Looking for sources on day to day life aboard ship
Shawn Wilson
novels translated into SF) and for verisimilitude I'd like details about day
to day life aboard ship. As much as possible. What would be a good source
to read? The A/M novels are terrific, but I'm not doing the age of sail. I
want details from the dreadnought age to the modern era. I was in the
military, but infantry, not navy. What I know about life aboard ship comes
from the A/M novels and Star Trek reruns, and I know Star Trek is bullshit
and the A/M novels aren't but are entirely the wrong period.
Details from the US and British navies would be best, perhaps with comments
about other successful navies that have interesting variations.
The context will be mostly age of colonialism type stories with technology
resembling the dreadnought era. Ships will be months from home, operating
largely alone, and the only communications will be by courier- no ftl radio.
I will certainly fold, spindle and mutilate the details, but I would like to
know what the limits of plausibility are before I start. Like I said-
verisimilitude.
Some specific details I'm looking for- How many cooks/assistants? does the
Navy have KP duty? How many marines would a destroyer class ship carry, if
any? Would there be a chaplain? What medical services are there? How
many? What level of competence (ie would a destroyer normally carry a
physician or just a nurse?).
I don't need tactical or combat details (I play enough wargames to work
those out on my own, even for naval combat) I'm looking for personal
experience kind of things and administrative minutia-how many officers, what
experience would they each typically have? Who does the medical department
report to? Things like that...
I will be ever so grateful...
BlackBeard
Military Space vehicles most resemble submarines due to the hostile
environment they operate in.
I would suggest you take the crew numbers/composition from a
submarine and multiply it by your ideal vessel size. IOW the crew of a
Fast-Attack runs around 120. So if you want your vessel in the story
to have 300-some crew, multiply the composition of a fast-attack by
three. The only difference would be I'd add some Doctors and nurses,
something not found on US Subs.
You should be able to do a little research to come up with the
composition of the crew on your own
>From my aged memory, no promises of accuracy...
100 enlisted
10 Officers
Enlisted
12 frwd eng. (Mech. and Elect.)
3 Admin
7 Comms
20 Sonar girls, Radar, and ESM types (sensor types)
6 Fire control types
8 Weapons types
5 cooks (augmented by 1 or 2 jr. crew mess cranks)
2 Supply types
1 Med
6 Navigation weenies
20 engineering aft. (say 6 propulsion, 6 electrical, 8 mechs)
and 10 strikers (untrained/designated jr. enlisted)
My memory is shaky on this, Maybe Derek or David will provide the
correct info.
Jr. Officers head divisions
Electrical
Mechanical
Propulsion (reactors)
Comms
Supply (includes the Cooks)
Deck
I can't remember if weapons is a division or a department. Help?
Department heads
Navigator (QM, Sensors?)
Engineer (M, E, R divs)
XO (admin. med.)
CO
Anyway that is a rough and generous approximation. We usually
operated with a lot less. And I know I've missed some stuff (and some
things differ boat-to-boat), so rather than you other bubbleheads
jumping up and down, how about just helping out and providing
corrections/differences.
And I know the numbers don't match what you'll find on the official
sites, but I never once saw us staffed to that level.
BB
I guess everybody has some mountain to climb,
it's just fate whether you live in Tibet or Kansas...
Eugene Griessel
> And I know the numbers don't match what you'll find on the official
>sites, but I never once saw us staffed to that level.
I think the "official" crew level assigned to a ship is a number that
must be, in reality, avoided at all costs. Either you are overcrewed
(usually with a bunch of trainees stuffed into corners and sleeping in
the heads and things) or, more normally, you are undercrewed with the
extra berths euphemistically described as being there for "war time
crewing levels".
Eugene L Griessel
Experienced? Let me tell you lad, when God said: Let there
be light! I was the duty electrician.
William Black
"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4626d3ad$0$495$815e...@news.qwest.net...
Navy' and 'Down the Hatch' by the late John Winton (actually Lt Cdr John
Pratt RN) that were wrritten about forty years ago and are now all back in
print...
They give a view of the Royal Navy and its personnel that seems to be highly
accurate if not terribly flattering...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Eugene Griessel
Is there any evidence that these were republished in paperback? All I
can seem to find are hardcovers - and they cost a fortune. I would
dearly love to replace my ancient and tattered paperback copies but
refuse to mortgage the house to do so!
Eugene L Griessel
A conclusion is where you got tired of thinking.
William Black
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:46276c95...@news.uunet.co.za...
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>There are some novels out there somewhere called things like 'We Joined
>>the
>>Navy' and 'Down the Hatch' by the late John Winton (actually Lt Cdr John
>>Pratt RN) that were wrritten about forty years ago and are now all back in
>>print...
>>
>>They give a view of the Royal Navy and its personnel that seems to be
>>highly
>>accurate if not terribly flattering...
>
> Is there any evidence that these were republished in paperback? All I
> can seem to find are hardcovers - and they cost a fortune. I would
> dearly love to replace my ancient and tattered paperback copies but
> refuse to mortgage the house to do so!
I would be very surprised indeed if these were published in paperback.
The current lot seem to be mainly designed to replace the tattered copies in
public libraries of the UK.
Well, it's that or his death has made people think about his output...
Eugene Griessel
>> Is there any evidence that these were republished in paperback? All I
>> can seem to find are hardcovers - and they cost a fortune. I would
>> dearly love to replace my ancient and tattered paperback copies but
>> refuse to mortgage the house to do so!
>
>I would be very surprised indeed if these were published in paperback.
>
>The current lot seem to be mainly designed to replace the tattered copies in
>public libraries of the UK.
>
>Well, it's that or his death has made people think about his output...
Pity - I've just leaned over and plucked out "We saw the sea" and "All
the nice girls". My copies are 1963 and 1964 respectively. Oh -
here's "We joined the navy". Hmmm. 1962. "Never go to sea" seems to
be missing the page with the dates on.....
Pretty tatty - most held together with cellophane. Sigh.
Eugene L Griessel
Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
AudioSysEng
> I am trying to write a science fiction novel (basically the Aubrey/Maturin
> novels translated into SF) and for verisimilitude I'd like details about day
> to day life aboard ship. As much as possible. What would be a good source
>
> Details from the US and British navies would be best, perhaps with comments
> about other successful navies that have interesting variations.
>
> The context will be mostly age of colonialism type stories with technology
> resembling the dreadnought era. Ships will be months from home, operating
> largely alone, and the only communications will be by courier- no ftl radio.
>
> I will certainly fold, spindle and mutilate the details, but I would like to
> know what the limits of plausibility are before I start. Like I said-
> verisimilitude.
>
> Some specific details I'm looking for- How many cooks/assistants? does the
> Navy have KP duty? How many marines would a destroyer class ship carry, if
> any? Would there be a chaplain? What medical services are there? How
> many? What level of competence (ie would a destroyer normally carry a
> physician or just a nurse?).
>
> I don't need tactical or combat details (I play enough wargames to work
> those out on my own, even for naval combat) I'm looking for personal
> experience kind of things and administrative minutia-how many officers, what
> experience would they each typically have? Who does the medical department
> report to? Things like that...
>
> I will be ever so grateful...
A good place to look for a breakdown of the crew would be a cruise
book (although you won't necessarily find the whole crew in there -
invariably many didn't make it in the division pictures due to being
on watch). Here's a link to some cruise books for a USN DLG/DDG
(Destroyer):
http://www.uss-king.com/about.shtml
You may find some other useful information about daily life here as
well.
As for some of your other questions:
KP Duty - Yes. Usually 2 weeks for E-3 and below within the first
couple of months aboard. Usually only 1 "term" there unless they were
short-handed.
Marines - None, but there would be a Ship's Self Defense Force trained
for shipboard combat and limited ashore excursions. We were trained by
the USMC at the Little Creek Amphib Base (but that was 20 years ago).
Chaplain - No, not unless you were operating with a larger group then
he would be transferred from ship to ship as required. There was
usually a volunteer on the crew that would lead prayer groups or bible
study.
Medical Services - Very limited. We had a Chief Corpsman, a junior
Corpsman, and a "striker" (apprentice). They could handle basic first
aid, but that's about it.
MD
Shawn Wilson
"BlackBeard" <spk...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1176960942.4...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Military Space vehicles most resemble submarines due to the hostile
> environment they operate in.
No, MY military space vehicles mostly resemble what I want them to resemble.
Submarines ain't it. In this case it's a heavy destroyer. (yes, odd for
independent operations, but with a technology edge over the natives it's
equivalent to a local heavy cruiser, with some useful bennies)
> You should be able to do a little research to come up with the
> composition of the crew on your own
Sigh...
You mean like asking knowledgable people for sources?
>>From my aged memory, no promises of accuracy...
> 100 enlisted
> 10 Officers
>
> Enlisted
> 12 frwd eng. (Mech. and Elect.)
> 3 Admin
> 7 Comms
> 20 Sonar girls, Radar, and ESM types (sensor types)
> 6 Fire control types
> 8 Weapons types
> 5 cooks (augmented by 1 or 2 jr. crew mess cranks)
> 2 Supply types
> 1 Med
> 6 Navigation weenies
> 20 engineering aft. (say 6 propulsion, 6 electrical, 8 mechs)
> and 10 strikers (untrained/designated jr. enlisted)
Ah, now THIS is useful...
How about breakdowns of enlisted v junior NCOs v senior NCOs v junior
officers v senior officers?
> My memory is shaky on this, Maybe Derek or David will provide the
> correct info.
>
> Jr. Officers head divisions
> Electrical
> Mechanical
> Propulsion (reactors)
> Comms
> Supply (includes the Cooks)
> Deck
>
> I can't remember if weapons is a division or a department. Help?
>
> Department heads
> Navigator (QM, Sensors?)
> Engineer (M, E, R divs)
> XO (admin. med.)
>
> CO
Oooh, more crunchies...
Thanks.
> Anyway that is a rough and generous approximation.
That's all I need.
Shawn Wilson
"AudioSysEng" <audio...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1176991090.9...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Marines - None, but there would be a Ship's Self Defense Force trained
> for shipboard combat and limited ashore excursions. We were trained by
> the USMC at the Little Creek Amphib Base (but that was 20 years ago).
Would a complement of (say) a squad of marines be bizarre?
> Chaplain - No, not unless you were operating with a larger group then
> he would be transferred from ship to ship as required. There was
> usually a volunteer on the crew that would lead prayer groups or bible
> study.
Perfect.
> Medical Services - Very limited. We had a Chief Corpsman, a junior
> Corpsman, and a "striker" (apprentice). They could handle basic first
> aid, but that's about it.
What level of training would a Corpsman have? I assume it's like an Army
medic- basically an EMT/paramedic.
How bizarre would an actual physician be, given that the ship will be
operating alone and far from base and not part of a battlegroup?
AudioSysEng
> "AudioSysEng" <audiosys...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1176991090.9...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Marines - None, but there would be a Ship's Self Defense Force trained
> > for shipboard combat and limited ashore excursions. We were trained by
> > the USMC at the Little Creek Amphib Base (but that was 20 years ago).
>
> Would a complement of (say) a squad of marines be bizarre?
It would not be unusual to have a contingent of "specialists" aboard.
For example, we did Drug Interdiction / Law Enforcement operations
quite often and we would embark a USCG detachment for that purpose. I
suppose if we knew we would need Marines, we would have gotten them.
> > Chaplain - No, not unless you were operating with a larger group then
> > he would be transferred from ship to ship as required. There was
> > usually a volunteer on the crew that would lead prayer groups or bible
> > study.
>
> Perfect.
>
> > Medical Services - Very limited. We had a Chief Corpsman, a junior
> > Corpsman, and a "striker" (apprentice). They could handle basic first
> > aid, but that's about it.
>
> What level of training would a Corpsman have? I assume it's like an Army
> medic- basically an EMT/paramedic.
>
> How bizarre would an actual physician be, given that the ship will be
> operating alone and far from base and not part of a battlegroup?
The Corpsmen we had aboard were quite capable. They had the same
training as the Corpsmen that go ashore in combat with the Marines. I
would classify them as advanced EMT/paramedic - equivalent to a very
experienced urban EMT.
It would be unusual to have an actual physician mainly because we
would never operate alone for long. We always had to receive supplies
every day or 2 at the most (mostly fuel). If the ship were able to
operate alone for long periods (nuclear power with plenty of food
stores), then they would definitely provide a physician.
MD
Shawn Wilson
>> > Marines - None, but there would be a Ship's Self Defense Force trained
>> > for shipboard combat and limited ashore excursions. We were trained by
>> > the USMC at the Little Creek Amphib Base (but that was 20 years ago).
>>
>> Would a complement of (say) a squad of marines be bizarre?
>
>
> It would not be unusual to have a contingent of "specialists" aboard.
> For example, we did Drug Interdiction / Law Enforcement operations
> quite often and we would embark a USCG detachment for that purpose. I
> suppose if we knew we would need Marines, we would have gotten them.
