Codename: Iceman Comic

[Rath Darkblade]

I think Hollywood has a tendency to G.I. Joe-ify the military: e.g. a person has training in being a paratrooper AND scuba diving AND piloting a jet AND fluent in several languages, etc.

Aren't these guys to blame?



No, wait - even before these guys, there was this guy...



James Bond could do anything. He was the Swiss Army Knife of spy thrillers.

There are countless other examples:

- Indiana Jones (aka The Whip And Fedora Man).
- MacGyver (aka The Hollywood Houdini).
- Walker, Texas Ranger (aka Everything Is Better With Pretend Karate).
- John Rambo (who started out as a returned Vietnam vet, but by the third movie, it was just an excuse for beating up people).
- Any role Arnold Schwarzenegger ever played (summarised as heaps of gunfire, loads of explosions, and short one-liners) ...

Although he is placed as XO of a sub even though it says that he is still qualifying for submarine operations which is not a good idea.

Just wondering: is "XO" the navy equivalent of the army's CO (i.e. Commanding Officer)? What does "XO" stand for?

Also, why is it not a good idea for him to qualify for submarine operations? And what does "submarine operations" mean?

Sorry, I've never been a soldier, so I don't know these things. But I'd like to learn.

[notbobsmith]

I think Hollywood has a tendency to G.I. Joe-ify the military: e.g. a person has training in being a paratrooper AND scuba diving AND piloting a jet AND fluent in several languages, etc.

Aren't these guys to blame?



No, wait - even before these guys, there was this guy...



James Bond could do anything. He was the Swiss Army Knife of spy thrillers.

There are countless other examples:

- Indiana Jones (aka The Whip And Fedora Man).
- MacGyver (aka The Hollywood Houdini).
- Walker, Texas Ranger (aka Everything Is Better With Pretend Karate).
- John Rambo (who started out as a returned Vietnam vet, but by the third movie, it was just an excuse for beating up people).
- Any role Arnold Schwarzenegger ever played (summarised as heaps of gunfire, loads of explosions, and short one-liners) ...

Although he is placed as XO of a sub even though it says that he is still qualifying for submarine operations which is not a good idea.

Just wondering: is "XO" the navy equivalent of the army's CO (i.e. Commanding Officer)? What does "XO" stand for?

Also, why is it not a good idea for him to qualify for submarine operations? And what does "submarine operations" mean?

Sorry, I've never been a soldier, so I don't know these things. But I'd like to learn.

Bond would probably be the best example of this. Even in the A-Team everyone had defined roles (only Murdoch was the pilot).

XO stands for Executive Officer. He is the second in command of a ship. The military usually gives people training for defined roles. That can be knowing how to operate the radio or someone who can operate the radar. In the Navy, a submarine functions differently than a surface vessel. Sonar, being able to dive, having to run silent and knowing what to do to avoid discovery. There's also the possibility of being stuck under the water for extended periods of time with no opportunity to go above desk. For that reason, crews are screened to make sure they can handle it. The problem in Iceman is that Westland is not qualified as a submariner. Submariners are given an emblem when they complete their training, like a pilot's wings. They mention that when Westland completes his mission, he will get his emblem. So they make a vitally important mission into training for Westland and place a non-submariner as second in command who later takes over command when the captain is injured. That's a recipe for disaster.

I don't have a military background either. It's most just osmosis from movies and such follow by fact checking what they get right and wrong.

[DeadPoolX]

I didn't write either of the following paragraphs (notbobsmith did), yet somehow I was quoted as having written them...

I think Hollywood has a tendency to G.I. Joe-ify the military: e.g. a person has training in being a paratrooper AND scuba diving AND piloting a jet AND fluent in several languages, etc. I think they just take whatever advice the give as long as it doesn't interfere with the story they are telling. As for Codename: Iceman, I don't think it's mentioned if he's a SEAL or not. Although he is placed as XO of a sub even though it says that he is still qualifying for submarine operations which is not a good idea.

I just tried it and the woman said "1/30/40". I'm surprised that this hasn't fallen victim to a Y2K bug or something. If I am reading the discussion correctly, this will still work correctly until 2047? And I think this is a joke. You ask the woman for a date ("ask for date") and she snarkily gives you the date.

