Ship operations

[Hal]

Thanks for the answer Bill. I'm wondering if I asked the right question though

Clearly, the US navy has to have certain staffing levels to man its 300+ ships. Each ship requires that it be staffed at acceptable levels or it isn't considered to be seaworthy (or what ever the proper terminology might be). I know too that the navy has personnel who are separating from service, while it also has new recruits who are being trained for service. The problem then is to try and figure out what minimal staffing levels are, and how the Navy does it. Note too, that the Navy needs support personnel at its naval bases to keep the bases running smoothly. These positions can and are likely to contain civilian contractors. I've narrowed down from one document, that it costs the US government Roughly $20,629 to train a civilian into an enlisted marine. Cost to train an officer rises to $71,044. I stumbled across a document that implies that the cost to train, equip, etc - 6 officers and 176 enlisted (One rifle company) runs about 5 million dollars assuming that the force is enlarged. The reason I'm digging into these numbers is because I'd like to try and see if I can come up with a good guideline for what it costs to equip a fleet with the personnel it requires. For instance, based on a document regarding rising health care costs, the average cost of healthcare rose from about $6000 to roughly $19,000 and accounted for roughly half the cost of cash compensation (defined as basic pay, the housing allowance, and the subsistence allowance). This looks like a major expense not included in any kind of budgeting that I've seen for Traveller military forces. Just something for me to pursue

 

[Whipsnade]

Hal,

Well, you might not be asking the right questions, but I can't answer the questions you've asked! I simply don't know enough about the numbers.

If a ship is at sea, the brass must think there are enough people aboard. That number might not be the optimal number, that number might include all the different rates and specialities they'd like to see (many ships don't have doctors anymore), but the number is enough for the ship to go to sea.

The Navy's wish list manning numbers are most certainly 'inflated' by centuries of blood soaked experience. They want a certain number aboard because they've factored in casulties, heavy casulties.

Even relatively minor 'events'; Stark and the Exocet, Roberts and the mine, Cole and the suicide boat, take a toll on the crew. Relatively few people were killed in each of those incidents and in each the crew saved the ship, but the crew was worn out quickly. In each incident help in the form of fresh bodies from nearby ships was required. What if those extra bodies weren't available because their ships were damaged too?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the navy daily sails undermanned by its own estimates, but avoids any real trouble from this because they aren't really in combat and they can rapidly concentrate the extra bodies they need at the few 'incidents' that occur. The US can plan on flying help from CONUS, other ships, or other locations to any ship in trouble in hours or at most a day or two.

That is something the Imperial Navy cannot do and cannot plan on doing.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Hal]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the navy daily sails undermanned by its own estimates, but avoids any real trouble from this because they aren't really in combat and they can rapidly concentrate the extra bodies they need at the few 'incidents' that occur. The US can plan on flying help from CONUS, other ships, or other locations to any ship in trouble in hours or at most a day or two.

That is something the Imperial Navy cannot do and cannot plan on doing.

Which in a round about fashion, brings us right back to where we started when I started this thread in the first place

Ah well, thanks for the comments. I think what I will do for my own Traveller Universe manning requirements is inflate them by a near factor of three - two at the very least. Trying to set up a watch list for the ships using only TRAVELLER rules (or High Guard rules to be more precise) leaves me thinking that those crews are horribly undermanned.

 

[jasper]

??? Why do all future space navies always have promote the visiting captain?
Doesn't the crew the ss minnow knows who their skipper is?
Doesn't the visiting skipper know the captain will shoot him if he tries to take over?
Why stick with modern navy titles? after all it is x00's to x,00000 thousands of years in the future?
Why not use the Army rank?
Why are all pilots officers in future?
Etc

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Because that's the way it's always been done.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by jasper:
??? Why do all future space navies always have promote the visiting captain?
Doesn't the crew the ss minnow knows who their skipper is?
Doesn't the visiting skipper know the captain will shoot him if he tries to take over?
Why stick with modern navy titles? after all it is x00's to x,00000 thousands of years in the future?
Why not use the Army rank?
Why are all pilots officers in future?
Etc

1) Coutesy in existing Navies, plausably continued as a colorful tradition.
Alternately, it still prevents confusion because if you had a squadron meeting on a ship and a wounded Ensign dashed in shouting, "Captain, Captain!" only one officer would try to take his report.
2) Some SF games use Army/Air Force ranks for the Space Force. IMTU we use ecclectic rank.
3) That is current practice in most "wet" Navies today. A game is unlikely to change that without good reason, especially with Pilot being a premium skill. (IMTU Pilot and Ships Boat skill are equivalent)
Before WWII many pilots were NCOs. IMTU they still are.

