• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Other Naval Terminology.

Very good point, Drakon. Something has sprung to mind. What would you do in the case of something like the Kursk. If the boat (notice I didn't say ship) is raised and returned, including the personnel, would you refer to them differently? and especially in the Kursk's case, where those in the fwd torpedo room are still 'out on patrol' - that part of the boat not being salvaged.......

No disrespect intended. In the RAN, we weren't that mystical... we just referred to them as "lost at sea" or - more often "dead"... (the RAN having the subtlety of a train smash :rolleyes: )
 
At the end of "K-19" the survivors toasted "those still on patrol", which is the first time I'd heard it. It's a nice toast. I've borrowed it for MTU Solomani...

I think the Kursk etc crew would be treated the same - their *souls* are still out patrolling.
 
True I meant no disrespect to those lost service personal, my jab was instead at the long and occasionally hidebound traditions of the Navies of this little Blue/Green planet of ours, though I’m lead to believe that that this one in particular is of grate use allowing the service to leave dependents of the lost to have more time to greave and make proper arrangements. I’ve also bean lead to believe (and please correct me if I’m wrong) it allows a wider range of options when dealing with how MIA’s are handled as they can be listed in this category until a proper determination of their fate can be made.
 
Good point, Andrew. And also 313.

As for your question, 313, I'm not sure. The ADF (Aust Defence Force) doesn't really use the MIA term that much that I heard. I know the US forces are very big on bringing home ALL personnel, whether alive or deceased. The ADF doesn't really work to that extreme. If it's possible to bring home the bodies of comrades, they definitely do so, but not to the endangerment of others. I think the Brits are a lot like that, too (correct me if I'm wrong, UK readers). They'd rather bring home 45 living soldiers, and leave behind 5 bodies, than make sure they bring home all 50 bodies, irregardless of how many die getting them.

I dunno if that makes us more callous, or less... I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it.....

Well, that didn't answer your question at all now, did it? Errr... not sure I have an answer, 313.... :(
 
Europeans are accustomed to their battle dead being buried locally. In the ACW the families often tried to get bodies returned home. They were personally invested in the war, whichever side. I guess it stuck.
 
Originally posted by Rotters2:
Very good point, Drakon. Something has sprung to mind. What would you do in the case of something like the Kursk.
Click to expand...
Good question that I don't really know the answer for. Recovering submarines was not something that was thought practicable in my day. Of course, the boats we lost, (Thresher, Scorpion) were not as intact as the Kursk was.

I think they would still be considered, as a sign of respect, or our way of talking, to be "still on patrol". But I am not sure.
 
Cool, thanks, Drakon. If you don't mind my asking, when were you on Gazunders? I did a bit of time on the Oberon boats (diesel electric) of the RAN back in the mid 80's.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top