I don't mean as passengers. What I mean is that if I put a squad of marines
on my ship (a destroyer with maybe 100-200 crew) as part of the regular
ship's complement would you read that and say 'bullshit', or would you
accept it at face value as within the realm of possibility? Weird things
can break suspension of disbelief- Star Trek has space-going, ship-eating
monsters (*I* sure as hell won't...) and people go 'OK', but when they
notice that there are no enlisted crewmen they go 'wait a minute...'.
>> > Medical Services - Very limited. We had a Chief Corpsman, a junior
>> > Corpsman, and a "striker" (apprentice). They could handle basic first
>> > aid, but that's about it.
>>
>> What level of training would a Corpsman have? I assume it's like an Army
>> medic- basically an EMT/paramedic.
>>
>> How bizarre would an actual physician be, given that the ship will be
>> operating alone and far from base and not part of a battlegroup?
>
> The Corpsmen we had aboard were quite capable. They had the same
> training as the Corpsmen that go ashore in combat with the Marines. I
> would classify them as advanced EMT/paramedic - equivalent to a very
> experienced urban EMT.
>
> It would be unusual to have an actual physician mainly because we
> would never operate alone for long. We always had to receive supplies
> every day or 2 at the most (mostly fuel). If the ship were able to
> operate alone for long periods (nuclear power with plenty of food
> stores), then they would definitely provide a physician.
That's what I want to know.
Glenn Dowdy
>
> Military Space vehicles most resemble submarines due to the hostile
> environment they operate in.
Shawn is the self-described "most intelligent person on Usenet". He really
does need anyone's help, so don't bother. He'll be right back to tell you
guys just how wrong you are about your own experiences.
Glenn D.
AudioSysEng
> "AudioSysEng" <audiosys...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1176999290.2...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Marines - None, but there would be a Ship's Self Defense Force trained
> >> > for shipboard combat and limited ashore excursions. We were trained by
> >> > the USMC at the Little Creek Amphib Base (but that was 20 years ago).
>
> >> Would a complement of (say) a squad of marines be bizarre?
>
> > It would not be unusual to have a contingent of "specialists" aboard.
> > For example, we did Drug Interdiction / Law Enforcement operations
> > quite often and we would embark a USCG detachment for that purpose. I
> > suppose if we knew we would need Marines, we would have gotten them.
>
> I don't mean as passengers. What I mean is that if I put a squad of marines
> on my ship (a destroyer with maybe 100-200 crew) as part of the regular
> ship's complement would you read that and say 'bullshit', or would you
> accept it at face value as within the realm of possibility? Weird things
> can break suspension of disbelief- Star Trek has space-going, ship-eating
> monsters (*I* sure as hell won't...) and people go 'OK', but when they
> notice that there are no enlisted crewmen they go 'wait a minute...'.
>
the independent operations portion, they would not cry foul at the
presence of a small number of Marines. The destroyer of today is
essentially the equivalent of the cruisers of the early to mid 20th
century. The mission that you're implying is clearly a cruiser
mission, although it could easily be handled by a modern destroyer.
That being said, the cruisers of the early to mid 20th century would
easily have carried a detachment of Marines. There's a great study of
cruiser roles and missions written by NAVSEA here:
http://www.aandc.org/research/cruisers/index.html
If you were to draw parallels between your ship and a WWII Sumner or
Gearing Destroyer, then yes, people would cry BS. If you were to
compare it more closely to a USN DLG (Guided Missile Destroyer Leader
or Frigate), then it wouldn't be so bad. The Virginia Class Cruisers
were originally classified as a DLGN (Guided Missile Nuclear Frigate)
and they displaced over 11,000 tons which was more than a Wichita
Class Heavy Cruiser from WWII (10,000 tons).
One thing you have to remember is that Marines are never seen as part
of the crew. There's a clear division between them - they live in 2
different worlds. The Marines have a much more strict code of conduct
and discipline, so the two don't mesh well. Every Marine or Sailor
I've ever met has had an "US versus Them" kind of relationship.
They'll bicker and fight, but, much like brothers, they'll band
together and fight side-by-side if an outsider buts in. I've seen some
very surprised army and air force guys when they tried to step into an
argument between these "brothers"!
I think if you set the story up right, no one will question the
presence of Marines aboard.
Glenn Dowdy
>
> I think if you set the story up right, no one will question the
> presence of Marines aboard.
>
Because in the future, sheep are extinct?
Glenn D.
Shawn Wilson
> I think that if the reader understands the ship's mission, especially
> the independent operations portion, they would not cry foul at the
> presence of a small number of Marines. The destroyer of today is
> essentially the equivalent of the cruisers of the early to mid 20th
> century. The mission that you're implying is clearly a cruiser
> mission, although it could easily be handled by a modern destroyer.
> That being said, the cruisers of the early to mid 20th century would
> easily have carried a detachment of Marines. There's a great study of
> cruiser roles and missions written by NAVSEA here:
>
> http://www.aandc.org/research/cruisers/index.html
Dead perfect...
> One thing you have to remember is that Marines are never seen as part
> of the crew. There's a clear division between them - they live in 2
> different worlds. The Marines have a much more strict code of conduct
> and discipline, so the two don't mesh well.
Do you have some specific examples in mind? (not of the not meshing, but of
the differences in conduct and discipline). I know little of Marines I
didn't learn from TV, except that they *think* they're as good as Army Light
Infantry. WE didn't need no stinking rides, WE walked... Hell, I'm
middle-aged, fat and lazy and I can STILL walk 12 miles at one go. (barely
run across the street though...)
AudioSysEng
> "AudioSysEng" <audiosys...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1177002202....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > One thing you have to remember is that Marines are never seen as part
> > of the crew. There's a clear division between them - they live in 2
> > different worlds. The Marines have a much more strict code of conduct
> > and discipline, so the two don't mesh well.
>
> Do you have some specific examples in mind? (not of the not meshing, but of
> the differences in conduct and discipline). I know little of Marines I
> didn't learn from TV, except that they *think* they're as good as Army Light
> Infantry. WE didn't need no stinking rides, WE walked... Hell, I'm
> middle-aged, fat and lazy and I can STILL walk 12 miles at one go. (barely
> run across the street though...)
Sailors tend to be more informal. While E-6 and below sailors often
call each other by their first or last names, Marines will use formal
rank. Uniform standards are also much more stict with the Marines. A
sailor may wear a faded shirt or pants, but a Marine never will. My
son is a SGT in the Marines and he always refers to the sailors as
slobs.
Sailors will also refer to officers O-3 and below as "Mister" (like
Mr. Roberts) instead of Lieutenant (or Ensign). A Marine would get in
serious trouble for such an obvious lack of respect.
The concept of being a Marine, and everything it entails, is a story
in itself. The "Corps Values" are so deeply instilled in them that the
saying "Once a Marine, Always a Marine" is very true.
Brian Sharrock
>
snip
> I don't mean as passengers. What I mean is that if I put a squad of
> marines on my ship (a destroyer with maybe 100-200 crew) as part of the
> regular ship's complement would you read that and say 'bullshit', or would
> you accept it at face value as within the realm of possibility? Weird
> things can break suspension of disbelief- Star Trek has space-going,
> ship-eating monsters (*I* sure as hell won't...) and people go 'OK', but
> when they notice that there are no enlisted crewmen they go 'wait a
> minute...'.
>
>
I endorse Sean's (Blackboard) recommendation of using a submarines as a
baseline.
Whether _your_ spacecraft is classed as a destroyer, frigate, whatever is
rather immaterial.
A spacecraft or submarine is a pressure hull able to move in three
dimensions contains a crew who need a breathable atmosphere - with no
interruptions-; food, drink even sleep are 'extras' - no atmosphere - no
crew.
The ever present requirement of keeping pressure 'in', for a space-craft,
is similar to the problems of keeping pressure 'out', for a submersible
craft. Someone - Arthur C Clark(?) - wrote a story in which _Vacuum_ was
taught to be regarded as an invidious pervading 'gas' that wanted to enter
every compartment - it's an analogy stemming from the 'theory of reciprocity
use to teach _receiving_ aerials/antennae as _transmitting_ devices because
it's easier to understand.
Having said that , you should be aware that the Norwegian Navy's 'Ula' class
of submarine has been designed - mainly the sensor-tactical-weapons suite to
be 'manned' by officers [There's at least one female submarine commander] .
It's remarked that the only rating on board is the cook. So it's not too
much of a stretch to imagine a space-craft manned by officers.
--
Brian
Brian Sharrock
>
> How bizarre would an actual physician be, given that the ship will be
> operating alone and far from base and not part of a battlegroup?
Wouldn't that be a function of the society (from which the vessel operates)?
Given that somebody has to generated the wealth and others subsists off
them - what proportion of the society is not generating wealth (how many
consumers) are there? Teachers 1:30? or 50?; or 100? or 1000?: police 1:100?
or 1,000? or 10,000?; Lawyers ????; Doctors 1:100? or 1,000? or 10, 000?
You're choosing the crew complement and deciding the supernumerary
complement. If, say - the society has one doctor per thousand citizens - how
many citizens are you intending to deprive of that doctor's skills when you
appoint him/her to your space-craft?
ST-NG ??? has a neat trick of 'staffing' the sick-bay with a humongous
medical AI but with a holographic 'medic' as it's man-machine-interface [I
must learn to say 'HCI' -Human -Computer-Interface; unless it's changing to
avoid upsetting other sentient life-forms; which may or may not be carbon
based and/or non-human].
--
Brian
AudioSysEng
> "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4627916f$0$495$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>
>
>
> > How bizarre would an actual physician be, given that the ship will be
> > operating alone and far from base and not part of a battlegroup?
>
> appoint him/her to your space-craft?
>
I don't think you'd be pulling a physician from the populace. It would
be similar to today's military. The military pays for you med school
and, in stead of going strait to the civilian world and paying off
student loans, you pay it back by serving x-number of years in the
military. You're creating an alternate path to become a doctor for an
individual who might not have been able to become a doctor via other
paths.
All of that depends on the civilisation model of the story, which is
beyond my expertise. If you want the nuts and bolts of 19th and 20th
century steel surface ships, then ask away, but if you want economics
101, I'm not your guy!
Pete Granzeau
wrote:
>I am trying to write a science fiction novel (basically the Aubrey/Maturin
>novels translated into SF) and for verisimilitude I'd like details about day
>to day life aboard ship. As much as possible. What would be a good source
>to read? The A/M novels are terrific, but I'm not doing the age of sail. I
>want details from the dreadnought age to the modern era. I was in the
>military, but infantry, not navy. What I know about life aboard ship comes
>from the A/M novels and Star Trek reruns, and I know Star Trek is bullshit
>and the A/M novels aren't but are entirely the wrong period.
>
>Details from the US and British navies would be best, perhaps with comments
>about other successful navies that have interesting variations.
>
>The context will be mostly age of colonialism type stories with technology
>resembling the dreadnought era. Ships will be months from home, operating
>largely alone, and the only communications will be by courier- no ftl radio.
>
>I will certainly fold, spindle and mutilate the details, but I would like to
>know what the limits of plausibility are before I start. Like I said-
>verisimilitude.
>
>Some specific details I'm looking for- How many cooks/assistants? does the
>Navy have KP duty? How many marines would a destroyer class ship carry, if
>any? Would there be a chaplain? What medical services are there? How
>many? What level of competence (ie would a destroyer normally carry a
>physician or just a nurse?).
I was on a ship with a complement of 190 officers and men. At that time,
the 12 officers still had a separate mess, and a group of 8 stewards to
serve them (in fact, the Commanding Officer had his own mess, and two
stewards assigned solely to him). 5 or so permenently assigned cooks, and 4
or 5 so called "Mess cooks", who were sailors (usually the lowest ranks and
newest assigned) assigned to the Navy equivalent of KP. One mess cook would
have had the duty of serving the Chief's mess, cleaning up afterwards, etc,
the others would all have worked at cleanup after each meal.
That ship had two Hospital Corpsmen assigned, one Chief and another
experienced petty officer. The one time we had a medical emergency at sea
(an inflamed appendix) while at sea, we transferred the patient off to an
Air Force hospital in the Azores, which we were fortuitously near at the
time.
There are other necessary services. A ship's laundry, for instance, with a
few people to run it. There would have to be a ship's barber shop (everyone
gets a haircut every two weeks, which takes 10 to 15 minutes apiece, I would
think), a ship's store selling personal consumables like soap, shaving
cream, and razor blades), and a clothing and small stores operation so crew
can replace worn or damaged items of clothing and personal gear.
A modern destroyer would have a crew approaching 30 officers and 350 men, so
there would be a few more cooks and mess cooks, no stewards any longer (and
I think the officers now eat out of the crew's mess, although in the
wardroom, not the mess deck). I have no idea who now cleans officer's
quarters, makes their beds, etc.
Daily routine: there are two kinds.
One is the normal workday, up at 0600, breakfast at 0700, muster at
quarters, begin normal workday at 0800, lunch at noon, knock off at 1700,
supper at 1800, lights out at 2230.
