Author Topic: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy  (Read 15582 times)

Cy83r

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • It's Shooowtime!
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #60 on: February 08, 2013, 10:12:08 pm »
I think we should name them "Space-wanderers" and then when wanting to be more accurate  use Latin words based on what they do.
Ex:
A massive warship would be " Praegrandis Tractus bellum artis " or Giant space warcraft.
This could then be shortened to " Pratraclumarti "
And chello! A new ship classification.

This is along the lines of how the Germans named fighter jets: Jagdfleugzug

lit. hunting flying things
Jibreel: Yeah but [Hufer] that's like [Axis] complaining that his Toyota Camry is stuck in the mud and you responding "Well my M1 Abrams doesn't seem to be having much trouble."

RedDwarfIV

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #61 on: February 10, 2013, 08:06:52 pm »
For roleplays, and in particular for the human and Tal'Ryth factions in my webcomic, certain definitions are used when talking about 'spaceships', 'starships' or 'spacecraft'.

- Spacecraft: A blanket term meaning any artificially created space object. If covers spaceships and starships.

- Spaceship: Any spacecraft designed with the floor perpendicular to the direction of thrust, which is not built this way for a justifiable reason. Spaceplanes, for instance, are not spaceships - they are built like aircraft because it flies horizontally in atmospheres, where gravity will be vertical. Designing a spacecraft like a ship is asking for trouble if artificial gravity fails or, god forbid, you have no artificial gravity whatsoever. Spacecraft with centrifuges are also excluded, because the reason for the floor being perpendicular is that the centrifuge produces artificial gravity which will de facto be perpendicular to the direction of thrust because of how it works. Also, it should be noted that there is only an 'outboard', not a 'down' with centrifuges, and sections of the spacecraft that are not spinning will tend to be fitted for microgravity or artificial gravity caused by opposing force to engines firing.

- Starship: Any spacecraft of the previous type with a faster-than-light drive, or the delta-V capacity to travel between star systems.


The term both factions use instead of 'navy' is 'spaceforce', analogous to 'airforce'. Both recruit pilots from their airforces, and train their personnel to operate in microgravity environments, and both design spacecraft as if they were skyscrapers.

However, another faction, the Haikovans, play the Space Is An Ocean trope much more closely. Only their largest spacecraft, Discovery and Savager class [both reffered to as 'ships', the latter as a 'warcruiser', which is still a naval term] are built like skyscrapers. Their smaller spaceships, the Stingray types [dropship and gunship variants] are both built with an arbitrary down [all their spacecraft have artificial gravity without centrifuges] despite the fact that only the dropship variant can make planetary landings [the gunship can at best make crash landings, but even the dropship is unable to return to space under its own power, meaning it spends most of its operational life in a configuration not suitable for the task it is performing.] They don't call them 'starships' though, despite them having FTL drives, and rather than 'navy' they just have the Haiko Space Division. The term 'fleet' gets used however.


I find it interesting, debating realism vs idealism when it comes to sci-fi.

Niwantaw

  • Founder
  • Eternal Skipper O.Q
  • *
  • Posts: 1449
  • Grille'd
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #62 on: February 10, 2013, 08:15:06 pm »
This is along the lines of how the Germans named fighter jets: Jagdfleugzug

lit. hunting flying things

But they did it in german so it sounds awesome by default!
"God damnit why does everything have to be in sweedish? I don't understand shit"-Davee

<Strait_Raider> "The Big 4 could be equipped with a Bren gun or a 3 inch mortar..."
<Strait_Raider>That's like... my two favorite things.
     Put together.
     That's like... Kate Upton in a Tiger

spartanshalo

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #63 on: March 12, 2014, 06:44:20 am »
My opinion on this is that if any of the space ships we see in sci fi were to actually exist, they all seem to operate very similarly to a ship. There is an established structure for commanding a ship and a ship has most of the rooms/compartments that space ships also have. I would think then that naval terms mostly would then lend well to space travel, but there would clearly need to be some modifications here and there. Really a space ship is simply a floating ship in vacuum. It might actually be more accurate to say a space ship is more like a submarine than a ship. Though, a sub is pretty much a ship that is underwater...
Liberty and justice for all...except for you. And you. And YOU. Your going to the box.

