George Lucas filed serial numbers off the RAF’s Dambuster Raid.
I think shield works better here than armor, in most cases. For one thing, ships in this kind of sf usually have shields and armor, and your probably going to want to be able to easily distinguish between the two in the middle of a fight. But also, sf shields are usually presented as a bubble around the ship, which is somewhat similar to the way a warrior holds a shield away from him, while his armor it fitted to his body.
Space Marines! Mind you, those guys did everything - flying, ground work, infiltration. Not very practical use of resources.
And that is different from the current USMC…how?
:eek:
:smack::smack::smack:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. In Star Trek, the fighting is analagous to an old-fashioned naval battle (up to about WW1), with dreadnaughts/batleships blasting away at each other until one of them succumbs.
In Star Wars, the fighting is more like a battle in the Pacific theater of WW2. Yes you have the battleships blasting away at each other, but far more important are the fighters (airplanes), which usually seem to be the decisive factor.
Yeah, shields as used in sci-fi are more analogous to old school shields rather than armor, for two reasons: As mentioned upthread, they’re held at a distance from the intended target rather than being wrapped directly around it, and also, they’re disposable. Your shields get hammered away to nothing, you can back off and recharge them, like a warrior trading his wrecked shield for a new one. If your armor gets hammered away to nothing, that’s going to be more work to fix.
Going back to the Weber Well, he at least avoided calling them shields. Instead, they were either “The Wedge” or “The Sidewalls”, due to how the technology of the setting works. Although when certain ships begin throwing up sidewalls to cover the bows of the ships (which for various phlebotinum related reasons means the ship can’t maneuver, but at least has forward cover), they started calling them Bucklers. Bucklers being a type of shield, naturally.
Actually, that is kind of interesting, especially since in many aviation circles, you’d call the commander of a flight the Captain (aviation, especially civil aviation, is absolutely thick with nautical terminology, including crew positions). I know that on an airplane, one pilot is designated as the Pilot In Command (he is, basically, the guy who signed for the plane and is in charge of the flight, even if he might not necessarily be the senior crewmember aboard).
I’m not sure your examples really fit your question. Sure, “Dreadnoughts” and “Battleships” and “Battlecruisers” are obsolete now in Earth sea militaries, but the stories that use versions set in space do so with a military structure and proposed technology base to make the analogous situation to when these terms were use. Perhaps it’s done more out of a sense of “wouldn’t it be cool?” rather than any real “it makes sense it would be done this way”, but it doesn’t really feel out of context.
Those terms were historically derived for bigger and bigger ships of war, to differentiate the class from prior classes. Weber, at least, uses them essentially the same way. Somebody created a warship class, then somebody created a larger warship class, and then eventually a larger warship class arose. And in each instance, they drew from historical terms for warships.
You have to remember that they are a new class of soldier that only resemble previous classes in some ways. They are Infantry because they are essentially single soldiers running around “on foot”. However, they are armored like a modern tank, and almost as mobile as a helicopter. They function more like paratroopers via their method of deployment, but their operational role is built on the idea of deploying from spaceships and they serve as auxiliary to space navies. Heinlein’s idea is that they were infantry, or what the infantry would evolve to, but descend from the traditions and practices of infantry. Both paratroopers and marines serve similar roles.
That’s “Aerospace Force”, thank you.
Most U.S. military space programs belong to the Air Force, anyway, and have since 1961.
Yeah, I know it’s kind of traditional to regard space as a big ol’ ocean, so obviously spaceships are like water ships. Unless they’re not. (Air forces have been intercontinental for decades. Aerospace forces could be interstellar just as soon as we figure out how to do that.)
I don’t understand the OP even a little bit. It may be that there is some sense in which the words “cruiser,” “battleship,” “dreadnaught” etc denote technologies that I’m not aware of. For all I ever knew, these were basically just words that meant “Big boat,” “Bigger boat,” and “Even bigger boat than before.”
