Talk:List of comparative military ranks

message: The comparative table, which is referenced to in several articles, is just a little out of whack on the Navy.  It lists Petty Officers as being the equivalent of Army Sergeants, "Leading Rates" as being the equivalent of Army Corporals, and Seaman as being the equivalent of Army Privates.  I assume by "Leading Rates" the table infers Seaman First Rate; and therefore, that by Seaman the table infers Seaman Second and Third Rate.
Seaman Second and Third Rate do not normally serve actively, as they have not fully completed their training, and therefore are more like unto Army Recruits.  The Seaman First Rate is the most junior rank normally found serving aboard ship; and, unlike the Corporal, has no supervisory/command responsibilities.  Thus the Seaman First Rate is most like unto the Army Private.
Petty Officers are basically very experienced Seaman, even as the Army Lance Corporal was originally an experienced Private; and, like the Corporal the Petty Officer has some supervisory responsibility over officers of junior rank.  While this roll is not as well defined as the roll of a Corporal, nonetheless it makes the Petty Officer most like unto the Army Corporal.  The Naval Rank most like unto Army Sargent and even Staff-Sargent, Chief Petty Officer, is not even listed.
That Warrant Officers are listed under Navy instead of Army is bizarre; because, while Warrant Officers, particularly in the capacity of logistics, are still very important in ground-based forces, in the Navy most skill-sets formally associated with Warrant Officers are now normally held by Commissioned Officers; and, by consequence, in the Navy the Warrant Officer has become a marginalized rank, even dropping out of usage in the British Navy for a substantial period.  That Warrant Officer appears on the table, but Chief Warrant Officer, to whom the Warrant Officer answers, does not is also bizarre.  Most bizarre is that and how Warrant Officers appear on the table at all, seeing as they appear in all branches of the service and in all of them occupy that same strange niche between Non-Commissioned Officers and Commissioned Officers, being superior-and-yet-equal-to the former and equal-yet-inferior-to the latter and in general difficult to compare to either.  As they exist between CO's and N-CO's so should they appear on the chart in a section of their own; but, seeing as they appear and are equivalent to each other in all branches of the service, that they appear on a comparative chart of the branches of the service at all is just strange.
Midshipman are the CO equivalent of Seaman Second and Third Rate, meaning they are best thought of as Commissioned Officers (Ensign/Lieutenant Junior Grade/Sub-Lieutenant) in training; because, they are; and, as such, they are not normally in active service; and therefore, while their nearly-junior-lieutenant status makes them seem like unto 2nd Lieutenants, as they are not an active service rank their place on the table seems rather inappropriate.  A good fill-in for this place on the table might be Ensign; or it might make sense to dispose of that line altogether, seeing as 2nd Lieutenant is a marginal sort of half-step rank that is generally only visited by high-school-to-commissioned-officer recruits.
So, I purpose thus: to reflect reality, replace "Leading Rate" with Petty Officer, make Chief Petty Officer the Naval opposite of the Army Sargent and eliminate the Midshipman/2nd Lieutenant line altogether.  For sake of ease and simple sense, also eliminate the Warrant Officer/Staff Sargent line, since Warrant Officers appear in and occupy the same niche in all branches of the service; and, really, Staff Sargent is just a grade of Sargent, and listing it is therefore like listing Chief Petty Officer First Rate separately from Chief Petty Officer, which is to say: redundant.  If we feel that Warrant Officers simply must appear on the chart, after all they are important and deserving of mention, then they should have their own section between the CO and N-CO section, a section just for WOs, with two lines: one reading Warrant Officer in every branch below one reading Chief Warrant Officer in every branch.
Finnbjorn (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Naval on the Table

