Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's in a name?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's in a name?

    Is there any significance in the fact that we have a 'Naval Service' rather than a 'Navy'?

  • #2
    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.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

    Comment


    • #3
      Things have moved on since then: is it time to change?

      Comment


      • #4
        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
        Last edited by luchi; 16 August 2007, 13:39.
        Without supplies no army is brave.

        —Frederick the Great,

        Instructions to his Generals, 1747

        Comment


        • #5
          Japan does not have a Navy either.

          Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is what they have.
          Last edited by Goldie fish; 16 August 2007, 21:40.


          Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
            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..

            Comment


            • #7
              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!
              Last edited by hptmurphy; 16 August 2007, 23:41.
              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by carrington View Post
                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.
                Last edited by Goldie fish; 17 August 2007, 05:34.


                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  JMSDF - one of the largest and most powerful navies never to exist.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    '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?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                      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............... Oh thats only Charlie Chan!!
                      Without supplies no army is brave.

                      —Frederick the Great,

                      Instructions to his Generals, 1747

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by carrington View Post
                        '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.


                        Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Didn't one of the white papers recommend a name change?
                          Meh.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.


                            Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                              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'?


                              Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                              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?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X