 

[Madarin Dude]

Wet navy models are a bit mroe realisic overall. Aircraft rarely fly for mor ehtan 24 hours so they have no real watches everyone on board is at theri job the entire time. There are rules for crew rest and things like that.

I do think o fmos tof th eime beign on board as beign on call so the imprtant crew might carry some way to signal them if soemthing happens and I thought of the idea for remote controls for smaller ships so pilots and the like can go get meals and still be in touch with what the ship is doing. They can go thru essential fuctions from any location on the ship but for more detailed operations need to get to their post.

In my traveller universe I thing I will change the pilots back to NCO's. After a term in maintenence they can go on to be pilots if they desire. This will give my pilots a grounding in how the craft operates.

 

[aramis]

Also, in several RW navies, captain rank individuals under a flag officer commanding officer (IE, Commodore or admiral) are addressed by job title, not rank, while aboard. These are usually BIG ships, carriers or battleships.

Army captains often receive "Honorary" Major. Navy Captains have, in various navies, been "Commander" or "Commodore".

There have been a few where rank and title of commanding officer are different.

to add to the confusion, some navies have more than one rank of "Captain". (Soviet navy listed 3 grades)

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jasper:
??? Why do all future space navies always have promote the visiting captain?

1) Coutesy in existing Navies, plausably continued as a colorful tradition.</font>[/QUOTE]Except that I've never been able to find official documentation for it being used in any present-day navy. I have heard anecdotal evidence -- some people saying that they did so in their ship. OTOH, I have also had corresponding anecdotal evidence to the contrary (NB! Both anectotes was about USN ships.)

Alternately, it still prevents confusion because if you had a squadron meeting on a ship and a wounded Ensign dashed in shouting, "Captain, Captain!" only one officer would try to take his report.

Easily solved by adding a name to the rank.

3) That is current practice in most "wet" Navies today.

Do you have any documentation for that? I'm genuinely interested in finding out. (I've several times thought about writing to the USN and/or the USMC to ask, but I've never gotten around to it. Unfortunately they don't take questions over the net. All I can say is that the custom is not mention on either of their websites.)


Hans

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by rancke:
Do you have any documentation for that? I'm genuinely interested in finding out.

Hans,

He doesn't have any documentation because it isn't done. It's an urban legend and a sea story.

Forster mentioned once or twice in his Honrblower series, even though evidence of it occurring in the Napoleonic period is scant. Heinlen, who should have known better as a serving officer in the 1930s USN, stuck it in Starship Troopers. That led to sci-fi authors and hacks alike putting it in their fiction and that led to the fandom continually asserting something that is nothing but a fable.

Ask Chris Thrash, he'll tell you it doesn't happen. Ask me, I'll tell you it doesn't happen.

The argument that having two captains aboard would confuse people is pure bull feces. Ships have more than two LTJGs, more than 2 LTs, more than two LCDRs, more than two CDRs, and no confusion occurs. Some vessels can even have more than two admirals aboard and no confusion occurs. Why are captains special? On many ships, the 'captain' isn't even an actual captain!

It doesn't happen. No army or marine captain got a courtesy promotion to major so he wouldn't be confused with the 'real' captain. The sailors, dogfaces, and marines involved aren't so stupid that such a 'precaution' need to be done. Anyone who says it is done is either 1) pulling your leg, B) doesn't know what they're talking about, or iii) repeating a 'kewl' idea.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[mike wightman]

Could it be the tradition of another navy?

I don't recall anything like it in the UK armed forces either.

There are still a lot of countries with rich naval traditions out there in the real world.

