Confed's Organization

Originally posted by Dragon
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.
Click to expand...

1. Wartime regulation -- don't think so. I believe the
rules for command, subordination, and delegation are the
same in both peace and war. If anything, they are
more strictly enforced during wartime due to the greater
penalties accompanying a breakdown in discipline.

2. True, there are no 4-star (since Confed doesn't use
that particular rank badge) admirals, but admirals
of the equivalent rank (Tolwyn, Terrell) do exist.

I believe that any power the personnel (or Adjutant, or
J-1) possesses is due to delegation by a higher authority.
That is why, when an air force acquaintance of mine put
in for his retirement, his orders came back signed "
By Order of the Secretary of the Air Force". Granted
that the actual work was probably done by an E-5 clerk,
it was nonetheless by the Secretary's authority that
the order was issued and carried out. So the personnel
department really has no "power" of its own. Say rather
that the Brass appoint officers to the posts as they see
fit, with considerable input and footwork being done
by the personnel office 'cause Admirals have more
important things to do than read thousands of resumes.



3. Blair's recommendation -- Blair is Confed's greatest
hero, and with friends in the Assembly such as Senator
Taggert has a great deal of political influence out of all
proportion to his nominal rank. This, however, does
not translate into formal command authority. It's the
difference between having the boss' ear and *being*
the boss. I still
contend that, being outside the actual command chain,
Blair had no "right" to assume command of the Midway.

But, as you say, it wouldn't be necessary anyway. As you
said, Blair undoubtedly had a strong influence on the
selection of the Midway's CO, and would have fought hard
to ensure that someone whom he could work with
would be appointed to the post. And so it turned out.
Nowhere in Prophecy do we see even a hint of discord
between Blair and Wilford.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 
Originally posted by Dragon

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]
Click to expand...


?!?!?!? wha is this?!?!?!

RFBurns

"Fight the good fight, heart of the tiger!" [W.Chang {Vagabon} WCIV]
 
Originally posted by Dragon
its the error I got in trying to use the link.
Click to expand...

Right .. looks like their server's being pegged. You
might try again later.

Is anyone else experiencing difficulty?

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 
Ahh! :) I thought it was some kind of dead link error or something. Hope it gets working for ya!

RFBurns

"Here kitty kitty kitty!" [comms window, Privateer/RF]
 
It´s working now, I suject you read it again, since Blair by rank does not need to have assigned autority unless he is a NCO.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I fail to see your point, Pendell. Blair is not Wilford's subordinate. Even if Blair has no formal command onboard the Midway, he nonetheless remains outside of Wilford's command, too. Thus, the "subordinates cannot" argument falls. Now, did these Admirals delegate to Blair any command authority? No - because they didn't need to. In case you haven't noticed, commissioned officers get their authority directly from the head of state (or rather, head of the military). "Admirals, by definition, do not usurp" - this goes for Commodores, too. Blair has more authority than Wilford, and should he ever feel like it, he can assume command.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
I fail to see your point, Pendell. Blair is not Wilford's subordinate. Even if Blair has no formal command onboard the Midway, he nonetheless remains outside of Wilford's command, too. Thus, the "subordinates cannot" argument falls. Now, did these Admirals delegate to Blair any command authority? No - because they didn't need to. In case you haven't noticed, commissioned officers get their authority directly from the head of state (or rather, head of the military). "Admirals, by definition, do not usurp" - this goes for Commodores, too. Blair has more authority than Wilford, and should he ever feel like it, he can assume command. [/B]
Click to expand...

Must disagree. The chain of command is
Confed HQ -> [regional command?] -> Midway
|
-> Blair

Blair, being outside the chain, is not permitted to
insert himself into it without authorization from HQ. Rank
alone isn't a good enough reason -- Rank implies that
an officer is capable of performing particular duties,
but unless the officer is specifically assigned them (by
his superiors, who are given THEIR responsibilities by THEIR
superiors, and so on up to NCA), he cannot assume them.

Just to be sure, I asked a collegue at work who had spent
15 years as a Department of the Navy civilian, including
considerable time as an observer at sea watching new
equipment being introduced. He concurred with my interpretation: Rank alone is not enough reason to
assume command. The officer must also be in the chain of
command.

Example: For those who have studied the Gulf War,
Colin Powell was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff at the time. He held four-star rank, and was
senior to any other officer in the armed forces. However,
he was not able to give orders to Gen. Schwarzkopf, nor to the least soldier or officer in the field. Why? Because,
by the terms of Goldwater-Nichols, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff operate in an advisory capacity only. By law, they
are explicitly PROHIBITED from commanding troops in the
field. Instead, the chain goes directly from the regional
CINCs to the NCA. Colin Powell could advise the president,
who could then issue the orders, but he could not command
the troops in the field. He could not command troops,
because the chain bypassed him and went directly from
NCA to CENTCOM, at the time Norman Schwarzkopf.

