Hawk

I thought the Victory had 3 squadrons (as said in the novel). There was Gold (flying Longbows), two others flying Hellcats and Longbows.

Hmm... uh... what's the differences between a squadron and a wing?
 
Hm, On victory it was very many junior officers...
One thing was the book eritten before the game or after the game?
Click to expand...

Both of the game novelizations (WC3 and WC4) were written while their respective games were being developed, based on the initial script/outline. Both were actually published several months after the actual games came out (Baen never got timely editing down pat).

I thought the Victory had 3 squadrons (as said in the novel). There was Gold (flying Longbows), two others flying Hellcats and Longbows.

Hmm... uh... what's the differences between a squadron and a wing?
Click to expand...

Multiple fighter squadrons form a fighter wing. The Victory had four squadrons (Gold, Red, etc.) which formed a single wing (FW36).
 
When Hawks wing is jumped by the nephilim, Hawk is the only guy that goes KIA.
Did his wingmen run?
 
You mean you didn't attack the Kilrathi:)?

(Who knows - maybe it was a solo mission... maybe a wingman did die...)
 
Eh, you still get designated {Alpha/Gamma/Omicron/Foxtrot/whatever} Wing in the original game when you don't have a wingman.
 
Dragon1 said:
Did I not specify Hawk, not Maniac. Besides, my point was why would someone in the highest wing position not hold the highest rank? Typically rank=experience, Hawk, Maniac, or even Spyder would most likely have far more experience than the CAG. Why in Prophecy is the CAG Navy, not Space Force. Blair held a similar position in Wing Commander 3 on the much smaller TCS Victory, he wasn't Navy. He even held the rank of colonel, one grade higher than a naval commander?

Again, I think Prophecy 'screwed the pooch'!
Click to expand...

LOAF's already responded to this, but I'll make one of my own - beyond the fact that she's Navy and Maniac and Hawk are Space Force, which puts them in different chains of command, there's also the fact that rank means nothing when compared to some positions.

Example: A lieutenant is left in charge of a corvette, and an Admiral steps aboard. Heck, let's make him a Space Marshall, which puts him in charge of the Navy, or very near the top of the chain. The 1st Lt has been left in command of the corvette, since the Commander is currently undergoing treatment in the naval base they just left. As long as the Space Marshall and the Lieutenant are onboard the ship, the Lieutenant outranks the Space Marshall since he is the captain of the vessel; despite the vast disparity between their ranks and experiences, the Space Marshall remains under the Lieutenant's nominal command as a guest and is not in the chain of command, unless said Space Marshall is carrying orders which allow him to take command of the ship. Said Space Marshall can ruin the Lieutenant's career once this cruise is over, but until that time the Lieutenant has control over the vessel and its occupants.

This is why Admiral Tolwyn usurping Captain Thorn's command of the Tiger's Claw was so unusual, and so grating in retrospect - the Admiral outranked the Captain in terms of absolute rank, but this was something the Admiral had no right to do unless the Captain had obviously abdicated his command by becoming a turncoat, leaving the vessel in the middle of the battle, or was wounded and thus incapacitated.

Rank != position, as LOAF indicated.
 
Hmm, on that note, how many squadrons can fit in a single wing? According to WCP, wartime era carriers usually carried just one wing (well, squadron - but we know what they mean ;)). Do we take this to mean that a wing could include as many as 12 squadrons (i.e., what a Confed-class 120 fighters would comprise in 2669), or do we assume instead that when they say 'usually', they mean ordinary carriers (Concordia-class), while bigger but less common ships like the Confed-class in fact carried more than one wing?
 
Quarto said:
Hmm, on that note, how many squadrons can fit in a single wing? According to WCP, wartime era carriers usually carried just one wing (well, squadron - but we know what they mean ;)). Do we take this to mean that a wing could include as many as 12 squadrons (i.e., what a Confed-class 120 fighters would comprise in 2669), or do we assume instead that when they say 'usually', they mean ordinary carriers (Concordia-class), while bigger but less common ships like the Confed-class in fact carried more than one wing?
Click to expand...

