83 réponses à ce sujet

[grey_venger]

To get back to the OP, I would look at the literary examples. Every Author has his examples of great literature he tries to emulate. A lot of great adventure operas fitting in the "new fronteer" background were written with as navy stories, like the aforementioned Hornblower stories, but others like the Sea Wolf, the Bolitho stories etc come to mind.

Many readers will also have an at least passing familiarity with naval terms, so they know that a carrier probably carries some kind of fighters, BattleShips are the big evil sluggers, and frigates are small, nimble reconnaissance and raider crafts.

The whole Honor Harrington stories by Weber can best be described as "hornblower in space".

Besides, the different navies have a dearth of century old traditions authors can adapt to flesh out their stories, whereas the AirForces have been in existence for a rather short amount of time.



And last but not least "ten lashes for insubordination" has a far more severe ring than "no cable for you before bed this evening, mister".

[KitsuneRommel]

nikki191 wrote...

why do they use navy ranks? easy to understand really.. look at the ships themselves, the classes of spaceships are almost always given navy type designations. the normady was a frigate, there are cruisers, carriers, dreadnoughts. even in space they are still classed and called "ships" hence you have navy ranks.

So you are in essence saying it makes sense to use navy ranks since we use navy designations and designs for the spacecraft? What if they were just different types of rockets? Would they still be called cruisers, frigates, etc?

It makes for good space opera but bad space science.

[Nivenus]

In the end, it's obvious why writers tend to use naval analogues for space combat. However, IRL, the ranks would probably be modeled off of the air force, assuming they don't come up with their own ranks. In some countries, however, like the UK, air force ranks are closer to the navy than the army.

Drakron wrote...

Nivenus wrote...
You are correct that the US Navy is very adept at certain forms of air combat and indeed, probably plays a larger role in air combat these days than the USAF (particularly in places like Iraq and Afghanistan)

Here is a sugestion, get a map and check WERE Afghanistan is located (it have NO sea exists, unless they are
using chronospheres to put US carriers in the middle of lakes and no, Pakistan is not really something you want to fly over in a regular basis ... pisses off the natives sort to speak) and also look at were are Iraq sea borders are (very small, in fact getting a sea exit was one of the main reasons of the Iraq-Iran war and also the
Kuwait invasion as they are pretty close to someone that really does not like the US very much, Iran).

I know where Afghanistan is located. I also know that US carriers do play a part in the strategy there or at least have in the past. Pakistan is a United States ally and we have security treaties with them that allow us, among other things, to launch smart bomb strikes at al-Qaeda and Taliban cells within their borders.

[superimposed]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

superimposed wrote...

Cause they're called Space Ships.

Ships being the key word.

Craft: a vehicle or vessel, which may include: Aircraft, hovercraft, watercraft and spacecraft.

The reason they are called space ships in sci-fi is the same reason they use navy ranks.

No, the reason they navy ranks is because they are called space ships. If they were called Space Planes they'd use ranks of the airforce.

[Michel1986]

mosor wrote...

In real life, manned space travel is run by the air force by every country and use their country's air force ranks. I just find it interesting that in almost every science fiction series they go navy rather than air force.

Think about it, someone command a ship in space or on sea.....its normal to use navy ranks

[BellatrixLugosi]

Mosor just didn't look up his sources in this one, half of Astronauts who came from the military were navy in the earlier years. Now if a astronaut was in the military they are usually mixed 1/3 they dont usually have army backround, just Navy, Air Force, Marines. But to simply put it, Navy ranks would be used and Navy division of Military would apply to ships in space. Planes are about using it to do one mission, for a brief time. Navy is about both planes and ships, but the difference is the ship is used in a long period of time. Its a good idea to split up services. Air force in ME seem's to be like planet security according to the Cerb network

[KitsuneRommel]

superimposed wrote...

No, the reason they navy ranks is because they are called space ships. If they were called Space Planes they'd use ranks of the airforce.

And if they were called spacecraft?

[BellatrixLugosi]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

superimposed wrote...

No, the reason they navy ranks is because they are called space ships. If they were called Space Planes they'd use ranks of the airforce.

And if they were called spacecraft?

Thats a general term, don't wouldn't apply

[KitsuneRommel]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

Thats a general term, don't wouldn't apply

Space ship isn't a general term?

[Mister Mida]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

Thats a general term, don't wouldn't apply

Space ship isn't a general term?

Actually, spaceship and spacecraft are synonyms

[superimposed]

If they were called Spacecraft they wouldn't have ranks. They would be filled by tiny green men.

[Athelius]

Planes don't tend to have a large crew- so a space-vessel manned by multiple people would probably work better on the naval command structure.



However the real reason is that all sci-fi really just mirrors the present day or even the past- space travel and exploration is almost always shown as a parrallel to something else, often the tallship voyages during the times of discovery.

Perhaps for that reason the naval ranks can have something of a romantic idea behing them- the image of a captain in charge of his ship is an enduring one with alot of cultural resonance in the west.

