PDA

View Full Version : What's in a name?



thebig C
15th August 2007, 18:21
Is there any significance in the fact that we have a 'Naval Service' rather than a 'Navy'?

Goldie fish
16th August 2007, 05:00
Comes from the Days when the Marine service were a corps of the Army I guess. Not independant of the Army, but doing a naval role, and ill equipped at the time.(some trawlers, a Yacht and a few small MTBs).

You could ask similarly why we have an Air Corps rather than an Air Force.

thebig C
16th August 2007, 09:42
Things have moved on since then: is it time to change?

luchi
16th August 2007, 14:36
Is there not something in old military vocabulary. A navy is a cretain number or combination of ships.

Like sections in a platoon, platoons in a coy, coys in a Batallion, Batallions in a Regiment and Regiments in an Army
German 5th army
British 21st army
etc?

The Army then is a seperate thing

Goldie fish
16th August 2007, 22:38
Japan does not have a Navy either.

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is what they have.

thebig C
16th August 2007, 23:44
Japan does not have a Navy either.

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is what they have.

Japan is a special case, not really comparable with Ireland.... Their constitution says they renounce war and can't have military forces... But they found a way around, sort of: apparently all their 'military' personnel are officially civil servants..

hptmurphy
17th August 2007, 00:39
maritime defence force is what you are trying to quote.but then again its a constitutional question with the Nips

then again the Austrians have a navy without having something to put it in....

terminolgy..get some sleep..it will be so much better in the morning!

Goldie fish
17th August 2007, 06:29
Japan is a special case, not really comparable with Ireland.... Their constitution says they renounce war and can't have military forces... But they found a way around, sort of: apparently all their 'military' personnel are officially civil servants..

The Non Military JSDF in action...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkFRbDE1pOM

Name means nothing.

expat01
17th August 2007, 08:57
JMSDF - one of the largest and most powerful navies never to exist.

thebig C
17th August 2007, 12:22
'Naval Service' may have been appropriate when it was just a couple of MTBs or trawlers, but the NS now has a decent fleet, soon to be further expanded. Since almost every country - except Japan - that has a navy calls it a 'Navy', is it time to change the name of the Naval Service to the 'Navy'?.

It looks like a Navy, acts like a Navy..... Is there some institutional problem? Does the Army want to ensure it remains the dominant service?

luchi
17th August 2007, 17:10
Japan does not have a Navy either.

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is what they have.

Did you ever see these guys

The can run on water and kick the crapout of a battleship...............:eek: Oh thats only Charlie Chan!!

Goldie fish
17th August 2007, 19:28
'Naval Service' may have been appropriate when it was just a couple of MTBs or trawlers, but the NS now has a decent fleet, soon to be further expanded. Since almost every country - except Japan - that has a navy calls it a 'Navy', is it time to change the name of the Naval Service to the 'Navy'?.

It looks like a Navy, acts like a Navy..... Is there some institutional problem? Does the Army want to ensure it remains the dominant service?


In Norway, the navy is not called a Navy. It's called Kongelig Norske Marine

In Sweden, the Navy is not called a Navy. It's called the Marinen.(Its Marines are called Amfibiekåren).

The Army is the Dominant service here, unfortunately. If it wasn't the CoS would be a rotating position between the Naval Service, Air Corps and Army.

It's an official title. As long as they don't start calling it "Coastguard" I'm happy.

yooklid
17th August 2007, 21:22
Didn't one of the white papers recommend a name change?

Goldie fish
17th August 2007, 22:34
You say "one of" as if there was more than one.

The White paper did not suggest a change in title.

The Steering group report of 1998 made no specific mention either.

thebig C
17th August 2007, 22:56
In Norway, the navy is not called a Navy. It's called Kongelig Norske Marine

In Sweden, the Navy is not called a Navy. It's called the Marinen.(Its Marines are called Amfibiekåren)......

It's an official title. As long as they don't start calling it "Coastguard" I'm happy.


...And in Germany it's the Deutsche Marine and in Spain they have the Armada Espanola... If you translate Kongelig Norske Marine you get Royal Norwegian Navy. Same with the Swedish Marinen. We speak English. If all other English-speaking countries call their navies 'Navies', why do we call ours the 'Naval Service'? It suggests that there is some essential difference, whereas there doesn't appear to be...

