Confed's Organization

In Action Stations, there was a distinction made between civilian intel (government?) and Confed intel (military).
Also, maybe the Navy is part of Space Force which could encompass all Confed fighting units (navy, marines, possibally even intel)?
And good to see y'all again :) !
 
This are even the problems I also had when I played WC Prophecy through. It was logical for ME if a Colonel of the Space Force finishes the active duty and becomes a member of the Navy, then would his rank would be changed,but if it was so...the CAG should have been a 'Captain' not a 'Commander'! It did not seem to be logical! But I have to say about me that Prophecy was the first of the games I played through! I do not know the WC universe very well...but today I want to begin to read the books.
So I even think about the problem of the mixed crew on the TCS Midway. I think about the problem of competence...considering the different parts of the Confed Military which are united on such a big ship. Who has to follow whose orders? The only thing I still know is that everyone has to follow the Captain's orders!
 
Even though everybody would follow the captain technically Commodore Blair is the highest ranking officer since he is the only Flag Officer aboard, he could take command of the ship if he wished to.
 
Right. He is a 'Commodore'. But I still do not understand why he had to follow the CAG's orders as she did not allow him to fly again after his rescue out of the alien's hands.
His rank was higher than the one of her! If he just did it, she would not have been allowed to punish him,or? Maybe she had fallen in love with him or just didn't want to let such an"old" man fly.(By the way how old is the CAG?).
 
Because she was the head of the air wing aboard the Midway and he would have had to have Dissmissed her to not follow her orders.
 
Originally posted by Napoleon
Even though everybody would follow the captain technically Commodore Blair is the highest ranking officer since he is the only Flag Officer aboard, he could take command of the ship if he wished to.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that would be possible -- Blair has an 0-7
rank, yes, but is he in the Midway's chain of command?
If he isn't then he has no authority to give orders
to anyone on the ship. He is simply a guest, an observer.

If he is in the chain, why should he adopt a Tolwynesque
approach and micro-manage the ship? I don't see Capt.
Wilford standing for it. He'd have to relieve Wilford,
and that would never stand up unless it were for cause.

The better approach would be to have a heart-to-heart
talk with Capt. Wilford over issues that concern him. And
let Wilford solve the problem. After all, it's Wilford's
ship!

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 
He doesn't have to be in the ship's chain of command, unless given orders from a higher ranking officer, anybody who is the highest ranked onboard a ship/starbase/planet can assume command. That is the very nature of a chain of command that a superior officer can take command of a ship or fleet or any military property
 
Err... so, if somebody's dead, I can no longer use him as an example? Damn, that really sucks :(.
 
Originally posted by Napoleon
He doesn't have to be in the ship's chain of command, unless given orders from a higher ranking officer, anybody who is the highest ranked onboard a ship/starbase/planet can assume command. That is the very nature of a chain of command that a superior officer can take command of a ship or fleet or any military property
Click to expand...

Perhaps ... but being technically able to do something
isn't the same as it being wise. Taking command away
from a subordinate implies that you lack full faith
and confidence in that subordinate, and (s)he will
be useless thereafter. If the Commodore doesn't trust
him, who else will?

It also implies that the Commodore has not mastered the
fine art of delegation, and will be forced
to micro-manage the ship, with the usual
bad effects on efficiency or morale.

Thinking back, a quick review of the little military history
that I have studied in the real world suggests that
such an action is nearly without
precedent -- superiors rarely assume command from subordinates. At times, they can relieve the subordinate
and appoint his XO to the position (when an LT is fired in
the army, his captain doesn't take over -- his platoon
sergeant does. When a naval ship captain is relieved, the
Admiral doesn't take over -- the captain's executive officer
does), but I cannot immediately recall an instance where
the superior assumed the subordinate's command in addition
to his own. If you know of such an occurrence, I
would be glad to hear about it.

Also, Wilford didn't get to be the head of the Confederation's newest and most powerful carrier without
a *few* political contacts back home -- if Blair fired
him without a damn good reason, there will be a ruckus.
Somehow, "I fired him because he wouldn't fire the b*h
who wouldn't let me fly" doesn't strike me as a good
enough reason.

This is my guess of what happens if Blair attempted to
assume command of the Midway:

[SCENE -- The Bridge of The TCS Midway]

BLAIR: Captain, I don't like the way you run this ship.
I'm taking over.

