Talk:Ranks of the RAAF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Ranks of the RAAF is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian military.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australian military history task force

Are the rank codes for the non-commissioned ranks accurate? he WO1/WOFF is classified as an E8 whereas the British ranks of the same name would be OR9/E9. --LONDON 09:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The page is incorrect.
An LAC and Able Seaman are not equiv to a LCPL. A LCPL is an NCO, the other two are not.
Further, the US equivalences are incorrect. The first rank that is an NCO in the US system is an E4, thus LCPL equates to E4, not E2. 130.194.13.105 (Talk) 10:01, 24 January 2007

That depends on what US service you are talking about. In the US Army, two ranks are present in paygrade E4, Specialist and Corporal. A Corporal is an NCO but a Specialist is not and a Corporal holds authority over a Specialist. In the US Air Force, an E4 is a Senior Airman, which is not an NCO (though they can be Military Training Instructors at USAF basic training). However, until the mid-90's the USAF also had the grade of "Sergeant" in E4, which was an NCO and ranked above a Senior Airman. In the US Marine Corps an E4 is a Corporal, which is an NCO. In the US Navy and US Coast Guard an E4 is a Petty Officer 3rd Class, which is an NCO. Since Australian ranks are British-derived, it is difficult to equate them with US ranks. Another example: in the US armed forces, Warrant Officers are an intermediate grade between NCO's and commissioned officers who are usually experts in a technical field, except in the USAF, which does not use Warrant Officers. Warrant Officers in the US forces are saluted and referred to as "Sir" or "Ma'am" by enlisted ranks, and as "Mister" or "Miss" in everyday usage. RAAF WO's are more like USAF Senior and Chief Master Sergeants, AFAIK.--MarshallStack 21:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)