Then there is the ship's work, that of 4 hour watches around the clock.
Depending on the number of watchstanders needed and the number aboard, the
crew is usually divided into 3 or 4 watches. My ship used two officers on
watch on the bridge, one in CIC, and one in the engine room, and several
enlisted men, on the bridge acting as helm, lee helm (phone talker), Bosn's
mate and Quartermaster of the watch, elsewhere in the ship as lookouts,
emergency steering, cargo security, signals, radar, radio communications,
and in the machinery spaces running the main engines, boilers, electrical
generators, etc. Certain people are exempt from watchstanding: the medical
department and the supply department would be two.
>I don't need tactical or combat details (I play enough wargames to work
>those out on my own, even for naval combat) I'm looking for personal
>experience kind of things and administrative minutia-how many officers, what
>experience would they each typically have? Who does the medical department
>report to? Things like that...
Experience of officers and men varies by ship. My ship had a lot of
officers who had formerly been enlisted men, but a destroyer may have no one
at all like that. The department heads (Deck, Operations, Engineering,
Supply) were all O-3s, and except for the XO (an O-4) and CO (an O-5 or
O-6), everyone else was either O-1 or O-2.
Everybody aboard reports to the Commanding Officer, always. COs don't
interfere with the medical department's performance of their duties--if
everyone needs a certain shot for the forthcoming deployment, the corpsman
sees to it that everyone gets it, and if there are personnel who have
somehow avoided it, he informs the Exec, who would ensure that all the
stragglers get one on time. Same is true for everyone else. They are all
responsible to the CO to ensure that what they need to do is done. A CO
isn't going to tell anyone not to do something that is required. Everyone
aboard is trying to do what they are supposed to do.
BlackBeard
>
> No, MY military space vehicles mostly resemble what I want them to resemble.
> Submarines ain't it. In this case it's a heavy destroyer. (yes, odd for
> independent operations,
Maybe you should pause and take the time to consider what I posted.
YOUR vessel is operating in a hostile environment completely
surrounded by an atmosphere (or lack of) that will likely kill the
crew if a breach occurs, like a submarine. Your crew is operating
independently for long periods of time without immediate/constant
communications or replinishment, like a submarine. Your operational
endurance is limited by the air, water, and food you can carry,
recycle, or generate, like a submarine.
Because of these limitations you get the highest efficiency by
carrying the smallest crew you can and still carry out your mission,
like a submarine. Because of the minimal crew, cross-training is
essential to maintain effectiveness to compensate for injuries,
illness, or death, like a submarine.
Because of the isolation unique to space travel (or sub-surface) you
need to screen individuals more rigorously. Service on any warship is
highly stressful, adding the additional pressure of all the points
above makes it more so, like a submarine.
>
> Sigh...
>
> You mean like asking knowledgable people for sources?
*Heavy sigh*
No, like backing any anecdotal information you may get on usenet with
official sources. Basic research skills.
BlackBeard
>
> Shawn is the self-described "most intelligent person on Usenet".
Well, you're right, but you mis-spelled 'Sean.' ;)
>He really
> does need anyone's help, so don't bother. He'll be right back to tell you
> guys just how wrong you are about your own experiences.
>
> Glenn D.
I got a hint of that from his reply. Despite that, I've attempted to
be nice and clarified the post for him.
AudioSysEng
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:28:07 -0700, "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent summary. I was aboard a destroyer with a crew of 400 and
that's pretty much the way it worked for us too. The one thing that
was different for my ship is the chain of command. I reported to my
Leading CPO where it went to the Division Officer, the Department
Head, the XO, then to the CO (if necessary). I reported to the CO only
in extreme circumstances. This is usually necessary with larger ships
and crews. A small ship like a DE or FF may be able to function like
that, but if we all had to report to the CO on my ship, we wouldn't
have gotten anything done.
The degree of "hands on" by a CO is often a personal preference. Some
CO's like to be in the thick of it while others prefer to delegate.
Another important point is that, in the USN, the CO is ultimately
responsible for everything that happens on his ship. If Seaman Smith
drives the ship aground, it's the CO's career that goes down the
tubes.
MD
Shawn Wilson
"Brian Sharrock" <b.sha...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:afOVh.2217$Ca7....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>> How bizarre would an actual physician be, given that the ship will be
>> operating alone and far from base and not part of a battlegroup?
> Wouldn't that be a function of the society (from which the vessel
> operates)?
The society will be not all that unlike our own- better in almost every way,
but not fundamentally different. Though I should say that by 'our own' I
mean something like elements of 21st century culture mixed with certain 19th
century values. (they deal with the client states not in order to elevate
the less fortunate but for simple profit. No worldbank or foreign aid here)
Specifically that refers to the advanced 'nations' of the Core (the
colonizing powers), the less advanced 'nations' of the client states and the
fringe will be not so well run and sometimes the vehicle of any social
commentary I want to add.
> Given that somebody has to generated the wealth and others subsists off
> them - what proportion of the society is not generating wealth (how many
> consumers) are there? Teachers 1:30? or 50?; or 100? or 1000?: police
> 1:100? or 1,000? or 10,000?; Lawyers ????; Doctors 1:100? or 1,000? or 10,
> 000?
> You're choosing the crew complement and deciding the supernumerary
> complement. If, say - the society has one doctor per thousand citizens -
> how many citizens are you intending to deprive of that doctor's skills
> when you appoint him/her to your space-craft?
It doesn't work like that. There aren't fixed numbers of tradesman.
> ST-NG ??? has a neat trick of 'staffing' the sick-bay with a humongous
> medical AI but with a holographic 'medic' as it's man-machine-interface [I
> must learn to say 'HCI' -Human -Computer-Interface; unless it's changing
> to avoid upsetting other sentient life-forms; which may or may not be
> carbon based and/or non-human].
No aliens (*always* either humans in rubber masks or gratuitously weird
anyway). No AIs. No force fields. No transporters. No tractor beams. No
replicators. No holodeck. No robots. No particles of the week. No
spatial anomalies. No magic (eg Force). No designated eeevil (eg Klingons,
Borg, Magog, Cylons, etc). No time travel (see magic). No cosmic
mysteries. No 'fate of humanity' stories. No nanotech (though they can
engineer bacteria to do anything bacteria can plausibly do). No asinine
Star Trek stories (any series). No godddamn Prime Directive whatsoever. No
universal government. No knee-jerk pacifism. No uncharted planets (in the
core and clients at least- it would be like suddenly discovering a new city
in europe)
AudioSysEng
> "Brian Sharrock" <b.sharr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:afOVh.2217$Ca7....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> >> How bizarre would an actual physician be, given that the ship will be
> >> operating alone and far from base and not part of a battlegroup?
> > Wouldn't that be a function of the society (from which the vessel
> > operates)?
>
> The society will be not all that unlike our own- better in almost every way,
> but not fundamentally different. Though I should say that by 'our own' I
> mean something like elements of 21st century culture mixed with certain 19th
> century values. (they deal with the client states not in order to elevate
> the less fortunate but for simple profit. No worldbank or foreign aid here)
> Specifically that refers to the advanced 'nations' of the Core (the
> colonizing powers), the less advanced 'nations' of the client states and the
> fringe will be not so well run and sometimes the vehicle of any social
> commentary I want to add.
>
So basically you're talking about imperial colonialism with gunboat
diplomacy set in the 25th (or whatever) century?
BlackBeard
>
> No aliens (*always* either humans in rubber masks or gratuitously weird
> anyway). No AIs. No force fields. No transporters. No tractor beams. No
> replicators. No holodeck. No robots. No particles of the week. No
> spatial anomalies. No magic (eg Force). No designated eeevil (eg Klingons,
> core and clients at least- it would be like suddenly discovering a new city
> in europe)
Then why a ship of war? Your mission sounds like a job for HMS
Beagle, which only had six guns when assigned as a survey ship. Basic
self defense. That would cut a lot of crew and allow for more riders
(non-ships company) such as biologists, celestial cartographers,
geoligists, etc.
Shawn Wilson
>> No, MY military space vehicles mostly resemble what I want them to
>> resemble.
>> Submarines ain't it. In this case it's a heavy destroyer. (yes, odd for
>> independent operations,
>
> Maybe you should pause and take the time to consider what I posted.
> YOUR vessel is operating in a hostile environment completely
> surrounded by an atmosphere (or lack of) that will likely kill the
> crew if a breach occurs, like a submarine.
Or like any other seagoing vessel...
> Your crew is operating
> independently for long periods of time without immediate/constant
> communications or replinishment, like a submarine.
Or like any other seagoing vessel before radio...
> Your operational
> endurance is limited by the air, water, and food you can carry,
> recycle, or generate, like a submarine.
Or like any other seagoing vessel...
> Because of these limitations you get the highest efficiency by
> carrying the smallest crew you can and still carry out your mission,
> like a submarine.
Or like any other seagoing vessel...
Because of the minimal crew, cross-training is
> essential to maintain effectiveness to compensate for injuries,
> illness, or death, like a submarine.
Or like any other seagoing vessel...
> Because of the isolation unique to space travel (or sub-surface) you
> need to screen individuals more rigorously. Service on any warship is
> highly stressful, adding the additional pressure of all the points
> above makes it more so, like a submarine.
Or like any other seagoing vessel...
As for screening...
In my universe there is basically a home fleet and a colonial fleet
(actually not so much a fleet as a collection of squadrons and ships
scattered all over hell and gone, united only by all being stationed in the
colonies). Home is a very nice place. The colonies aren't (by comparison),
AND they're a long way away.
The home fleet resembles your modern peacetime navy. The only threat to any
of the core 'nations' is another core 'nation'. The Home fleet performs
real 'national' defense, though they are currently at peace and have been
for a while.
The colonies are profitable, but not vital. As a consequence the colonial
fleet has a much lower priority than the Home fleet. On top of older, worn
(hopefully not worn out) ships, the colonial fleet has staffing problems.
Enlisted will tend to be recrited locally (which means they will mostly be
expatriots or locals), getting sufficient recruits from the Core is out of
the question. Officers will mostly be either rejects from the Home fleet
who aren't quite bad enough to kick out of the navy entirely or rising stars
looking for adventure and a chance to really show their stuff. There's
action in the colonies, but not at home.
Shawn Wilson
>> The society will be not all that unlike our own- better in almost every
>> way,
>> but not fundamentally different. Though I should say that by 'our own' I
>> mean something like elements of 21st century culture mixed with certain
>> 19th
>> century values. (they deal with the client states not in order to
>> elevate
>> the less fortunate but for simple profit. No worldbank or foreign aid
>> here)
>> Specifically that refers to the advanced 'nations' of the Core (the
>> colonizing powers), the less advanced 'nations' of the client states and
>> the
>> fringe will be not so well run and sometimes the vehicle of any social
>> commentary I want to add.
>>
>
> So basically you're talking about imperial colonialism with gunboat
> diplomacy set in the 25th (or whatever) century?
Exactly. Except it will be the 72nd century.
Glenn Dowdy
> On Apr 19, 9:56 am, "Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.do...@hp.spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Shawn is the self-described "most intelligent person on Usenet".
>
> Well, you're right, but you mis-spelled 'Sean.' ;)
Little early for nipping, ain't it?
>
>>He really
>> does need anyone's help, so don't bother. He'll be right back to tell you
>> guys just how wrong you are about your own experiences.
>>
>> Glenn D.
>
> I got a hint of that from his reply. Despite that, I've attempted to
> be nice and clarified the post for him.
>
Ask him about the economics of operating such a vessel in such a navy. He
has an undergraduate degree in Econ, and despite having never worked in the
field, considers himself an expert in the field. He's a joke on the other
newsgroups that he and I share.
Glenn D.
Shawn Wilson
>> No aliens (*always* either humans in rubber masks or gratuitously weird
>> anyway). No AIs. No force fields. No transporters. No tractor beams.
>> No
>> replicators. No holodeck. No robots. No particles of the week. No
>> spatial anomalies. No magic (eg Force). No designated eeevil (eg
>> Klingons,
>> Borg, Magog, Cylons, etc). <snip> No uncharted planets (in the
>> core and clients at least- it would be like suddenly discovering a new
>> city
>> in europe)
>
> Then why a ship of war? Your mission sounds like a job for HMS
> Beagle, which only had six guns when assigned as a survey ship. Basic
> self defense. That would cut a lot of crew and allow for more riders
> (non-ships company) such as biologists, celestial cartographers,
> geoligists, etc.
NO UNCHARTED PLANETS.
For 'brave new worlds' you go to the fringe. This is the British Asian
squadron protecting the ships of the East India Company while showing the
flag, suppressing piracy, supporting various diplomatic efforts to the local
rulers, beefing up allied navies and countering the wiley French.
Scientists who want to study these planets just book passage on a liner,
they don't need to supply their own ship. This is (barbarian) civilization,
not the frontier.
Mark Borgerson
audio...@verizon.net says...
