random item

Troperville

Tools

Find recent edits by troper:

back to: Headscratchers / BattlestarGalacticaReimagined

edit article | go to discussion page

16th May '13 4:53:07 AM snowburnt

Send snowburnt a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 356 (click to see context) from:

** It completely throws me off when I'm watching: In the Navy, a "commander" is one step below the equivalent of a "colonel" which isn't a Navy rank. Further, "commander" is only a navy rank, no other branches (in the US or UK, at least) have a "commander" rank. I wouldn't expect a large air craft carrier type like a battlestar to be commanded by anything less than a "captain" which is the Navy's equivalent of Colonel. Further still, a "captain" in every other branch is the equivalent of "lieutenant first class" in the Navy. It could be assumed that since the Galactica is a museum ship that it wouldn't require a real flag officer (but in modern military, even in times of war you'll find cases like this...important officers assigned to simple tasks) still, why would his XO be a higher rank than him, and seemingly in another branch. Adama used to be a fighter pilot and you don't generally jump branches. Air-craft aboard air-craft carriers are piloted by Navy pilots, so you'd think the same would be the case on Galactica, but his Son seems to have a higher rank than him. Adama's rank isn't a brevet, he was Commander Adama from the beginning of the miniseries. Usually you refer to someone by their rank, not their duty, so it wouldn't make sense for commander to just be the guy at the helm. I'm guessing the rank structure would have to look something like a mish-mash of all the american branches: Lieutenant, captain, major, colonel, commander, admiral (for just the major ranks, throwing out junior grade, first class, lieutenants and the star levels).

to:

16th May '13 4:51:12 AM snowburnt

Send snowburnt a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added comments on the rank levels and how they parallel to american military.

Added line(s) 355 (click to see context) :

** It completely throws me off when I'm watching: In the Navy, a "commander" is one step below the equivalent of a "colonel" which isn't a Navy rank.  Further, "commander" is only a navy rank, no other branches (in the US or UK, at least) have a "commander" rank.  I wouldn't expect a large air craft carrier type like a battlestar to be commanded by anything less than a "captain" which is the Navy's equivalent of Colonel.  Further still, a "captain" in every other branch is the equivalent of "lieutenant first class" in the Navy.  It could be assumed that since the Galactica is a museum ship that it wouldn't require a real flag officer (but in modern military, even in times of war you'll find cases like this...important officers assigned to simple tasks) still, why would his XO be a higher rank than him, and seemingly in another branch.  Adama used to be a fighter pilot and you don't generally jump branches.  Air-craft aboard air-craft carriers are piloted by Navy pilots, so you'd think the same would be the case on Galactica, but his Son seems to have a higher rank than him. Adama's rank isn't a brevet, he was Commander Adama from the beginning of the miniseries.  Usually you refer to someone by their rank, not their duty, so it wouldn't make sense for commander to just be the guy at the helm.  I'm guessing the rank structure would have to look something like a mish-mash of all the american branches: Lieutenant, captain, major, colonel, commander, admiral (for just the major ranks, throwing out junior grade, first class, lieutenants and the star levels).

19th Apr '13 11:01:30 AM ndro

Send ndro a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 501 (click to see context) from:

to:

19th Apr '13 11:00:38 AM ndro

Send ndro a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added line(s) 500 (click to see context) :

22nd Feb '13 11:36:11 AM nombretomado

Send nombretomado a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:

to:

13th Feb '13 9:27:05 PM WeAreAllKosh