Victor Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 After much searching, and lots of cutting and pasting, reformatting, and more cutting and pasting, I have lists of watch positions for a 20th century guided missile destroyer (e.g. DDG51 Flight II A), and it's proposed successor, the DD(X). These don't include medics, marines, boiler/reactor crews, cooks and bottlewashers, or miscellaneous swab jockeys, so tripling the count (for three watches) won't give you the full crew complement... but since they are somewhat illustrative of manpower requirements, and were a pain to dig up, I'll share them here anyway. First, the DDG51, then the DD(X) with notations on which stations correlate to which stations on the DDG51. DDG51 Flight II A watchstations Tactical action officer Combat systems coordinator Own ship display controller Combat systems officer of the watch/combat system maintenance supervisor Fire control supervisor Radar repairman Computer repairman Display repairman Electronics support supervisor Combat information center supervisor Engineering officer of the watch Propulsion/auxiliary control console operator Electrical plant control console operator Engine room operator (Auxiliary system monitor) Engine room operator (Propulsion system monitor) Damage control/integrated survivability-management system operator Sounding and security watch Tactical information coordinator Local area network manager Intelligence console operator (x2) Tactical intelligence operator Communications supervisor Communication systems manager Communications systems operator Electronic warfare supervisor Damage control console operator Super rapid blooming off- board chaff operator Identification supervisor Antiair warfare coordinator Missile system supervisor Radar system controller Land attack warfare coordinator Gun fire control system console operator x2 Tomahawk weapons system supervisor Tomahawk weapons system operator 1(+3) Quarter master of the watch Boatswain mate of the watch ship control Junior officer of the deck Officer of the deck Messenger Surface detector tracker Lookout starboard Lookout port Lookout aft Signal watch Supervisor/operator recorder Surface/subsurface/engagement-control officer/warfare coordinator Surface/subsurface warfare supervisor Undersea warfare coordinator (sonar supervisor) x2 Undersea warfare console operator x3 Air intercept controller Antisubmarine/surface tactical air controller Unmanned aerial vehicle controller Total Watch Crew: 61 DD(X) Proposed Watchstations Tactical action officer (a) Command center warfare officer (b-i) Watch supervisor cross warfare area, advanced (j) Engineering officer of the watch (k-q) Information dominance, advanced (r-s) Cross warfare area, basic, intelligence (t-u) Cross warfare area, basic, communications (v-x) Information dominance, advanced (y-ab) Cross warfare area, advanced, Anti-air warfare (ac-ae) Land attack warfare specialist (af) Cross warfare area, basic, land attack warfare (ag-ah) Cross warfare area, advanced (ai) Assistant officer of the deck (aj-al) Junior officer of the deck (am) Officer of the deck (an-at) Cross warfare area, basic, integrated air/surface dominance (au-av) Cross warfare area, basic, undersea warfare (aw) Undersea warfare specialist (ax) Antisubmarine/surface tactical air controller (ay-ba) Flex watchstation, Cross Warfare Area (-) Total Watch Crew: 20 I hope this has been useful (or at least interesting) to someone out there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 Very cool. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutant for Hire Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 Would be a little more helpful with some definitions for some of those (or all) of those positions. But even so, it's very well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobGreenwade Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 I agree that this is a very nice bit of research to be sharing. Besides MfH's point, it would be even more helpful if someone (not necessarily Victor) could translate this into a crew manifest for some of the published starship types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted January 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 Here are a few (modern naval) definitions... Tactical Action Officer (TAO) The TAO acts as the representative of the commanding officer (CO) concerning the tactical employment and defense of the unit. The TAO is responsible for the safe and efficient operations of the combat systems and for any other duties prescribed by the commanding officer. The TAO, who is not assigned to the watch during normal peacetime cruise, stands watch in the Command Information Center (CIC). Combat Systems Officer of the Watch (CSOW) The CSOW monitors the entire combat system with the capability to access it to respond to individual casualties. Once the ship is placed in the “weapons-free†condition, the CSOW can be delegated the authority to launch all defensive weapons. The CO is the only officer who can take the ship from the “weapons-tight†to “weapons-free†condition. own ship display controller So far as I can tell, this seems to relate to radar/aircraft-tracking. fire control supervisor Weapons fire, not combustion. Verifies sensor contacts and identification, and presumably assigns targets to weapon