message: It is curious to note that, although German is not a romance language, the officer rank titles of the German Navy follow the French-inspired pattern used in latin countries. Indeed, each rank from Captain (Kapitän zur Zee) to Ensign (Leutnant zur See) has its exact equivalent in the Brazilian Navy, for example. Reportedly, when the Prussian Navy became the Imperial German Navy in 1870, an advisory mission of the Imperial Brazilian Navy was sent to German to assist in the organization of the new naval service.
The rank title of Kapitänleutnant only exists in three languages: German, Portuguese (Capitão-Tenente) and Russian (Kapitan-leitenant). In the German, Brazilian and Russian navies it is the equivalent to Lieutenant (senior grade). In the Portuguese Navy it is the equivalent to Lieutenant Commander (the Portuguese naval rank system is slightly different). The list below shows the current officer ranks in the three navies:
BUNDESMARINE / BRAZILIAN NAVY / PORTUGUESE NAVY:
Admiral / Almirante-de-Esquadra / Almirante
Vizeadmiral / Vice-Almirante / Vice-Almirante
Konteradmiral / Contra-Almirante / Contra-Almirante
Flottillenadmiral / (not used) / Comodoro
Kapitan zur See / Capitão-de-Mar-e-Guerra / Capitão-de-Mar-e-Guerra
Fregattenkapitän / Capitão-de-Fragata / Capitão-de-Fragata
Korvettenkapitän / Capitão-de-Corveta / Capitão-Tenente
Kapitänleutnant / Capitão-Tenente / Primeiro-Tenente
Oberleutnant zur See / Primeiro-Tenente / Segundo-Tenente
Leutnant zur See / Segundo-Tenente / Guarda-Marinha (or Subtenente)
:There was a historical rank of captain-lieutenant in the British Army. Don't know when it was eliminated -early 1800's? Rmhermen 00:04, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
::I believe captain-lieutenant appeared in the company of a regiment that the Colonel was captain of and fulfilled the role of a captain but remained a substantive lieutenant, junior to other captains.  When an individual of this rank was promoted to a proper captain, his service as a captain-lieutenant was counted as time in the rank of captain (I assume this inclusion was relevant to pay and/or pension etc.) Dainamo 01:24, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged the US and British enlisted ranks according to the equivalencies above.  Table is attached below in case we need to recreate. Rossami 00:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  German naval officer ranks 

message: -- Made some corrections to the status of midshipmen and the note that went with it.
-- There's a great reference () but i'm not sure where to put it.
-- Maybe we should split the UK(/US?) inter-service thing from the complicated matter of how to squeeze these and other national systems into the NATO systems. I.e. a UK (or US) rank page and then a NATO equivalent ranks page. There are some good references out there:  and  for the UK/NATO part.--Ramorosi 16:20, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough on putting Mid below the Army/RAF equivalents. The issue is confusing within the Service itself (people make funny looks when they see real midshipmen around dockyards etc) as soo few ever make it anywhere beyond basic trainng before promotion. Ramorosi 16:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midshipmen; UK/US vs NATO ranks 

message: Your listing of US officers ranks needs correcting. I don't want to do the correction, because it would screw up the comparison, and I'm not familiar enough with the other countries' ranks. Anyway, here's the deal for the US (A,AF,MC/N): 
[A list then followed simply showing O1 to O11 ranks, which was deleted to keep explanation on this first talk page Dainamo]
In a joint (multi-service) environment, you should refer to the Navy O-6 as "the Captain", and the other O-3s as "the Army Captain" and so forth. (unsigned)
:Hi, the codes you have shown are applicable in the US forces only.  The table is international and therefore uses NATO rank codes OF-1 to OF-10, where all subaltern officers are OF-1 (refer to note removed under Taming the monster above).  The enlsited rank table has the E-1 to E-9 pay grades of the US forces, partly I suspect as the table was originally US only.  This is not so much of a problem since the OR-1 to OR-9 (other ranks) used by NATO match up with the "E" pay grade used in the US. Dainamo 13:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table needs correction 

message: For readability, I strongly suggest we re-sort the IDF rank tables in descending order like the other tables in this article. Re-sorting the order of the tables themselves, as well as the items within the tables, must be done to achieve conformance with the rest of the article. If no one objects in a convincing way, I'll just go ahead and re-sort in a couple of days -- but others are welcome to do the job, of course (my back aches, you see...). --Wernher 02:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descending order of IDF ranks 

