Ship's Crew Numbers

[whulorigan]

It sounds like Warrants in the RN are handled differently than Warrants in the USN, where they do pretty much the exact same jobs as O 1-3's. But that all said, American E 8-9 generally also occupy leadership positions, generally where an O 1-2 wouldn't be capable because of breadth of knowledge required, and an O 3 would be probably too high grade for the position.

Warrant Officer-2 and Warrant Officer-1 in the British Forces (RN, RM, RAF, British Army) stand above the Ordinary Ranks and NCOs, but are not commissioned, and are generally referred to by their appointments, e.g. "Regimental Sergeant Major", "Company Sergeant Major", "Regimental Quartermaster Sergeant", "Executive Warrant Officer", "Command Warrant Officer", "Master Aircrew", etc.

For a list of example appointments, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_officer_(United_Kingdom)

 

[TamsinP]

Just as a note, it's not unusual for experienced SNCOs and WOs (OR7-9; occasionally OR6) in the British armed forces to be commissioned from the ranks. However, their opportunities for promotion in commissioned ranks tend to be limited and they often get appointed to staff rather than command positions.
In the Army, a common appointment is/was* as the Permanent Staff Administrative Officer (PSAO) of an Army Reserve (formerly Territorial Army) unit to take them through to retirement. In the Royal Navy it was quite common in the first half of the C20th for Chief Stokers and Chief Engine Room Artificers to be commissioned as engineering officers.

*It's over 30 years since I was in the TA, so it might have changed since then.

 

[kilemall]

Commisioned or Warrant officers are what it means, Petty Officers are specified separately.

So I did clear up a minor point earlier in the thread, I was overpopulating the 'command' group. But the officers, whether commisioned or warrant, still seem somewhat overrepresented. The fact that Traveller doesn't address Combat Systems, Navigation, or Operations departments, though, inclines me to split up my Command staff among those groups. Most of the Command group enlisted will be Navigation Department or helmsmen, who are part of Deck in RL. Combat Systems and Operations will pull from the Service group, which seems overrepresented as far as the need for cooks, barbers, laundry, and the like, but do services of a sort on the ship. Taken that way, I can work with the given numbers.

I’d have engineering officers in charge of separate mechanical and electronics ratings, officer in charge of computers, another for small craft if more then one, etc.

 

[whulorigan]

I’d have engineering officers in charge of separate mechanical and electronics ratings, officer in charge of computers, another for small craft if more then one, etc.

In some modern services, both Merchant Service and in some Navies, there is the ETO, or Electrical Technical Officer (sometimes a separate Chief Electrical Technical Officer with subordinate ETOs), in charge of the sophisticated Electrical and Electronic Systems. It is sometimes considered its own Branch or Sub-Department of the Engineering Department and sometimes organized merely as a division of the Engineering Department. Warrant Officers and Petty Officers might be "Electronics Technicians" and "Electronics Technicians Mates", or just simply "Technicians" and "Technicians Mates".

More standard Electrical Systems might fall under the ETO in a separate subdivision (or not), or under a separate Engineering Division with an Engineering Officer or Warrant Officer over them as Electrician or Chief Electrician, with Petty Officer Electricians' Mates.

Engineering Officer or Warrant Officer over the mechanical ratings might be the Machinist or Chief Machinist, with Petty Officer Machinist Mates.

 

[TamsinP]

Here's a pic outlining the crew structure of a typical cruise ship (I'm sure somebody can find and post something similar for a large warship):

 

[Badenov]

Here's a pic outlining the crew structure of a typical cruise ship (I'm sure somebody can find and post something similar for a large warship):

I looked, the only things I found were WW2-era and a proposal for some new structure that hasn't been implemented.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Seamanship/img/Seamanship-7-2.jpg is the WW2-era chart for destroyer-sized ships.


I imagine the Navy doesn't make its current org charts public knoledge, but in the context of Traveller ships, High Guard actually gives a rough outline and I read between the lines a bit.