> On Apr 19, 2:09 pm, "Brian Sharrock" <b.sharr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:4627916f$0$495$815e...@news.qwest.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > > How bizarre would an actual physician be, given that the ship will be
> > > operating alone and far from base and not part of a battlegroup?
> >
> >...how many citizens are you intending to deprive of that doctor's skills when you
> > appoint him/her to your space-craft?
> >
>
> I don't think you'd be pulling a physician from the populace. It would
> be similar to today's military. The military pays for you med school
> and, in stead of going strait to the civilian world and paying off
> student loans, you pay it back by serving x-number of years in the
> military. You're creating an alternate path to become a doctor for an
> individual who might not have been able to become a doctor via other
> paths.
>
I was aboard the USNS Wheeling, a civilian-operated missile range
tracking ship in 1973 and 1973. We were deployed to the South Pacific
for three months each year to collect data on French nuclear tests.
Since the civilian crew and scientists had a much older average age than
a military crew of comparable size, the Navy assigned a surgeon,
nurse-anesthetist, chief hospital corpsman and a junior enlisted
HCM to the ship. IIRC the surgeon was a bit ticked off after
being bored the first month. However, he did find the cruise relaxing
after a while, as there were few medical problems requiring his
attention. The food was good, the company intelligent, and the
opportunities to work on a suntan were terrific. I think both
the surgeon and nurse-anesthetist volunteered for the second trip.
Unlike Dr Maturin, I don't think our surgeon had a
secondary intel-collection function (that was my job).
In books such as you propose, I guess we'd be the aging survey
vessel filled with slightly nutty technicians---off to investigate
the nearest blinking star!
> All of that depends on the civilisation model of the story, which is
> beyond my expertise. If you want the nuts and bolts of 19th and 20th
> century steel surface ships, then ask away, but if you want economics
> 101, I'm not your guy!
>
Mark Borgerson
BlackBeard
>
> > Maybe you should pause and take the time to consider what I posted.
> > YOUR vessel is operating in a hostile environment completely
> > surrounded by an atmosphere (or lack of) that will likely kill the
> > crew if a breach occurs, like a submarine.
>
> Or like any other seagoing vessel...
Incorrect. I've stood on the open deck of a Destroyer and an Oiler at
sea. Walked through an open hatch to get there. Try that on a Space
ship or Sub. USS Cole and USS Stark stand as examples that surface
ships can survive major hull breaches without sinking.
> > Your crew is operating
> > independently for long periods of time without immediate/constant
> > communications or replinishment, like a submarine.
>
> Or like any other seagoing vessel before radio...
But you are not operating before radio. Your post cited operations
(delayed communications) similar to what Subs deal with. And as to
modern operations, in acordance with your post, Subs often operate
independently.
>
> > Your operational
> > endurance is limited by the air, water, and food you can carry,
> > recycle, or generate, like a submarine.
>
> Or like any other seagoing vessel...
Incorrect, again. Surface ships receive replenishment of food at
sea. Surface ships do not create their own air.
>
> > Because of these limitations you get the highest efficiency by
> > carrying the smallest crew you can and still carry out your mission,
> > like a submarine.
>
> Or like any other seagoing vessel...
But more so on a Sub.
>
> Because of the minimal crew, cross-training is
>
> > essential to maintain effectiveness to compensate for injuries,
> > illness, or death, like a submarine.
>
> Or like any other seagoing vessel...
Incorrect. There is a proposal to crew the LCS with a minimum cross-
trained crew styled after the Submarine model. You do not find the
same program with "any other seagoing vessel."
>
> > Because of the isolation unique to space travel (or sub-surface) you
> > need to screen individuals more rigorously. Service on any warship is
> > highly stressful, adding the additional pressure of all the points
> > above makes it more so, like a submarine.
>
> Or like any other seagoing vessel...
Again, you are incorrect. Submarine crews must pass additional
screening and evaluations not required "on any other seagoing
vessel." If they fail the screening, they end up on "any other
seagoing vessel."
> On top of older, worn
> (hopefully not worn out) ships, the colonial fleet has staffing problems.
> Enlisted will tend to be recrited locally (which means they will mostly be
> expatriots or locals), getting sufficient recruits from the Core is out of
> the question. Officers will mostly be either rejects from the Home fleet
> who aren't quite bad enough to kick out of the navy entirely or rising stars
> looking for adventure and a chance to really show their stuff. There's
> action in the colonies, but not at home.
Well it's your story so you are free to create the scenario you want.
You asked for assistance and it was provided. You state your
ignorance of Naval matters yet argue with those that give you accurate
information.
Glenn Dowdy
>
> Well it's your story so you are free to create the scenario you want.
> You asked for assistance and it was provided. You state your
> ignorance of Naval matters yet argue with those that give you accurate
> information.
>
I hate to say "I told you so" but...
Glenn D.
AudioSysEng
> In article <1177007203.118795.256...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> audiosys...@verizon.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 2:09 pm, "Brian Sharrock" <b.sharr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:4627916f$0$495$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>
>
> In books such as you propose, I guess we'd be the aging survey
> vessel filled with slightly nutty technicians---off to investigate
> the nearest blinking star!
>
I wish I was on a USNS ship! I knew some Electronics Techs that were
that lucky, but since my rate was a weapons rating (Missile Fire
Control), combat vessels were my only choice.
And your description of USNS guys (especially the "slightly nutty"
part is dead on!
MD
BlackBeard
>
> I hate to say "I told you so" but...
>
> Glenn D.
I owe you a whisky.
Mark Borgerson
audio...@verizon.net says...
I would add also that the CO of a ship has great powers and
a lot of latitude in interpreting orders about personnel
and administrative matters from higher authority.
While I was deployed aboard a DE as part of a group of
SIGINT riders, Navy-wide advancement exams were
couriered over to us from another ship more recently
deployed. We had left port without study materials due
to their bulk and classified content. I complained to
the CincPacFlt training officer that forcing my petty
officers to take the exam would reduce their chances for
advancement, and that I would like the exams to be postponed
until after our return to Pearl Harbor. (This was routinely done
for the sub riders on special operations). CincPacFlt (in
an informal message) told me to suck it up and administer
the exams. I pled my case to the CO, and he sent a message
back to PH citing a lack of space adequately secure to
allow administration of the exams. The 'Captain' card
(although he was just a Lieutenant Commander), trumped
anything the fleet training office had to play.
When I returned to PH after the trip, I got a bit of
flack from various Lt. Commanders over the exams. However,
I was able to refer to some messages about the excellent
quality of our data from our national tasking agency
(the National Security Agency).
The CO of the USS McMorris will always be near the top
of the list of commanding officers to whom I've reported.
Other details that may be of interest:
In the 1970's officers bought their own food for the
wardwoom supposedly using an allowance provided by
the Navy. That allowance often never got to the
wardroom when the ship was in home port and the officers were
living and eating ashore. The food was cooked by
stewards using a small kitchen/pantry with additional
facilities in the main mess as needed.
Junior officers were ofen bunked in a "JO Jungle".
on DEs. This was a bunkroom with two double
or triple bunks. When there were no assigned
extra JOs (such as myself), the extra bunks
became storage for the ship's JOs.
Enlisted intel riders shared bunk space and messing
facilities with the crew, but didn't stand normal ship's
watches or do normal ship's cleanup duties. This was
sometimes a source of friction with the crew. My
leading CPO always made sure that our guys were
out of their bunks during the day and that junior EMs were
seen taking out the trash and carrying cleaning
gear to our work area. Only the CO and Ops officer
were allowed in our work area--and then only after
a few minutes notice so we could clear up some of
the more sensitive documents.
Mark Borgerson
AudioSysEng
> In article <1177008392.503880.319...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> audiosys...@verizon.net says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree that CO's had tremendous influence. They have authority (and
responsibility) that no shore-based commander comes even close to.
Wearing the Command At Sea badge is huge. The CO has to be able to
make critical decisions with little or no notice, intelligence
reports, or command guidance. the Navy makes sure that if their ships
become isolated (through distance and possible comms failures) that
their CO's will do the right thing.
A prime example is the movie Crimson Tide. The movie made you
sympathetic towards the XO, who tried (successfully) to stop the
missile launch, but the fact is that he was dead wrong. The CO was
following protocol and while the results would have been unthinkable,
that's what he was trained to do.
Oh, and we had CT's (Cryptologic Technicians) aboard many times and
there was a bit of resentment towards them. Nobody likes standing a
mid watch and they like people who are excluded from them even less!
MD
Glenn Dowdy
> On Apr 19, 1:43 pm, "Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.do...@hp.spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> I hate to say "I told you so" but...
>>
>> Glenn D.
>
> I owe you a whisky.
>
Glenn D.
Paul J. Adam
<ikono...@yahoo.com> writes
>> YOUR vessel is operating in a hostile environment completely
>> surrounded by an atmosphere (or lack of) that will likely kill the
>> crew if a breach occurs, like a submarine.
>Or like any other seagoing vessel...
No: on a surface ship not under CBRN attack, you can open an external
hatch without consequence. (Some limits around the flight deck at some
times, but that's a FOD problem not an atmosphere issue)
>> Your crew is operating
>> independently for long periods of time without immediate/constant
>> communications or replinishment, like a submarine.
>
>Or like any other seagoing vessel before radio...
"before radio" means you want a nineteenth-century experience: I'd check
out HMS Warrior in Portsmouth.
If you want "how ships actually work today" then you accept the comms.
>> Your operational
>> endurance is limited by the air, water, and food you can carry,
>> recycle, or generate, like a submarine.
>Or like any other seagoing vessel...
No: a surface ship runs out of food or fuel much sooner than a SSN. A
nuclear submarine fits the template of a "space warship" rather better,
simply because it expects and is intended to go out for sixty days
without friendly contact, while surface warships work on shorter
logistic tethers.
>> Because of these limitations you get the highest efficiency by
>> carrying the smallest crew you can and still carry out your mission,
>> like a submarine.
>
>Or like any other seagoing vessel...
Submarines, bluntly, die when hit by a decent weapon: this affects their
damage-control plans. Submarines also don't do boarding or maritime
interdiction: this reduces their manpower requirements (no need to
muster a boarding team, and the Buffer and his team to get them off and
on)
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk
Glenn Dowdy
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YpA8AxbxN$JGF...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>
> Submarines, bluntly, die when hit by a decent weapon: this affects their
> damage-control plans.
Surely you aren't suggesting that you know more than Shawn about submarine
vulnerability? ;)
Glenn D.
TMOliver
"BlackBeard" <spk...@msn.com> wrote...
>
> Incorrect. I've stood on the open deck of a Destroyer and an Oiler at
> sea. Walked through an open hatch to get there. Try that on a Space
> ship or Sub. USS Cole and USS Stark stand as examples that surface
> ships can survive major hull breaches without sinking.
>
Shawn (whose mother obviously had a spelling deficiency) does not seek
advice and counsel, simply approval and applause. His preconceptions are so
absolutely determined and his concept of what life in space would be like
are so far-fetched as to be amusing were he not serious. I'm sure that
should he produce a manuscript, find an agent, locate a gullible publisher,
be assigned an editor of merit, and manage to bring out a book, among the
first reactions (even from regular SF readers) will be "WTF is this
Bullshit?"
BB, you're right. A submarine and its combination of physical and
psychological isolation is the only vehicle in which "life" might be
compared to that aboard the sort of deep space vessel Shawn describes.
I'm amused at one bit in this debate.... Arved may recall from
acquaintances a minor nit-pick. In ESSEX class CVs, the MARDET bunked and
worked traditionally, Starboard side, just aft of the Wardroom and the XO's
cabin, "between" the crew and Officers' Country - to be on hand as a barrier
force during a mutiny.
TMO
Vince
>
> Shawn (whose mother obviously had a spelling deficiency)
Shawn is a perfectly respectable and well known name
Cf Shawn Green
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5179
Shawn Green is of course Jewish, but the spelling is not unknown among
families with a mix of Irish and Jewish heritage
Vince
Derek Lyons
>20 Sonar girls, Radar, and ESM types (sensor types)
>6 Fire control types
The trend is for sensor and fire control type to merge. (If they
already haven't.)
>My memory is shaky on this, Maybe Derek or David will provide the
>correct info.
Close enough for the OP's purposes.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Derek Lyons
>
>> Military Space vehicles most resemble submarines due to the hostile
>> environment they operate in.
>
>No, MY military space vehicles mostly resemble what I want them to resemble.
>Submarines ain't it. In this case it's a heavy destroyer. (yes, odd for
>equivalent to a local heavy cruiser, with some useful bennies)
Like most wannabees you confuse mission (heavy destroyer) with type
(submarine). The two aren't equivalent - not by a long shot.
Derek Lyons
>
>"BlackBeard" <spk...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:1176960942.4...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 18, 7:28 pm, "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Military Space vehicles most resemble submarines due to the hostile
>> environment they operate in.
