Command

[s-feige]

Hello Together!

I have got a question regarding starship crew, and hope some military and/or otherwise experienced can help me...

Information ahead : I'm using MT-Rules.

While constructing some starships, I stumbled about the so-called COMMAND CREW. So, I do not have problems to have a vague idea what a Command-position would be (even if my only reference is STAR TREK...). But then I realized, I didn't know what EXACTLY a Command-position would be, where it begins and where it ends...

I would be glad, if someone could give or point me to a short description, or help me with the following :

I presume, that Command describes commissioned officers in charge of a section or a subsection of a ship?

Would all commissioned officers of the Bridge-Crew be in Command-positions?

Could non-commissioned officers be in Command-Positions?

How small can a section having a Command-officer be (e.g. Gunnery?, a single Battery?) ?

Does every subcraft of reasonable size (Fighters, Ship's Boat, but not Air/Rafts... ) qualify for a Command-officer?

Another thing 'bothering' me is the ratio of commissioned to non-commissioned officers onboard a ship. Working out some figures I came up with nearly a 1:1 ratio, which seems a bit unusual(?). On the other hand, the ship I designed is a kind of carrier, and I think, all fighter pilots would be commissioned officers(?). [I'm having a crew of 212, 100 of them Flight Crew, 50 Ship's Troops, 99 commissioned officers so far, 64 of them in Flight, 47 of the non-commissioned officers are Ship's Troops...]

I would be thankful for some advice or opinions.

Have a nice day,
Aldan Romar

 

[Hueroman]

Thrash gave you an excellent explanation, but I'd like to add a few points:

Within the Imperial Navy, the vast majority of personnel fall within the classification of 'officers'. Of course, this classification includes not only commissioned officers, but non-commissioned officers as well. These enlisted ratings, known generally as Petty Officers, comprise the vast bulk of a regular crew. Typically, the Command Section of a Line vessel will be comprised of both the Commanding and Executive Officers, their adjutants (if the ship is sizeable), and the various Section Department Heads (i.e., Engineering, Medical, Gunnery, Communications, Tech Svcs., etc.). General commissioned rank will rapidly plummet after that, and is generally employed along the lines of unit structure. For example, the Engineering Officer aboard a 40,000 ton vessel may be a Lt. Commander. His 2nd Officer (or nominal XO) would in turn be a Lieutenant, the 3rd Officer a Lt.(j.g.), and the 4th an Ensign. After that, all Engineering personnel would be enlisted rates. Typically, on such a vessel, the highest rate per section would be a Chief Petty Officer. After that, the ratings would descend accordingly. The result is that, while a great number of the total crew may be comprised of 'officers', the rankings of those officerships will tend to be bottom-heavy as opposed to top-heavy. This, in turn, mitigates the 'all chiefs and no indians' effect; non-comms generally eschew commissioned ranks, and count themselves with as rates rather than officers, at least socially.

Note also that the Command Section will have its share of nominal non-commissioned officers; these officers may indeed enjoy much more relative power and prestige than many of the commissioned personnel. For example, a ship of war of this displacement will generally have a Master Chief Petty Officer rated at E7 or above, who will assume the position of 'Chief of the Ship', and will serve as a nominal leader of the various section Chiefs as a whole. Other such rates may be employed in specialty occupations within the Command Section, such as Ship's Master, Master-at-Arms, Ship's Boatswain, Ship's Yeoman, Ship's Coxwain, Ship's Purser, etcetera.

Generally, where carriers are concerned, all pilots and most astrographers are commissioned personnel. However, these personnel are not generally factored into the Command Section, but are rather organized into the Flight Section, which in turn is generally organized into individual squadron and sub-squadron units. Such an organization will typically be commanded by the leader of the Vessel's Flight Section, or one of his immediate subordinates. For example, on such a ship of war, the Flight Section may be commanded by a Commander or Lt. Commander, who is designated as the Flight Ops Commander. In turn, another Lt. Commander may be designated as his XO, and likewise serve as the commanding officer for all ship's boats. A Lieutenant would typically be designated as the Ship's Pilot, with a few Lieutenants (j.g.) as assistants. Like rankings would be employed in the positions of Ship's Astrogator and his assistants. Lieutenants would command the various launched craft unit groupings, with Lieutenants (j.g.) serving as XOs for those units. The vast majority of the launched craft would be piloted by Ensigns, which in turn demonstrates that the bulk of the section would be bottom-heavy in rank. Again, the ratio of officers in a flight section is necessarily skewed due to policy; it is reflective of squadron organization, as opposed to line organization.