My cut on High Guard's Org structure:

Command department gives a number of Officers and Enlisted - listed as the commanding officer, an executive officer, a computer officer, two navigation officers, a medical officer, and a communications officer, plus support ratings. I assume the Enlisted are Bridge watchstanders who actually mash the buttons as instructed by the Officer in charge at the moment. I lump the Navigation department in with this group, since two Navigators are part of the minimum crew. No nav enlisted unlike RL because Traveller navigation is very simplified and streamlined, there's no mass of charts to organize or positions to plot continuously - these are all done by computer in Traveller, it seems.

Flight Department is obviously composed of pilots and maintainers of subordinate craft.

Engineering Derpartment is comprised of people who work on M-Drive, J-Drive, and the Power Plant. I divide the Eng Department up based on the tonnage of each section. Petty Officers are work center supervisors and Officers are Division Officers. Large ships with lots of Officers and Petty Officers get broken up into Auxiliary department, who work on life support, and other related things like structural repair groups.

Service is 3/1000 tons, or 2/1000 tons if you're going to dragoon Marines into the untrained jobs. I lean into a more tranied and professional force, so I go with 3/1000 regardless of my marine complement, then I don't have to worry if I've embarked too few marines. Service is an overarching division, comprising traditional Supply roles like food service and ship's store and barber shops, and actual support groups like (non-Engine Room) equipment repair, Sensor and Computer repair, and Comms operation and repair. It's one of the more numerous groups on the ship and this is why - all the roles it needs to fill. This is why I'm fine with the full 3/1000 figure. POs and Officers map pretty well to Work Center Supervisors and Division Officers, with the exception that the Computer Officer and Communications Officer from the Command group honcho those subgroups under Service. Extra officers get mapped into galley, so I have separate officers for crew galley and the Wardroom, and the two Parts Supply departments, one for regular consummables like food and one for repair parts that are needed at any given time.

Medical is a tiny division, but it is what it is. Presumably led by the Medical Officer required by the Command section.

Gunnery Department is pretty cut and dried, you need 1 gunner per turret, 2 gunners per bay, 4 gunners per screen. The Petty Officer and Officer requirements are generally Division Officers under the primary Gunnery Officer Department Head, and the 'Petty Officers' are generally the work center supervisors underneath each division.

Marines are apparently supposed to be organized per book 4, but I've never dug the details out of that book, and looking at it, it's pretty vague anyhow (A squad will consist of two or three fire teams, a platoon consists of up to three squads or two sections), so I just ballpark a figure of 25-person squad plus 5 high grade NCOs, and a platoon officer (~1Lt) plus 2 subordinate officers (~2Lt). That gives me a Platoon of 33 people, which fits neatly in a Pinnace, and gives a bit of resilience if the platoon commander is taken out. Book 4 can generate platoons from 24-48 people, so 33 is close enough to the middle. 32 is one of the choices Book 4 offers, so I think I am OK.

 

[Condottiere]

Currently it's two mechanics per kilotonne for a starwarship, and one per kilotonne for commercial or private, for maintenance.

Considering there's no real difference in the default volume between the two types, I'd say the extra mechanic was there for redundancy.

Shipboard security appears to be default one per kilotonne, though I suspect it would vary, depending on where the starwarship is travelling through, and if the crew looked particularly mutinous.

 

[aramis]

It sounds like Warrants in the RN are handled differently than Warrants in the USN, where they do pretty much the exact same jobs as O 1-3's. But that all said, American E 8-9 generally also occupy leadership positions, generally where an O 1-2 wouldn't be capable because of breadth of knowledge required, and an O 3 would be probably too high grade for the position.

Not just the RN... most European militaries.
Their Warrant grades do what US E8-E9 do.

US warrants, at present fall into two clades: Former NCOs/POs trained to fill officer billets in specialized units, and newly inducted guys with associates degrees being taught to fly, or in rare cases, to do special investigations.

