Is the navy in Star Wars more "realistic" than Star Trek?
- Thread starter Agenda
- Start date
That's the best statement I've read in a long time.
Realistic space Navy:
they are both like a navy, there is just a key difference.
Star Wars ships are set up like a modern navy, while Star Trek Ships are more historically based (Roddennberry likened Star Trek to Hornblower stories for example.)
Star Wars ships are set up like a modern navy, while Star Trek Ships are more historically based (Roddennberry likened Star Trek to Hornblower stories for example.)
The underlying assumptions of the Trekverse and SWverse are different as the result of the stories each developer wanted to tell.
In the Trekverse it is easier to defend than attack. This means that shields are stronger than weapons so that by the time you have a platform that packs enough punch to defeat the shields you are in a large ship. In this situation a small fighter-bomber is virtually useless to project power.
In Star Wars they wanted to play up personal heroism, for Luke in particular, so they went with a style of mechanised combat that meant that small, one or two man fighters were dangerous to capital ships, much like IRL. It should be noted that this situation did not always exist IRL, and may not in the future, so to say that one way or the other is more realistic is only relative.
In the Trekverse it is easier to defend than attack. This means that shields are stronger than weapons so that by the time you have a platform that packs enough punch to defeat the shields you are in a large ship. In this situation a small fighter-bomber is virtually useless to project power.
In Star Wars they wanted to play up personal heroism, for Luke in particular, so they went with a style of mechanised combat that meant that small, one or two man fighters were dangerous to capital ships, much like IRL. It should be noted that this situation did not always exist IRL, and may not in the future, so to say that one way or the other is more realistic is only relative.
I don't know, much of Imperial officer corps are populated by morons and the New Republic weenies are the same unless you are Admiral Ackbar and Ackbar clones, any Skywalker and Skywalker clones, any Solo, a Calrissian or a smuggler you are not qualified to command anything. At least in Starfleet, they still have the merit system.
Last edited:
That's my view. Still, Star Trek's Starfleet was explicitly based upon the real-life navy in terms of things like command structure and the like, and I see none of that in Star Wars (bearing in mind I only know the movies; the books and comics may differ). Starfleet is also more about diplomacy and keeping the peace, which is, in theory, what the navy tries to do in real life. SW's military is more aggressive in nature, due to the civil war backdrop.
The fact Star Trek aschewed the notion of "individual fighters" was more a reflection of Roddenberry's utopian vision that he hoped by the time the 22nd century arrived such overt military force wouldn't be needed anymore. So as a result we have the big "destroyers", yes, but by forcing the main ship to become directly involved, rather than launching expendable fighters, it could be said it served as a deterrent, making the captain take on additional considerations before instigating aggression. Does that make sense?
Alex
It should be, though.
Our existing space program, what little of it there is, is concentrated in small craft that are piloted by only a few crewmembers. So it doesn't really matter what service they're drawn from, organization-wise.
In a massive, spacegoing organization, like Starfleet for example, it makes sense to have a naval command structure. It's how our ships operate on the sea right now - and what are Starfleet vessels but just another kind of ship? True, they're ships that fly in SPACE, but still ships. And that's what we have navies for.
At the very least, it is easier this way for the viewer at home (and in the theater) to relate to. People expect ships - whether they be in space or on the sea - to have officers with naval ranks. If Trek, back in the 60's, had had 'Colonel' Kirk, 'Major' Spock, etc., but still on the Enterprise, viewers would have become confused and wondered what exactly the hell they were doing there.
Officers like Generals, Colonels, etc. are for leading ground troops. Admirals, etc. are for leading groups of *ships*. That's what those ranks were made for.
Even Canada, for example, with their single, unified service, has a separate rank structure for its naval command (although immediately after unification of all Canadian branches, in 1968, that wasn't the case; they briefly had their naval vessels crewed by officers with ranks like Colonel, Major, etc. That clearly did not make a ton of sense, so they reintroduced naval ranks for all ship board services).
Babylon 5 has a more realistic naval structure than both of those because they have enlisted people, complete with working class Brooklyn accents and they had fighter squadrons. Enlisted ranks were the only thing that Trek messed up, by calling everyone "Crewman" or "Yeoman" in the original and making everyone an Academy grad Ensign in TNG. Then O'Brien came along as a chief wearing lieutenant pips and it all got crazy.