WILFORD: [smiles, and chuckles gently]: Why, that's very
funny, sir!

BLAIR: Who said I was kidding? I'm serious! I'm taking
over this ship!

WILFORD [grows serious, says in an undertone]: I know.
I wanted to give you a chance to drop this gracefully.
[Gestures to the marine sentries, speaks aloud]:
Apparently the Colonel has not completely recovered
from his recent trauma. Please escort him to sickbay
for a full medical evaluation. [The marines grab Blair
and drag him away screaming].

Feel free to offer an alternate scenario if you wish.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 
I think Blair WAS Wilford's political contact :). But as for the latter part, I fail to see how Wilford could (or would) have Blair arrested without damned good reasons.
 
Nice scenario. But would they really think Blair is crazy?
I have looked up the scenes after his rescue.. they maybe really thought it in some ways. But I think they only saw him as an observer and many people would have been happy if he left the ship. At least they only saw a man who was "old". Too old to fly a fighter, but he is still believing he is young enough to do. So he is a little bit crazy,because he does not want to see that his days as pilot are over.
I cannot say much about the relationship between Blair and Capt. Wilford. I think it was not very bad. I do not know very much about Wilford except the wonderful information, that he likes drinking tea with other officers while the pilots do their dangerous job and risk their asses... that was one information which was hard for me to believe.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
I think Blair WAS Wilford's political contact :). But as for the latter part, I fail to see how Wilford could (or would) have Blair arrested without damned good reasons.
Click to expand...

Attempting to take over the ship isn't a good enough reason? :)

Besides, in my scenario Blair wasn't "arrested" -- after
all, he's not fully in his right mind, so he can't commit a crime, right? No, he's been
sent to sickbay for "medical evaluation". After all,
the man is still traumatized, right (wink, wink)? You can't ask a badly wounded man to resume his full duties,
so he'll just have to cool his heels in sickbay or his
quarters until he's "fully recovered" (i.e. he's willing
to cut the nonsense and act like a Commodore, not a
spoiled child).

This would allow Wilford to confine Blair without the
need for the messiness entailed by a formal legal
proceeding. If Blair is willing, it doesn't even
need to go into the formal ship's log. The incident
is over, forgotten. The rest of the ship (and the folks
back home) are told that Blair was "resting in sickbay" --
big deal, right? Being told that Blair is "under
arrest for attempted --" mutiny? barratry? would
start the rumor mill grinding and cause no end of
trouble.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 
Attempting to take over the ship isn't a good enough reason? [...] Being told that Blair is "under
arrest for attempted --" mutiny? barratry? would
start the rumor mill grinding and cause no end of
trouble.
Click to expand...
Well... how exactly does a senier officer commit mutiny by telling a junior officer what to do?
As I stated earlier, Blair assuming command would rather irritate a lot of people (especially Wilford)... however, if Blair felt like it, he had every right to do so.

If, on the other hand, Blair said he's taking over, and Wilford told the marines to escort him to sickbay (ie., if your scenario happened), the marines would grab Wilford instead and throw him in the brig for mutiny. Attempting to restrict your commanding officer's freedom of movement is not standard military procedure :).
 
Originally posted by Quarto
[BWell... how exactly does a senier officer commit mutiny by telling a junior officer what to do?
As I stated earlier, Blair assuming command would rather irritate a lot of people (especially Wilford)... however, if Blair felt like it, he had every right to do so.

If, on the other hand, Blair said he's taking over, and Wilford told the marines to escort him to sickbay (ie., if your scenario happened), the marines would grab Wilford instead and throw him in the brig for mutiny. Attempting to restrict your commanding officer's freedom of movement is not standard military procedure :). [/B]
Click to expand...


I had a question about this, so I looked up Army FM 22-100 "Army Leadership" (this is also joint pub
6-22, so it applies to the other services as well) :

There are two kinds of authority:
1. Command authority ("the authority that a
commander in the armed
forces lawfully exercises
over subordinates by
virtue of rank or
assignment")
("leaders are granted command
authority **when they fill
command-designated
positions.** These normally
involve the direction and
control of other soldiers
and DA civilians.
Leaders in command
-designated positions have
the inherent authority
to issue orders, carry out
the unit mission, and care
for both military
members and DA civilians
within the leader’s scope of
responsibility.")
(asterisks mine).