The closest equivalent outside former US territories is the Russian system; jobwise, Praporshiks are a bit of SNCO, and a bit of company/working grade officers... but like many US warrants (specifically in aviation), are not experienced NCOs...
The soviet era protocols were top few basic trainees got sent to the centralized NCO schools; top few in NCO school got sent to Praporshik School. Particularly good leaders might get sent to commissioned officer school.

 

[Condottiere]

As I recall, under Soviet conscription, you served two years in the army, and three in their navy, since sailors needed to learn more technical skills.

In the Red Army, junior officers took over a lot of the administrative tasks that in the West would have been done by non commissioned officers, since the turnover was two years for each annual intake, and the recruits earmarked for leadership roles really didn't have the time to learn their jobs.

 

[Rupert]

As I recall, under Soviet conscription, you served two years in the army, and three in their navy, since sailors needed to learn more technical skills.

In the Red Army, junior officers took over a lot of the administrative tasks that in the West would have been done by non commissioned officers, since the turnover was two years for each annual intake, and the recruits earmarked for leadership roles really didn't have the time to learn their jobs.

The problem they had was that those picked for NCO positions spent their first six months at NCO school and were then sent to their units to be sergeants, but the troops didn't respect them because they hadn't 'done their time' - effectively power amongst the conscripted enlisted came with time in service over their two-year obligation.

Unsurprisingly, few of the NCOs re-enlisted, so the Soviets had a serious shortage of experienced senior NCOs, and thus most of the things a western armed force would assign to SNCOs had to be done by officers. Also, everyone with an education used any influence they had to make sure they entered as officers, so the NCO corps wasn't well educated, so again, many roles the west would give to specialist NCOs had to be done by officers.

Having most of your technical specialists as officers isn't necessarily worse than having them as enlisted or NCOs - it's just different. The Soviet system had problems, but that wasn't the root cause of them. I'd say it was a combination of mass conscription and parachuting in young inexperienced Sergeants/Petty Officers with no actual time as privates/seamen, resulting in an ineffective NCO corps.

 

[Condottiere]

The rot was pretty deep.

The Russian translation was rule by the grandfathers, which meant that sophomores bullied the freshmen, to the point of injury, possibly death.

Post Soviet, the bullying was allowed to remain systemic, the reason, I'm told, is to ensure that the army never got organized enough to launch a coup.

So, not exactly an environment that anyone with actual technical skill would want to remain, when they could get paid helluva lot more in the private sector.

 

[JimCook]

My only experience is with the USA military. Commissioned officers are suppose to be leaders. They don't always know how to do things, but should know what needs to be done. NCOs know how to get things done. it is a cliché, but you often have sergeant talking to a a lieutenant, "tell me what you need the men to do sir".

Warrant officers were originally super specialist's. True experts with years of experience in something. When we added E8 and E9 Senior enlisted ranks, this lessened the need for warrants.

Then came pilots. It was decided that no enlisted, not even NCOs, could command an aircraft. For the Air Force we added thousands of lieutenants and Captains who flew aircraft. They did not command and certainly did not lead troops. Suddenly are the rank of Major or Lt Colonel they were put in charge of Squadrons. they heavily relied on NCOs to do the work.

The Army needed far more pilots than the Air Force. the Army has more helicopters than the Air Force has planes by a large number. The Army did not want that many commissioned officers so they used warrant officers as helicopter pilots.

Very recently the Air Force and Space Force have decided to create Warrant offices for Cyber Warfare positions. The people they need for those positions find enlisted pay and conditions too poor. While Warrants will get better pay, it still will not be near what they can make in industry.

 

[whulorigan]

The Army needed far more pilots than the Air Force. the Army has more helicopters than the Air Force has planes by a large number. The Army did not want that many commissioned officers, so they used warrant officers as helicopter pilots.

Actually the Warrant Officer/Flight Officer in the US Army dates to the beginning of WW2 when the US Army Air Force (USAAF, pre-USAF) needed lots of aircraft pilots and senior aircrew and brought in many already trained pilots giving them immediate rank as "Flight Officer" which ranked as a Warrant Officer, jg (there were only 2 grades of Warrant Officer at the time: Warrant Officer, jg and Chief Warrant Officer). They had a rank-insignia identical to Warrant Officer, jg, except that the field on which the stripe/bar was superimposed was blue instead of reddish-brown.

