Talk:Officer (armed forces)

message: This page difficult to read since it uses technical terms and jargon without defining them, and the links go to generic pages, which don't give any idea of the meaning in this context. For example: 
* "Commanding officer" links to a generic "Command hierarchy"
* "Authority" links to a generic article on authority with zero relevance
* Etc.
This means:
* For a popular audience (Wikipedia is often used in schools), or anyone not already familiar with military jargon like "commission" or the difference between "command" and "charge," this page is basically circular and unreadable.
* The links interfere with this, rather than help. If you don't understand something, you click on links hoping it will be defined. Here, it's just irrelevant side trails.
There's a lot of detail here (like US Service Academies), but that's useless if the reader doesn't know what a "commission" or "commissioned officer" is, and it certainly has not been defined by there. 
I think fixing this would take an expert/non-expert combo (e.g. sitting down with a friend or relative with no military knowledge) to identify all the places this article presumes expertise beyond that in a popular audience.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.149.241.209 (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant Links and Undefined Terms 

message: There is much in the article as it exists that is either overly specific to a particular nation or which is just not general enough.  I know of no definition of a commissioned officer that refers specifically to the "use of deadly force." Geoff NoNick 19:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Definition 

message: I seriously disagree with the appending of the table of British commissioned officer ranks to each  article discussing a military officer rank. This seems to be entirely unnecessary duplication that could be better served by maintaining the table in a central location (perhaps Commissioned Officers?) and inserting links in these articles. Ray Trygstad 23:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and the same goes for U.S. military ranks.  I believe the articles to refer to already exist. Geoff NoNick 19:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In reading this article I began to wonder why the U.S. rank chart is shown. WP:POV or lack of other information? Now I'm wondering if perhaps changes were made to this and other articles that were never finished, or they were never throught through to judge the impact of the moving of material. Either way, doesn't seem right to me to show only American ranks. BigNate37 03:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the US rank chart.  There is a link to "Comparative military ranks" under "See Also" that can help people looking for information about specific armed forces.  As I see it, this article should provide more of a general overview about officers. Geoff NoNick 19:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank Duplication 

message: I corrected the statement that the highest rank currently held by a Royal Marine officer is that of major general: there are two serving Royal Marine lieutenant generals. The professional head of the Royal Marines (the  Commandant General RM) is a major general, but there is nothing stopping a Royal Marine filling a higher-ranking tri-service or MoD appointment. Franey 11:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There have certainly been RM full generals in the past and the rank is still available to RM officers (as far as I know), but I suspect in practice it would only be used in wartime. -- Necrothesp 14:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest Royal Marine rank 

message: While it is true that many countries copied some aspects of the Prussian Army  - at it's height of influence in the C18 - this seems pushing things somewhat. All the major European armies had aristocratic officer corps -v- the ranks drawn from hoi polloi. They had had seperate facilities and messing long before the rise of prussia as is easy enough to find in accounts of the crusades or the hundred years war.Alci12 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prussian Military Messing 

message: I take umbrage at the inference that officers in the most developed nations are purely graduates. That is a ridiculous notion. Note that the two most capable militaries in the world- the USA and Great Britain- allow members of the ranks to succeed and gain commissions if the ability is there. Only the best are officer- if they come from the ranks, that does not make one nation less fucking developed than another. (unsigned)
I think the statement in question is this:
Most developed nations have set the goal of having their officer corps university-educated, although exceptions exist in some nations to accommodate officers who have risen from the non-commissioned ranks. Most advanced militaries, however, require university degrees as a prerequisite for commissioning, even from the enlisted ranks. The Australian Defence Force, the British Armed Forces, the Israel Defense Forces and the New Zealand Defence Force are different in not requiring a university degree for commissioning.
I know that the US Army does not require a bachelor's degree for commissioning, but I don't want to speculate about the other services. Ninety semester hours are required, however. I'm editing it to simply say "post-secondary education." --VAcharon 00:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: battlefield commission 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't know about the present, but in the last century having a degree was not a requirement for becoming a Limited Duty Officer in the U.S. Navy. Some LDO's went on to obtain a degree but there were very few. Nor was not having a degree a bar from high rank. I know several Navy LDO Captains who did not have degrees. I am speaking from personal experience as a non-degree Navy LDO (1964-1994).Oldbubblehead (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: DEVELOPED NATIONS

message: At what rank in the US army does a officer leave the front line combat leader role into more of a managing position? Zachorious 00:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An officer can be moved away from "front line" duties (i.e. the directing of combat personnel) to "managerial" duties (the directing of non-combat personnel) at just about any rank, and can similarly be switched back at any time.  That being said, I think you'll find that it's uncommon for officers above the rank of LCOL to be involved in the direction of troops at the tactical level.  After that rank, the place of an officer is usually in an HQ. Geoff NoNick 19:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which US Rank Leaves The Front Line 

message: I am not a historian of modern military history, and so I may be mistaken on this one, but isn't there a general term for all non-officers? Would it not be helpful to mention in the introduction, by way of another method of description or definition, that anyone who is not an officer is called X? Unlike individual ranks, like Captain or whathaveyou, Officer is a very wide grouping of different positions and ranks; I should think that it would be helpful, on a very basic level, to be made aware that all soldiers are essentially divided into Officers and non-Officers. LordAmeth 06:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be thinking about  Other Ranks or Ratings in the Navy, at least in the British system; Officers and Other Ranks or Officers and Ratings.ALR 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As defined against... 