Source: A8-A10 Appendix A, "Roles and Relationships"

In other words, the officer has the right to give orders to subordinates in support of a particular task.

2. General authority ("General military authority
originates in oaths of
office,law, rank structure,
traditions, and regulations.
This broad-based authority
also allows leaders to take
appropriate corrective
actions whenever a member of
any armed service, anywhere,
commits an act involving a
breach of good order or
discipline.
AR 600-20, paragraph 4-5,
states this specifically,
giving commissioned,
warrant, and noncommissioned
officers authority to 'quell
all quarrels,
frays, and disorders among
persons subject to military
law'—in other
words, to maintain good
order and discipline). (A-
14).


I contend that Blair, on this trip, is aboard as an observer. Therefore, he has general
authority (by virtue of his rank) but does not possess commmand authority (since
he is not assigned a command tasking or position).


Given this, can Blair assume command of the Midway? I contend not, by A-15:

"Unless restricted by law, regulation, or a superior,
leaders may delegate any or all of their authority to their
subordinate leaders. However, such delegation must fall
within the leader’s scope of authority. Leaders cannot delegate authority they do not have and **subordinate leaders may not assume authority that their superiors do not have, cannot delegate, or have retained.** The task or duty to be performed limits the authority of the leader to which it is assigned."


Who has given Wilford command of the Midway? I assume Confed HQ, and the 4-star admirals
there.

Since Wilford has been given command of the Midway by said admirals, who may take Wilford's
command away? Only those same admirals, or their superiors.

Did these admirals delegate to Blair any command authority? I contend not, since he is merely
an observer aboard the Midway (I think). Since he was not delegated this authority, may he
assume it? I contend not -- "Subordinates cannot assume authority that their superiors have retained" -- since those admirals have not given Blair command authority, he has no right to assume it.

Therefore, I contend that Blair has no right to assume command of the Midway, based solely on the fact that he -- barely -- outranks Wilford.

FM 22-100 is available on-line at
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/22-100/appa.htm .

I am, of course, assuming that TCN is similar to current
military practices.

Feel free to correct any errors or misconceptions
I may have generated.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Edited by pendell on 02-06-2001 at 14:51]
 
Well ,the link is down and I have a question
This is about Peace time or War time, since things change a bit.

Blair also outrank Wilford even if is by a rank and the Midway is for a time cut from ConFed HQ so because of that maybe Wilford offerd the command to Blair and he refuse it, Blair is a pilot not a admiral, he does not like to command ships.
 
Originally posted by Dragon
Well ,the link is down and I have a question
This is about Peace time or War time, since things change a bit.

Blair also outrank Wilford even if is by a rank and the Midway is for a time cut from ConFed HQ so because of that maybe Wilford offerd the command to Blair and he refuse it, Blair is a pilot not a admiral, he does not like to command ships.
Click to expand...

Just some thoughts:

1. The link down -- try cutting the link and pasting it
into your browser's address window. I tried to follow
the link by clicking on it and it failed. I typed it in
manually and it succeeded. I believe the problem is
that the talk software is interpreting the period
with which I ended the sentence as part of the
link, and it is not. Go figure.

2. What you say makes sense -- what exactly is your
question?

Respectfully,

Brian P.


[Edited by pendell on 02-06-2001 at 14:50]
 
The question if there some kind of regulation that cover War time in that aspect, since the military is always changing the rules. also there are not 4 stars admirals in ConFed, the ships rosters are handle by the personal section of ConFed (its more confusing that way) but high command does have a word on it.
Besides Wilford is on the Command of the Midway by Blair´s recomandation, he was a vice-admiral in the BW militia, he leave the BW after Blair ask him to take the Midway command so I really dont see Blair bully his way to the Midway command.

and the error is....
Database Error
A fatal database error was encountered while processing your request. Please try your request again later.

If the problem persists, please use our comment form to report the problem. Please include the URL of the request that generated the error, as well as a copy of the following error message:


[37000][Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server] Login failed. The maximum simultaneous user count of 200 licenses for this 'Standard Edition' server has been exceeded. Additional licenses should be obtained and installed or you should upgrade to a full version.

[Edited by Dragon on 02-06-2001 at 14:55]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top