After the war and the establishment of the independent branch service of the USAF by the splitting-off of the RAAF/USAAF from the US Army, the Army still had the need for many pilots, so they absorbed them into the Warrant Officer program as Warrant Officers, jg (WO-1).

 

[Dragoner]

The Red Army, or properly "The Workers' and Peasants' Red Army" (RKKA) in existence from 1918-46 was like it sounds, little better than a revolutionary militia. Rank and command were not coordinated, as during WW2, an entire company might be commanded by a NCO. Zhukov, a Czarist Cavalry NCO, took special delight in punishing officers. Technically the idea was that all officers would rise through the ranks (Moscow's pampered sons usually served in local police detachments), this made it so that often junior officers fulfilled roles similar to western NCO's.

 

[Condottiere]

Seems reminiscent of French Revolution military organization.

Probably, why there were regular officer purges, to prevent a Napoleonic succession.

At some point, militaries coalesce around capable, charismatic, and lucky, leaders.

 

[Dragoner]

Previously, like most European armies, their officer corps consisted mostly of the nobility. French too, the city where I live is named after the Marquis de La Fayette:

Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rupert]

The rot was pretty deep.

The Russian translation was rule by the grandfathers, which meant that sophomores bullied the freshmen, to the point of injury, possibly death.

Post Soviet, the bullying was allowed to remain systemic, the reason, I'm told, is to ensure that the army never got organized enough to launch a coup.

So, not exactly an environment that anyone with actual technical skill would want to remain, when they could get paid helluva lot more in the private sector.

That was another reason many technical jobs were done by officers - they got paid a lot more than the enlisted, and had much better living conditions, something that also continued in the Russian military.

 

[Rupert]

My only experience is with the USA military. Commissioned officers are suppose to be leaders. They don't always know how to do things, but should know what needs to be done. NCOs know how to get things done. it is a cliché, but you often have sergeant talking to a a lieutenant, "tell me what you need the men to do sir".

Warrant officers were originally super specialist's. True experts with years of experience in something. When we added E8 and E9 Senior enlisted ranks, this lessened the need for warrants.

Then came pilots. It was decided that no enlisted, not even NCOs, could command an aircraft. For the Air Force we added thousands of lieutenants and Captains who flew aircraft. They did not command and certainly did not lead troops. Suddenly are the rank of Major or Lt Colonel they were put in charge of Squadrons. they heavily relied on NCOs to do the work.

The Army needed far more pilots than the Air Force. the Army has more helicopters than the Air Force has planes by a large number. The Army did not want that many commissioned officers so they used warrant officers as helicopter pilots.

The USAAF in WWII used Sergeants and Warrant Officers as pilots, along with officers - Chuck Yeager was one. The new USAF decided, as you say, that all pilots would be officers, and lost a lot of good pilots at the time as a result.

Very recently the Air Force and Space Force have decided to create Warrant offices for Cyber Warfare positions. The people they need for those positions find enlisted pay and conditions too poor. While Warrants will get better pay, it still will not be near what they can make in industry.

The US military always surprises me with how big its pay gap between low ranked enlisteds and low ranking officers is. I don't recall that in ours (that being New Zealand) - when I was in everyone was paid poorly (apparently it's better now, though still not great).

 

[Condottiere]

That was another reason many technical jobs were done by officers - they got paid a lot more than the enlisted, and had much better living conditions, something that also continued in the Russian military.

That would depend on the perspective.

Not all of the officer corps was/is corrupt by choice, they barely got paid.

And, surprisingly, there seems to have been a real lack of pilots, to the point that they reinstated cashiered ones, and are willing to sacrifice a squad of special forces to recover a shot down one.

 

[Dragoner]

No esprit de corps left, just controlled by their neighbor