systems/operators. Engineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW) On some types of ships, the EOOW is normally a senior petty officer. The EOOW is primarily responsible for the safe and efficient performance of the engineering department watches (except damage control) associated with the equipment in his or her charge. Sounding and security Sounding and security watches are the ship’s first line of defense in maintaining watertight integrity. Their primary mission is to look for fire and flooding hazards. Junior Officer of the Deck (JOOD) The JOOD is the principal assistant to the OOD. Anyone making routine reports to the OOD normally makes them through the JOOD. Officer of the Deck (OOD) One of the most important watches on a ship at sea. The CO designates the assignment of the OOD in writing. The OOD takes charge of the safe and proper operation of the ship. Although the OOD is responsible for the deck and the conn, the OOD normally delegates the conn to the Junior OOD. (The "deck" refers to the OOD’s watch; it means the OOD is in charge of all deck functions and supervises the maneuvers of the ship. The "conn" means the control, or direction by rudder and engine orders, of the movements of a ship.) Messenger Ships are big, and full of tiny, dark, cramped compartments full of people and machinery, most of which have no internal communications. The Messenger is the OOD's means of getting word to hard-to-locate personell, and resourcefulness as a Messenger is highly valued. Presumably Yeoman Rand on ST:TOS filled this watch station. Quartermaster of the watch (QMOW) The QMOW is stationed on the bridge, and reports to the OOD all changes of weather, and temperature and barometer readings. He or she must be a qualified helmsman, and assist the OOD in navigational matters. The QMOW is responsible for entering in the Ship's Log all data required by current instructions or as directed by the OOD, and for executing sunset and sunrise procedures. Boatswain's Mate of the watch (BMOW) The BMOW stands watch on the bridge when underway. His or her primary duty is to assist the OOD in carrying out the ship's routine and ensuring the efficient functioning of the watch team. It is the responsibility of the BMOW to see that all deck watch stations are manned, that all watch standers in previous watch sections are relieved, and that the oncoming enlisted watch team is in the prescribed watch-standing uniform. The BMOW will also assist the OOD in supervising and instructing members of the watch in their duties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted January 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 Also, for reference with respect to PC's (or NPC's) who are being rewarded or punished with watch assignment selection; originally posted by Dave Hood, GMT2 aboard the USS McKean (DD 784) There’s great duty and there’s lousy duty. There’s gravy assignments and there are *&%$ details. Being assigned to the U.S.S. McKEAN DD784 in the late 70’s was a gravy assignment. Our home port was in Seattle at a leased municipal pier that we shared with two minesweepers, the CONQUEST and the ESTEEM, and another FRAM, the USS HIGBEE DD 806. The nearest naval stations were either the Naval Shipyard across Puget Sound at Bremerton or the Naval Support Activity at Sandpoint at the other end of Seattle. There were no signs saying, “Sailors and dogs keep off the grass.†The locals actually liked us. As far as my shipmates were concerned, the worst *&%$-sucking duty in the world would be aboard a showboat cruiser like the U.S.S. LONG BEACH in a place like San Diego, or, even worse, anywhere on the east coast. For an ASROC Gunners’ Mate, a gravy underway watch station was either sonar, after-steering or the ASROC control station. A lousy watch-station was anything the Bos’n Mates had to man, such as forward lookout, aft lookout and any bridge watch. During an underway replenishment (UNREP) a horrible assignment was line handler. A gravy assignment was ship-to-ship phone talker. Line handlers were on the main deck, some six feet above the waterline, were always wet and cold, no matter how calm the seas were. The ship-to-ship phone talker stood on the flight deck on the O-1 level, got to see everything, stayed dry and got the opportunity to shoot the breeze with his counterpart on the other ship. For those benefitting from a lack of military servitude, you basically never want to be under the eye of your supervisor's superiors, and preferably out of the weather. "Showboat" assignments generally mean you're frequently under scrutiny from off-ship (or off-post, for ground-pounders) brass, which is about as bad as it gets. $#!% rolls downhill of course, but the higher it starts, the steeper the hill, and the more it collects on the way down. Aft lookout (to my understanding) is usually a guy at the stern of the ship with a man overboard alarm and a life preserver (and about as close to the water as you can get, as the stern 'sinks' when the ship is under power). Forward lookout is usually out on the bow, catching all the wash in high seas, and in direct view of the bridge. Aboard a space ship, there's no weather of course, but there are probably some stations that require pressure suits at all times. Anyone who's worn a wetsuit and dive gear on a hot, sunny day will probably have an appreciation for that discomfort. Boatswains (and Boatswain's mates) seem to have a pretty bad rep in the modern wet navy. Since part of their duty is inspection of the rest of the crew's watch stations, that's not hard to understand. Their job is to write you up for the little details. Opinions seem to range from "swab jockeys with stripes" to "fast footed brass polishers" ("brass polisher" being a double entendre). