Talk:United Kingdom and United States military ranks compared

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 15, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep/No consensus for deletion/Renamed needed to the title.

Contents

[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)

[edit] Why does this article even exist?

I just don't see what this article adds that isn't already covered by Ranks and insignia of NATO and its sub-articles. After all, we don't have Canada and United States military ranks compared or British and Polish military ranks compared nor as far as I can tell articles for any other pair of NATO countries. Besides, the name is problematic, as even if it were kept it would be better off as British and American military ranks compared or United Kingdom and United States military ranks compared. Unless someone can give a convincing reason why this article should exist, I'm going to nominate it for deletion at AfD in about a week. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that it is relevant data here. And trust me I just looked and the Ranks and insignia of NATO does nothing to compare US & UK ranks. However it may be a good idea to combine or merge this article (and that may mean the creation of another) into a comparative of many other countries and their military ranks. After all various other military organizations have their own names for the same rank. Where the US has Brigadier General the UK simply uses Brigadier, and where the US has a whole different area of rank that goes between Enlisted & Officers known as the Warrant Officers the UK consider the WO grade as an Enlisted rank (or their equivalent) also the UK basically considers an Ensign to be more like an officer in training, whereas in the US an Ensign "is" an officer ~ period! So it may be more logical to compare multiple ranks of many nations rather than just the US & the UK ~ I simple used those two in my examples because I had previously researched the two of them ~ but I think that a more complete article rather than a deletion is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsrauch (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should stay, its damn helpful when trying to work out what the atlantics are going on about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.118.86 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I found it useful, why delete something just because _you_ dont feel it doesn't add value. The more knowledge on wikipedia the better as far as I am concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.78.103 (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title renaming

I've closed the discussion at Afd since no consensus for deletion was made, but feel free to continue the discussion for a title change as several suggested a rename.--JForget 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OF v O

Note that the U.S. military usually uses O-1 to O-10 to symbolize officers, and not the NATO codes of OF-1 to OF-10 in which all subaltern officers are classed as OF-1 (O-1 and O-2 in US). O-11 is sometimes used for the U.S. OF-10 ranks, but is not official.

A number of comments about OF v O:

  • Explicit listing of the "O" numbers in the table is much clearer than the above statement.
  • This statement above has to be noticed, read and digested before the reader realises that OF is not the same as "O".
  • A user who sees OF-9 and reacts with the thought: "No it's not, its an O-10" probably doesn't realise that that OF is NATO and O is something else (not just US - e.g. for various reasons, Australia uses "O", not "OF"), and hence doesn't realise that OF-9 is NOT the same as O-9. Such a reader isn't likely to get to the notes under the table, let alone read them, let alone think about them.

Comment about the notes under the table:

  • There are two groups of notes under the table: the numbered/referenced notes, and then some general comments. My POV is that ALL the notes/comments under the table should be numbered/referenced.

My tuppence 2¢ worth. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)