message: Maybe something about the history of having Officers, the destinction between enlisted and officer, why have them at all, who has them etc. - 01:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah I agree it is totally missing. The origin of officers as gentry, previous systems for obtaining commissions (buying, election etc.) as well as some other stuff I am sure, are all missing. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: You have gone into excruciating detail about Bevet ranks but you have entirely missed the most esssential part of the bifercated officer rank system.  Officers sometimes have two ranks:  a "permanent" rank and a "temporary" rank.  Where you start out depends on how you were commissioned.  If you were commissioned through a service academy your first rank will be either as a "regular" Ensign or Second Lieutenant.  If you graduate from ROTC, OCS, or one of the myriad of tracks for enlisted personal you will be commissioned as a "reserve" Ensign or Second Lieutentant (in some very rare cases at a higher rank).  
Congress has a quota for officer appointments, which is why service academy graduate garner the "regular" commissions first, essentially making them immmune from "Reductions in Force" (RIFS), a.k.a layoffs.  Up until 1973, I believe "distinquished graduates" from ROTC programs were also commissioned as "regular" officers.  I know that this was eliminated in 1973, at least in the USAF.  
There are two separate promotion boards where each officer is reviewed.  "Reserve" officers may or may not receive "regular" commissions.  The vast majority of officers initially commissioned as "reserve officers" will only hold one commission during their career.  A "regular" officer will hold two commissions.  It is usual and customary, for example, for a Major with a "reserve" commission" who was initially commissioned as a "regular" officer to hold the "reserve" rank of Major and a "regular" commission of First Lieutenant.  If there is a RIF, based on the manpower and skill requirements of the service, the Major would revert to his former "permanent" rank of First Lieutenant, or perhaps hold a "reserve" commission as a Captain (CPT).  
This system of "reserve" and "regular" commissions largely replaced the Brevet system by eliminating all of it's non-HR aspects.  One major human drawback of the system is that enlisted personnel intending to make the military service a career find that they get "the boot" long before they have enough years in service for retirement and not enough time to make up the difference on a part-time basis by finding a reserve or national guard unit that has an available slot.  This is after making a substantial time, domestic, and frequently large financial investment they normally would not have otherwise made.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.67.195 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  REGULAR AND TEMPORARY OFFICER RANKS IN TODAYS MILITARY 

message: This article could really use some sources other than "personality"-based conjecture. In the U.S. military, for example, there are literally tons of regulations, laws, and instructions which define the roles of military officers, NCOs, warrants, and so forth. Nobody can produce one to shore up this article? Where are all these subject matter experts and seasoned professionals? 108.76.145.17 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backbone of the article? 

message: This section has an unsourced assertion that most officers already holding a degree are from the enlisted ranks and comprise less than 2% of the officers serving. I don't have any sources to back it up, but my experience in the Marine Corps tells me that most officers obtain a degree as civilians and go straight to OCS for commissioning with no enlisted experience. I've never heard of an officer at the ranks of O-1 and O-2 earning a commission without a degree outside of combat commissioning. Further, it asserts that nobody without a degree can be promoted to O-3 or above, but--at least, in the Marine Corps--certain Military Occupational Specialties call for experienced enlisted men and Chief Warrant Officers to be commissioned as Limited Duty Officers. LDO's start at O-3 and max out at O-5. Sorry I don't have anything to cite to, which is why I didn't add it to the article, but if anybody can verify it, it seems to be worth including. In the meantime I think that a citation needed tag belongs on the erroneous material, if that information doesn't deserve to be removed altogether. 161.225.196.111 (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. Military Section

message: The ranks listed in the box "Common Anglophone Military Ranks" correspond, as regards the United States (US) military, variably, as follows: In the navy the listed rank "sub-lieutenant" is instead called lieutenant (junior grade); the listed rank "commodore" is now called rear admiral (lower half), the change from "commodore" having been made in 1985 ; and the five-star rank of fleet admiral (equivalent to "admiral of the fleet") has not been used since WWII.
In the army the term major is used, not the alternate term "commandant"; the listed rank "brigadier" is called brigadier general; and the rank "field marshall" has never been used .  Equivalent to "field marshall" is general of the army, but no active officer has been promoted to this rank since the Korean War (Omar Bradley).
As to air forces, however, the US Air Force (USAF) officer ranks are entirely different from those listed (not even one is the same), and the rank "aircraftman" is just airman. The US Air Force officer ranks and insignia are exactly the same as those of the US Army, reflecting the fact that until 1947 what is now the US Air Force was part of the US Army.  
Now as to calling to the attention of the reader the significant differences of US officer ranks (mostly USAF) from those shown in the table, a good way probably would be to prominently say in the body of the text, or perhaps in a notice appended to the table, that there are such differences, which the reader can learn about by reading the "List of comparative military ranks," a link to which is at the bottom of the article under "See also," but could, in addition, be supplied inline when mentioning that there are such differences. Wikifan2744 (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  US differences (some substantial) from the Common Anglophone Military Ranks 

message: The photo is actually (left to right): Lt Col Alastair Aitken, Major Neil Tomlinson OC A Coy, Maj Chris Gent Royal Artillery 
The RSM isn't in the picture  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.81.5 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Hi, I was wondering if anyone can answer a question for me. It might be a silly one, but here goes. Is it possible for an officer to lose his/her commission and, if so, in what circumstances? For example, Lieutenant busted down to private. 121.217.224.65 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. To answer your question, yes and no, as far as I know. You can lose your commission but only busted down to highest enlisted rank. I could be wrong though. Faithful15 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stripping of commission 

message: Anyone have thoughts on adding senior military colleges here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.8.9 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Senior Military Colleges?