[edit]while searching for further info about this I found that there are a lot of web sites that quote this:
"A naval captain traveling aboard a vessel s/he does not command is never referred to by rank to avoid confusion with the nautical captain, who remains in charge of the entire ship (including the passengers who outrank the nautical captain)."
One site only says that this is a Polish navy custom.
One site:
http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Captain
actually states:
"In accordance with naval tradition, the commanding officer of a US vessel is always called "captain" when aboard the ship, regardless of his or her actual rank (which may be higher or lower). Other officers having that rank are not called captain when aboard the vessel: for example, if there is a complement of Marines aboard ship commanded by an officer with the rank of captain, the officer will be called "Major" while the vessel is underway."

I believe Chis and Bill on this one.[/edit]

 

[aramis]

I've seen documentation in the records of the US Navy from WWII of an army 03 addressed as major by title. Records fo the US Navy, stored in the US National Archives & Records Administration, Alaska Regional Office.

I've heard of the tradition in the US navy re Navy rank-Captains from WWII vets as an "Old Sailor Tradition". Specifically mentioned was one of the staffers of Halsey.

If it is still in the US Navy protocols, it would be in the LPM. If not, finding historical copies of the LPM would shed light on whether it was official or not. Of course, I've not read any current editions of the LPM since 1986.

Of course, in the 1980's, the US Navy was simplifying the rank structure to some degree; last I checked the US Navy has one Commodore; all the other 07's are Rear admiral. That would be, according to the 1997 or so documentary on the USNA at Anapolis, the Commanding officer of the Acadamy.

This whole issue, is, of course, a rehash of a discussion two years ago, the same people assert that, because they enver encountered it, it never existed. The polish navy extracts its traditions from various sources, and is not unique. Note also, I have never read hornblower; I'd been made aware of the "Promote the Captains" thing for a long time, but only for marines.

Part of the confusion, also, is the pre1900 ranks are not the same for all services. Standardization of ranks begins with the 20th century.

And, let us not forget, also, that if the captain of the ships says they guest is a "4 stripe commodore", and there is no "Thick Striper" around, that goes. Likewise, if the ship's captain says "Any officer with silver bars is a Lieutenant", that too stands. At least, it does so aboard the ship.

Likewise, there is a tradition from the 19th century of a :"Major of Marines". It could be used to refer to any officer commanding a marine detachment.

Of course, all the footage of modern carrier ops, everyone refers to the Aviation Branch Captain as "CAG", and the Medical Captain as Doctor soAndSo. The Captain of the ship is usually refered to as the Skipper in such footage. If this is NOT actual US Navy practice, it then is USN Propaganda.

Of course, the whole issue is rather rare in any case, and seldom relevant to ship operations.

 

[Uncle Bob]

I became aware of the tradition of courtesy promotions reading Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Given that R.A.H. was an officer in the U.S. Navy in the 1930s, I suggest the practice may have fallen out of common usage in the last 60 years.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

The Reactor Officer and the Commanding Officer on a nuclear carrier must both be at least Captain in rank, yet nobody ever gets the two officers confused.

And God help you if you call the CO "Skipper"...

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
I became aware of the tradition of courtesy promotions reading Heinlein's Starship Troopers.

Uncle Bob,

You read about it in a work of fiction so it must exist? Please read Chris Thrash's post above.

Given that R.A.H. was an officer in the U.S. Navy in the 1930s, I suggest the practice may have fallen out of common usage in the last 60 years.

Let me correct that sentence;

Given that R.A.H. was an author of fictional works, I suggest that the practice was almost entirely made up.

It reads better that way.

I brought up Starship Troopers in my post. Heinlen most likely knew about the few times and places the practice occurred. He added it to ST as one of those tiny but telling bits setting 'chrome' he was justly famous for. He often cited using 'chrome' as a way to impart the "We Are Not In Kansas" feeling sci-fi requires without also writing pages of exposition. One example of this he continually cited was the phrase the door dialated.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Uncle Bob]

I said may. The evidence is tenuous, but I doubt RAH influenced Forrester.

We have two possibilities
1) Similar fictional elements, independently invented by authors. One of whom had personal experience in the field, the other is known for meticulous research.

