Talk:British and United States military ranks compared
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
[edit] Enlisted Comparisons
The most senior enlisted guys in the US army are the sergeant majors (E9) equivalent to a Warrant Officer class 1 in the British Army. Certain comparisons can be made such as a British "Regimental Sergeant Major" (a senior WO1 role) being similar to a Command Sergeant Major in the US military. E8 ranks of MSGT and 1stSGT reflect those of a British WO2 (the company sergeant major being not fairly compared to a Top (1stSgt). The number of sergeant grades in the US military and relative low percentage of those holding the rank of private (E1 to E2) muddies the waters. One should consider the significant transition in the British Army in becoming a sergeant. A junior officer backed by sergeant leading a platoon in the British Army is similar to a US platoon with its officer and Sergeant first Class. Squads in the British Army are then led by corporals aided by lance corporals, which really fulfil the roles of the US. Staff sergeants and sergeants respectfully. The U.S. Corporals and PFCs are more like the most senior privates in the British Army, which reflects this by having up to four grades of the lowest rank (4th being fairly matched with a US E1) Where British Staff/Colour and Flight Sergeants some one else might want to comment on I have left them as equivalent to E7 (but evidently more senior than British Sergeants)Dainamo 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The British army does not make distinctions between Private soldiers. There is only Private, although different privates are often paid differing amounts of money. there is no 'Private first class/second class' etc. should this not be changed? Lots of Love, Tim
Agreed. Merged the classifications of Private classes 1-3 and Able Rate 1-2 (RN), though a class 4/junior or naval new entrant should arguably remain lower Dainamo 21:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I was kind of taken back to see a RN WO2, because I don't remember there being such a rank, but as it was clarified that this was a fairly recent creation it seems correct. And just out of curiosity where did the practice of pronouncing Lieutenant, "Leftenant", originate. 12.199.96.253 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- A nice passage on English pronounciation (also originally used in the United States) can be found on the Lieutenant article Dainamo 01:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I am reverting to official comparison of enlisted/other ranks.
There is no reference on the rank comparison page to a source that offers any evidence for the alternative equivalents proposed, which are in contradiction of the official comparisons.
Neither cross-referencing of wikipedia articles nor a website talkpage are acceptable as sources for wikipedia. Wikipedia:Attribution and above all Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What kinds of sources are generally regarded as unreliable? are clear in stating that neither source is acceptable. (Both are considered "self-published" and therefore useless as a source). Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ makes clear what sources are acceptable. The alternative rank comparison must therefore be rejected as unsourced in accordance with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. It is one of the six key policies that we need a reliable source.
I will of course be happy to accept any other version when there is a reliable source, acceptable to wikipedia's policy of wikipedia:attribution.i.e. Name of book, author, publisher, and page (ideally also date and place of publication).
Mesoso 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