For a while we did that with TV’s too, but it seems to have fallen off. But the equally outdated “tune” still seems to be around.
In a way, the old 1960s Star Trek series had some battles be more futuristic in scale in that because of budget limitations, the scene would be made up of bridge shots with Sulu or Chekov going “We’re at 200,000 Km and closing” “Firing” “150,000Km and closing” “Incoming photon torpedo!” “FALLOFFCHAIRS” “Shields down 20%” and an outer shot of the ship firing, seldom a shot purporting to have both vessels close enough for the audience POV to be able to see both clearly.
The later versions however were not just WW1-like, they were sometimes downright Trafalgar-like with the vessels right on each other’s grills.
Yes, it seems in spaceflight we have a shortening of earlier phrases Mission Commander or Pilot in Command; my WAG, because as they evolved in the Space Race days the flights were structured around a specific mission objective and you are commander of the crew for that one mission rather than “captain of the vessel” (specially since the vessels have been mostly one-use jobs). Space crews so far being 2 or 3 persons at a time, seven when the Shuttles were flying, the management structure of a small-unit mission, an OIC/Team Leader and at most a half dozen but more often just one or two highly trained multitask-capable team members, is well suited for it (even for the multi-month space station missions which are more akin to posting to a small listening post or weather station)
Even a large space station could be more like an air base or army post. “Navalization” of space forces gets called up when you get to really large crews that divide into multiple departments with considerable numbers of people in multiple watches, on *traveling *missions lasting for long periods of time. A ship’s a ship, and big ships have captains… and first officers and navigators and engineers, they sail long distances and and there are watches 'round the clock, that’s easy to write without excessive explaining.
Of course, you could decide that you’re going to have a Space Force… and then use RAF-based ranks (Leading spacecraftsman, Space Officer, Space Vice Marshal, etc.). Or have a service that attends to clearing hazards to spaceflight, enforcement of spacecraft safety regulations, and rescue missions, and whose academy trains in an old-school rocket spaceship, and call it the Orbit Guard (nickname: “Orbies”) even though they also deploy far from your planet’s orbit.
Vera.
At least originally marines’ primary day-to-day function was to serve as shipboard police, to keep the crews from mutinying. I’d like to see that in a science-fiction setting! 
Regarding the misuse/drift/evolution of “rifle” - I think this is just one example of many when it comes to gun terminology. Consider how often the terms “magazine” and “clip” get interchanged, or how “pistol” is used for any gun held with one hand, etc.
Funny enough, Kup in Transformers was referred to as having a “musket laser.” However, this was probably only chosen because he’s supposed to be far older than everyone else, and “musket” sounds old. (Not to mention the same tech spec goes on to describe his ‘musket laser’ as something which “shoots short bursts of metal corrosive hydrochloric acid.” I’m sorry, how is that a laser?)
Actually “wouldn’t it be cool” and “it makes sense” might well be the same thing in the case of something as arbitrary as a name. Calling a space warship a “Dreadnought” rather than a “Gamma Class Mobile Assault Platform” could make it easier to get funding to build the things from the political leadership simply because it sounds cooler.
Fred Saberhagen, in “Berserker Fury,” took this to perhaps its extreme: it’s a retelling of the Battle of Midway, in painfully exact detail. He even distinguishes between Dive Bombers and Torpedo Bombers – but in deep space, I can’t figure out how the two are supposed to differ. Where the hell is “sea level” in deep space?
(Actually a good book, but so hideously unoriginal as to be insulting to the reader.)
Hey, there are purists who insist that only emplacement weapons like artillery should be called “guns”.
You know, while that’s true, the only TV show I can think of where the space program is actually USAF is Stargate SG-1. That said, I never did understand where the people who actually make up the SG teams supposedly came from.
Another example of “filing off the numbers” might be Andre Norton with Star Guard following a good bit of Xenophon’s Anabasis.