Holy Thunder

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 655
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #64 on: March 12, 2014, 08:34:32 am »
Just a thought.


If a civilization has advanced to the point that they can create a collection of armed /armored military vehicles to go flitting around from star to star, and that they need such vehicles to defend themselves...

...think about that for a second...

...then a traditional waterborne navy is entirely obselete by its very existence. There is no floating fortress so bad that it can withstand a 500-pound kinetic warhead dropped from orbit. More importantly, there is no need for such a fortress, because it can't hope to match the deployment versatility of air and space military craft.  Therefore, calling the spaceborne force a "Navy" isn't as redundant as it might seem. But it needn't necessarily be called that.

The appropriate term for for such a force is largely dependent on its constitution. If, like a traditional atmospheric aeroforce, it consists primarily of single-pilot or double pilot vessels, then "Navy" wouldn't be appropriate because the space force clearly resembles the existing air force. In such a fleet there would be no ship captains, no first officers, no deck hands, no galleys. There would be squadrons, or wings, or lances, or whatever term you would use to describe a group of armed people working together--because at one or two pilots per vessel, the vessel becomes synonymous with the person.

But "Space Force" isn't exactly appropriate either, because the primary meaning of  "Space" is "empty."  You can't exactly have an Empty Force and command fear or respect.

Air Force didn't have that problem, because it's a force in the air above us. Lofty and fitting. Army doesn't have that problem, because it's a big collection of armed people. No-brainer, and clearly land-based. Navy is fitting because it means literally "ships," as in ships on the water fighting. It fits. But to call military spacecraft a Space Force? That's just lacking something.


In The Lost Fleet, the Syndicate Worlds called their fleet Mobile Forces. I thought that was pretty fitting, because it speaks to the primary capability of such a force--to move from one place to another with unmatched speed. Compared to the mobility of a military spacecraft, jets and ships and tanks might as well be standing still.

So, in my humble opinion, Mobile Force seems to be a good name regardless of the composition of such vessels.

If, however, a spaceborne fighting force is comprised of vessels requiring many hands to operate, under the ironclad authority of one person who's in charge of everything, it is very difficult to avoid seeing the clear parallel to the waterbound fleets of today. It would make perfect sense to call such vessels "ships," as they are vehicles housing many people who are going from one point to another.

And if such vessels are called ships, and Navy draws from the root word meaning "ship", and the very existence of these ships make waterborne vessels obsolete, it's certainly no stretch call your Space Force a Navy. Especially when naval tradition goes back thousands of years, and you've got a large quantity of sailors and captains and deck hands in need of employment.
--Trespassers will be promptly riddled with bullets and other unpleasant projectiles.

--Survivors will treated with apologies, steak dinner, and a VIP tour of our facilities.

Czorio

  • Founder
  • Residential nutbag
  • *
  • Posts: 685
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #65 on: March 12, 2014, 09:41:32 am »
Sidenote, "Jagdfleugzug" is spelled incorrectly. Jagd does mean "Hunt/Attack", fleug means nothing, and Zug means "Train" or rather "Trainengine" or whatever the thing that makes the train go is called (Tankengine?) I find the mental image of an attack-train hilarious. (The correct spelling is "Jagdflugzeug", Jagd = Attack/Hunt, Flug = Flight, Zeug = Craft)
"If you're in an equal fight, your tactics suck."

http://www.youtube.com/user/czorio4

Iago

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Keep calm and charge the FTL drive
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #66 on: March 12, 2014, 11:52:17 am »
CHOO, CHOO (Boom)
Superbia mentis potens in armis.