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spence Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 Also smaller is better. The smaller the crew, the less "people in charge". Which means the fewer officers. Now don't get me wrong, I know so really good "O's" , but since I have had the "pleasure" to serve aboard a carrier as ships company, I have discoverd where all of the political types went. A carrier is generally a battlegroup flagship underway. Because of that we will have at least one admiral aboard, sometimes more than one. We will also have more Commanders than were in the navy at the height of WW2 , all this means they are all coming up with "improvements" so they can stand out and advance. That even impacts the enlisted because the new advancement system has established quotas based on total number of personnel. With a small number of a certain rank, say 10, it is easy to determine who is the best and who is the dirtbag. But when you have to choose who is number one from 400 individuals who all have completely different jobs and work for 19 different bosses it all becomes politics. In general each of the posisions listed above, except for some of the specific ones that cannot be delegated, are actually performed by a group of enlisted personnel with the "O" supervising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 Spence, I need to ask you this. I was never in the military, but one of my friends served in the Navy abord an aircraft carrier. He said after six months at sea, everything smelled "like ass, nuts, and feet." Can you confirm or deny this allegation? Sorry for asking you such an odd question, but I really need to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeropoint Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 Butting in where I'm not invited: In my own experience, that wasn't a problem. BUT: I lived in a berthing area populated by reactor department electronics technicians, several of which were first classes. Nuke ET's are (if you don't mind me bragging up my own rate) some of the neatest and best-behaved people on the ship (due to a number of factors including but not limited to greater education and age), and the presence of first class petty officers also adds a stabilizing influence. Basically, my particular berthing space didn't stink noticeably. Having said that, I have met some people with less than adequate personal hygiene. Also, when a carrier is in equatorial waters, the air conditioning systems (at least in enlisted territory) just can't keep up, and people do a lot of sweating. Imagine a 20' x 40' space with about a hundred guys living in it. Guys fresh out of high school, who spend all day sweating. Zeropoint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spence Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 Originally posted by tkdguy Spence, I need to ask you this. I was never in the military, but one of my friends served in the Navy abord an aircraft carrier. He said after six months at sea, everything smelled "like ass, nuts, and feet." Can you confirm or deny this allegation? Sorry for asking you such an odd question, but I really need to know. Pretty much true. It is one of those things you cannot comprehend unless you see it. On board my ship, I live in an 86 man berthing. The racks are stacked three high and you cannot sit up when in one. The head (bathroom) has 7 showers, 6 urinals and 8 toilets. A shower is about two-three minutes of water once a day. The shower heads have valves so you can cut the water off and on without messing with the adjustments, get wet, turn water off, lather wash, turn water on, rinse, you're done. By the by the standard apartment livingroom is large enough to be a 24 man berthing. All of your laundry underway is done as group. All mixed into one big machine and sorted latter. Chiefs and Officers can put their laundry into individual meshbags which are all washed together. After cruise my "whites" are usually grey and all of my clothes have that distinctive metallic "ship smell" and I usually throw everything away and buy new. Back in the eighties one of the southern states, Mississippi I think but am not sure, wannted to lease old troopships to serve as temperary prisons until the new facilities were completed. Some of the ultra far left socialist Congressmen and women went on a "factfinding" trip and determined that the living conditions were too far below standards for the average rapest and murderer to endure. We have standards of decency in this country you know. Well the funny thing is they never saw the actuall troop berthings. What they toured was the actual quarters of the live aboard crew. They were too stupid to realize that they were saying that active duty sailors have lower standards of living than convicted criminals. And the Dems wonder why most military, especially Navy, dislike them If you live near a naval base, see about getting a tour. It may surprise you but they are really easy to get. Most ships like to show