Conversely (flight sections aside), some sections will necessarily be top heavy with regard to rank. A ship's Medical Section is an excellent example of this. On a ship of this size, the Chief Medical Officer would most likely enjoy the rank of Commander or Lt. Commander, and would serve in the title of Ship's Surgeon. Likewise, the Surgeon would have an XO, most probably a Lt. Commander, and a host of other MDs working under him all at the rank of O3 Lieutenants. Depending upon the size of the crew, these Surgeons could number from a couple to ten or more. A number of Ensigns and Lieutenants (j.g.) would serve as RNs; likewise, a fair amount of Pharmacist's Mates ratings and Able Corpsmen/Corpsman's Apprentices would round out the medical staff. Some of these personnel would in turn be detailed to the vessel's Marine contingent during Marine operations.

That all sounds like a lot, I know, but it really is just a quick snapshot of unit organization in the Imperial Navy. As you can see, Command Section positions get eaten up rather quickly when you start to really think about administrative responsibility and occupations. The Command Section is, as Thrash intimated, a catch-all for the various billets that don't fall under the purview of the other established sections; for example, midshipmen from the Naval Academy or NOTC who are detailed to the ship would fall under the command section, as would rates such as Boatswain's Mates and Stewards.

I hope this has served to help you and not further confuse.

Respectfully,

Lord Covington, B.S., M.S., J.D.
Comte d'Vilis
Commodore, IN (Retired)
Rear Admiral, INR
Deputy Commandant,
HQONI(Reserve), Spinward Marches

 

[kafka47]

Reading how bloated the Imperial Navy is got me to thinking. Surely, there must be a greater underdeployment of Naval forces in the Imperium or it is simply a gentleman's navy. Either explaination could play into why the Navy is so slow in responding to crises such as 5FW, the Rim War and later the virus, despite having excellent intelligence (reading back you will find the INI almost everywhere).

I hope your comments have made their way into the playtest of Imperial Navy or at least the guide to the Third Imperium that T20 is planning.

So, ok, we have this inept (not incompetent but inept) Navy that binds the Imperium together. What is the modus operendi for the Navy. Canon tells us to protect the frontiers and insure free trade. This sounds a bit of gunboat diplomacy often the order of the day. I had always pictured the Navy as playing a more Coast Guard function. Surely, the navy as it is a composite Navy must be riddled in mutinies and rebellions even during peace time... Figuring out that illustrates the power behind the throne, as wasn't the lineage of current emperors dating back to the Civil War? What role do the other branches of the Armed Forces have in keeping the Navy in check? As I remember in the USA, the 1970s were a time of great rivary between the different branches (Canada solved the problem by uniting them into a single defence force...the US, it seemed would allow each to have special high tech)

...When I get back into Traveller full-time, this has given much food for thought.

 

[Hecateus]

I thnk that part of the top heavy imperial navy command structure might also be a function of technology. As in due to robotics and automation there is less of a need for elisted and NCOs to manage them...specialists are likely to still be around for their technical knowhow.

 

[flykiller]

just some further random considerations.

in the U.S. to my knowledge being a fighter pilot has always been an officer's post. but in WWII in germany and japan and the soviet union, non-comms (sergeants) with sufficient qualifications flew alongside officers. it is not a given that every fighter pilot has to be a full officer. citizens of a place like glisten, where the family car is a ship's gig, may require only tactical training to become effective fighter pilots.

in the beginning, armies consisted of hordes of ignorant peasants. the officers were the ones who had a clue about what to do. as technology and education advance this changes the character of the army and the original officer/enlisted relationship. in the U.S. military one often observes enlisted personnel running the show while junior officers, who lack the time and training to understand the equipment they are nominally in charge of, look on. this bottom-up approach works because the U.S. generates a sufficient number of adequately loyal, educated, and trained people. in the soviet red army, which needed to be modern but which was populated primarily by farmers who weren't trusted, the top-down approach was used in that career officers were assigned to all tasks of any responsibility or technical difficulty.

