Talk:List of comparative military ranks

---

Note: further discussion regarding WWII ranks will be held on Talk:Comparative military ranks of World War II.

---

Naval on the Table

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)

Sergeant-Major

Looking at the table of British Army ranks I don't see any reference to the various levels of Sergeant-Major. Where do these fit in? Roger Pilgrim. e-mail pilgrimfamily@aol.com

Sergeant-Major is more of a "job title", as I understand it. If I remember correctly, a Company Sergeant Major would be a WO2, and a Regimental Sergeant Major would be a WO1. --Khendon

US/UK enlisted ranks, matching units

I added the US enlisted ranks, but I don't know the equivalencies well enough to be sure to line them up properly with the British enlisted ranks.Rossami 02:12 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I looked up bigshot US sergeants recently, and officially the Army seems to be very coy about which ranks go with which units, so it may not be as clearcut as it used to be. Stan 03:08 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. The matching of ranks to units has traditionally been based on the nominal ranks that are seen in the "traditional" combat arms (usually infantry) unit. With the surge in special operations, mixed MOS task forces, special duties, highly technical skills, automation and administrative responsibilities, the relationship table is probably only useful as a loose gauge of relative responsibility. For example, a Master Sergeant in a Special Forces A Team may not really supervise anyone (and certainly doesn't supervise a 150 person company), but he would have equivalent seniority and authority. I think we can still say that a Master Sergeant (regardless of assignment) will have about three times the responsibility of a Sergeant First Class. Rossami 02:52 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

On the basis of the "nominally supervises" column in the US enlisted table, I've put together the following (very rough) equivalencies (armies only atm, but I assume we can safely extrapolate from this to the other services):

WO1 = CSM, SGM; WO2 = 1SG, MSG; S/Sgt = SFC; Sgt = SSG; Cpl = SGT; L/Cpl = CPL; Pvt = PFC, PV2, PV1

Again, very rough - I don't fancy working it into the article until it's been double-checked by someone more knowledgeable than I. - Rogor 17:47 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Lt senior grade

Where did anyone come across the term "lieutenant senior grade" for a U.S. Navy officer ranking between a lieutenant junior grade and a lieutenant commander? On clicking the link for "lieutenant" on the "comparative military ranks" page, I found nothing about the history of the rank, and so nothing about the use of "senior grade" in connection with the rank. During my association with the U.S. Navy and Naval Reserve, from 1971 to 1981 (and as a contractor from 1997 to the present), I have never heard anything about lieutenants ever being designated "lieutenants senior grade." Curt Lindsay. e-mail lindsay_curt@hotmail.com

On the basis of the "normally supervises" equivalence, some of Rogor's British/US enlisted equivalences are still too low. A L/Cpl supervises a fire team, a Cpl a section (squad), a Sgt is 2IC of a platoon, while a SSgt is a specialist admin role. So I would have put it:

WO1 = CSM, SGM; WO2 = 1SG, MSG; S/Sgt = no exact equivalence, sort of a junior MSG; Sgt = Platoon SGT; Cpl = SSGT, SFC; L/Cpl = SGT; Pvt = CPL, SP4, PV2, PV1

(Many years ago I did an exchange exercise with a US unit where we were given equivalent US rank badges (the little bronze collar tabs), to avoid confusion. Although I was a private at the time, I was given a Spec 4 collar tab because I was the company signaller, or "commo guy" as they put it. We also had an acting Company Sergeant Major with substantive rank of Sergeant, who was obviously given a First Sergeant equivalent rank. Boy did that confuse the Yanks, someone with three hooks on his arm who was a First Sergeant. -- Roger 15 Aug 2003

I have updated the comparative ranks using NATO Rank Codes as the authorative guide to how British ranks should line up with US ranks. Comparing unit names such as squad, platoon etc. is a bit of a Red Herring in searching for equivalence due to operational differences and sometimes differences in terms. Dainamo March 13, 2004

German naval officer ranks

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)

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)

British Army	Royal Marines	Royal Navy	RAF
Warrant Officer Class 1	Warrant Officer Class 1	Warrant Officer	Warrant Officer
Warrant Officer Class 2	Warrant Officer Class 2
Staff Sergeant	Colour Sergeant	Chief Petty Officer	Flight Sergeant
Sergeant	Sergeant	Petty Officer	Sergeant
Corporal	Corporal	Leading Rate	Corporal
Lance Corporal	Lance Corporal
Private	Marine	Able Rate Ordinary Rate	Senior Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman Leading Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman

Midshipmen; UK/US vs NATO ranks

-- Made some corrections to the status of midshipmen and the note that went with it.
-- There's a great reference ([1]) 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: [2] and [3] for the UK/NATO part.
--Ramorosi 16:20, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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)

Waffen-SS ranks

Since the Wehrmacht is included, how about including the Waffen-SS as well? They had some quite different titles for their ranks, so readers of WWII military history might find it useful to have those included (I know I would). I found a couple of relevant info sources on the 'net ([4], [5]), so the remaining work would consist of crosschecking a little bit, and then deciding on the layout -- a somewhat untrivial task, due to line length considerations.

