Color-coding schemes

[Galactic Alignment]

Which would, from what we know of the current modern world and existing (para)military uniforms, be the most logical way of arranging division colours, and signifying them in the Trekverse?

Would a broader range of division colours, ala the TOS movies, work best, or the more simpler, three-colour system used by the television series from TOS to ENT?

Also, how would be the best way to 'wear' the colour divisions - 'obviously', such as the uniforms worn in the TOS and TNG television series, or more discretely, e.g. the TWOK and FC uniforms' turtle-necks?

(Going off on a tangent, does anyone know if any real life military uniforms colour-code apart from IDF berets and US Navy aircraft carrier deck personnel? Thanks!)

 

[Robert Maxwell]

While wearing the colors prominently seems like a reasonable notion when you're shipboard, it seems like a tactical disadvantage when you're on a planet, engaged in a firefight. As a Threat force knowing the Starfleet color codes, I would go for the redshirts first (command offciers) and then the yellowshirts. The blueshirts would go last, since they are the ones you'd have to worry about least (scientists and medics aren't likely to be major threats on the ground).

That's my thought, anyway. They might want to conceal such color designations in a volatile situation, to avoid having command personnel targeted first.

 

[captcalhoun]

Which would, from what we know of the current modern world and existing (para)military uniforms, be the most logical way of arranging division colours, and signifying them in the Trekverse?

there probably isn't a logical system. Intelligence is tied to communications and computers. are communications command or engineering? what about PCs? Would transport choppers be in engineering or security? what about attack copters, security or enginneering?

Would a broader range of division colours, ala the TOS movies, work best, or the more simpler, three-colour system used by the television series from TOS to ENT?

too many colours is too confusing

Also, how would be the best way to 'wear' the colour divisions - 'obviously', such as the uniforms worn in the TOS and TNG television series, or more discretely, e.g. the TWOK and FC uniforms' turtle-necks?

are you talking about a combat uniform or a more ... 'formal' uniform for a base?

(Going off on a tangent, does anyone know if any real life military uniforms colour-code apart from IDF berets and US Navy aircraft carrier deck personnel? Thanks!)

not that i'm aware, other than red berets being a popular choice for airborne troops (cf US 82nd Airborne and the UK and Belgian Parachute regiments) and green being a popular choice for special forces (CF US 'Green Berets' and Royal Marines). but then again, different countries have different colours. German Paras, IIRC wear green berets, while the Dutch Marines wear black and the US Army Rangers wear black while black's a common colour in the UK army. and the SAS wear sand-coloured which i don't think anyone else wears.

 

[C.E. Evans]

While wearing the colors prominently seems like a reasonable notion when you're shipboard, it seems like a tactical disadvantage when you're on a planet, engaged in a firefight. As a Threat force knowing the Starfleet color codes, I would go for the redshirts first (command offciers) and then the yellowshirts. The blueshirts would go last, since they are the ones you'd have to worry about least (scientists and medics aren't likely to be major threats on the ground).

That's my thought, anyway. They might want to conceal such color designations in a volatile situation, to avoid having command personnel targeted first.

The grey field jackets worn in "The Cage" pilot seemed to do the trick as well as the neutral-colored battlefield fatigues worn in Star Trek V.

But I think the use of bright colors for Starfleet uniforms is also to deliberately present a non-threatening image during first contact scenarios. Some civilizations might regard newcomers in dark or camo uniforms as being an immediate threat (i.e., off-world invaders). The problem comes that on ships named Enterprise, many peaceful first encounters somehow end up with phasers being drawn at some point and stuff being blown up...

To me, the best solution are the First Contact uniforms in which there's still enough color to offset the black and greyish purple without it being too garish. The ENT Starfleet uniforms kinda do the same thing in their own way...

 

[Furlong]

I would think that a color setup would be good for easy identification on ship, but the current scheme is too confusing. For instance, gold can represent engineering, operations, tactical and security. I seem to remember a differen scheme, but can't remember the source at the moment. It was...
Red – Operations / Command
Gold – Engineering / Technicians
Blue – Physical sciences / Astrogation
Green – Biological sciences / Medical
Purple – Communications / Cryptography / Intelligence / Logistics
Grey – Security / Weapons / Fighter pilots
White – Protocol / Ambassadors
Tan – Ship's Services

 

[Timo]

While wearing the colors prominently seems like a reasonable notion when you're shipboard, it seems like a tactical disadvantage when you're on a planet, engaged in a firefight.

Camouflage might be utterly outdated in the era of tricorders, though - just like bright colors became outdated when long-ranged weapons gained in accuracy and firepower, or like flags and standards were abandoned when their utility in maintaining unit cohesion was lost to improvements in unit mobility. It would depend on the balance of technologies at the time.

The three-color scheme in in the TV shows might not tell apart actual divisions or branches, since as pointed out, a starship would have more than three of those, and there would be no logical way to combine them into just three main groups even if those were then subtly subdivided by additional markings.

Rather, the three colors might indicate "clearance", the way there used to be a pronounced difference between the uniforms of officers and crew, with just subtle differences within those categories. There would be one "command color" for those of unrestricted command authority: if a guy or gal in TNG red outranks you, you always obey, especially if you aren't in red - and if you are in blue, you would be smart to obey even if you outrank the guy or gal. There would be a "staff color" for specialists whose rank is basically honorary: if you wear blue, you only hold automatical authority over other blueshirts, but can only order around the other colors within your field of speciality. And then there would be the intermediate color for restricted command authority: you can boss around all those blueshirts, but you aren't the first choice for commanding a unit even if you somewhat outrank the closest redshirt.

To have the colors indicate unrestricted line officers, restricted line officers and staff, respectively, would be rather logical and reasonable: the colors would greatly clarify the otherwise complex chain of command. On a battlefield, there are few "specialists" to complicate the simple principle where higher rank gives higher authority. A starship would be teeming with such specialists, though - so segregating them into the blueshirt group would help a lot, and be a welcome companion to the system of rank pips, pins or stripes.

The TOS movie scheme would seem to be more based on divisions, that is, what kind of jobs these people perform and what skills they hold. That's useful as well, and that's missing from the TV shows. But possibly the movie schemes are also lacking when they fail to give the "clearance" symbology.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Frodo Lives]

How does that system hold up with the TNG episode Disaster though, Timo? There it was clearly pointed out that Troi, who held the highest rank of Lt Commander even though she wore blue (When she actually wore a uniform that is - I'm fairly certain there's no way we can factor in her civilian attire as denoting authority in that one, can we?), was in charge over Ensign Ro, who wore command red.

Of course it could be that officers in the medical profession (and its associated specialties such as counseling) are automatically in charge - but that doesn't really jibe with what (I believe it was) O'Brien said, specifically pointing out Troi's rank.

 

[Timo]

Oh, I'm sure the system would have enough fine points and exceptions that O'Brien could hammer through Troi's command when he so wanted, and keep the untrustworthy Ro out of the equation. The idea of blueshirts as "staff" would be just a generalization, and each ship would have a well-known exception or two (such as Spock who clearly wasn't staff).

I think Starfleet Command would have wanted Ro to assume command in that situation, tho. It's just that O'Brien didn't share SF Command's sentiments.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Frodo Lives]

You sly dog, you... :thumbsup:

 

[J.T.B.]

Which would, from what we know of the current modern world and existing (para)military uniforms, be the most logical way of arranging division colours, and signifying them in the Trekverse?

Would a broader range of division colours, ala the TOS movies, work best, or the more simpler, three-colour system used by the television series from TOS to ENT?

Also, how would be the best way to 'wear' the colour divisions - 'obviously', such as the uniforms worn in the TOS and TNG television series, or more discretely, e.g. the TWOK and FC uniforms' turtle-necks?

It depends on what you are going for. Large, conspicuous colors generally indicates a hazardous environment where visibility is an advantage. The carrier flight deck is an obvious example, but the short-range, smoke-filled musketry battlefield used to be another.

In modern times, armed forces generally like uniforms to be "uniform," and their personnel to present a unified appearance, so small colored trim would be more in keeping with modern tastes. Also, if you use a number of different colors for large areas of a working uniform, inevitably some will be light and hard to keep clean, which nobody likes.

There are a large number of specialties in modern forces, which could mean a lot of distinctive colors. However, in field and working uniforms, the trend is to show rank insignia only.

(Going off on a tangent, does anyone know if any real life military uniforms colour-code apart from berets and US Navy aircraft carrier deck personnel? Thanks!)

Up through the nineteenth century, color-coding was quite common for army uniforms, to help tell friend from foe in close fighting, and to tell different units apart. When armies switched to less-conspicuous brown, green or gray uniforms c. 1900, the distinctive colors were restricted to small patches and trim, or eliminated completely. But it still survives on many dress uniforms, including the US Army officer blues, which still show the traditional infantry light blue, artillery red, armor yellow, signals orange etc. Modern day USA enlisted blues, however, use yellow trim for everyone.

There is no common international scheme for distinctive colors. Red is popular for infantry, and maroon is very common for medical services, but US infantry uses light blue, while the Germans used white for infantry and light blue for medical. Germany also used to use pink for armor, not a commonly seen military color!

Also, UK and US naval officers used to use colors under the rank stripes for officer specialtes. Line officers had no colored backing, medical officers had maroon, white for supply, purple (RN) or red (USN) for engineering etc.

[N]ot that i'm aware, other than red berets being a popular choice for airborne troops (cf US 82nd Airborne and the UK and Belgian Parachute regiments) and green being a popular choice for special forces (CF US 'Green Berets' and Royal Marines). but then again, different countries have different colours. German Paras, IIRC wear green berets, while the Dutch Marines wear black and the US Army Rangers wear black while black's a common colour in the UK army. and the SAS wear sand-coloured which i don't think anyone else wears.

US Army Rangers, with much protesting, changed to tan berets around 2000 when the black beret became standard for most US Army personnnel. In most armies, black berets are associated with armored troops.

--Justin

 

[JoeZhang]

Camouflage might be utterly outdated in the era of tricorders, though - just like bright colors became outdated when long-ranged weapons gained in accuracy and firepower, or like flags and standards were abandoned when their utility in maintaining unit cohesion was lost to improvements in unit mobility. It would depend on the balance of technologies at the time.

But it's clearly not outdated from what we see on screen - Kira and her resistance buddies are hiding behind rocks - using the natural properties of the valley they are in to confuse/deflect tricorders. Various battles in the late series of ds9 rely on people coming out of the woods/over the hills - nobody says "closing in 3 miles away".

For dramatic purposes, there will always be a reason why tricorders don't operate very well in combat situations.


(Miltary technology has always been sort of dumb in Star Trek - mainly for budget, story-telling reasons - no sensor nets? no remote drones? flyers?)