The only thing is that they'd probably put a flag officer in charge of B5 with all of the diplomatic tensions. Same with DS9, As soon as the wormhole was discovered, they'd put an Admiral in command. DS9 did the best representation of the navy. First, they actually promoted their officers. Then whenever someone else commanded Defiant, like Dax or Worf, they called them "Captain" regardless of their rank (naval tradition dictates that the CO of a vessel is called Captain regardless). The addition of ADM Ross made the command structure more realistic. And the stuff in S4 with Sisko coaching Worf on command and "wearing red" was pretty neat.
Enterprise really got military structure wrong, first by never promoting Sato, Reed and Mayweather, not even in the stupid six-years-later finale. The MACOs were also messed up, with their CO being a major and calling Reed "sir" all the time and Reed dressing him down. Army/Marine majors outrank Navy lieutenants. Reed would still have been in charge according to the command structure but the Major wouldn't have put up with his snitty jealous attitude.
Trek also didn't make sense for people to never get promoted to higher jobs. Geordi's jump from LTJG helmsman to LCDR chief eng. in one year was astronomical compared to the usual "I've been communications officer on this one ship for 25 years" we usually see. Naval officers rotate through duty on average 3-4 years. Commanders would be around two years because career paths opened up quickly. Starfleet always loses ships and is huge, so someone like Data would've been XO of a starbase by season 3 and given his own ship somewhere between Generations and First Contact.
The only thing is that they'd probably put a flag officer in charge of B5 with all of the diplomatic tensions. Same with DS9, As soon as the wormhole was discovered, they'd put an Admiral in command. DS9 did the best representation of the navy. First, they actually promoted their officers. Then whenever someone else commanded Defiant, like Dax or Worf, they called them "Captain" regardless of their rank (naval tradition dictates that the CO of a vessel is called Captain regardless). The addition of ADM Ross made the command structure more realistic. And the stuff in S4 with Sisko coaching Worf on command and "wearing red" was pretty neat.
Enterprise really got military structure wrong, first by never promoting Sato, Reed and Mayweather, not even in the stupid six-years-later finale. The MACOs were also messed up, with their CO being a major and calling Reed "sir" all the time and Reed dressing him down. Army/Marine majors outrank Navy lieutenants. Reed would still have been in charge according to the command structure but the Major wouldn't have put up with his snitty jealous attitude.
Trek also didn't make sense for people to never get promoted to higher jobs. Geordi's jump from LTJG helmsman to LCDR chief eng. in one year was astronomical compared to the usual "I've been communications officer on this one ship for 25 years" we usually see. Naval officers rotate through duty on average 3-4 years. Commanders would be around two years because career paths opened up quickly. Starfleet always loses ships and is huge, so someone like Data would've been XO of a starbase by season 3 and given his own ship somewhere between Generations and First Contact.
Ever read "The Good That Men Do"?
True, but Reed (being the ship's chief of security) had authority over all MACOS - regardless of rank. Therefore, even though Major Hayes was the commander of the MACOS, he reported to Reed. This is true in some real-world navies as well (I believe it definitely was in the old Soviet Navy, for example, where a ship's captain could be outranked by one of his subordinates but still have authority over them).
The one thing Enterprise got right was to have a ship with more NCOs than officers. Only one to really do that (even if they never get much screen time).
No, what's that? Trek lit?
True, but Reed (being the ship's chief of security) had authority over all MACOS - regardless of rank. Therefore, even though Major Hayes was the commander of the MACOS, he reported to Reed. This is true in some real-world navies as well (I believe it definitely was in the old Soviet Navy, for example, where a ship's captain could be outranked by one of his subordinates but still have authority over them).[/QUOTE]
Right, which why I said this:
A junior can have operational command over a senior; however he still calls the senior "sir" and respects his rank. A major would never call a lieutenant "sir" or "ma'am" and he wouldn't take the shit that Reed gave him for the better part of season three.
No, what's that? Trek lit?
Yep.
Basically, the future as depicted in the ENT finale wasn't actually the future. The things that happened in it were actually at the same timeframe as the series. The holodeck re-creation of those events was altered because of a coverup of what really happened - Trip was sent undercover into Romulan territory, working for Section 31.
I know one thing, they need to fire whoever designs the shield system for starships. It seems like every time one gets into a fight they lose their shields after a few minutes.
Which navy, the fleets of the System Lords, the Asgard High Command or the Tau'i?
Not to mention the Aschen, Wraith or Asurans...
Similar threads