message: I have to say that I think putting the British warrant officer distinctions on the table makes it look much, much too crowded. I think these would be better done with footnotes. Also, the table makes it appear that the WO2 holding an appointment of CSM or SSM (should also add Battery Sergeant Major) is senior to WO2s holding other appointments and the WO1 holding an RSM apppointment is senior to other WO1s. This is not the case. An appointment is just that - an appointment, not a rank. -- Necrothesp 12:18, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK there is a lot of information through the long evolution of this table, and how it presented is open to discussion.  However, the point of the table is to show nearest equivalence in each service.  The top three appointments in the US forces are all still E-9 (pay grade) or OR-9 (NATO) ranks.  The seniority of the Sergeant Major of the Army is more ceremonial than in a practical command structure in much the same way as the Conductors et al in the BA appointments.   The nearest equivalent appointment in function to a Command Serg Maj is the RSM (and other regimental titles).   There is also a similar comparrison that can be mde between  First Sergeants and British CSMs.  I agree the US actually distinguish senior appointments as ranks rather than appointments by description, but the E8 and E9 ranks are often presented parrallel on many tables indicating that their senitority is more nominal in much the same way as that of som WO1 or WO2 appointments over others. Dainamo 11:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can understand the reasoning. But I think it makes it very difficult to read. It's also inconsistent. To make it at all consistent, we would also need to add in similar appointments in the Royal Marines, RAF and RN, and also the USN and USAF (which has the appointment of First Sergeant at three different ranks). The suggestion that the US Sgt Maj of the Army has any equivalence to an RLC conductor is just plain wrong. Britain does not have senior NCOs of services in this way. I still think it looks better with all this information footnoted. Incidentally, do battalions in the US Army not have Command Sergeant Majors? I understood they did, but the table suggests they only exist in brigades. -- Necrothesp 15:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Warrant Officers

message: I have removed this section from the main page:
Anomaly : The comparison table lists the NATO data accurately. However, when the NATO system was set up some of the German naval ranks were devalued as follows -
  Oberleutnant zur See is a two striper (LT) listed as an LTJG equiv.;
  Kapitänleutnant is a two-and-a-half striper (LCDR) listed as an LT equiv.;
  Korvettenkapitän is a three striper (CDR) listed as an LCDR equiv.;
  Fregattenkapitän is a three-and-a-half striper (no equiv.) listed as a CDR equiv.
This is not really an anomaly or a devaluation. The number of stripes an officer wears has no bearing on his equivalence in other navies (particularly since most other navies don't have a 3 and a half stripe rank). These were always considered to be the German equivalents to RN/USN ranks, long before NATO was set up. See Comparative military ranks of World War I and Comparative military ranks of World War II, where they appear (accurately) at the same levels. -- Necrothesp 10:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: German ranks

message: There is a page comparing UK and US ranks, and a number of pages listing the ranks of each branch of the US military (although listing Officer and Enlisted ranks separately) yet no single page which simply lists and compares all the ranks of the various branches US armed forces.
:You'll see a list at the bottom of every page about a rank used in the US armed forces. -- Necrothesp 12:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not quite the same. -- 130.102.42.97 03:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: US military branches compared

message: there is now. check this out: Template:United States uniformed services comparative ranks. i welcome any feedback.--diremarc (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:United States uniformed services comparative ranks]]

message: Hi, does anybody knows if wikiarticles exist for the Argentine Air Force and Argentine Navy, similar to those listed (in this wikilist) for the Argentine Army? If they do, I was unable to find them. Thanks, DPdH (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentinian ranks and equivalences 

message: There is a detailed view of Swedish ranks and how many serve in each rank also including troops. 
*  Ranks of the Swedish Armed Forces (with numbers of persons in each ranks, including troops)
I will insert the link in the article to this if we find it usueful. 
Thanks,
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed view of Swedish military ranks and its personnel 

message: North Korea should be the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.94.6.99.147 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of comparative military ranks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308122548/http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/3745.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/3745.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224051417/http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about-notresujet/Insig/index-eng.asp to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about-notresujet/Insig/index-eng.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028222858/http://www.military.ie/army/uniform/armyposter.pdf to http://www.military.ie/army/uniform/armyposter.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "rm non-military ranks & personal websites". --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit