ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Starfleet vs. U.S. Navy

dirtsailor73

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 104

Report this Mar. 10 2012, 7:46 am

Quote: Broadstorm @ Mar. 10 2012, 3:50 am

>

>I am curious what you think of the use of "Mister" in place of ranks.  In TOS, it was not obvious in most episodes what rank someone is (other than Kirk).  The ranks were rarely mentioned, but in their place, it was just "Mister" (fill in name here).  I have noticed a couple of differences in this regard between TOS & the sequel series.  TNG timeframe used ranks a lot more.  In TOS, the use of "Mister" went up or down, but in the TNG timeframe, it seemed to only go down.  Just about everyone referred to Mister Spock rather than Commander Spock, but in the other shows, when addressing someone of higher rank, the rank was used.  I think I only heard Riker referred to as Mister Riker once, and that was by Picard.  Riker would say Mister LaForge, but LaForge would say Commander Riker, for example.

>

It's a tradition that dates back to the days of sail that it is permissable to address a Junior Officer (O1-O4) as Mister in place of his/her rank. So while it would be acceptable to address Ensign Timmy as Mr. Timmy, it is never acceptable for anyone to address a Commander as Mister. Who outranks who is not an issue.


I think TNG got it more right than TOS, but not 100%.


 


"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank." ~LCDR Montgomery Scott, A Taste of Armageddon.

dirtsailor73

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 104

Report this Apr. 09 2012, 12:44 pm

I rarely watched DS9 during its original run. It was hard for me to catch it due to work (the Navy), and it was hard to follow with the few that I could catch. I am now watching it from start to finish on Netflix. (Chief O'Brian is still my favorite TNG character, but I wish I had been there on DS9 to coach Mr. Meany on how to be a Real Chief.)


But anyway, I watched most of Season 1 on Easter Sunday and as I lay in bed that night drifting off to sleep I had an epiphany. Star Trek is not based on the U.S. Navy. It is based on the Russian (or actually Soviet) Navy.


Here's my reasoning: In the U.S. Navy, the enlisted Sailor is the technical expert, as well as the manual labor that makes the Navy go. Officers are administrators who are learning leadership so they can eventually get a command of their own. They are not technical experts. In the Russian Navy, the officers are the technical experts and the enlisted are the manual labor, much like how Starfleet is made up.


I might be biased on this, but the Russian Navy is sinking at its moorings and the U.S. Navy is the most powerful in the world, so you tell me which is the better model.


Of course a lot of it is that Hollywood writers just don't know how a military organization, much less a navy, runs.


"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank." ~LCDR Montgomery Scott, A Taste of Armageddon.

Broadstorm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 828

Report this Apr. 09 2012, 8:53 pm

Quote: dirtsailor73 @ Apr. 09 2012, 12:44 pm

>

>I rarely watched DS9 during its original run. It was hard for me to catch it due to work (the Navy), and it was hard to follow with the few that I could catch. I am now watching it from start to finish on Netflix. (Chief O'Brian is still my favorite TNG character, but I wish I had been there on DS9 to coach Mr. Meany on how to be a Real Chief.)

>But anyway, I watched most of Season 1 on Easter Sunday and as I lay in bed that night drifting off to sleep I had an epiphany. Star Trek is not based on the U.S. Navy. It is based on the Russian (or actually Soviet) Navy.

>Here's my reasoning: In the U.S. Navy, the enlisted Sailor is the technical expert, as well as the manual labor that makes the Navy go. Officers are administrators who are learning leadership so they can eventually get a command of their own. They are not technical experts. In the Russian Navy, the officers are the technical experts and the enlisted are the manual labor, much like how Starfleet is made up.

>I might be biased on this, but the Russian Navy is sinking at its moorings and the U.S. Navy is the most powerful in the world, so you tell me which is the better model.

>Of course a lot of it is that Hollywood writers just don't know how a military organization, much less a navy, runs.

>


Of course, StarFleet is Russian inwention.

OneDamnMinuteAdmiral

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1401

Report this Apr. 10 2012, 8:26 am

I've always wondered about the O'Brien thing myself till I saw that movie We Were Soldiers. In it a lot of young Lieutenants are being trained in the new ways of using the huey for transporting in and out of battle zones.


The point being is that the people training them are Lt. Col Moore and Sgt. Maj. Plumley and in the movie Col. Moore states that the Sgt. Maj. only takes orders from him and him alone.


Saying all that I imagine it was kind of a similar situation where Cmd. Sisko says Chief O'Brien is in charge of 'X' and thus noone, other officers included, ever question that order.


I don't know if that is acurate or not but I figure once a commanding officer says something of that nature it is law so to speak, thus there wouldn't be any troubles with rank for Chief O'Brien in reguards to a higher rank when it is something pertaining to O'Brien's specific  job of Operations Chief.


Are you sure it isn't time for a colorful metaphor?

dirtsailor73

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 104

Report this Apr. 10 2012, 6:14 pm

Quote: OneDamnMinuteAdmiral @ Apr. 10 2012, 8:26 am

>

>I've always wondered about the O'Brien thing myself till I saw that movie We Were Soldiers. In it a lot of young Lieutenants are being trained in the new ways of using the huey for transporting in and out of battle zones.

>The point being is that the people training them are Lt. Col Moore and Sgt. Maj. Plumley and in the movie Col. Moore states that the Sgt. Maj. only takes orders from him and him alone.

>Saying all that I imagine it was kind of a similar situation where Cmd. Sisko says Chief O'Brien is in charge of 'X' and thus noone, other officers included, ever question that order.

>I don't know if that is acurate or not but I figure once a commanding officer says something of that nature it is law so to speak, thus there wouldn't be any troubles with rank for Chief O'Brien in reguards to a higher rank when it is something pertaining to O'Brien's specific  job of Operations Chief.

>


Like most things with the government: yes and no.


In We Were Soldiers, SgtMgr Plumley is Col Moore's Senior Enlisted Leader and as such, he does only report to the Col. His primary job would be to advise the Col. on any all enlisted issues. Also, all senior enlisted's jobs are to train junior officers. By the way, if you have it on DVD, check out the cut scene where the junior officers talk about how tough the SgtMgr is, it's awesome.


As far as Chief O'Brien, I explained positional authority vs. rank authority earlier in the thread. Or at least I've tried to.


"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank." ~LCDR Montgomery Scott, A Taste of Armageddon.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar, darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum