quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: I'd quite like to see a rank system that is not based on US military insignia, like we always see. I mean, there are far more uses of the rank systems based on those of Russia, and half the world, ie. the Commonwealth, use a British type system.
Do like the uniforms though. Hats?
Hats? I dunno... hehe. Maybe.
As for the rank setup, as you can see the officers wear epaulets. My intent is for those epaulets to carry that system of ranking, where it's more about brooches than stripes and bars.
The Army would be a hybrid of the various systems. Due to the immense size of the military you'd need more rank differentiation in order to break down responsibility into manageable chunks. But I'll also admit to being biased towards the British/Commonwealth system, which is also used by the majority of the rest of the world, Commonwealth or otherwise.
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Sean: I actually like the British rank system more than the US system. I like the sound of " Brigadier",and "Lance Corporal".
Then again, I think " Gunny" has a nice ring to it also...
With US armed forces, I prefer the system used by the Army and the Marines. SLightly less complicated than the NAVY's scheme of things.
Personally I think the Navy's is the easiest. Three sets of three. Three seaman ranks, three petty officer ranks, and three chief ranks. Seaman Recruit, Seaman Apprentice, Seaman Petty Officer 3rd-class, Petty Officer 2nd-class, Petty Officer 1st-class Chief, Senior Chief, Master Chief
I always had a hard time with other ranks like which order all the sergeants go in which type of sergeant is higher.
Needless to say I like seeing a pro-military take on Trek fan art. And since I go with a more heavy Navy-Starfleet hybrid seeing an Army-Starfleet is an interesting change of pace.
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I haven't done too much on the Akira side of things lately, but I did play around with the Army side since our taskforce has an army detachment.
I wanted them to look and feel distinctly different from Starfleet, but part of the same culture. The rank scheme is a hybrid. It's primarily the British/Commonwealth/European scheme, with a bit of the Nato-style as well.
posted
Well, leaving aside my thought that the Federation wouldn't have a "federal" army but something more akin to the US's national guard which can be "federalized" in emergency....
You seem to have more flag ranks than we've seen Star Fleet having - how many different kinds of admiral have we seen? Maybe two, three?
On the enlisted side we've no idea of the Fleet's structure but I'd question the need for a Corporal *and* a Specialist. Corporal is where you'd get your first significant level of leadership roles. I don't think an additional step between it and Sergeant is really needed, is it?
Warrant officers, today, are sort of an ad hoc rank that, IMHO, would hopefully be phased out by the 24th century. They also tend to be poorly written in military fiction.
They look fine though.
-------------------- Twee bieren tevreden, zullen mijn vriend betalen.
Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Sean: With US armed forces, I prefer the system used by the Army and the Marines. SLightly less complicated than the NAVY's scheme of things.
You know that the US forces have the exact same rank structures, right? Just name them differently.
-------------------- Twee bieren tevreden, zullen mijn vriend betalen.
Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
"Yes, SIR." "'SIR?!?' I WORK for a living! What does three up & three down mean to you, Airman?!?" "End of an inning?" "....SERGEANT. MAJOR."
Interesting, although the lower & middle warrant officer grades look like they're playing for the Steelers.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Toadkiller: Well, leaving aside my thought that the Federation wouldn't have a "federal" army but something more akin to the US's national guard which can be "federalized" in emergency....
Well, you and I will obviously differ on opinion here, but I'm gratified to see that you'd even consider it. Most Trek fans can only believe that Starfleet is the beginning and end of military capability of a population that counts in the hundreds of billions, if not low trillions.
I know your idea of it being a national guard is your way of trying to reconcile the idea of an army with the fact that Trek only ever shows Starfleet and I appreciate the logic, though I disagree with it.
quote: You seem to have more flag ranks than we've seen Star Fleet having - how many different kinds of admiral have we seen? Maybe two, three?
I'm not the kind of person that notices those sorts of things, but I'm pretty sure that admirals of all levels (at least based on visible numbers of pips if not named by rank) have been shown. Having an equivalent number of general staff ranks is no different.
quote: On the enlisted side we've no idea of the Fleet's structure but I'd question the need for a Corporal *and* a Specialist. Corporal is where you'd get your first significant level of leadership roles. I don't think an additional step between it and Sergeant is really needed, is it?
Specialist isn't an additional step. it's more or less a lateral promotion. Lance Corporal should have been below but I put it on the same line for aesthetic reasons. Specialist would have much the same definition and role as today - which is of course to do specialized work.
quote: Warrant officers, today, are sort of an ad hoc rank that, IMHO, would hopefully be phased out by the 24th century. They also tend to be poorly written in military fiction.