>
>Shawn is the self-described "most intelligent person on Usenet". He really
>does need anyone's help, so don't bother. He'll be right back to tell you
>guys just how wrong you are about your own experiences.
ISTR him raising a similar issue over in the rec.arts.sf.* hierarchy
t'other week - and acting about the same when people tried to correct
his misperceptions.
Derek Lyons
>KP Duty - Yes. Usually 2 weeks for E-3 and below within the first
>couple of months aboard. Usually only 1 "term" there unless they were
>short-handed.
No.
KP duty (in other services) assigned as a punishment details - in the
Navy it's merely part of your normal rotation.
AudioSysEng
You are correct in that other services used KP strictly as punishment,
but it wasn't unheard of in the navy to send someone back to "mess
crank" duty as a punishment. I saw it happen on my ship. Granted, that
was 20 years ago, but it happened.
MD
Derek Lyons
>A prime example is the movie Crimson Tide. The movie made you
>sympathetic towards the XO, who tried (successfully) to stop the
>missile launch, but the fact is that he was dead wrong. The CO was
>following protocol and while the results would have been unthinkable,
>that's what he was trained to do.
No, the CO was _dead wrong_.
The protocol for nuclear weapons is that if there is any doubt
(especially by the authenticating officers, I.E. the XO), the weapons
stay in the tubes.
No exceptions. No discussions.
Derek Lyons
>Only the CO and Ops officer were allowed in our work area--and then
>only after a few minutes notice so we could clear up some of the
>more sensitive documents.
You don't have to be crypto to encounter something like that, in my
case even the CO wasn't allowed into our space under certain
circumstances. (Not 'not allowed with a few minutes notice' but 'not
allowed period until the evolution was complete'.)
Fred J. McCall
:
:"AudioSysEng" <audio...@verizon.net> wrote in message
:news:1176991090.9...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
:
:
:> Marines - None, but there would be a Ship's Self Defense Force trained
:> for shipboard combat and limited ashore excursions. We were trained by
:> the USMC at the Little Creek Amphib Base (but that was 20 years ago).
:
:Would a complement of (say) a squad of marines be bizarre?
Probably. That's not really enough to do anything with or treat as an
independent unit. This is why smaller ships don't carry them. Not a
big enough number to have an officer, clerical and supply support,
etc. Also not a big enough number for them to have any duties
shipboard (only around 4 of them available at a time).
If your ship is going to have a crew over 500, you might give them a
Marine platoon (but that would make you cruiser sized and not DL
sized).
Did they change where they trained sailors at some point? I could
swear I got my SDF training at Quantico (by Marines) rather than
Little Creek. It was a long time ago, though. I guess I could be
mistaken about exactly where we were.
:
:> Chaplain - No, not unless you were operating with a larger group then
:> he would be transferred from ship to ship as required. There was
:> usually a volunteer on the crew that would lead prayer groups or bible
:> study.
:
:Perfect.
Destroyer-sized ship wouldn't have one. They'd get the chaplain off
the cruiser(if you have that large cruiser with a platoon of Marines)
or carrier.
:> Medical Services - Very limited. We had a Chief Corpsman, a junior
:> Corpsman, and a "striker" (apprentice). They could handle basic first
:> aid, but that's about it.
:
:What level of training would a Corpsman have? I assume it's like an Army
:medic- basically an EMT/paramedic.
Essentially correct. In fact, Navy Corpsmen serve as medics with
Marine units.
:How bizarre would an actual physician be, given that the ship will be
:operating alone and far from base and not part of a battlegroup?
Again, unlikely to have a doctor unless you work your way up to that
large cruiser class ship.
The large independent cruiser really sounds like where you want to go,
given the personnel you seem to want to have aboard. There just
aren't enough spare slots for all those specialists in a destroyer's
small crew. Remember, you need at least 3x as many people as you
think you do. Ships operate on a 24 hour day. Figure out how many
folks it takes to run your ship under 'normal' conditions and then
multiply times three. Destroyer class ships have crews in the 200-ish
range. It isn't like Star Trek, where the same person is always at a
given bridge station.
--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."
-- Winston Churchill
AudioSysEng
Honestly, my experience is with tactical defensive NUCWEPS (which had
frighteningly few restrictions for authentication), not strategic, so
I'll have to defer to those that know better on that one.
MD
AudioSysEng
> "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ::"AudioSysEng" <audiosys...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> :news:1176991090.9...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> :
> Did they change where they trained sailors at some point? I could
> swear I got my SDF training at Quantico (by Marines) rather than
> Little Creek. It was a long time ago, though. I guess I could be
> mistaken about exactly where we were.
I went through SDF training in Little Creek in 1987. It was a 1 week
course - not much, really. We learned a few good things, but knowledge
of your own ship was probably the most important!
>
> The large independent cruiser really sounds like where you want to go,
> given the personnel you seem to want to have aboard. There just
> aren't enough spare slots for all those specialists in a destroyer's
> small crew. Remember, you need at least 3x as many people as you
> think you do. Ships operate on a 24 hour day. Figure out how many
> folks it takes to run your ship under 'normal' conditions and then
> multiply times three. Destroyer class ships have crews in the 200-ish
> range. It isn't like Star Trek, where the same person is always at a
> given bridge station.
>
I agree, although the manning levels of the DD-1000 are estimated at
150 or so with a displacement of more than 14,000 tons - certainly in
the heavy cruiser range. It'll be interesting to see how that actually
pans out, though. There's a lot of controversy around the engineering
already!
MD
Fred J. McCall
:Sailors tend to be more informal. While E-6 and below sailors often
:call each other by their first or last names, Marines will use formal
:rank.
That's because their rank titles are shorter so that they can remember
them.
:Uniform standards are also much more stict with the Marines. A
:sailor may wear a faded shirt or pants, but a Marine never will. My
:son is a SGT in the Marines and he always refers to the sailors as
:slobs.
That's because he's had the lobotomy.
:Sailors will also refer to officers O-3 and below as "Mister" (like
:Mr. Roberts) instead of Lieutenant (or Ensign). A Marine would get in
:serious trouble for such an obvious lack of respect.
It's not a 'lack of respect'. It is the correct form of address.
:The concept of being a Marine, and everything it entails, is a story
:in itself. The "Corps Values" are so deeply instilled in them that the
:saying "Once a Marine, Always a Marine" is very true.
That's why they screw their caps on - to hide the lobotomy scars.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"BlackBeard" <spk...@msn.com> wrote in message
If you can just "book a liner" it isn't (barbarian) civilization.
The more you talk, the more it sounds like you're really looking for
something more analogous to a cruiser rather than a destroyer. You're
essentially talking about 'power projection' (station cruisers) into
the hinterlands.
--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush
Fred J. McCall
:A prime example is the movie Crimson Tide. The movie made you
:sympathetic towards the XO, who tried (successfully) to stop the
:missile launch, but the fact is that he was dead wrong. The CO was
:following protocol and while the results would have been unthinkable,
:that's what he was trained to do.
<snork>
Man, did YOU just jump up and start shouting "Shoot me! Shoot me!"
Crimson tide, while entertaining on the level of having good actors,
was HUGELY unrealistic.
:Oh, and we had CT's (Cryptologic Technicians) aboard many times and
:there was a bit of resentment towards them. Nobody likes standing a
:mid watch and they like people who are excluded from them even less!
CTs stood their own watches.
AudioSysEng
> AudioSysEng <audiosys...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> :Sailors tend to be more informal. While E-6 and below sailors often
> :call each other by their first or last names, Marines will use formal
> :rank.
>
> That's because their rank titles are shorter so that they can remember
> them.
Good point! "Good Morning Boatwains Mate First Class Surface Warfare
Smith" is a little tough!
>
> :Uniform standards are also much more stict with the Marines. A
> :sailor may wear a faded shirt or pants, but a Marine never will. My
> :son is a SGT in the Marines and he always refers to the sailors as
> :slobs.
>
> That's because he's had the lobotomy.
>
As I always point out to my son - If you put a Marine in a rubber room
with 2 ball bearings, within 30 minutes he would have broken one and
lost the other!
I'm proud of my son and I love him, but that's not going to stop me
from lobbing those grenades at him either!
MD
AudioSysEng
> AudioSysEng <audiosys...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
Brother, I can get boring anywhere!
MD
BlackBeard
> :
> :What level of training would a Corpsman have? I assume it's like an Army
> :medic- basically an EMT/paramedic.
>
> Essentially correct. In fact, Navy Corpsmen serve as medics with
> Marine units.
>
IMO you would need Independent Duty Corpsmen at a minimum if you are
not going to have a doctor. Both ID Corpsmen I served with had
excelled as FMF corpsmen before being selected for IDC school and
moving on to Subs. Now that the Navy has the Physician's Assistant
program I'd recommend that a crew on this hypothetical space vessel
would be made up of several ID corpsmen (1 per 100) and at least one
PA corpsmen (a Chief.)
Fred J. McCall
:On Apr 19, 9:19 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>
:> ::"AudioSysEng" <audiosys...@verizon.net> wrote in message
:>
:> :news:1176991090.9...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
:> :
:> Did they change where they trained sailors at some point? I could
:> swear I got my SDF training at Quantico (by Marines) rather than
:> Little Creek. It was a long time ago, though. I guess I could be
:> mistaken about exactly where we were.
:
:I went through SDF training in Little Creek in 1987. It was a 1 week
:course - not much, really. We learned a few good things, but knowledge
:of your own ship was probably the most important!
Mine was a good decade earlier than that and was more oriented toward
Landing Force / Boarding Party rather than defense of own ship. We
did stuff like moving through boarding exercises on a 'ship' full of
booby traps and armed Marine 'terrorists', for example.
When I quit riding ships, I went into an Inshore Undersea Warfare Unit
and trained with Marines some more...
--
"Most people don't realize it, but ninety percent of morality is based
on comfort. Incinerate hundreds of people from thirty thousand feet
up and you'll sleep like a baby afterward. Kill one person with a
bayonet and your dreams will never be sweet again."
-- John Rain, "Rain Storm"
Derek Lyons
>On Apr 19, 8:48 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>> AudioSysEng <audiosys...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >A prime example is the movie Crimson Tide. The movie made you
>> >sympathetic towards the XO, who tried (successfully) to stop the
>> >missile launch, but the fact is that he was dead wrong. The CO was
>> >following protocol and while the results would have been unthinkable,
>> >that's what he was trained to do.
>>
>> No, the CO was _dead wrong_.
>>
>> The protocol for nuclear weapons is that if there is any doubt
>> (especially by the authenticating officers, I.E. the XO), the weapons
>> stay in the tubes.
>>
>> No exceptions. No discussions.
>
>Honestly, my experience is with tactical defensive NUCWEPS (which had
>frighteningly few restrictions for authentication),
Thry have (IIRC) pretty strict requirements for _release_, but once
released - far few restrictions for usage. For strategic weapons,
where release and usage are concurrent, the restrictions are much more
visible.
>not strategic, so I'll have to defer to those that know better on that
>one.
My experience is with strategic.
Brian Sharrock
> On Apr 19, 2:09 pm, "Brian Sharrock" <b.sharr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4627916f$0$495$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > How bizarre would an actual physician be, given that the ship will be
>> > operating alone and far from base and not part of a battlegroup?
>>
>>when you
>> appoint him/her to your space-craft?
>>
>
> I don't think you'd be pulling a physician from the populace. It would
> be similar to today's military. The military pays for you med school
> and, in stead of going strait to the civilian world and paying off
> student loans, you pay it back by serving x-number of years in the
> military. You're creating an alternate path to become a doctor for an
> individual who might not have been able to become a doctor via other
> paths.
>
No matter what the financial incentives over study grants, fees etc. There's
a finite number of Doctor-qualified in any given population. Handwaving away
'there's an alternative path' doesn't address the underlying question.
[These are real-world decisions that have to be considered by Ministiries of
Education (schools for Doctors); of Health (Hospitals, General Practioners,
Specialists,); and Defence (what is the purpose of the fleet? _Why_ is it
there?). BTW; 'today's military' does 'pull physcians from the populace'
.... .
> All of that depends on the civilisation model of the story, which is
> beyond my expertise. If you want the nuts and bolts of 19th and 20th
> century steel surface ships, then ask away, but if you want economics
> 101, I'm not your guy!
>
Hmm, dark grey war canoes do not, IMHO, just make wakes in the sea - nor
pilots bore holes in the sky. Such vessels are manned, vittled, fuelled,
replenished for a purpose. That purpose will have been determined by the
"civilisation model of the story". Is this vessel a Heinlein style
Anti-Bug-Eyed-Monster 'picket' (vedette)? Is it a protection of trade
between Colonies (a la Battlestar Galactica fleet). Before you ask how
Able-Spaceman ( tenth class) Jones is cooking the eggs; you should really
address _why_ Able -Spaceman (tenth class) Jones is cooking the eggs. IMHO.