 

[Hueroman]

"

Originally posted by flykiller:
[QB] just some further random considerations.

in the U.S. to my knowledge being a fighter pilot has always been an officer's post. but in WWII in germany and japan and the soviet union, non-comms (sergeants) with sufficient qualifications flew alongside officers. it is not a given that every fighter pilot has to be a full officer. citizens of a place like glisten, where the family car is a ship's gig, may require only tactical training to become effective fighter pilots."

Your comments are well put in consideration of private and non-interstellar organizations.

However, we're talking about the Imperial Navy, here.


In the Imperial Navy (where the standard tech level is 15, moving toward 16, and the average TL is 14), all launched craft are classified as either Fighter or Support. Pilots of Fighter craft are drawn from the Flight Branch, and have attended Flight School. They are commissioned officers, and have flight skill, meaning that any one of them could take the helm of a starship and run with it. Conversely, support craft, such as Cutters, Pinnaces, Gigs, and the proverbial 'Admiral's Barge', as it were, are operated by Navy Coxwain's Mates, who are NCOs, or their non-rated enlisted counterparts, Able Helmsmen and their Apprentices. These individuals have not attended Flight School; the Navy has not invested Millions of CR in their educations and training. However, these operators are competent in the operation of Ship's Boats, which, incidentally, is a skill which many Pilots develop only to a cursory extent.

IMTU, not all pilots and coxwains are created equal. While starships are relatively uniform in jump flight procedure, ship's boats and starship manuevering are a different ball of wax. Just as a modern-day aviator may check out in a Cessna but be unable to fly a 747, so also may a Fighter pilot be unable to man the conn of a Navy pinnace, at least to the competency of an E6 Coxwain's Mate. Likewise, IMTU, all Navy Pilots have cursory Pilot skill, but cannot pilot all classes of vessel equally (unless they've been checked out and have flight hours in those classes). Likewise, whereas a Fighter Pilot may indeed be very adept at operating his craft, or even other fighter classes, he will not necessarily be adept at the operation of other ship's boats. Conversely, the Coxwains of the Navy do just that- drive ship's boats- day in, and day out. They also man the ship's helms (although this is primarily a function of formality and monitoring) during periods when Pilots are otherwise engaged or off duty (i.e., time in jump-space, etc.). These rates are infinitely more skillful when it comes to driving a cutter around space; however, they wouldn't be able to fly a fighter to save their lives, in most cases.

Like I said previously, the illusion is that the Navy is top heavy; it is only so when one views the balance as officers to Spacehands. However, the vast majority of the Navy's Officers are non-commissioned rates (just as with all the Armed Services), and thus the power structure really is bottom-heavy, rather than the reverse.

I wouldn't call the Navy bloated; there is a distinct benefit to good organization and having a crew capable of performing specific functions at critical moments. Many coxwain's mates, for example, serve as emergency replacement gunner's mates in time of battle (in many Imperial Fleets, coxwains are routinely cross-trained for this task), and boatswain's mates serve in a Security function as backup for Marines who have been dispatched from the ship on operations.

Of course, I suppose I am biased in this assessment, but it takes a good number of well qualified Spacers to effectively run a Man o' War- a fact I learned the hard way, from years of experience.

