textiles major.

 

[Madarin Dude]

I see a trend for engineering to have uniforms without saturated colors due to the amount of grime and fluids they will encounter in their work. possibly the same color as the most common stain.

for onboard uniforms most of them will be towards comfort and maybe a boarding party uniform of contrasting colors to break up the shape of the person wearing them rather than relying upon strict camouflage.

 

[aramis]

That would, once again, make engineers the Black Gang...

 

[samuelvss]

a boarding party uniform of contrasting colors to break up the shape of the person wearing them rather than relying upon strict camouflage.

Camo does specifically that; it breaks up shapes, delaying recognition, or even drawing the eye away from center of mass. Only when this process is complete is one "hidden," but the incomplete process can gain a life-saving fraction of a second.

"Strict" cammo disrupts. The Brits' old leafy pattern was "DPM," for Disruptive Pattern Material.

The most recent "pixelated" are computer generated to make it difficult for the eye to focus; it actually works. Under bright light, with no intervening objects, it is not infrequent that one's eye will skip a few beats before locking onto someone [when not foucssing on the face, boots, or object(s) carried].

Trouble really is that camo tends to be a "weakest link" problem. A great pattern may delay the recognition of a protruding elbow as an elbow by a few fractions of a second. However, if the whole figure is visible, then the eye goes immediately to the most recognization feature, typically facial.

Boarding parties should have (in the absence of true chameleon combat armor) at the least a head-to-toe pattern of varying neutral grays, black, to include a weapon wrap, and this will probably be more angular than the current pixilated patterns, trying to jumble with the manmade lines of a starship interior. Everything but the weapon gives you the 15% solution, as the weapon then becomes the weakest link. Arguably, the weapon's case would already complement the pattern du jour, however.

The WWI Brit naval "dazzle" camo was a very interesting case; worth your time. It really tells the whole camo story in a little historical vignette.

 

[Madarin Dude]

Camo does specifically that; it breaks up shapes, delaying recognition, or even drawing the eye away from center of mass. Only when this process is complete is one "hidden," but the incomplete process can gain a life-saving fraction of a second.

"Strict" cammo disrupts. The Brits' old leafy pattern was "DPM," for Disruptive Pattern Material.

The most recent "pixelated" are computer generated to make it difficult for the eye to focus; it actually works. Under bright light, with no intervening objects, it is not infrequent that one's eye will skip a few beats before locking onto someone [when not foucssing on the face, boots, or object(s) carried].

Trouble really is that camo tends to be a "weakest link" problem. A great pattern may delay the recognition of a protruding elbow as an elbow by a few fractions of a second. However, if the whole figure is visible, then the eye goes immediately to the most recognization feature, typically facial.

Boarding parties should have (in the absence of true chameleon combat armor) at the least a head-to-toe pattern of varying neutral grays, black, to include a weapon wrap, and this will probably be more angular than the current pixilated patterns, trying to jumble with the manmade lines of a starship interior. Everything but the weapon gives you the 15% solution, as the weapon then becomes the weakest link. Arguably, the weapon's case would already complement the pattern du jour, however.

The WWI Brit naval "dazzle" camo was a very interesting case; worth your time. It really tells the whole camo story in a little historical vignette.

Yes i was even going to the point of thinking black and white stripes. In WW1 there were a few German pilots who had a pattern of stripes of varying thickness and the pilots swore that it was an effective deterrent. I also think of the Old lozenge patterns brought about by impressionism.