Anyway...

XO stands for Executive Officer. He is the second in command of a ship.

Adding to that, the commanding officer of a ship is the CO.

The billet or position you have (i.e. CO, XO, etc) and if you're an unrestricted or restricted line officer is more important than rank. In all English-speaking naval forces, the commanding officer of a ship, regardless of rank, is referred to as "The Captain." So you could be a lieutenant, but so long as you're the CO, you're called "Captain."

Most of the time, the CO of a nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) or a guided-missile destroyer (DDG) is anything from a lieutenant commander to a commander. It's extremely unusual for someone actually holding the rank of captain to be "The Captain" on a smaller vessel, like an SSN or DDG. Usually the CO of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN) holds both the rank and position of captain.

This can get a little weird if, for instance, a naval vessel is carrying marines on board and one of the marines holds the rank of captain. When this happens, the Marine captain is temporarily bumped in title (but not actual rank, authority, or pay) to major in order to avoid confusion.

The Navy uses a completely different set of commissioned officer ranks than the Air Force, Army, and Marines. So a Navy captain is actually equal to an Air Force/Army/Marines colonel, while a Navy lieutenant is equal to an Air Force/Army/Marines captain.

Why does the Navy do this? Hell if I know. I think they just like being different.

The military usually gives people training for defined roles. That can be knowing how to operate the radio or someone who can operate the radar. In the Navy, a submarine functions differently than a surface vessel. Sonar, being able to dive, having to run silent and knowing what to do to avoid discovery. There's also the possibility of being stuck under the water for extended periods of time with no opportunity to go above desk. For that reason, crews are screened to make sure they can handle it.

Yup! This is referred to as MOS or military occupation specialty.

The problem in Iceman is that Westland is not qualified as a submariner. Submariners are given an emblem when they complete their training, like a pilot's wings. They mention that when Westland completes his mission, he will get his emblem. So they make a vitally important mission into training for Westland and place a non-submariner as second in command who later takes over command when the captain is injured. That's a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, Westland never should've been put into the position of XO nor should he have been allowed to actually pilot the submarine, which is insane on multiple levels.

I don't have a military background either. It's most just osmosis from movies and such follow by fact checking what they get right and wrong.

I don't personally have a military background, but I've done tons of in-depth research and known people (including friends and family) who've been in various branches of the military. Maia can attest to the fact that I'm unbearable when it comes to military, weapon, or machinery inaccuracies in TV shows or movies.

[Rath Darkblade]

Hmm, well, that makes sense. All branches of the military are smart in that regard (i.e. not giving someone a rank/pay etc. unless that someone is qualified to do that job). I find it's like that in real life, too: I work in accountancy because I have qualifications and tons of experience there, but I'd never be asked or expected to (say) perform open heart surgery, or fly a plane. Nor would I hire a plumber, a carpenter etc. unless they were qualified, experienced, licensed and bonded. That's just common sense - I don't want some cowboy tradesman messing about with my toilet.

I wish the same principle applied to our politicians, at all levels - local, state and federal. The most qualified and most experienced should get the job, regardless of anything else (e.g. party affiliation). If they mess things up, and it's verified by an outside body, then they should get the boot - no complaints, no discussions, no "three-strikes-and-you're-out" garbage. Politics is (or should be) a responsible job, the most responsible there could be, so the current state of things is nothing short of scandalous. (I'm not thinking of any particular nation's politicians, here, but of every nation's. Some of Australia's politicians are the worst).

Thanks for letting me rant. I feel better now.

Anyway. The name "Westland" always bugged me because it kept reminding me of someone - I knew I'd seen the name before, but I couldn't remember where - but I think I remember it now. Does anyone else think they got the name from Gen. William C. Westmoreland, the man who led American troops in Vietnam (1964-68)?

I don't mean this, by the way, as any judgement on or disrespect to Gen. Westmoreland. Anyone who fought and comanded in WW2, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam War deserves everyone's respect and admiration. He did an incredibly tough job under brutal circumstances, and fought in two wars (Korea and Vietnam) that were only necessary because of the politics of that time.

Well, that just proves my earlier point: politics ruins everything.

Anyway, sorry to derail this thread. Carry on...