Originally posted by Bhoins:
Corridor also has the 213th fleet in Subsector J. Bringing the total in that case to 21.
But Subsector F only has one regular fleet, the 59th. So it's 'only' 20.
BTW the "Named Fleets" are generally, though it does state clearly not always, named for the Sector. The numbered fleets each belong to a named fleet. Are you saying that there are two named fleets in Corridor sector?
Yep, and apparently they're
both named Corridor fleet. The relevant quote is from p. 27 of
Rebellion Sourcebook:
"The Imperial Corridor Fleet (appropriately stationed in Corridor sector) is composed of the Imperial 16th, 27th, 41st, and 70th Fleets."
Obviously the author got mixed up somehow.
Or is the curious double numbering of the inhabited end of Corridor Sector the second Named Fleet?
A few paragraphs later it says that The [Sector] Fleet consists of one numbered fleet from each subsector of said sector (apparently the reserve fleets are not included). The example is the Alpha Crucis Fleet which consists of the 80th and the 313th Fleet, the two fleets shown on the map as being the fleets stationed in subsector A and B respectively.
As for chains of command. Miliatry chains of command branch from the top down. There can be no branching going from bottom to top. That way quickly leads to problems. When dealing with a military those can be very serious problems.
Think of the subsector dukes as hereditary governors. If you look at how the British organized their colonies, you'll find all sorts of special circumstances. True, often the governor had a military commision included in the appointment, but not always. Even if he didn't have a commision he had the authority to 'request' the admiral stationed there to go root out those pirates or assign a ship to patrol that strait or provide an escort for a convoy. I don't know if that counts as being in the chain of command, but it would be a remarkably stupid admiral who refused such a request, so the difference would be purely technical.
The thing is, even when the governor had a military commision too, the local admiral was still under dual lines of authority. The governor could request him to perform tasks within his 'area of operation', but he couldn't order him to, say, transfer a ship to another station. The Admiralty, OTOH, could order him to detach ships.
Unity of command is an admirable concept, but divided command is not as inconceivable as you think.
For example, in the United States, the Chain of command goes from the President, to the Secretary of Defense (Both, by Constitution, Civilians), to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (General or Admiral), to the Chief of Staff of the various branches, (Again General or Admiral. One each for Army, Navy and Airforce.) then down the chain of command through various commands, all the way down to the individual, Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman.
Are you saying that an Ambassador cannot tell the officer in charge of the Embassy guards what to do? (Note that I didn't say 'give him an order')
While there is a Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Air Force, they advise the Secretary of Defense and can occasionally speak for him/her, they are not actually in the chain of command.
So when the Secretary of the Navy wants an admiral to do something, he invariable has to ask the Secretary of Defense to order the admiral to do it? He cannot speak directly to the admiral?
The only role that the Dukes could play, unless you have Ducal Navies/Fleets, is in an advisory role to the Emperor and, if the Emperor allows it pass his orders to the local chain of command.
I disagree. Think of the Governor-General of India. He was authorized by Parliament to raise local troops, but he was also able to issue commands to those elements of the King's Army that were stationed in India (Or rather, he could ask the Captain-General to give the orders). Several Governors-General were their own Captains-General, though.
I can see where the Dukes would be like the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Airforce.
Wrong analogy. They wouldn't be the equivalent of presidential/royal advisors, because they wouldn't be able to advise in a timely fashion. They are the equivalent of governors because the Emperor cannot transmit orders to their territories in a timely fashion.
but they wouldn't have direct control or authority over the Commands in their Duchy. The Chain of Command Chart in The Rebellion Sourcebook reflects that. It lists them as "Nobel Supervision."
Or as I like to call it 'Civilian oversight'. I don't mind assuming that Norris' naval authority in the FFW boardgame is a mistake, but I do think that a subsector governor would have some influence on what happens in his duchy.
Otherwise the orders from the Admirals above you are just that, orders and no matter how much the Duke, may or may not like those orders the Duke's opinion can't change those orders. The Duke might have enough political pull to have you cashiered or end your career, or might be able to have you transferred. However violating your actual orders could have much more dire consequences.
"Technically, only higher ranking naval officers can give orders; as a practical matter, nobles insinuate themselves into the channels of command. A good admiral knows when to follow which orders, and how to gracefully avoid the orders he shouldn't follow." [RS, p. 27]
In other words, there are times when an admiral can follow the orders of someone who is not technically in the chain of command without getting into trouble.
Basically I think the situation in the Imperium is simply a lot less clear-cut than in a modern 21st Century democracy.
Hans