2) We are dealing with an informal tradition, always verbal, that fell into disuse in the mid twentieth century and that no living person has memory of.

I know which way I'm betting. The traditions are consistant with Georgian attitudes towards symbols and authority and Victorian attitudes on propriety. It is not consistent with 20th Century ideals of rational efficiency. The rapid expansion of the Navy during WWII would tend to kill counter-intuitive traditions. It certainly did in the Army.

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
I brought up Starship Troopers in my post. Heinlen most likely knew about the few times and places the practice occurred. He added it to ST as one of those tiny but telling bits setting 'chrome' he was justly famous for.

Apparently, you don't think it was fictional, either.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
2) We are dealing with an informal tradition, always verbal, that fell into disuse in the mid twentieth century and that no living person has memory of.

Uncle Bob,

No. It wasn't a tradition. It wasn't even an informal tradition. A tradition is widespread in time and place and this practice wasn't.

There may have been a few ships on which it was practiced for limited periods. As you note, tings were more fluid in the 19th Century. The RN didn't even have regulations dealing with officers' uniforms until Prince Bertie/King Edward VII got involved. There was a Victorian RN captain who wore white dinner dress and a top hat. Once at sea, an RN captain was god. If he decreed the sort of courtesy promotion you're suggesting, it happened. If he didn't decree it, it didn't happen. Our records from the period show that he didn't decree very often if at all.

I know which way I'm betting.

And you'd lose your money.

The traditions are consistant with Georgian attitudes towards symbols and authority and Victorian attitudes on propriety.

Oddly enough, the sources we have regarding the Georgian and Victorian navies say nothing about these courtesy promotions. Nothing, as in zip, zilch, nada, and none. There is anecdotal evidence in the form of memoirs written long after the fact and 'things that grampa told me' but nothing else.

Again, they may have occurred on vessels widely spaced in time and place, but they were not a tradition and they were not a regulation.

Apparently, you don't think it was fictional, either.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying it occurred, rarely, but it occurred. I'm also saying it had no basis in either tradition or regulations.

Your belief that it occurred as often as you suggest and that it was sanctioned by either tradition or regulations is due to nothing more than it's use by authors of fiction to apply a little chrome or otherworldliness to their works. You've mistakenly inflated a fictional bon-bon into an actual naval tradition and/or regulation and now want it to be an official part of the 57th Century Imperial Navy.

I'm sorry, but there are too many naval cranks on this and other Traveller boards for that sort of nonsense to fly.

Chris Thrash told you that the USN's office dealing with protocol and tradition had never heard of it. Not "we don't do it anymore" but "we've never heard of it". That's pretty telling.

Another poster recounted dubious anecdotal evidence that one US admiral's staff in WW2, Halsey's, may have used it with regards to one individual. Not for every officer in the same circumstances, but for only one man. And there is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that any of the other USN staff groupings; Spruance, King, Nimitz, Turner, etc., etc., did anything of the sort. That's pretty telling too.

Courtesy promotions did occur. They were no where near as common or as acknowledged as Forrester, Heinlen, or any of the other authors who've used them would have you believe. Slapping what is little more than a writer's decorative piece of prose into in the official regulations of the Imperial Navy, of other military organizations, and of paramilitary organizations in Traveller doesn't work.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[jwcarroll60]

Way back in the 1970's and 80's (when I was in the USMC)whenever we were abopard a US Navy vessel Marine Captains were addressed as Major. This may only be anecdotal evidence to some but this is observed behaviour over a decade period. Seems the tradition was alive and well then.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
I said may. The evidence is tenuous, but I doubt RAH influenced Forrester.

True, but then, I doubt that Forrester use it in any of his books (Well, any of his Hornblower books, anyway). I think I would have noticed it. OTOH, it's been a while since last I reread all my Hornblowers (I have a couple of favorites that I reread about once a year), so I won't rule out the possibility that it was so long ago that I wasn't conscious of the issue at the time.

Still, if Forrester ever described this practice, I'd appreciate a reference.


Hans

 

[Jame]

Here's a ship ops question - what exactly is watchstanding?