• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why naval traditions and ranks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The U.S. Air Force rank structure and terminology is based on the U.S. Army.

Because until after World War II, the "Air Force" was actually a part of the Army. The Army Air Forces.

Some sources have suggested that Gene Roddenberry modeled some aspects of Starfleet after the U.S. Coast Guard.
 
Star Wolf said:
The Wormhole said:
I do find it interesting that people often ask why Star Trek uses Navy ranks, yet people complain that Stargate doesn't use Navy ranks for its starship personel.
That is because StarGate is set in today's world and the USAF dominates the other services in the Space Command. The Airforce built and runs the secret starship programs. It might be interesting to se Army and Navy try to enter the Stargate program as we see the Russians do.

I know all that. However, occasionally in the Stargate forum you get people asking why the starships aren't operated by the Navy. And here we have, not for the first time, someone asking why Star Trek always stick with the Navy way. I'm just commenting on the irony of the situation.
 
BalthierTheGreat said:
C.E. Evans said:
AJBryant said:
How about...

because its a FLEET?

It really is the simplest, most straightforward answer to the question.

If it was called STARFORCE COMMAND, it probably would have air force traditions and ranks. But rather than deal with starships, the big guns would be long range, warp-capable starfighters, IMO...

I figured it had more to do with the history of the people involved. A bunch served in the navy, therefore they worked the ships out as though they were navy. If they'd have joined the air force you might have seen a general.
But Gene Roddenberry was in the Army Air Corps. He was stationed at Lackland Airforce Base and Married there once. Link.

Because it was a fleet is still the best answer IMO.
 
After 40 years does it really make a differance if it's Starfleet or Star Force. Captain Kirk, Commander Spock, Lt. Commander Scott versus Colonel Kirk,Major Spock and Captain Scott? Or the Enterprise instead of being a Constitution class ship be a B-1701 Assault Starcraft? Tomato, tomahto, Star Trek is Star Trek no matter what the titles, ranks, and origanizational names.
 
AJBryant said:
It comes from Greek influence, IIRC. AU/EU in Greek is pronounced "av/ev" That's why all our "auto--" is pronounced "AWto" in the US (well, and UK) but in Eastern states (like Russia, Greece, etc.) that still follow Gk/Cyrillic text, it's "AVto."

The wiki you're quoting isn't saying that there was any direct influnce from Greek to French/English in the pronunciation of this word. It is saying that the shift in the French dialect from /w/ to /f/ in certain phonetic environments parallels the process that occurred in Greek, when /aw/ and /ew/ shifted to /af/ and /ef/. It's a similar phonetic process, but not direct influence.
 
Gene Roddenberry was in the USAAF during WWII, it would have made more sense to use Air Force ranks. Also would have made more sense to call them Starcraft instead of Starships, because as a Sargent told me when I was in the USAF, Craft fly and ships float.
 
Exactly. Even though in theory, today's British/American rank systems for navies are perfectly eqivalent with the rank systems for armies/air forces, the organizational structure of a Starfleet-style setup would more closely approximate a navy than an army or an air force.

It's pretty idiotic to apply army ranks on air forces to begin with. Army ranks have developed out of the need to control a hierarchy where the smallest fighting unit is about a dozen men, the next one several dozen, then a hundred, several hundred, then thousands. That is, first a group of warriors that can be controlled by talk and hand signs and can fight coherently within sight of each other; then a group manageable by shouts and gestures; then a collection of such groups big enough to make a difference in swordfights, or musket fights, or in raining arrows; then multiples thereof, only manageable through the use of messengers and preplanning.

Air forces never had it like that. The smallest unit of significance was just one or two men, piloting an aircraft - or a dozen in very exceptional flying machines. The next unit would already be in the hundreds: the support force needed to keep even a single plane flying, but more properly applied for keeping a group of planes in the air. Ranks there never made organizational sense - they were originally applied just for reasons of payscale and prestige, sometimes with the senior officer controlling merely twice as many people as the next junior one.

The naval rank system is a mixture of pragmatism and payscale-prestige. A navy wouldn't need quite that many ranks, really, because there is no such thing as a naval platoon or a naval regiment, practically speaking. Ships are basically batallions, with companies for the various watches, calling for Colonels and Majors as the leaders. And formations of ships are already divisions or entire armies, requiring General/Admiral level of control. In contrast, a navy needs a wide variety of specialist officers and specialist men, basically equal in importance, for whom position is far more significant than rank.

Still, the naval division of responsibilities between ranks makes more sense for a Starfleet than the army one. The various junior officers are more "clustered" with the senior ones, all basically presiding over the entire ship rather than over a hierarchy of groups of people - that's definitely a "big vehicle" thing and not a "battlefield" or "small vehicle" (like tank or aircraft) thing.

Timo Saloniemi
I dare you to make it possible for a 2 person crew to complete a wartime mission with a crew of 2. Used to be a 6 person crew, sometimes 8 with 2 additional maintenance personnel, until they took out the tailguns and no longer needed the gunner position.
 
Gene Roddenberry was in the USAAF during WWII, it would have made more sense to use Air Force ranks. Also would have made more sense to call them Starcraft instead of Starships, because as a Sargent told me when I was in the USAF, Craft fly and ships float.

First, welcome to the board.

Second, please take some time to review the posting rules pinned at the top of this forum.

This thread has been dead for over 13 years. Let's let it rest in peace, shall we?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top