![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fleet Week
Aug. 4th, 2007 09:31 pmWe headed back down to Pier 91 for more ship tours today. I realized another difference between the Canadians and the Americans. The Canadian tours we've been on have always been led by junior commissioned officers, whereas the American ones have been led by enlisted personnel. This isn't intended as a dig at anyone (especially you, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
1973_top), but the perspectives are vastly different- the enlisted personnel tend to have knowledge 'silos'- they understand what they do in depth, and to a lesser extent how that fits into the bigger picture; the junior officers tend to have a pond of information- not necessarily knowledge in depth in any particular area, but a fairly detailed idea of how all the little bits fit into the whole. As a result, the latter seem to do a better job fielding questions which may well be 'off their script'- and, perhaps as a direct result of being less experienced, seem to have no fear asking their shipmates to clarify where they may have better or more complete information. The American Navy personnel seem to be much less comfortable with addressing people.
This may be in part due to the size of the vessels involved- the smallest USN craft has been easily four or more times bigger than the little Kingston-class ones, but i think it probably runs deeper than just size or hull displacement.
I wonder if it's significantly culture difference-related as well. Probably in part, our generally higher general Canadianity (in comparison with the general populace in metro Seattle) helps- we're pretty comfortable in metric units, get the political structures (from yesterday, to our tour guide ASLT Watt, after seeing his colleagues ASLTs MacDonald and Harper walk by- "Wow, are you hiding any other Prime Ministers on board?" which made him laugh), wear/talk hockey (i was wearing the national team third jersey, Nicholas was wearing his Senators white) etc. doesn't hurt. I wonder how many other groups would have gotten some of the comments- when being told about the main fo's'c'le gun "Well, it can be targeted at the water- if we were to have an unknown ship approach quickly without identifying itself, we could fire a warning shot, or if we had to take action, something else, but we'd rather not- we're Canadians." The Canadians also seem to have a significantly more laissez-faire approach to gender amongst crew- there was organic interaction between the men and women, at both enlisted and commissioned ranks in the pilothouse on the Canadian ship; but what i've seen between men and women amongst the US enlisted (i can't recall seeing the officers interact with each other or tour groups in the three or four years we've been attending), there seems to be an artificial, enforced separation between them which extends beyond segregated berthing.
1973_top), but the perspectives are vastly different- the enlisted personnel tend to have knowledge 'silos'- they understand what they do in depth, and to a lesser extent how that fits into the bigger picture; the junior officers tend to have a pond of information- not necessarily knowledge in depth in any particular area, but a fairly detailed idea of how all the little bits fit into the whole. As a result, the latter seem to do a better job fielding questions which may well be 'off their script'- and, perhaps as a direct result of being less experienced, seem to have no fear asking their shipmates to clarify where they may have better or more complete information. The American Navy personnel seem to be much less comfortable with addressing people.This may be in part due to the size of the vessels involved- the smallest USN craft has been easily four or more times bigger than the little Kingston-class ones, but i think it probably runs deeper than just size or hull displacement.
I wonder if it's significantly culture difference-related as well. Probably in part, our generally higher general Canadianity (in comparison with the general populace in metro Seattle) helps- we're pretty comfortable in metric units, get the political structures (from yesterday, to our tour guide ASLT Watt, after seeing his colleagues ASLTs MacDonald and Harper walk by- "Wow, are you hiding any other Prime Ministers on board?" which made him laugh), wear/talk hockey (i was wearing the national team third jersey, Nicholas was wearing his Senators white) etc. doesn't hurt. I wonder how many other groups would have gotten some of the comments- when being told about the main fo's'c'le gun "Well, it can be targeted at the water- if we were to have an unknown ship approach quickly without identifying itself, we could fire a warning shot, or if we had to take action, something else, but we'd rather not- we're Canadians." The Canadians also seem to have a significantly more laissez-faire approach to gender amongst crew- there was organic interaction between the men and women, at both enlisted and commissioned ranks in the pilothouse on the Canadian ship; but what i've seen between men and women amongst the US enlisted (i can't recall seeing the officers interact with each other or tour groups in the three or four years we've been attending), there seems to be an artificial, enforced separation between them which extends beyond segregated berthing.