--
Brian
BlackBeard
Brian Sharrock wrote:
>. Before you ask how
> Able-Spaceman ( tenth class) Jones is cooking the eggs; you should really
> address _why_ Able -Spaceman (tenth class) Jones is cooking the eggs. IMHO.
But that wasn't what he asked. It is a fiction novel and one would
assume he will provide the meat of the story. What he is asking for
is the recipe for a small part of it. He'll provide the ingredients
and put it together for the presentation. And there's more to a meal
than one dish, which is all we've been asked to participate in.
IMHO of course.
Brian Sharrock
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:462d0b12.2609071125@news.supernews.com...
> AudioSysEng <audio...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>KP Duty - Yes. Usually 2 weeks for E-3 and below within the first
>>couple of months aboard. Usually only 1 "term" there unless they were
>>short-handed.
>
> No.
>
> KP duty (in other services) assigned as a punishment details - in the
> Navy it's merely part of your normal rotation.
>
> D.
Similar in the UK's RAF. "Station Duties" came up every few months and for
'erks entailed such tasks as Duty(Fire Picket; Guard; Waker-uppers [go to
bunks and awaken 'early call' personnel] ; Mess Assistants; etc. etc.), for
SNCO and Officers Orderly(Sergeant, Officer).
This was a normal rotation and unpopular with all assigned. The orders to
'perform' were promulgated in SRO (Station Routine Orders) each week - and
everybody immediately turned to the last pages where the listing for
'Station Duties' appeared.
--
Brian
Jack Linthicum
> "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>I am trying to write a science fiction novel (basically the Aubrey/Maturin
> >>novels translated into SF) and for verisimilitude I'd like details about
> >>day to day life aboard ship. As much as possible. What would be a good
> >>source to read? The A/M novels are terrific, but I'm not doing the age of
> >>sail. I want details from the dreadnought age to the modern era. I was in
> >>the military, but infantry, not navy. What I know about life aboard ship
> >>comes from the A/M novels and Star Trek reruns, and I know Star Trek is
> >>bullshit and the A/M novels aren't but are entirely the wrong period.
>
> >> Details from the US and British navies would be best, perhaps with
> >> comments about other successful navies that have interesting variations.
>
> >> The context will be mostly age of colonialism type stories with technology
> >> resembling the dreadnought era. Ships will be months from home, operating
> >> largely alone, and the only communications will be by courier- no ftl
> >> radio.
>
> >> I will certainly fold, spindle and mutilate the details, but I would like
> >> to know what the limits of plausibility are before I start. Like I said-
> >> verisimilitude.
>
> >> Some specific details I'm looking for- How many cooks/assistants? does
> >> the Navy have KP duty? How many marines would a destroyer class ship
> >> carry, if any? Would there be a chaplain? What medical services are
> >> there? How many? What level of competence (ie would a destroyer normally
> >> carry a physician or just a nurse?).
>
> >> I don't need tactical or combat details (I play enough wargames to work
> >> those out on my own, even for naval combat) I'm looking for personal
> >> experience kind of things and administrative minutia-how many officers,
> >> what experience would they each typically have? Who does the medical
> >> department report to? Things like that...
>
> >> I will be ever so grateful...
> >There are some novels out there somewhere called things like 'We Joined the
> >Navy' and 'Down the Hatch' by the late John Winton (actually Lt Cdr John
> >Pratt RN) that were wrritten about forty years ago and are now all back in
> >print...
>
> >They give a view of the Royal Navy and its personnel that seems to be highly
> >accurate if not terribly flattering...
>
> Is there any evidence that these were republished in paperback? All I
> can seem to find are hardcovers - and they cost a fortune. I would
> dearly love to replace my ancient and tattered paperback copies but
> refuse to mortgage the house to do so!
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> A conclusion is where you got tired of thinking.
>From http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Winton&y=12&tn=We+joined+the+Navy&x=62
Goes on for three pages, lots of GB, Aus, NZ sources
We Joined the Navy (ISBN: 071810417X)
John Winton
Bookseller: Jon Brown Trading
(Bury St Edmunds Suffolk, uk, United Kingdom) Price: US$ 3.08
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 6.70
2. We Joined the Navy (ISBN: 1904459064)
Winton, John
Bookseller: The Book Women
(Sumas, WA, U.S.A.) Price: US$ 4.94
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within U.S.A.:
US$ 3.75
3. We Joined the Navy
Winton, John
Bookseller: Alexander Books
(Hayling Island, Hants, United Kingdom) Price: US$ 6.18
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 6.70
[
4. We Joined The Navy
John Winton
Bookseller: David Piercy Books
(u.k., ., United Kingdom) Price: US$ 6.18
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 6.70
[Rates & Speeds] Add Book to Shopping Basket
Book Description: Joseph, London, 1961. Hardback. Book Condition: Vg.
Fourth Impression. 8vo. Fourth impression, no dw, 254pp. vg clean
copy, no inscriptions. Bookseller Inventory # 003374
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
5. We Joined the Navy
John Winton
Bookseller: Harrowden Books of Finedon
(Wellingborough, NTH, United Kingdom) Price: US$ 6.18
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 5.48
[Rates & Speeds] Add Book to Shopping Basket
Book Description: Michael Joseph, London, 1959. Original Cloth. Book
Condition: Good. Dust Jacket Condition: Good+. Second Impression. 12mo
- over 6¾" - 7¾" tall. Blue cloth with white & blue titles to spine.
Minor wear to covers but spine is leaning. EX W H Smith LIBRARY book
with label to inside cover. No inscriptions, contents have the odd
mark but are generally clean & sound. DJ has some creasing to front
edge, but is quite bright & clean. Orig price 13/6. 254pp. Hardback.
Bookseller Inventory # 026039
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
6. We Joined the Navy
Winton, John
Bookseller: Pulp Books
(Camperdown, NSW, Australia) Price: US$ 6.50
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within Australia:
US$ 3.50
[Rates & Speeds] Add Book to Shopping Basket
Book Description: Pan Books, 1961. Softcover, Fair. Worn copy in good
reading condition - pages clean, binding firm. Uproarious novel of
navy cadets' training. Bookseller Inventory # 025768
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
7. Bookseller Photo WE JOINED THE NAVY
Winton, John
Bookseller: A Book for all Reasons, PBFA & ibooknet
(Lowestoft, Sflk, United Kingdom) Price: US$ 7.23
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 6.50
[Rates & Speeds] Add Book to Shopping Basket
Book Description: Maritime Books, Liskeard, , 1988. 1st in imprint,
paperback, 254pp, large format (8 x 6 inches approx.), wraparound
pictorial cover art by Simon Toft, a little sunned at spine, lightly
rubbed and sl. creased at cnrs., small area label residue upper
wrapper, ISBN:0907771386 - VG. Bookseller Inventory # 36565
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
8. We Joined the Navy
John Winton
Bookseller: Hadleys of Monmouthshire
(Cwmbran, Wal, United Kingdom) Price: US$ 7.73
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 6.70
[Rates & Speeds] Add Book to Shopping Basket
Book Description: Companion Book Club, London, 1960. Cloth. Book
Condition: Fair. No Jacket. Grey boards faded and bumped, crease to
spine, pages tight with very minir signs of aging. Bookseller
Inventory # 000240
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
9. We Joined the Navy
Jogn Winton
Bookseller: Iceni Collectables
(Great Yarmouth, NOR, United Kingdom) Price: US$ 8.25
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 7.91
[Rates & Speeds] Add Book to Shopping Basket
Book Description: The Companion Book Club, London, 1959. Hard Cover.
Book Condition: Good. No Jacket. Book Club (BCE/BOMC). 12mo - over 6¾"
- 7¾" tall. Bookseller Inventory # 010460
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
10. WE JOINED THE NAVY
JOHN WINTON
Bookseller: Book Barn Ltd
(Bristol, SOM, United Kingdom) Price: US$ 8.25
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 6.70
[Rates & Speeds] Add Book to Shopping Basket
Book Description: COMPANION BOOK CLUB, 1959. Published by COMPANION
BOOK CLUB in 1959, hardback with D/J, small size, JACKET TORN.
16031B2BLU3D* 7905660 (16031B2BLU3D* 7905660). Bookseller Inventory #
7905660
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
11. We Joined the Navy
John Winton
Bookseller: Riley Books
(Accrington, Lancashire, UK, United Kingdom) Price: US$ 8.25
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 5.50
[Rates & Speeds] Add Book to Shopping Basket
Book Description: The Companion Book Club, U K, 1959. Hard Back. Book
Condition: Very Good. Dust Jacket Condition: Good. Blue boards in very
good condition. The jacket is quite bright and has a little wear to
the top and base of the spine, and to the top corners. 255 clean,
white pages. Unclipped dj. Name to ffep. Fiction. Bookseller Inventory
# 012173
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
12. We joined the Navy
John Winton
Bookseller: Jon Brown Trading
(Bury St Edmunds Suffolk, uk, United Kingdom) Price: US$ 8.75
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 6.70
[Rates & Speeds] Add Book to Shopping Basket
Book Description: Joseph. Book Condition: Used - Good. No
inscriptions, pages very good, Complete with unclipped edgeworn dust
jacket, Hardback. Published by The Companion Book Club. Bookseller
Inventory # 35018
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
13. We Joined the Navy
Winton John
Bookseller: aunty bees books
(bristol, ., United Kingdom) Pr
AudioSysEng
> "AudioSysEng" <audiosys...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1177007203.1...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hmm, dark grey war canoes do not, IMHO, just make wakes in the sea - nor
> pilots bore holes in the sky.
>
Yes and no. Your lowliest crewmember doesn't usually have a grasp on
the big picture. To them, the ship is just running around in circles.
Just like the guys at the fire-control consoles. It's not his job to
determine if the target is friendly or whether or not it's a
politically good idea to engage it. The fact is, if it comes to the
fire-control console, it's assumed hostile.
The question was asked about day to day life aboard ship, which is
usually isolated and uninformed for the majority of the crew. The
author can either fill in those blanks or leave it a mystery so that
the reader can get a sense of what the crew felt. Larger geo-political
and economic issues are not my area of expertise, nor do I wish it to
be. When I was aboard ship and I ordered a $10,000 circuit card, I
didn't care about the budget deficit and budget cuts, I just knew I
needed that card and, since it was necessary for the ship to carry out
her primary mission, I always got it. I also know that whenever I
needed to see a doctor, there was one available (ashore). It didn't
make a difference to me where he got his training or if it may have
served society better to have him somewhere else.
I don't want to write this guy's book for him, I just wanted to answer
his question to the best of my ability.
MD
Pete Granzeau
>Excellent summary. I was aboard a destroyer with a crew of 400 and
>that's pretty much the way it worked for us too. The one thing that
>was different for my ship is the chain of command. I reported to my
>Leading CPO where it went to the Division Officer, the Department
>Head, the XO, then to the CO (if necessary). I reported to the CO only
>in extreme circumstances. This is usually necessary with larger ships
>and crews. A small ship like a DE or FF may be able to function like
>that, but if we all had to report to the CO on my ship, we wouldn't
>have gotten anything done.
>
>The degree of "hands on" by a CO is often a personal preference. Some
>CO's like to be in the thick of it while others prefer to delegate.
>
>Another important point is that, in the USN, the CO is ultimately
>responsible for everything that happens on his ship. If Seaman Smith
>drives the ship aground, it's the CO's career that goes down the
>tubes.
I ignored the "chain of command" in my previous post, we had exactly the
same kind of chain. Department head, division officer, leading PO. And of
course, SA John Q. Doe in the First Division will speak to the CO only if he
breaches discipline in such a way that unofficial or official counseling by
his Leading PO, Division Officer, Department Head, or the XO, is deemed
insufficient. But each of those people derives their authority from someone
higher in the chain of command, and ultimately, aboard a ship, the buck
stops at the CO.
A CO who decides he knows better than his people can get into trouble. I
was lucky that way; the first CO I met may have been like that, but I was
too junior to interact with him, and later ones let their people do their
jobs. We did have one instance where a bit of motivation was necessary, and
while I wasn't personally involved (it involved the condition of the engine
room), it sounded as if the CO had handled it perfectly.
William Hamblen
<ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I am trying to write a science fiction novel (basically the Aubrey/Maturin
>novels translated into SF) and for verisimilitude I'd like details about day
>to day life aboard ship.
Try Pacfic War Diary by Fahey.
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=688944
Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
Derek Lyons
>I ignored the "chain of command" in my previous post, we had exactly the
>same kind of chain. Department head, division officer, leading PO. And of
>course, SA John Q. Doe in the First Division will speak to the CO only if he
>breaches discipline in such a way that unofficial or official counseling by
>his Leading PO, Division Officer, Department Head, or the XO, is deemed
>insufficient.
That depends on your sitation. SA Doe may have little reason to speak
to the CO, but PO3 Doe may have a collateral duty that requires him to
do so.