But then if the name doesn't matter, what's wrong with 'Coastguard'?



The Army is the Dominant service here, unfortunately. If it wasn't the CoS would be a rotating position between the Naval Service, Air Corps and Army.

I think there is a strong case to be made for a rebalancing of the Defence Forces between the Army, Naval Service (Navy), and Air Corps (Air Force), and as a consequence, the CoS position should rotate between the services. But is that another issue, or is the current dominance of the Army related to keeping the names of the Naval Service and the Air Corps?

yooklid
17th August 2007, 23:27
My mistake then.

CTU
17th August 2007, 23:29
The White paper did recommend a name change for the Naval Reserve only.

http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/document+id/93191A155924DAD5802570C8005065D3#Reserve


5.6.2
...The Naval Service, in conjunction with the Director of Reserve Forces, will bring forward specific proposals to develop an integration role for the reorganised Slua Muirí. When this new role has been defined it would then be appropriate for the organisation to be
renamed the Naval Service Reserve (Cúltaca an tSeirbhís Chabhlaigh).

As for renaming the Naval Service. I cant really see the point.


It looks like a Navy, acts like a Navy..... Is there some institutional problem?

The US Coast Guard looks like a navy and acts like a navy, but it aint the US Navy

And before you suggest it carrington, Ireland already has a coast guard and lets say they have enough to do already.

Goldie fish
18th August 2007, 08:01
I think there is a strong case to be made for a rebalancing of the Defence Forces between the Army, Naval Service (Navy), and Air Corps (Air Force), and as a consequence, the CoS position should rotate between the services. But is that another issue, or is the current dominance of the Army related to keeping the names of the Naval Service and the Air Corps?

I agree. I made the same point in a thread long long ago...However in this country all that would happen if you suggested it is that the army would be reduced to the same numbers as the Naval Service and Air Corps. Also a name change would require rebranding of all paperwork logos, corporate Identity etc. For what? Would the taxpayer be pleased?

hptmurphy
18th August 2007, 17:31
Naval service it is..branch of the army that takes it commands from the Chief Of Staff.

You would have to build a new rank structure to put it on par with the Army if it was to be seperated and whats the point in creating aLT.General equivalent for a force of 1000 men and eight ships which is techincally only a flottilla..and admirals don't command flotillas

Naval service commanded by a commodore it is..get over it!

golden rivet
18th August 2007, 20:42
Naval service it is..branch of the army that takes it commands from the Chief Of Staff.

You would have to build a new rank structure to put it on par with the Army if it was to be seperated and whats the point in creating aLT.General equivalent for a force of 1000 men and eight ships which is techincally only a flottilla..and admirals don't command flotillas

Naval service commanded by a commodore it is..get over it!:biggrin: 1 commodore 1 depot bosun a few wheelbarrows and lawn mowers a few bods what more do we want ,,, the odd half day and they can call it any name they want:smile: :smile:

thebig C
18th August 2007, 22:44
Naval service it is..branch of the army that takes it commands from the Chief Of Staff.

If the Naval Service is really just a branch of the Army, then IMHO that is completely wrong and needs to be changed. As a small island nation in a large area of ocean, the maritime element of the Defence Forces should be on a par with the land element, both in terms of size and status. A matter for the new White paper perhaps.....


You would have to build a new rank structure to put it on par with the Army if it was to be seperated and whats the point in creating aLT.General equivalent for a force of 1000 men and eight ships which is techincally only a flottilla..and admirals don't command flotillas

Naval service commanded by a commodore it is..get over it!

Commanding a flotilla or a fleet is not the same as commanding a Navy, or even a Naval Service. Less than half the 1,000 or so people in the Naval Service actually crew the ships.

In the medium to long-term, it would seem that following the permanent end to the 'Troubles', many of the ATCP tasks carried out by the Army could be reviewed and the size of the force reduced. The contributions of the naval and air components of the Defence Forces should be increased. A command structure could then be created whereby each of the three services was headed by an officer of Major-General or Rear-Admiral rank, reporting to an overall Chief of the Defence Forces who would hold Lieutenant-General or equivalent rank, the post to rotate among the services.

eelmonster
19th August 2007, 13:43
The Non Military JSDF in action...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkFRbDE1pOM


'A Question of Honour' - what a tune, expected Hasselhoff to appear at any minute.