Respectfully,


Lord Covington, B.S., M.S., J.D.
Comte d'Vilis
Commodore, IN (Retired)
Rear Admiral, INR
Deputy Commandant,
HQONI(Reserve), Spinward Marches

 

[flykiller]

given the coarseness of in-game "starship engineering" I think "coxswain" and "pilot" are a distinction without a difference. other than armor and weapons there is little game difference between a civilian gig, a military gig, and a fighter - both use maneuver drives (of whatever conception) and a fusion power plant (of whatever size), handle identically in a vacuum, and have other similarities. this certainly is not the case vis a vis a cessna and a 747.

one may, of course, assert such a difference due to construction differences, and not without reason. one may not take a 747 crew, drop them into a 757 cockpit, and expect them to fly it properly (though they might indeed be able to wing it). if the cockpits were not designed independently, but rather were standardized, they probably could fly it with only cursory review of special conditions. given the needs of the imperium it is reasonable to assume that it enforces some level of standardization for both training and manufacturing efficiency.

in most traveller games the player character pilot and player character engineer and player character navigator simply walk onto any ship and begin performing their jobs. if any attention is paid to qualifying on this new vessel then it takes an hour or two maximum, regardless of where the characters were trained, regardless of where or when the vessel was built, regardless even of the vessel's tech level. in practice then the level of standardization is extremely high (vilani influence?). thus the only significant difference between a pilot and a coxswain would be tactical training, and one need not be an officer to receive tactical training.

 

[Ran Targas]

1. I would not expect 1st term able bodied spacers to be piloting gigs. Even in the U.S.C.G., where NCO's are traditionally given most authority, the NCOIC of a small craft is a mid-level NCO with several years experience in that craft type. In the Navy, small craft have cox'n (who pilots the craft) but there is usually a boat officer present (O-1 or O-2) in command.

2. I would not expect non-comm's to be flying craft with offensive weapons. Generally, fighter and attack pilots are required to be officers or warrant officers specifically because they are authorized to use deadly force, on their own initiative. Example: U.S. Army attack helo pilots begin training as NCO's (after intense selection) and are promoted to Warrant Officer upon completion.

3. I do have issue with players assuming they can fly a Far Trader because they've been flying a Suli for the last 2 years. No real-world pilot touchs an aircraft without first putting to memory its operating manual, specifically the warnings and emergency procedures. Otherwise, as I tell my players, you just don't know what's going to happen when you press that button!

 

[Tobias]

@ Ran Targas

Remember that High-Tech controls are pretty freely configurable holopanels in MT. So you can choose for yourself which button does what. Probably there are standard programs so you will simply have to say "Operator Preference 23" and zapp - you have the controls you're used to.

@ Lord Covington

It may be a little misleading to call NCO's "Officers", although they may be nominally. "Officer" implies a command function that most NCO's don't have (I assume - the US Navy system seems to be fairly similar to our Navy's).
As a little piece of real-world illustration, on current German U-Boats there is not a single crewmember who is not rated as an NCO or Officer. This is simply because these have a very small crew of technical specialists. In the Navy, the pyramid-shaped rank hierarchy as in the Army simply isn't there.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Hueroman]

To Flykiller:

You wouldn't have made it very far in Stockburger's game with that sort of outlook, I can tell you! LOL

Seriously, though, I must respectfully disagree with your generalizations. Coxwains are definitely NOT pilots, nor is the reverse necessarily applicable. This is precisely what SKILL is all about, and not all craft are created equal. A BB doesn't have the agility that a fighter does, and the drivers of each employ different skill. IMTU (along with every GM's I've ever played under since the early 80s, for that matter), it is not enough merely to assume that skill denotes proficiency in every instance. It clearly does NOT.

Most player characters have never piloted 50Kdton vessels, nor have they served as Chief Engineer of such ships. The skills required of the Engineering Officer of a Lightning Class differ considerably from those required from the Chief Engineer of a Gazelle class, for example (even more so for the Chief Fusioneer's Mate in each instance! ;]).

Standardization? Son, are you going to tell me that a SuSAG drive is identical to another designer's drive? Of course, computers can fly the ships, but that isn't the point. What happens when the computers CAN'T fly the ships? Lockheeds and Boeings don't all employ the same procedures, and that's what checkouts are all about. The same principle applies, regardless of tech level. Giving a gig the bridge of an Azhanti doesn't give it the Azhanti's flight characteristics, or vice versa.