Commander Jackson

  • Founder
  • Lazy dev E.M.T.
  • *
  • Posts: 772
  • Ex astris, scientia
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #67 on: March 12, 2014, 12:16:50 pm »
Sidenote, "Jagdfleugzug" is spelled incorrectly. Jagd does mean "Hunt/Attack", fleug means nothing, and Zug means "Train" or rather "Trainengine" or whatever the thing that makes the train go is called (Tankengine?) I find the mental image of an attack-train hilarious. (The correct spelling is "Jagdflugzeug", Jagd = Attack/Hunt, Flug = Flight, Zeug = Craft)

You beat me to it...

Was I the only one who did not know that Panzer means tank in german?
Gabe has a wraith? That explains so much.

Czorio

  • Founder
  • Residential nutbag
  • *
  • Posts: 685
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #68 on: March 12, 2014, 03:23:37 pm »
Panzer probably means something more along the lines of "Armor" instead of tank, but it has become synonimous to the word "Tank" over the years.
"If you're in an equal fight, your tactics suck."

http://www.youtube.com/user/czorio4

Niwantaw

  • Founder
  • Eternal Skipper O.Q
  • *
  • Posts: 1449
  • Grille'd
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #69 on: March 12, 2014, 04:12:51 pm »
Panzer probably means something more along the lines of "Armor" instead of tank, but it has become synonimous to the word "Tank" over the years.
According to wikipedia, it does mean tank.

And Armour




* Niwantaw carries on his war against american spellings
"God damnit why does everything have to be in sweedish? I don't understand shit"-Davee

<Strait_Raider> "The Big 4 could be equipped with a Bren gun or a 3 inch mortar..."
<Strait_Raider>That's like... my two favorite things.
     Put together.
     That's like... Kate Upton in a Tiger

Commander Jackson

  • Founder
  • Lazy dev E.M.T.
  • *
  • Posts: 772
  • Ex astris, scientia
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #70 on: March 12, 2014, 04:25:10 pm »
According to wikipedia, it does mean tank.

And Armour.

I figured that out during my German class.  I read it in a German-English Dictionary.
Gabe has a wraith? That explains so much.

Niwantaw

  • Founder
  • Eternal Skipper O.Q
  • *
  • Posts: 1449
  • Grille'd
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #71 on: March 12, 2014, 04:52:02 pm »
I figured that out during my German class.  I read it in a German-English Dictionary.

While tank in german used to be PanzerKamfWagen (lit: Armoured fighting vehicle) they found it to be a mouthfull. So shortened it. Kamfpanzer and Panzer both being accepted words for "tank".

Much like "tank" means: a large receptacle or storage chamber, especially for liquid or gas.

As well as meaning: a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.
"God damnit why does everything have to be in sweedish? I don't understand shit"-Davee

<Strait_Raider> "The Big 4 could be equipped with a Bren gun or a 3 inch mortar..."
<Strait_Raider>That's like... my two favorite things.
     Put together.
     That's like... Kate Upton in a Tiger

DiscK

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 398
  • Bigger on the Inside.
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #72 on: March 16, 2014, 09:37:52 pm »
-snop-
Off the topic of Allemand (spellcheck changed it to "Manhandle").
Most of the populations will be based on planets, planets that have large oceans, whether or not they built cities under the ocean, will use a navy for trade and such, it's far cheaper than a spacecraft.

"430rhgq3wr0g8hwroeihremaontweoittitsuoefaoinbrigroarg"
- Anonymous

Czorio

  • Founder
  • Residential nutbag
  • *
  • Posts: 685
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Picking Nits: They Shouldn't be Called Ships and It Isn't a Navy
« Reply #73 on: March 17, 2014, 10:27:43 am »
Panzer has more the meaning of Armor, but as in: "There are 15 pieces of Armor[ed vehicles]" -> "Es gibt 15 Panzer."

Panzer is simmilar to the Dutch word "pantser", which only means Armor of the protective kind.
"If you're in an equal fight, your tactics suck."

http://www.youtube.com/user/czorio4