Depends on the squadron and carrier size, I guess. A Confederation-class Dreadnought had 120 fighters, but depending on what size of squadron you're assuming (16 was standard pre-War, which fell to 12 or 10 later on), then you've got as many as 10 squadrons on a 12-fighter squadron, or seven full plus a half-squadron if you're assuming the 16-fighter groups. With Victory's compliment of 40 fighters, we were down to the 10-fighter squadrons... either indicating how badly things were going for Confed, or else that they were trying to man as many carriers as possible. A normal Concordia-class with a 12-fighter squadron would carry up to 96 fighters in 8 squadrons, so that's not too bad.

Besides which, if you can have 'reinforced companies' or 'reinforced battalions' (in other words, oversized), then surely you could have a 'reinforced wing' for a dreadnought.
 
I would say that it's fairly fluid - we've seen fighter wings with as few as three squadrons (on the CVEs) to as many as eight (the Confederation-class in WC2).

As for a Confederation-class in WC3... it's a bit too theoretical for my takes, as there really weren't any Confederation-class ships still around that we know of (IIRC). I would imagine that they could have a twelve squadron wing, though...
 
Different meaning of the same word. Wing Commander also refers to what is in modern times called an "element" as a wing.
 
Fenris Ulven said:
a wing ar usal not more then four fighter and in Wc 3 and 4 and 2 and 1 only two, with soem exeption...
Click to expand...

We're talking fighter wings here - as in squadrons combined into full carrier complements. The 'wings' we get assigned to in missions are actually flight elements, with a wingleader and a wingman.
 
because a CAG is the boss of the flight operations period regardless of rank this is even true in the current day navy
 
Yes, but typically, the CAG on a modern day nuclear carrier is an O-6 (naval Captain). The position might outweigh the rank issue, but it is not common and not practical to have a lower ranking "air boss" than anyone assigned to the unit.

For example, if a modern day squadron commander held the rank of commander, you would never see a CAG with the rank of lieutenant-commander. Irrespective of authority of position, such a breech of military etiquette just doesn't occur in the modern armed forces. Why would Confed make the mistake of purposely assigning a naval commander as CAG, full well knowing that said officer would have to essentially order around those senior in rank and most likely experience or influence.

I see what you guys are saying, but again, I think Prophecy screwed up.
 
Dragon1 said:
Yes, but typically, the CAG on a modern day nuclear carrier is an O-6 (naval Captain). The position might outweigh the rank issue, but it is not common and not practical to have a lower ranking "air boss" than anyone assigned to the unit.

For example, if a modern day squadron commander held the rank of commander, you would never see a CAG with the rank of lieutenant-commander. Irrespective of authority of position, such a breech of military etiquette just doesn't occur in the modern armed forces. Why would Confed make the mistake of purposely assigning a naval commander as CAG, full well knowing that said officer would have to essentially order around those senior in rank and most likely experience or influence.

I see what you guys are saying, but again, I think Prophecy screwed up.
Click to expand...

Prophecy screwed up the difference between 'Squadron' and 'Wing' - that's already a known issue. At the same time, however, Wing Commander's always played a little fast and loose with ranks - Naval ranks used in Space Forces, and vice-versa. Bear was a Lieutenant Commander in End Run, which would have made him a Major in the Space Forces, at least according to the WC3 rank charts. Blair, despite being a Space Forces Colonel, was given command of the Intrepid in WC4N, though his rank of Colonel did technically make him superior to Garibaldi in terms of rank, which means the chains of command are fairly muddled, and that there are precedents for elements of one branch of the military to command the other, regardless of rank.

If you're still disturbed by the idea of someone lower in rank commanding someone who is higher in rank, then I can point you back to the fact that a Naval Captain ALWAYS is higher ranked than anyone else aboard, even people who are his rank-equivalent (Colonels who command fighter wings are still subservient to the Captain of the carrier, even if he's a Lieutenant Commander in terms of his pay grade).

Again, you're making the mistake of assuming that being lower in rank in another service means that there'd be a conflict in terms of command responsibilities, when there's a clear difference here - the CAG is Navy and commands all flight operations off the carrier, but the Wing Commanders are responsible for running the wings/squadrons. Also take note of the fact that 1st Lieutenant Jean Talvert was promoted to command of Diamondback Squadron/Wing - because she's that good. Seniority obviously wasn't a factor there either.
 
Drake isn't even outranked by any of the Wing Commanders we know of, though (Stiletto, a 1st Lt. and Maniac, a Major)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top