MovieChat Forums > Crimson Tide (1995) Discussion > XO fights a galley fire?

XO fights a galley fire?

posted 15 years ago by !!!deleted!!! (18817332)
13 replies | jump to latest

I am aware that this movie features many breaches of Naval protocol but I just have to bring this one up because it seems to go completely undiscussed on these boards.

I don't have any experience working with the US Navy but I'm familiar with some rules and regs of the Royal Navy. One of which is that fire fighting teams on board any ship (or boat) are specifically designated their tasks on the watch & station bill. The XO would never don the fire fighting gear and start tackling the fire himself. HIs place is on the bridge co-ordinating the fire fighting effort.

One of the reasons for this is that, funnily enough, he's the freakin' Executive Officer and other stuff may be going on that requires his attention. Lo and behold, this is exactly what happens while Hunter is being a have-a-go hero doing someone else's job for them and neglecting his own.

In the movie it goes completely unaddressed and since it's such a huge plot point it pretty much ruins the film for me because knowing that Hunter was so blatantly in the wrong yet is being presented as noble and heroic pulls me out of the movie. I become all too aware that I'm watching a phony movie set in some alternate 'movie universe' (where reckless idiots are made out to be shining examples of virtue) made by people who had no knowledge (or more likely just didn't give a $h!t) about how a professional Navy works.

Unless I'm wrong and XO's in the US Navy are well within their rights to do what Hunter did.

Anybody?

[–] cgostel 15 years ago

Yep, it's crap. The XO would either be on the bridge or in damage control central.

[–] CGSailor 15 years ago

cgostel is correct.

While it would be the XO's duty to take charge of fighting the fire, it would be from DC Central, not at the scene of the fire.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] ssnnav 15 years ago

Actually, you're both wrong.

On US Submarines, DC Central is manned by one of the department heads (usually the Nav or the Weps). The CO goes to Control and the XO is the man in charge at the scene.

[–] CGSailor 15 years ago

Subs are apparently different than Surface Targe.. I mean Ships.
On surface ships, at least on mine, It was the DCA that was in charge at the scene.

Our DCA didn't even know how to put on an OBA! We have him on Video having to be explained to and taught on the scene how to wear the dang thing while all-hands were fighting a Bravo fire on the power barge at Mina Sulman Pier in Bahrain.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] cgostel 15 years ago

You're saying that your XO will function as the attack team leader? He'll enter the space with the hose team and engage the fire?

Sounds more like a loose cannon XO than a directive in your RPM.

[–] ssnnav 14 years ago

you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[–] dcobbimdb 14 years ago

What bugs me is when he pushes the CO2 button which instantly puts out the fire, there are two other guns next to him fully suited who could have pushed the button. Now I know just before he puts his headgear on this is mentioned between him and another crewman, but still couldn't one of the other guys jut reached his hand up and hit the friggin button?

I realize it's done for dramatic effect to add credit to Hunters character and score a point for him on the hero chart, but still after seeing the movie more than a few times its things like this that you notice

[–] mloessel 15 years ago

You are correct an XO would not be on the flying squad (fire fighting team) responding to a galley or any fire aboard his/her ship. It's interesting that the Crimson Tide Director decided to make a minor change in military protocol and have the XO don fire fighting gear and head for the galley. That just doesn't happen. I spent 8 of my 20 years in the Navy, stationed aboard various U.S. Navy ships, and the XO never responded to a ship's fire as a member of the 'flying squad'.

[–] electroeddiej 15 years ago

On US Navy Submarines, the XO always goes to the scene of the casualty and assumes the duties as the man in charge. He wouldn't man a hose or extinguisher, but he would coordinate all actions at the scene of the casualty. In fact, there is an SCBA outside of the XO's stateroom- it is the XO's SCBA. No one else will wear that SCBA.

[–] michaelnewman01 15 years ago

Submarines are not surface ships, and have their own different methods of response to casualties. The XO will respond to a casualty and act as the man-in-charge.

I just recently got to spend a good amount of time on an Ohio-class submarine, and witnessed many casualty drills, and the XO was on the scene in nearly every case.

What I found much more significant in the fire sequence was the lack of EABs donned by crew or SCBAs by the firefighting team.

[–] fnj-07126 9 years ago

Fire on a submerged submarine is a whole higher level of hell. On a surface vessel you can at least generally go on deck and get air to breathe. In an extremity you can even abandon ship and depending on weather and sea conditions maybe survive that. At deep submergence you just don't have such recourse. There is no possibility of ventilation using outside air. Temperature in the confined spaces shoots up rapidly, the air quickly becomes unbreathable, visibility approaches nil, and disorientation is severe. EAB, SCBA, thermal protection, and above all quick action, are critical - not just to control damage to the vessel but to remain alive.

Basically any emergency in a submerged submarine involves everyone as a matter of survival. Discipline must be preserved and control exercised, but privilege of rank is forgotten for the duration (and formal hierarchy of rank is a lot less on submarines to begin with).

[–] branstark 14 years ago

The XO was jogging at the time and the moment the fire flared up, he was stretching right next to the fire-fighting gear (you can see the suits in the background), surely a fire in a submerged sub is far more of a threat than on a surface vessel so I'm guessing official protocol would, in this case, be forgotten in the interest of the ship?

--
Been posting on IMDb since April 1999 (check profile) so don't call me a *beep* newbie!

[–] raf-33 12 years ago

Any problem aboard a submarine is treated as a far greater threat than a similar occurence on a surface vessel, I wouldn't be surprised to see a cook replace an injured weapon technician - afterall a submariners job onboard his submarine is EVERY job onboard his submarine.

Opinions are just onions with pi in them.