One solution would be to have a separate table placed below the existing one, the new table including the first column of the existing one, and both featuring a separate column of numerical or alpha-letter based coding for the equivalent ranks. Such a coding system would facilitate quick'n'easy comparisons. --Wernher 23:54, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be interesting to include this, but not with contempary ranks. It might be an idea to have a separate page on historical ranks and rank structures such as the US Navy Ranks of Flag Officer and Commodore and British Army ranks of Ensign and Cornet. Dainamo, March 14 2004

Agree entirely - it would be good to separate the modern from the historical (napoleonic ranks mentioned above) and then perhaps divide the modern into a NATO equivalence page and a non-nato page (for the Argentinian ranks , but also Russian, Chinese etc - and here NATO can be represented as one column using ranks codes) Ramorosi 16:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I added theme anyway until some one is brave enough to fully restructure. Agree with your idea entirely using NATO/non Nato. A World War II one would be appropriate for the extent of interest in the subject e.g USA, UK, USSR, Third Reich, Italy, Japan. One would have to divide the services though. Dainnamo March 15, 2004

Corrected your SS ranks, Dainnamo. Though there was an extra SS Rank in between Brigadeführer and Standartenführer, it was equivalent to Wehrmacht-Oberst. The additional rank had only a meaning within the SS, compared to the Wehrmacht it was just another Oberst. (Standartenführer AND Oberführer carried the epaulettes of "Oberst", as a hint) Also corrected the Waffen-SS General Ranks accordingly, now with Reichsführer SS on top, comparative to Field Marshal. Removed the part "...und General der Waffen-SS" as well, though part of the official title.

Thank you for the correction, I did think there wasn't something quote right. However, sadly, some anomonous user (vandal?) has taken it upon themsleves to delete this historical text without leaving an explanation. Dainamo 21:43, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reverting the vandalism (awaiting further developments), and at the same time improved the table layout by ensuring that the Waffen-SS ranks are located at separate lines below the corresponding Wehrmacht ranks. --Wernher 15:46, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Could someone with the relevant knowledge also include Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS Unteroffizier (enlisted) ranks along with the modern German equivalents in the third table? For the Waffen-SS, I'm thinking of Scharfürers (?) and the like. And if applicable, could the "pay codes" from the US/UK table be included, to facilitate comparisons? --Wernher 18:55, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps an idea for the SS ranks now on a separate page (see comments below on Taming the monster). US pay codes are not an ideal approach (although I see n reason to remove them from the existing Enlisted table) and Nato OF and OR (enlisted) codes seem better as applied in all Nato countries. While OR codes do match with E codes, Nato office (OF) codes do not match US codes O-1 to O-11. Dainamo 14:02, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I have no knowledge or experience about mil. pay codes, I can only leave that to you and others who have :-). And thanks for the new WWII ranks article -- the color codes in particular are good for the readability of the table. --Wernher 14:11, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Specialist Fourth Class

There is a deeply persistent myth that the Army rank "Specialist Four" is short for "Specialist Fourth Class". It is not. The specialist ranks, most of which have been discontinued, were Specialist Four, Specialist Five, Specialist Six, etc.

There never was a rank called "Specialist Fourth Class". Despite its non-existence, this mythical rank appears all over the Internet, even on sites that appear to be authoritative. I am still searching for the regulation that will settle the argument once and for all. For the time being, this one on military abbreviations will have to do: http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r310_50.pdf

On Page 104 of this site, the abbreviation "SP4" is interpreted as the correct "Specialist Four", not the erroneous "Specialist Fourth Class".

Graphics for US insignia and medals

I have individual graphics for all the US military insignia, and a good chunk of the medals. All handrawn personally by me. The current pages are so international, I wouldn't know where to begin putting them. Can someone help me out with advice toward getting them up somewhere that won't completely clobber the military ranks structure?

I'm willing to possibly put in some more time making new ones for other nations. Or even condensing these into chart-style large graphics, instead of individual pics.