off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 Thanks for the response, Spence. All I can say is that I'd hate to be stationed abord a submarine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spence Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 Originally posted by tkdguy Thanks for the response, Spence. All I can say is that I'd hate to be stationed abord a submarine! No problem, I'd hate to do the Sub thing myself. They have benefits, but overall I'll let them have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted January 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Originally posted by BobGreenwade ... it would be even more helpful if someone (not necessarily Victor) could translate this into a crew manifest for some of the published starship types. I might try it for a ship that had a reasonable crew size (e.g., more than 8, and less than 300). Between SH, TE, and TUV, however, there aren't many ship writeups that fit that bill, and none that have even the roughest of deck plans (helpful for figuring out what the stations for equipment listed on the writeup actually are). I had been toying with writing up a master WQS (Watch, Quarter & Station) Bill for a starship of some kind, which goes considerably beyond just a crew complement list. That's where all of this preliminary research came from. However, for the reasons above, none of the ones I've seen in the Hero System sourcebooks I own have inspired me. I also won't be buying any further Hero System vehicle sourcebooks, because I despise the standard way of writing them up these days, where every system on board is a multipower, or worse, a VPP. Similarly, any writeups of mine would deviate enough from 'standard' that most people would likely not find them as useful. Feel free to send links for writeups/deck plans to me via private messages, though, if you think you've got a candidate. Your ship class may already have won. :\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curufea Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Very interesting! But this is all very dependant on the level of computer control of a spaceship for the amount of crew required, isn't it? Most genre settings include advances in artificial intelligence and expert systems for computers that human intervention is rarely needed - and technical positions become more important than command/decision making ones. To me, the major job of a starship crew would be the intuitive interpretation of data. Jobs would fall into two main categories - bridge, which would mainly be sensor interpretation and top level commands, and maintenance, which would be using high tech devices to fix other high tech devices Scratch that - I'm such a newbie sometimes. There's also all the functions of maintining an organisation - administration, medical, and boarding marines if any... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Originally posted by Victor I might try it for a ship that had a reasonable crew size (e.g., more than 8, and less than 300). Between SH, TE, and TUV, however, there aren't many ship writeups that fit that bill, and none that have even the roughest of deck plans (helpful for figuring out what the stations for equipment listed on the writeup actually are). I had been toying with writing up a master WQS (Watch, Quarter & Station) Bill for a starship of some kind, which goes considerably beyond just a crew complement list. That's where all of this preliminary research came from. However, for the reasons above, none of the ones I've seen in the Hero System sourcebooks I own have inspired me. I also won't be buying any further Hero System vehicle sourcebooks, because I despise the standard way of writing them up these days, where every system on board is a multipower, or worse, a VPP. Similarly, any writeups of mine would deviate enough from 'standard' that most people would likely not find them as useful. Feel free to send links for writeups/deck plans to me via private messages, though, if you think you've got a candidate. Your ship class may already have won. :\ Have you thought about statting out one of the ships that Steve Jackson Games is providing plans for? I've got a couple and they are tres cool! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted January 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Originally posted by Agent X Have you thought about statting out one of the ships that Steve Jackson Games is providing plans for? I've got a couple and they are tres cool! I guess that's a possibility. For my present front-runner, the Orbital Military Base (SH pp. 229-231), I'd need to draw up rough decks... more time consuming, but cheaper. As for crew sizes, it's pure speculation, and more dependant on the "feel" you want, than anything else. You can say that a large ship with thousands of tons of weapons and equipment could be crewed by a handful of people, with lots of automation and expert systems (or AI's), and humans needed only for maintenance and command. It would save a lot of fuel over hauling extra consumables, if nothing else. For military craft, though, you need redundancy of crew as well as systems. Once you start adding enough crew to cover "acceptable" casualties, it's relatively cheap to add even more crew, as opposed to more automation. Humans can generally fix problems with computers (or