I don't much hold to what the tv show tells me. I rely on what seems right and realistic to me. And the trek world where every officer (enlisted hardly even seem to exist) is a specialist in every conceivable area is wholly unrealistic to me. Warrant Officers are highly trained for very specific jobs, sometimes coming from outside the military directly to that position.
I don't see that changing in the future. There will always be jobs that will take so much investiture to get good at it that it doesn't make sense to try to use jacks of all trades to do them.
quote: They look fine though.
Glad you like em
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Sean: The S.E.A.L.s are part of the NAVY, do they use the NAVY ranks,( i.e. PO1,PO2,PO3), or the Army's scheme of things, ( i.e. Pte,Cpl,Sgt)?
Yeah, SEAL's use Navy ranks. Hence, the whole Navy thing
I personally prefer a phasing out of any sort of Fed "Army" or "Marine Corps" and instead using a Mobile Infantry of sorts, like in the Starship Troopers universe. I mean, the roles that the SF Army and Marines would play would basically be identical so it would make more sense to have it MI style.
Ahkileez man, great work. I'm in a IIRC/RPG too and I only WISH ours was as good as this. I'll go check yours out. Regardless, I like your look on a more militarized version of Trek. It's nice to dream about a utopian galaxy out there, but chances are conflict will occur. Great drawings.
-------------------- "Its coming on. I just saw the wall move..."
Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
posted
Cool. I like them. Officer ranks look like a Russian/German hybrid, and the other ranks are a nice UK/US hybrid.
Perhaps I would have fewer sergeant ranks, to make it a bit less American, but thats me. Perhaps, instead of being senior sergeants, they could be ocupational titles for warrant officers.
One other thing - the officer cadets look too similar to the second lieutenants. Perhaps they could use a different device all together.
Like the British Army / RAF (white stripes and collar patches), or the Royal Navy (midshipman patches)?
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
"One other thing - the officer cadets look too similar to the second lieutenants. Perhaps they could use a different device all together. "
Not entirely, if you consider that all ranks from 2nd LT up have a "federation" bar on the sides of their insignias, with the officer cadets lacking that to signify that they are not yet officers.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
posted
None of this is to distract from your work. It is honestly none of my business how someone chooses to imagine the trek-verse. But in the interest of an increase in posts round these parts:
I guess my thought isn't so much political as logistical. Any sort of offensive "ground" operation against a well populated planet seems unfeasible. The target has: local knowledge, replicators for making weapons or weapons on hand and a huge numerical advantage. Sending "army troops" isn't going to be sustainable. Either you dictate terms from orbit and "occupy" with relatively few troops or you aren't going to win.
A Galaxy class can carry 15,000 tops and probably only a fraction of that if you want them able to fight days or weeks later. Less again if you want to carry equipment, vehicles and any sort of "artillery", Dedicated troop ships might do a little better but given trek ship sizes I'd think a 5,000 troop ship would be pretty big. Say you have 10 of them for an assault and for tactical reasons the fleet can't stay in orbit for more than 10 hours. (An off hand guess based on current day Marine ops that I've read about in books.)
Can you beam/shuttle down 50,000 troops and gear in 10 hours? If you do, can they "take" a planet of 1 billion hostile folks? Wouldn't it just be the Iraq situation times about 1,000,000? How do 50,000 troops deal with 1 billion hostages scattered across the planet's surface? With transporters and IED's?
Is any of the above something that it seems like the Federation would be interested in doing?
My counter with the "militia" idea is that each member world and colony would have a force to 1) counter the above scenario 2) serve as a emergency management force like the national guard 3) be able to be "federalized" to assist other member worlds in an emergency of sufficient magnitude. These militias could, I suppose, be collectively referred to as the "Federation Army" and certainly those with a political reason (I'm looking at your Romulans) for doing so could call them that.
I'd imagine that a culture that refers to battleships as "explorers" would call it something like a "Emergency Response Cadre" or something.
Homemade donuts calling from other room....
-------------------- Twee bieren tevreden, zullen mijn vriend betalen.
Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Perhaps the purpose of the "army" is as more of an occupation force, to keep things in order once a planet has surrendered to starfleet, or to help deal with dissedents on a planet in the midst of a revolution. Or, they could be like a special forces unit, just on a massive scale, to perform covert operations. Also, they could be used to hold and defend installations captured or built by the federation in the event of war.
But, as a force to take a planet, I agree. It just doesn't make sense logistically.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