Example #2: A captain (not in the chain) walks up to a sentry in a restricted area, who challenges him. After verifying that the captain is a legitimate officer, but
without clearance to pass, the captain orders the sentry
to let him pass anyway. The sentry will not obey. Why?
Because, although the captain has far greater rank, he
is not in the chain. He has no right to give such an order,
and it will not be obeyed.


You bring up Tolwyn as a counterexample. I offer three possible explanations for his behavior:

1. The TCN operates differently from the USN.

2. Tolwyn was in the Victory's chain of command. Eg.
The chain went:
HQ->Tolwyn->Eisen

Tolwyn, having delegated authority to Eisen, was of course
at liberty to take it back again.

3. Tolwyn was an overbearing jerk who violated military
protocol as he wished and was allowed to get away with it
because he DID win battles. That is the first rule in
all military operations: If you break all the rules and win, you will be commended for applying the rules in a creative and intelligent manner. If you follow all the
rules and lose, you will be condemned for being a hidebound,
close-minded desk jockey who can't distinguish between
paper and real life.


In sum, I contend that Blair, being outside the chain,
was not authorized to assume command of the Midway.

I could be wrong if:

1. TCN operates differently from USN.
2. Blair was in the chain and had command responsibility,
e.g.
Confed HQ -> [Regional command?] -> Blair -> Midway.

However, I do not believe #2 to be the case, as my
recollection of the Prophecy manual is that he
was aboard as an observer, not the commander of the
battle group.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 
Both sounds very logical to me. I am not able to say what is right and what is wrong.. But if I just read it... maybe it is a compromiss of both! Every officer has got his competences which are given to him by the HQ (in this case).
But if there is a special situation where the higher-ranked officer can save lifes (if the lower-ranked officer would have made trash and risked the lifes of his crew for example when it was unnecessaary) if he assumes command, then I think he is allowed to do it. (This is just a suggestion. I know you will both disagree..and I think you will find the right solution).
 
Pendell: I contend that one of us is right :). However, I'm not gonna bother going through all this effort to answer what is, after all, a purely hypothethical question since Blair wouldn't have done so anyway. Your arguments are very convincing, and while I am not entirely convinced (I'd explain why, but then you'd explain why I'm wrong, and I'd explain why I'm still right and... you get the idea ;)), I'm simply too lazy these days to bother with a debate like this one.
 
Well, Blair is a commodore in the R&D part of ConFed and the Midway is still a new type of ship, so Blair is on the chain of command....But he also have confidance in Wilford since he recomend him for the job.
 
Plus the fact that Blair isnt a member of the Joint Chiefs so he is infact in the chain of command, that is how Tolywn assumed command of the Victory
 
Sorry guys, It's time for me to leave the thread. It's
been a good conversation, but unfortunately my energy
meter says it's time for me to move on. Many thanks to all who responded.

See ya around!

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 
Originally posted by Dragon:
Well, Blair is a commodore in the R&D part of ConFed and the Midway is still a new type of ship, so Blair is on the chain of command....But he also have confidance in Wilford since he recommend him for the job.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by Napoleon:
Plus the fact that Blair isnt a member of the Joint Chiefs so he is infact in the chain of command, that is how Tolywn assumed command of the Victory
Click to expand...

Nope, pendell is right.

Blair’s function on the Midway is administrative only; he has no power to assume command. We know from the game manual that Blair is not in the Midway’s chain of command because Paladin states as much in his letter. We also know from Origin’s guide book that Blair’s job in the Navy is to serve as “chief military liaison” for the megacarrier program, which is clearly an administrative role. But in the game itself, just prior to the mission against the Tiamat, the CAG quips to Blair: “And you think you’re a bad staff officer.”

By definition, a “staff officer” (in contrast to a “line officer”) has no power of military command.

Come on back, pendell.:)
 
While that may be the case, i can state that in fact the Administrative role is the role of a commander, a commander by very definition administrates the way the ship runs much like the principal of a school. As such, Nemesis you contradicted yourself.
 
Sorry, I don’t see the contradiction. I never said that the C.O. of a ship didn’t have administrative authority in addition to military or operational authority. Line officers do. (In the U.S. Navy, for example, the C.O. of a ship actually belongs to two chains of command, one administrative and the other operational.) But staff officers, irrespective of whatever administrative authority they may have, are not line officers and so don’t have operational authority. (Not on their own initiative anyway.)

We know from the game (as supplemented by the manual and official guide) that Blair is a staff officer. That alone answers the question of whether he can overrule Wilford and assume operational command of the Midway. He can’t.
 
Would Blair ever want to unilaterally overturn Captain Wilford's decisions? I have the impression that they worked together just fine in the Border World conflict, and I don't see any enmity between them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top