lasers, missiles, thrusters, etc.) faster than computers can fix human errors (in their programming, the design of a piece of equipment, or the amount of a particular spare part in the maintenance stores), although that may change before we actually make it to another solar system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwolf Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Heh...I was blessed with carrier duty. Bubble heads (sub-mariners) have to endure up to six months submerged, so they don't get the fresh air that even a carrier gets. In addition they practice "Hot Racking". This is where for 12 hours your rack is yours, then you get up, strip your bedding, and the rack belongs to someone else for the next 12 hours. The racks don't always have time to cool off between bodies, thus "Hot Racking"..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutant for Hire Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 On a starship there are two ways to do it, depending on the technology available. If there's suspended animation available and the technology has a reasonable power drain and thaw time, I can see a vast chunk of the crew kept in suspended animation for most of the ship. Think about it, reduced strain on the ship's life support systems. Otherwise automation on a starship will be lower than what it is otherwise. A ship will need to keep a full compliment for battles (plus the extras to cover losses sustained during a battle) and then there's the tricky issue of what to do with those crew in between battles. In some ways, chores would be more or less ways to keep the ship's crew busy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted January 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Correction Regarding Boatswains Mates, I misunderstood their function. "Boatswain's Mates (BM) are one of the oldest traditional ratings in the United States Navy. BMs are the experts in deck seamanship. They maintain the machinery and equipment topside, handle cargo and operate small boats. They also maintain and clean the ship's exterior, refuel the ship and assist in it's navigation." The record now having been set somewhat straighter, they still seem to be looked down upon by the rest of the Navy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aroooo Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Totally OT But they do a great job running the transports that ferry visitors to and from the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor! Aroooo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Originally posted by Victor I guess that's a possibility. For my present front-runner, the Orbital Military Base (SH pp. 229-231), I'd need to draw up rough decks... more time consuming, but cheaper. As for crew sizes, it's pure speculation, and more dependant on the "feel" you want, than anything else. You can say that a large ship with thousands of tons of weapons and equipment could be crewed by a handful of people, with lots of automation and expert systems (or AI's), and humans needed only for maintenance and command. It would save a lot of fuel over hauling extra consumables, if nothing else. For military craft, though, you need redundancy of crew as well as systems. Once you start adding enough crew to cover "acceptable" casualties, it's relatively cheap to add even more crew, as opposed to more automation. Humans can generally fix problems with computers (or lasers, missiles, thrusters, etc.) faster than computers can fix human errors (in their programming, the design of a piece of equipment, or the amount of a particular spare part in the maintenance stores), although that may change before we actually make it to another solar system. Even if you use automation and expert systems, wouldn't it be nice for plans to designate what machinery is what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spence Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 My personnal thought is this is heading in the wrong direction. Rather than trying to adapt modern (or past) naval organization to spacecraft, I think we should be looking at a blend of modern military aircraft blended with parts of ship organization. Not suck'n'blows (jets), but the large crew long endurance mission aircraft with crews of 11+ and mission duration of 10+ hours. Right now a large part of the maintenance on board a ship is due to the fact that ships and their equipment have a lot of metal. Metal and saltwater equals corrosion, hence a lot of grinding and painting and other corrosion control. In space a craft could control its interior atmosphere and be able to limit interior corrosion. Exterior corrosion would be drasticsally reduced unless they spent long periods in atmosphere. I am an avionics technician by trade, and most of the rountine malfunctions I have dealt with over the years can be attributed, at some degree, to corrosion. When we "reseat" a card and fix a transiet error, all we actually did was cause the pins to scrape and get a clean contact. All in all, for spacecraft, I think there will be a reorganization and redefinition of crew positions and jobs. I also think that the maintainers will continue to outnumber the users (operators). And last off, I never thought BM's were were that bad, but someone has to be at the end of the foodchain :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.