Talk:Comparison of United Kingdom and United States military ranks

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Enlisted Comparisons

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why does this article even exist? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Title renaming

message: 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)
replies: text: I've been bold and put the O-ranks to its own end of the table, much like how many graphs have Celsius on one side and Fahrenheit on the other. 118.90.51.62 (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OF v O 

message: Isn't there a rank in the Royal Navy (and equivalent Commonwealth navies) between Sub-Lieutenant and Midshipman called Acting Sub-Lieutenant? --121.200.0.46 (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting Sub-Lieutenant 

message: I would suggest putting the columns in the same order for both of the tables. The OR table seems to have the more readable/understandable order of the two. I would be bold and do it myself, but I'm not comfortable playing with tables quite yet. ArkianNWM (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: RASAM (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Column Order 

message: Note 7 is completely wrong in the Enlisted Rank table. Chief Technician is not Obsolesent in the RAF, nor is LAC. It is Jnr Tech which is being phased out with no more promotions, engineering trades gaining the rank of SAC(T) instead.
18:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 7 

message: There should be a note about the differing pronounciation of this name.--89.241.63.254 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lieutenant

message: Currently states: "In the US Army, First Sergeant is considered senior to and promoted laterally from Master Sergeant when assigned to a First Sergeant billet, typically the senior NCO in a company (troop, battery) sized unit." This is not always true, but it's hard to word an exception. We had one in my battalion, in which the Battalion Command Sergeant Major (CSM) billet was filled by an E-8. Because he wasn't the senior NCO in a company, he was a Master Sergeant, and the 1SG's knew he was the boss. CsikosLo (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlisted note #18 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Comparison of United Kingdom and United States 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/20041206203554/http://www.usawoa.org/ArmyWOdefined.htm to http://www.usawoa.org/ArmyWOdefined.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215014636/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/sitecore/content/home/news-and-events/latest-news/2013/april/24/130424-warrant-officer-first-class-in-a-class-of-his-own to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/sitecore/content/home/news-and-events/latest-news/2013/april/24/130424-warrant-officer-first-class-in-a-class-of-his-own
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160408012244/http://nff.org.uk/transition-to-a-single-warrant-officer-rate/ to http://nff.org.uk/transition-to-a-single-warrant-officer-rate/
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) 16:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Aside from a couple of paragraphs there is no expansion or explanation as to how the American military treats the rank of Warrant officer (United_States) compared to the British version. Bit of a glaring oversight. 146.200.202.49 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Warrant officers? 

message: The rank of Ensign has never been used in the Royal Navy. It was once the junior commissioned rank in the infantry. A Navy Ensign is an American invention given to what previously were called Passed Midshipman.
Neither has that rank ever been used in the Royal Marines; the most junior commissioned rank has always been Second Lieutenant. Creuzbourg (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rank of Ensign is no longer used in the Royal Navy.