BlackBeard
> Pete Granzeau <pgranz...@cox.net> wrote:
> >I ignored the "chain of command" in my previous post, we had exactly the
> >same kind of chain. Department head, division officer, leading PO. And of
> >course, SA John Q. Doe in the First Division will speak to the CO only if he
> >breaches discipline in such a way that unofficial or official counseling by
> >his Leading PO, Division Officer, Department Head, or the XO, is deemed
> >insufficient.
>
> That depends on your sitation. SA Doe may have little reason to speak
> to the CO, but PO3 Doe may have a collateral duty that requires him to
> do so.
I spoke to the CO and XO almost daily underway and almost as much
inport. So did most of the crew.
Derek Lyons
>On Apr 20, 1:01 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>> Pete Granzeau <pgranz...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >I ignored the "chain of command" in my previous post, we had exactly the
>> >same kind of chain. Department head, division officer, leading PO. And of
>> >course, SA John Q. Doe in the First Division will speak to the CO only if he
>> >breaches discipline in such a way that unofficial or official counseling by
>> >his Leading PO, Division Officer, Department Head, or the XO, is deemed
>> >insufficient.
>>
>> That depends on your sitation. SA Doe may have little reason to speak
>> to the CO, but PO3 Doe may have a collateral duty that requires him to
>> do so.
>
>I spoke to the CO and XO almost daily underway and almost as much
>inport. So did most of the crew.
Well, a boat is different from a ship socially Sean.
Shawn Wilson
>> > Maybe you should pause and take the time to consider what I posted.
>> > YOUR vessel is operating in a hostile environment completely
>> > surrounded by an atmosphere (or lack of) that will likely kill the
>> > crew if a breach occurs, like a submarine.
>>
>> Or like any other seagoing vessel...
>
> Incorrect. I've stood on the open deck of a Destroyer and an Oiler at
> sea. Walked through an open hatch to get there. Try that on a Space
> ship or Sub. USS Cole and USS Stark stand as examples that surface
> ships can survive major hull breaches without sinking.
Breach the hull of a submarine and it sinks, exactly like any other ship.
That a destroyer has a deck and a submarine doesn't is an irrelevant
triviality.
>> > Your crew is operating
>> > independently for long periods of time without immediate/constant
>> > communications or replinishment, like a submarine.
>>
>> Or like any other seagoing vessel before radio...
>
> But you are not operating before radio.
They are not in constant instantaneous contact with anyone who isn't already
aboard or in extremely close proximity. Exactly like any ship before radio.
> Your post cited operations
> (delayed communications) similar to what Subs deal with.
Subs have radios and the capability of instantaneous communications, even
when submerged (though reduced).
> And as to
> modern operations, in acordance with your post, Subs often operate
> independently.
So do surface ships...
>> > Your operational
>> > endurance is limited by the air, water, and food you can carry,
>> > recycle, or generate, like a submarine.
>>
>> Or like any other seagoing vessel...
>
> Incorrect, again. Surface ships receive replenishment of food at
> sea. Surface ships do not create their own air.
Subs ALSO receive replenishment, and their mission length is limited by
their stores. Like any other ship... That subs need to go to more effort
for life support is another irrelevant triviality.
>> > Because of these limitations you get the highest efficiency by
>> > carrying the smallest crew you can and still carry out your mission,
>> > like a submarine.
>>
>> Or like any other seagoing vessel...
>
> But more so on a Sub.
In other words subs are just like any other surface ship...
>> Because of the minimal crew, cross-training is
>>
>> > essential to maintain effectiveness to compensate for injuries,
>> > illness, or death, like a submarine.
>>
>> Or like any other seagoing vessel...
>
> Incorrect. There is a proposal to crew the LCS with a minimum cross-
> trained crew styled after the Submarine model. You do not find the
> same program with "any other seagoing vessel."
Now you're grasping at truly irrelevant administrative trivia...
>> > Because of the isolation unique to space travel (or sub-surface) you
>> > need to screen individuals more rigorously. Service on any warship is
>> > highly stressful, adding the additional pressure of all the points
>> > above makes it more so, like a submarine.
>>
>> Or like any other seagoing vessel...
>
> Again, you are incorrect. Submarine crews must pass additional
> screening and evaluations not required "on any other seagoing
> vessel." If they fail the screening, they end up on "any other
> seagoing vessel."
Administrative trivia again. You have lost sight of the nature of this
discussion. Which is NOT specific administrative differences between
surface ships and submarines in the US Navy of the present day.
>> On top of older, worn
>> (hopefully not worn out) ships, the colonial fleet has staffing problems.
>> Enlisted will tend to be recrited locally (which means they will mostly
>> be
>> expatriots or locals), getting sufficient recruits from the Core is out
>> of
>> the question. Officers will mostly be either rejects from the Home fleet
>> who aren't quite bad enough to kick out of the navy entirely or rising
>> stars
>> looking for adventure and a chance to really show their stuff. There's
>> action in the colonies, but not at home.
>
> Well it's your story so you are free to create the scenario you want.
> You asked for assistance and it was provided. You state your
> ignorance of Naval matters yet argue with those that give you accurate
> information.
I argued with your contention that a space craft must necessarily follow
submarine rathe than surface ship principles. And I demonstrated why every
single argument you presented as to why was false.
Shawn Wilson
"Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.20917fc34...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In books such as you propose, I guess we'd be the aging survey
> vessel filled with slightly nutty technicians---off to investigate
> the nearest blinking star!
And in fact there are people exactly like that in my concept, just not this
particular ship. It isn't that there isn't a Starship Enterprise out there
exploring strange new worlds and being nice to people and all that, it's
just that the navy people think they're idealistic morons. (in addition to
social commentary I also intend commentary on other science fiction tropes)
Shawn Wilson
"Brian Sharrock" <b.sha...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:fk_Vh.4434$kb4....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> No matter what the financial incentives over study grants, fees etc.
> There's a finite number of Doctor-qualified in any given population.
> Handwaving away 'there's an alternative path' doesn't address the
> underlying question. [These are real-world decisions that have to be
> considered by Ministiries of Education (schools for Doctors); of Health
> (Hospitals, General Practioners, Specialists,); and Defence (what is the
> purpose of the fleet? _Why_ is it there?). BTW; 'today's military' does
> 'pull physcians from the populace'
Nope. It's nice that you've mastered Marxism and all it's related concepts,
but Marx was a moron who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
Under a given set of circumstances there is a market for X physicians in
society.
In response the market creates x physicians to serve them by adjusting
incentives (wages and social bennies mostly).
The Navy recruits one. Is there now a void? No, the wages of the remaing
physicians rise, creating the incentive for the creation of another
physician. (if you want all the details, study economics for 8 years like I
did...)
In the end society has the same number of physicians it had before (not
counting the Navy). That new physician would have otherwise done something
else and is replaced by someone who would have otherwise done something else
and so on until at the end what you have one less of is unemployed people.
> Hmm, dark grey war canoes do not, IMHO, just make wakes in the sea - nor
> pilots bore holes in the sky. Such vessels are manned, vittled, fuelled,
> replenished for a purpose. That purpose will have been determined by the
> "civilisation model of the story". Is this vessel a Heinlein style
> Anti-Bug-Eyed-Monster 'picket' (vedette)? Is it a protection of trade
> between Colonies (a la Battlestar Galactica fleet). Before you ask how
> Able-Spaceman ( tenth class) Jones is cooking the eggs; you should really
> address _why_ Able -Spaceman (tenth class) Jones is cooking the eggs.
> IMHO.
Because people get hungry.
But I WOULD like to know as many details (though not how the eggs are
cooked) about the Mess as possible. Right down the the experience and
working circumstances of everyone doing the cooking...
Shawn Wilson
>
> Brian Sharrock wrote:
>>. Before you ask how
>> Able-Spaceman ( tenth class) Jones is cooking the eggs; you should really
>> address _why_ Able -Spaceman (tenth class) Jones is cooking the eggs.
>> IMHO.
>
>
> But that wasn't what he asked. It is a fiction novel and one would
> assume he will provide the meat of the story. What he is asking for
> is the recipe for a small part of it. He'll provide the ingredients
> and put it together for the presentation. And there's more to a meal
> than one dish, which is all we've been asked to participate in.
> IMHO of course.
Um, yeah, exactly. I am looking to build the story more on people and
setting than plot (A/M for general style, dreadnought era for combat, real
world historical situations for plots, and the real navy for verisimilitude,
leaving very little that *I* have to actually create, because that's the
hard part...). I *want* to achieve the richness that the Aubrey/Maturin
novels have, but that requires a LOT of details about things that I know
nearly nothing about. Sure it will be modified, but I need to know what I
can stretch and how far I can stretch it and still have it 'work'.
Derek Lyons
>And I demonstrated why every single argument you presented as to why
>was false.
You haven't demonstrated a dammed thing other than an arrogant streak
a mile wide, and a willingness to tell the professionals _for whose
help you asked_ that you know more than they do. (Which you don't.
Not by a long shot.)
You're only remaining function in this group is to provide
entertainment - and you haven't the skill for that either.
AudioSysEng
> But I WOULD like to know as many details (though not how the eggs are
> cooked) about the Mess as possible. Right down the the experience and
> working circumstances of everyone doing the cooking...
I never served as a mess crank (I reported aboard as an E-4), but if
you want a good slice on daily life, go here:
http://www.uss-rangerguy.com/Simulate_life.htm
I've seen that dozens of times and I still laugh every time!
MD
Shawn Wilson
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4s6g23t7bmoo38rh8...@4ax.com...
> :For 'brave new worlds' you go to the fringe. This is the British Asian
> :squadron protecting the ships of the East India Company while showing the
> :flag, suppressing piracy, supporting various diplomatic efforts to the
> local
> :rulers, beefing up allied navies and countering the wiley French.
> :Scientists who want to study these planets just book passage on a liner,
> :they don't need to supply their own ship. This is (barbarian)
> civilization,
> :not the frontier.
>
> If you can just "book a liner" it isn't (barbarian) civilization.
>
> The more you talk, the more it sounds like you're really looking for
> something more analogous to a cruiser rather than a destroyer. You're
> essentially talking about 'power projection' (station cruisers) into
> the hinterlands.
I know enough to read the Aubrey/Maturin novels and replace 'frigate' with
'cruiser'. I do know the roles. Yes, this ship would normally be too small
for the role it's playing. For setting reasons it is necessary that the
core worlds are more technologically advanced than the client states, enough
that a core cruiser is equivalent to a colony battleship and so on. But I
don't want my ship to be as tough or tougher than anything it could
encounter in the colonies. That makes for boring stories. Firepower equal
to a local cruiser is perfect- weaker than a dreadnought but stronger than a
destroyer. That makes the ship a destroyer as far as the core is concerned.
(yes, it's definitely a core ship, even if old and worn). Would the local
commander prefer a cruiser? Definitely. He has missions for a dozen
cruisers. What he actually has available to perform those missions is two
cruisers (one almost unserviceable) and four destroyers. He can either
leave 5/6 of what he needs to do go undone, or he can use the destroyers in
roles they aren't well suited for.
Shawn Wilson
> KP duty (in other services) assigned as a punishment details - in the
> Navy it's merely part of your normal rotation.
Not in the Army. KP was a rotating assignment in Basic (I missed the M-60
day because I had KP and it wasn't considered vital enough to swap people
out). In my regular unit the KPs were civilians. I never went to war so I
don't know about then. But it was never considered or treated as punishment
that I saw.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:
In other words, your mind on what you want to do is made up and nobody
should confuse you with facts.
Deal. So, why did you ask, again?
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
BlackBeard
>
> Well, a boat is different from a ship socially Sean.
>
A. I know that, and so do you, but not everyone in the conversation
does. And if they're going to make general statements then I get to
also. ;)
B. In regards to a spaceship with all the other similarities to a sub
mentioned in previous posts, perhaps the crew/wardroom interactions
might resemble those of a Sub.
C. Our Boats, were Ships. :P'''
BlackBeard
>
> Breach the hull of a submarine and it sinks, exactly like any other ship.
> That a destroyer has a deck and a submarine doesn't is an irrelevant
> triviality.
You ignored the points About the USS Cole or Stark? Hulls breached,
still floated.
> They are not in constant instantaneous contact with anyone who isn't already
> aboard or in extremely close proximity. Exactly like any ship before radio.
>
> Subs have radios and the capability of instantaneous communications, even
> when submerged (though reduced).
Wrong. They have the capability under certain conditions. At other
times (often on SpecOps) that ability is unavailable.
>
> > And as to
> > modern operations, in acordance with your post, Subs often operate
> > independently.
>
> So do surface ships...
Rarely
>
> Subs ALSO receive replenishment,
Wrong. Not underway.
> I argued with your contention that a space craft must necessarily follow
> submarine rathe than surface ship principles. And I demonstrated why every
> single argument you presented as to why was false.
You have demonstrated nothing other than whatever intellect you may
have, it is repressed and overwhelmed by your ego. You argue from
ignorance and refuse to accept experienced (and solicited)
information. And worst of all you demonstrated that Glenn was correct
and for that you are not worth any more time or effort.