Adventures/campaigns where players simply 'walk onto the ship and start doing their jobs', without regard to detail and specifics may be nice for some players, but IMTU it would be entirely unrealistic; I always thought (as did everyone I played with) that the more detailed we could get, the more realistic and enjoyable the role-playing would be. By realistic, I don't mean it need be limiting by today's terms, but rather LOGICAL and REASONABLE, as opposed to fantastic or completely unfathomable.

Standardizaton may indeed be high, but this does not mean that Coxwains and Pilots are interchangeable.

Insofar as the Imperial Navy's procedures are concerned, a definite distinction has been maintained for millenia.


To Ran Targas:

I completely concur with your assessments. The vast majority of naval officers in the Imperial Navy are indeed Non-Commissioned rates, and commissioned personnel are usually effectively observers, especially on smaller vessels. Imperial Naval policy is distinct in its separation of offensive small craft from support craft; support craft are manned by non-comms, and offensive craft require Flight School educated commissioned officers as pilots. I also have an issue with players assuming that they can fly an Attack Cruiser after they've been plugging around in a Type A or M all of their careers. Such individuals are simply not initially qualified to undertake such tasks, and it is unrealistic to assume that they could do so. Some sort of breaking in period would be in order, at the very least.

To Tobias:

It is not at all misleading to refer to NCOs as Officers: that is what they are- Officers. NCOs in the Imperial Navy serve in various sub-command functions (in some small vessels, non-comms even serve as XOs!). One must remember that though Officers comprise the vast majority of the Imperial Navy's personnel contingent, it is a bottom-heavy pyramid, with NCOs comprising the vast bulk of those officers. In the US Navy, NCOs also make up the vast bulk of ship's crews. Finally (and perhaps most importantly), with regard to small unit organization (i.e., gunner battery crew and Engineering crew), NCOs DO perform routine command function. The vast majority of enlisted personnel report directly to OTHER enlisted personnel- NCO rates. In practice, most real command decision often takes place on that level, rather than that of the Commissioned ranks.

Respectfully,

Lord Covington, B.S., M.S., J.D.
Comte d'Vilis
Commodore, IN (Retired)
Rear Admiral, INR
Deputy Commandant,
HQONI(Reserve), Spinward Marches

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Lord Covington:
A BB doesn't have the agility that a fighter does, and the drivers of each employ different skill.

Oh yes it does! At least in the design rules and by logic, there's nothing to prevent it from having an agility just as high as any fighter's.

Standardization? Son, are you going to tell me that a SuSAG drive is identical to another designer's drive?

No, but the skill of Engineering can be interpreted to amount to general experience with starship systems, sufficient to quickly accomodate yourself with unknown systems. Thus I would keep any negative modifiers strictly temporary.
Same for any other skill.
And one more quibble: You do realize that there are two different skills for piloting small boats and large ships?

Standardizaton may indeed be high, but this does not mean that Coxwains and Pilots are interchangeable.
Insofar as the Imperial Navy's procedures are concerned, a definite distinction has been maintained for millenia.

First of all, a question from a non-native English speaker: Coxwain = The guy who steers a boat. Right?
That assumed, of course there is a difference between a coxwain and a pilot now, in the Navy. That's simply because nowadays, a boat is a small cheap watercraft, and a fighter is a fricking-expensive aircraft.
In Traveller a boat is an expensive spacecraft, and a fighter is as well. A whole different situation.
Last not least, a canon reference. On the Kinunir, there is an officer's position for the ship's boat . An Ensign with good Ship's Boat skill.

It is not at all misleading to refer to NCOs as Officers: that is what they are- Officers.

Yes it is. An NCO is not what you normally call an "Officer".
In other languages NCOs are referred to as "sub-officers", which conveys their positions a lot better than NCO.

In the US Navy, NCOs also make up the vast bulk of ship's crews. Finally (and perhaps most importantly), with regard to small unit organization (i.e., gunner battery crew and Engineering crew), NCOs DO perform routine command function.

[In our Navy]
Many do. Most don't. But that may stem that we have different interpretations of the word command. In regards to their military function, many personnel may give orders to others . Sometimes even lower rank personnel (authorized by an officer) may even give orders to higher rank personnel. But this is usually temporary and limited.

Command to me implies you lead, organize and routinely have command authority over a number of subordinates. Again, many NCOs do this, but many others do not.
A peacetime ops watch on our ship consisted of an officer, a Petty Officer 1st class equivalent, three or four Petty Officer 2nd or 3rd class equivalents and maybe two seamen.
The officer was in command of the watch.
The Petty Officer 1st class organized and commanded the personnel as long as the officer didn't have any direct orders to them (he usually didn't).
The others, Petty Officers or men, basically were all on the same level. Sure, the POs held some nominal authority over the youngsters, but they didn't independently "command" anything.

What an NCO is most defined by is his technical proficiency. High-ranking NCOs are experts in their given field, and as such, naturally hold seniority and authority over the lower functions in that same field.

Please also consider my U-Boat example. Which personnel are the low-ranking NCOs to command? There is no one aboard with a lower rank than them!

Regards,

Tobias

 

[flykiller]

Originally posted by Lord Covington:
To Flykiller:
You wouldn't have made it very far in Stockburger's game with that sort of outlook, I can tell you! LOL

well, the "outlook" is not based on a particular referee's rulings.

Seriously, though, I must respectfully disagree with your generalizations. Coxwains are definitely NOT pilots, nor is the reverse necessarily applicable. This is precisely what SKILL is all about, and not all craft are created equal. A BB doesn't have the agility that a fighter does, and the drivers of each employ different skill. IMTU (along with every GM's I've ever played under since the early 80s, for that matter), it is not enough merely to assume that skill denotes proficiency in every instance. It clearly does NOT.

yes, pilots and coxswains are different - today. but the universe traveller describes does not necessarily support this distinction. yes, not all craft are created equal - today. but traveller acts as if all craft are highly standardized. this is certainly possible. yes, battleships and fighters have different agilities - today. but in traveller (assuming CT) battleships and fighters can indeed have identical agilities. in any case the original discussion only concerned small craft. and while a skill level should not "grant proficiency in every instance", traveller acts as if the skills are universal. this is certainly possible.

Son

pops

By realistic, I don't mean it need be limiting by today's terms, but rather LOGICAL and REASONABLE, as opposed to fantastic or completely unfathomable.

actually, I think you are indeed defining "realistic" in today's terms. and nothing wrong with that - it provides a ready made environment for adventuring. but present-day terms exist for present-day reasons, and several of those reasons are not inherent to the universe traveller describes. that's not ILLOGICAL or UNREASONABLE, nor is there anything fantastic or completely unfathomable about it.

 

[Uncle Bob]

There were sergeant-pilots in the US Army and Petty Officer pilots in the US Navy were common before WWII. It was embarrassing for a while when a Petty-Officer "ace" was leading a formation of officers. Eventually they died, were grounded, or accepted commissions.

At least since the 1960s most US Army helicopters were flown by warrant officers.

And I think Unteroffizier translates better as "under officer" than "sub-officer". So does the French sous-officer.

 

[Hueroman]

Hey, whatever floats yer' collective boat, Gentlemen. My purpose was not to argue- merely to illuminate to the original poster the rationale behind Imperial Naval policy in these regards...

Have fun. That's what it's all about.





Respectfully,

Lord Covington, B.S., M.S., J.D.
Comte d'Vilis
Commodore, IN (Retired)
Rear Admiral, INR
Deputy Commandant,
HQONI(Reserve) Spinward Marches

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
And I think Unteroffizier translates better as "under officer" than "sub-officer".

Isn't that the same thing?
It's definitely not "below an officer" in meaning, at least not in German, more like "lower officer" as in "lower class".

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Uncle Bob]

In English "sub-officer" implies something inferior to an officer rather than a lower-class officer.

The Naval term "petty officer" is better. "Non-commissioned officer" meant more in the last century when a sergeant was closer to a feldwebel in authority and prestige.