[Zaisha_temp]

Anyone get the idea that, if and when we actually do develop a space military in the future, the Navy and Airforce higher ups will have a discussion very similar to this one about who gets to be in charge?



Except probably louder and not as polite. (which might take some doing, considering this is the internet, but inter service rivalry goes a LONG way)

[Athelius]

Zaisha_temp wrote...

Anyone get the idea that, if and when we actually do develop a space military in the future, the Navy and Airforce higher ups will have a discussion very similar to this one about who gets to be in charge?

Except probably louder and not as polite. (which might take some doing, considering this is the internet, but inter service rivalry goes a LONG way)

I say we make up new ranks entireley;

SpaceLord
Zordon
Rchhelllis
Petty Rchhelllis
Sub Petty Rchhelllis
Grod

[Athelius]

Doublepost, doubleplus sorry.

Modifié par Athelius, 15 mai 2010 - 12:18 .

[kraze07]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Zaisha_temp wrote...

Anyone get the idea that, if and when we actually do develop a space military in the future, the Navy and Airforce higher ups will have a discussion very similar to this one about who gets to be in charge?

Except probably louder and not as polite. (which might take some doing, considering this is the internet, but inter service rivalry goes a LONG way)

I say, let's decide this matter with a Football Match:

Navy vs Army

The winner takes it all. I say "GO NAVY! CRUSH ARMY!!!"
(not US-American btw, so don't take this as semi-patriotic BS!)

I second that. BTW, when was the last time the Army beat the Navy at football? Oh yeah that's right, back in 2001. I know this is a thread about Air Force vs Navy ranks for a military space force, but HOOYAH GO NAVY!

[The Grey Ranger]

Actually, the use of navy ranks for space ships goes back quite a bit further than Star Trek. EE Smith used navy ranks for the Galactic patrol. Thirty years or so before Rodenberry. It's rather traditional at this point.

[Landline]

They probably use navy ranks because the rank structure for one man fighters doesn't translate well to multi crew battle ships, while navy ranks do.



I do believe however, that when space fighter craft are involved they do use air force names.

[HTTP 404]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Wow, ... and I thought this would turn a bit more into the logical-argument direction ... instead this thread ended up "because they are called spaceSHIPS".

So sad.

I'm going to write a sci-fi story with spaceARKS, archbishops, bishops, patriarchs, vicars, ministers, deacons, pastors and priests.

Or maybe one with spaceCASTLES, kings, barons, counts, marquess', earls, dukes and knights.

the dune books used medival terms.

[Poison_Berrie]

The way I see it, there's three ways to view it.

1) Someone with a naval background started it (writing what you know). It somehow stuck and has now become accepted.
2) This comes from a time when Space was thought as an ocean and hasn't changed with our new understanding.
3) Naval ranks and structure were viewed as more analogous to the way their large spacecraft worked (internally) and became the standard.

All of them come down to the same thing; by now this has become so ingrained, it's considered the standard.

Also Athelius makes a good point of the 'Romantic Ideal'.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 15 mai 2010 - 06:22 .

[SuperMedbh]

grey_venger wrote...
And last but not least "ten lashes for insubordination" has a far more severe ring than "no cable for you before bed this evening, mister".

I wonder what sorts of discipline the Taurians use.  They strike me as a bit "old school".  Remember Garrus' comment that a Taurian will always follow an order, even if it's stupid?  They probably are fairly harsh when it comes to those who don't.  And then there was Kaiden's biotic instructor.

[screwoffreg]

The most unrealistic thing about space combat in ME and most all Sci Fi is it portrays at is old-style ocean combat with broadsides booming and close range fighting. In reality, any kinetic impact in space would likely be a kill shot, so "shields" (for which there is no basis in current physics) or heavy armor would be of little use. It would all be about maneuverability and countermeasures and fights would take place over large distances. Space fighters would also be absolutely useless as a drone or something similar would have greater flexibility.

[GothamLord]

screwoffreg wrote...

The most unrealistic thing about space combat in ME and most all Sci Fi is it portrays at is old-style ocean combat with broadsides booming and close range fighting. In reality, any kinetic impact in space would likely be a kill shot, so "shields" (for which there is no basis in current physics) or heavy armor would be of little use. It would all be about maneuverability and countermeasures and fights would take place over large distances. Space fighters would also be absolutely useless as a drone or something similar would have greater flexibility.

So basically from a cinamatic standpoint, realistic space combat would be rather boring to watch.

[screwoffreg]

GothamLord wrote...

screwoffreg wrote...

The most unrealistic thing about space combat in ME and most all Sci Fi is it portrays at is old-style ocean combat with broadsides booming and close range fighting. In reality, any kinetic impact in space would likely be a kill shot, so "shields" (for which there is no basis in current physics) or heavy armor would be of little use. It would all be about maneuverability and countermeasures and fights would take place over large distances. Space fighters would also be absolutely useless as a drone or something similar would have greater flexibility.

So basically from a cinamatic standpoint, realistic space combat would be rather boring to watch.

Pretty much.  Giant spheres moving around and shooting missiles from lightyears away.