Goodbye.
jJim McLaughlin
So after all your handwaving, what this comes down to is you are plagarizing
another author's original work, and re seeking help here o isguise your
plagarism.
What a maroon.
Vince
> "Brian Sharrock" <b.sha...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:fk_Vh.4434$kb4....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
>> No matter what the financial incentives over study grants, fees etc.
>> There's a finite number of Doctor-qualified in any given population.
>> Handwaving away 'there's an alternative path' doesn't address the
>> underlying question. [These are real-world decisions that have to be
>> considered by Ministiries of Education (schools for Doctors); of Health
>> (Hospitals, General Practioners, Specialists,); and Defence (what is the
>> purpose of the fleet? _Why_ is it there?). BTW; 'today's military' does
>> 'pull physcians from the populace'
>
>
> Nope. It's nice that you've mastered Marxism and all it's related concepts,
> but Marx was a moron who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
>
> Under a given set of circumstances there is a market for X physicians in
> society.
>
> In response the market creates x physicians to serve them by adjusting
> incentives (wages and social bennies mostly).
>
> The Navy recruits one. Is there now a void? No, the wages of the remaing
> physicians rise, creating the incentive for the creation of another
> physician. (if you want all the details, study economics for 8 years like I
> did...)
you are making an enormous number of assumptions, especially dealing
with elasticity of supply and the quality of information available.
I was privileged to work with Mancur Olsen on some of these issues.
Vincent Brannigan
Assistant Prof 1977. to Professor 1991
Consumer Economics program
U of Maryland
Derek Lyons
>On Apr 20, 3:18 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>>
>> Well, a boat is different from a ship socially Sean.
>>
>
>A. I know that, and so do you, but not everyone in the conversation
>does. And if they're going to make general statements then I get to
>also. ;)
OK :)
>B. In regards to a spaceship with all the other similarities to a sub
>mentioned in previous posts, perhaps the crew/wardroom interactions
>might resemble those of a Sub.
Much depends on the social milieu of the Navy. The US is (for
example) more egletarian than other nations.
Mark Borgerson
spk...@msn.com says...
> On Apr 20, 5:49 pm, "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Breach the hull of a submarine and it sinks, exactly like any other ship.
> > That a destroyer has a deck and a submarine doesn't is an irrelevant
> > triviality.
>
> You ignored the points About the USS Cole or Stark? Hulls breached,
> still floated.
>
> > They are not in constant instantaneous contact with anyone who isn't already
> > aboard or in extremely close proximity. Exactly like any ship before radio.
> >
> > Subs have radios and the capability of instantaneous communications, even
> > when submerged (though reduced).
>
> Wrong. They have the capability under certain conditions. At other
> times (often on SpecOps) that ability is unavailable.
>
> >
> > > And as to
> > > modern operations, in acordance with your post, Subs often operate
> > > independently.
> >
> > So do surface ships...
>
> Rarely
Not so rarely for some classes of ships---intel collection platforms
among them. Of course, that 'independent operation' can make things
a bit dangerous. c.f.: USS Pueblo, USS Liberty. The USS Indianapolis
is another example of the hazards of independent operation.
There are two ways to think of 'independent operation'. One is complete
independence---no physical proximity to other vessels and no aggregate
command authority to limit the tactical decisions of the CO. The other
is the type of independent operations a vessel might experience in
transit from a base to a deployed task group. The latter type
of independent operations may often result in a transit schedule
determined, in part, by the location of interesting liberty
ports.
Attack subs probably get more of the truly independent operations
than other vessels. I'm not sure the 'boomer in a box' mission
is quite so independent, as the skipper has to be monitoring
ELF all the time.
<<SNIP>>
John Mianowski
I've never set foot on a sub, except pierside museum pieces. Somebody
who has actually served (& I know there are plenty of you here),
please correct me if I'm wrong.
JM
On Apr 19, 7:48 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> AudioSysEng <audiosys...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >A prime example is the movie Crimson Tide. The movie made you
> >sympathetic towards the XO, who tried (successfully) to stop the
> >missile launch, but the fact is that he was dead wrong. The CO was
> >following protocol and while the results would have been unthinkable,
> >that's what he was trained to do.
>
> No, the CO was _dead wrong_.
>
> The protocol for nuclear weapons is that if there is any doubt
> (especially by the authenticating officers, I.E. the XO), the weapons
> stay in the tubes.
>
> No exceptions. No discussions.
Paul J. Adam
Mianowski <spam...@skytex.net> writes
>That was a horrible movie! Not a professional in that crew, anywhere.
At least they correctly identified the requirement for every SSBN to
carry sufficient assault rifles, shotguns, body armour et cetera for the
crew to be able to come ashore at Murmansk and fight their way to
Moscow. Distributed through the ship, naturally, so that if the crew is
divided and squabbling, both factions can be properly armed.
The one part of the film that I liked, was the fire scene: for all Tony
Scott's other faults, he's twice got "this is a really tough job and
here's why, filmed really nicely" across. Once was firefighting on a
submerged submarine in Crimson Tide, the other was flight deck ops for
the opening sequence in Top Gun.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk
BlackBeard
> In message <1177184076.512344.98...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, John
> Mianowski <spamf...@skytex.net> writes
>
> >That was a horrible movie! Not a professional in that crew, anywhere.
Agreed, with one exception. The COB pretty much did his job and acted
accordingly. With the (further) exception being as Derek pointed out
that the CO was wrong, and the COB should have supported the XO all
the way.
>
> At least they correctly identified the requirement for every SSBN to
> carry sufficient assault rifles, shotguns, body armour et cetera for the
> crew to be able to come ashore at Murmansk and fight their way to
> Moscow. Distributed through the ship, naturally, so that if the crew is
> divided and squabbling, both factions can be properly armed.
*snark*
>
> The one part of the film that I liked, was the fire scene: for all Tony
> Scott's other faults, he's twice got "this is a really tough job and
> here's why, filmed really nicely" across. Once was firefighting on a
> submerged submarine in Crimson Tide,
Bleagh... Absolute bunk, pure hollywood. No need for the XO to fly
through flames in the galley to activate the extinguishing system
(ridicuously placed in the most likely place for the fire to engulf.)
There are switches right at the door so you can activate it on the way
out thus preventing further casualties from trying to breathe in a
tiny space that's just been flooded with Ansul. (or in the older days
PKP)
Joe Osman
> I am trying to write a science fiction novel (basically the Aubrey/Maturin
> novels translated into SF) and for verisimilitude I'd like details about day
There's already a lot of good SF that has done just that. You should
read some of it. Examples are David Feintuch's "Seafort Saga" series,
David Weber's "Honor Harrington" series, A. Bertram Chandler's " John
Grimes/Rim War" series, Poul Anderson's "Dominic Flandry" series and
Robert Heinlein's "Starman Jones".
Joe
Paul J. Adam
BlackBeard <spk...@msn.com> writes
That's detail (and some surface platforms have carefully implemented
similar "no need for heroes" designs, partly as a result of bloody
lessons: asking for a hero is doable, asking them to find valves on the
deck in four feet of water topped with burning dieso is harder).
What did come across - at least, to a non-submariner - was that this
wasn't just "oh, well, evacuate everyone and let it burn until the fire
brigade arrive" as it often is on land. Nor was it the skimmer problem
of "this is burning our home, either we beat this fire or we learn to
swim really well". On a submarine, the fire isn't just stealing your
living space, it's stealing your _air_ and it has to be defeated quickly
if you want to keep breathing.
I don't look to movies to get detail right (I get annoyed when they're
really egregiously wrong while loudly claiming to be accurate, but - for
example - I respect Ridley Scott for saying about "Black Hawk Down" that
he started from the truth and chopped it about to fit a two-hour movie)
but once in a while, a movie can give imagery and mood and feel even if
it's technically wrong.
Vaughn Simon
"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4626d3ad$0$495$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>I am trying to write a science fiction novel (basically the Aubrey/Maturin
>novels translated into SF) and for verisimilitude I'd like details about day to
>day life aboard ship. As much as possible. What would be a good source to
>read? The A/M novels are terrific, but I'm not doing the age of sail. I want
>details from the dreadnought age to the modern era. I was in the military, but
>infantry, not navy. What I know about life aboard ship comes from the A/M
>novels and Star Trek reruns, and I know Star Trek is bullshit and the A/M
>novels aren't but are entirely the wrong period.
Hmmm, strange that I hadn't made that connection before. Star Trek IS the
Aubrey/Maturin
novels translated into SF.
Vaughn
Andrew Robert Breen
>news:4626d3ad$0$495$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>>I am trying to write a science fiction novel (basically the Aubrey/Maturin
>>novels translated into SF) and for verisimilitude I'd like details
>about day to
>>day life aboard ship. As much as possible. What would be a good source to
>>read? The A/M novels are terrific, but I'm not doing the age of sail. I want
>>details from the dreadnought age to the modern era. I was in the
>military, but
>>infantry, not navy. What I know about life aboard ship comes from the A/M
>>novels and Star Trek reruns, and I know Star Trek is bullshit and the A/M
>>novels aren't but are entirely the wrong period.
Try John Biggins' "A sailor of Austria" for a very good treatment of life
in early submarines - the particular problems with petrol engines in
submarines might be of interest to you (and the means of transporting a
camel but submarine, for that matter...)
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
John Dallman
> Try John Biggins' "A sailor of Austria" for a very good treatment of
> life in early submarines - the particular problems with petrol
> engines in submarines might be of interest to you (and the means of
> transporting a camel but submarine, for that matter...)
Add to that:
Alistair McLean: HMS Ulysses - but nothing else by him.
C S Forester: The Ship, one day in the life of a RN cruiser in the Med,
during WWII.
Warren Tute: The Rock, The Cruiser, and The Admiral.
John Winton's fiction, while rather hard to find these days, is good
lightweight fun and seems to get the post-WWII RN over pretty well.
Avoid Patrick Robinson. He has a very distinguished RN admiral as a
consultant, but the results have enough clearly identifiable errors to
make it clear that he doesn't use this well.
--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
John Dallman
(Derek Lyons) wrote:
> BlackBeard <spk...@msn.com> wrote:
> >B. In regards to a spaceship with all the other similarities to a
> >sub mentioned in previous posts, perhaps the crew/wardroom interactions
> >might resemble those of a Sub.
> Much depends on the social milieu of the Navy. The US is (for
> example) more egletarian than other nations.
It seems to be the case in almost all navies that the smaller the craft,
and the more everyone is living in each other's pockets, the less formal
and the more egalitarian. On each navy's scale, of course.
Eugene Griessel
>C S Forester: The Ship, one day in the life of a RN cruiser in the Med,
>during WWII.
Is that the one that starts off with the manufacture of a large
cauldron of soup? I think I have it mouldering away on a bookshelf
somewhere....
In the same sort of genre try JPW Mallalieu's "Very Ordinary Seaman" ,
GP Griggs' "Destroyer at War" and Frederick Wigby's "Stoker, Royal
Navy". If any of them are still obtainable.
Eugene L Griessel
We live, as we dream, alone. - Joseph Conrad
Jack Linthicum
The novel "The Enemy Below" by Denys Rayner, a British naval officer,
takes you through the thought processes of a first time skipper of a
war ship.
John Dallman
> j...@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) wrote:
> >C S Forester: The Ship, one day in the life of a RN cruiser in the
> >Med, during WWII.
> Is that the one that starts off with the manufacture of a large
> cauldron of soup?
Yup. How to make tomato soup for 400 men in twenty minutes. Hint: you
need to use the ship's high-pressure steam plant.
Andrew Robert Breen
Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Apr 22, 9:46 am, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote:
>> j...@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) wrote:
>> >C S Forester: The Ship, one day in the life of a RN cruiser in the Med,
>> >during WWII.
>>
>> Is that the one that starts off with the manufacture of a large
>> cauldron of soup? I think I have it mouldering away on a bookshelf
>> somewhere....
>>
>> In the same sort of genre try JPW Mallalieu's "Very Ordinary Seaman" ,
>> GP Griggs' "Destroyer at War" and Frederick Wigby's "Stoker, Royal
>> Navy". If any of them are still obtainable.
>The novel "The Enemy Below" by Denys Rayner, a British naval officer,
>takes you through the thought processes of a first time skipper of a
>war ship.
And, for that matter, "Three Corvettes", "The Cruel Sea" and "HMS
Marlborough will enter harbour", all by Nicholas Montserrat.
Andrew Robert Breen
John Dallman <j...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <462b656...@news.uunet.co.za>, eugene@dynagen..co..za
>(Eugene Griessel) wrote:
>> j...@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) wrote:
>> >C S Forester: The Ship, one day in the life of a RN cruiser in the
>> >Med, during WWII.
>> Is that the one that starts off with the manufacture of a large
>> cauldron of soup?
>
>Yup. How to make tomato soup for 400 men in twenty minutes. Hint: you
>need to use the ship's high-pressure steam plant.
I've seen mussell soup for 15 made in 5 minutes by that method. Very nice
it was, too..