Most of these ranks (and all the US ones) have their own pages already. I'd recommend putting the insignia graphics on those pages. (Frankly, the tables here are already too cumbersome.) Rossami 23:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did so, and more. I agree that this table is a monster. I think some discussion about how to break up this out-of-control table, without sacrificing clarity, might be in order. - Wguynes 18:16, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I think most of these tables should be on their respective "Military of XYZ" articles. Look at Finnish Defence Forces and Swedish Armed Forces for how it is done there. -- Jniemenmaa 10:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Taming the monster

As a move towards tidying up the page I have taken some liberties: Removed Wermacht and SS ranks onto NEW page for World War II ranks to keep this page contempary. Think further changes would be good such as addition of French, Russian and Chinese and separation of modern German/Argentine as would be considered minor military nations now perhaps? Dainamo 01:54, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moved following notes:

Certain ranks, such as Fleet Admiral, General of the Army and General of the Air Force in the U.S., as well as Admiral of the Fleet, Field Marshal and Marshal of the RAF in the U.K., are usually assigned in war-time only.

Indicated on table as all OF-10 ranks UK and US are now war time only.

In the British and Commonwealth Armies, a Brigadier is a Colonel in command of a brigade, who wears the insignia and title of such assignment. In the Royal and Commonwealth Navies, a Commodore is a Captain in command of a naval task group, flotilla or squadron, who wears the insignia and title of such assignment, and flies a broad pennant (as opposed to a flag) from his flagship.

More like notes for specific rank pages. Additionally not sure about pennants still being flown by Commodores?

And no longer true anyway. Brigadier has been a separate rank since about 1946. Commodore, in the RN at least, became a separate rank a few years ago. -- Necrothesp 12:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the Royal and Commonwealth Navies, a Midshipman is junior to an Army 2nd Lieutenant and an RAF Pilot Officer, ranking above an Officer Cadet. This is because historically Midshipman was a training rank; nowadays however, officers only join as Midshipman if they are under 20 years of age. Because of the duration of training very few midshipmen reach their commissioning board before automatic promotion so the matter of what type of commission they are serving under is of little consequence. The MOD (Ministry of Defence) web site shows Midshipman as NATO Code OF(D) ranking alongside Acting Pilot Officer.

The table now shows most of points except peice about age of Midshipman which can go on specific page.

In the RN, Sub Lieutenant is junior to army (1st) Lieutenant and airforce equivalent, but still senior to 2nd Lieutenant.

now on table

The NATO code for Subaltern grades such as First and Second Lieutenant is OF-1 in both cases as in operational terms the former may be considered just a higher version of the latter.

a discussion item

In the Argentine Navy (Armada Argentina), the Marine Corps' Officers (Infantería de Marina) use naval Ranks. For instance a Major would be a Lt. Cdr (Capitan de Corbeta or CC) and would add the letters "I.M." or just "IM" following his rank. E.g. Capitan de Corbeta I.M. John Doe, or CCIM John Doe.

table indicates both Navy & Marines

I have looked after the Soviet and subsequent Russian rankings, except for one destressing anomaly. The two tables are done using SEPERATE KINDS OF CODE. The officers' table uses wiki-code whereas the lower ranks are listed using standard html. This really isnt a big deal as the table probably wont be edited again for some time, but it was a nuisance for me and if anyone with too much time on their hands wants to give it a try, I would strongly encourage it. --Oceanhahn 08:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Table needs correction

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)

More countries

It is interesting to have the ranks of a lot of more countries listed than can possibly fit into this table. My suggestion is that we only keep English-language ranks here, since this is the English Wikipedia. (I removed the Argentine ranks but left the German ones in for now. I think we really should stick to English-language ranks, though.) And then we can put more extensive lists in other articles, like I have already done at Naval officer ranks (is that a good title?). What do you all think about this solution? -- Jao 08:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me. The naval officer ranks look good. -- Necrothesp 10:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excellent Idea I like the table too Dainamo 23:52, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I had made a table of the Russian ranks neater than, but missing information from, the table currently available at Russian military. I had originally made the table here, but then I noticed this part of the discussion and moved it.

Incedentally, my edit reads "Removed table..." -- this refers to the table I created. THAT table is available at Russian Military Ranks.

--Oceanhahn 09:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that if this page is called "Comparative Military Ranks", doesnt it HAVE to have the ranks of other countries? Otherwise, what is the comparison between? Branches of the same forces? I think the problem of too many countries can be solved with careful construction of prehaps a new table or tables, or perhaps a one or two matrices. The former would be best, I think, but if someone can accomplish the second in a neat and legible way, then that would be best, I think. --Oceanhahn 09:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Descending order of IDF ranks

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)

Warrant Officers

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)

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)

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)

I take on board much of what you said. As far as notes are concerned, they fulfill a purpose, but all the better if we can demonstrate as much as possible in a table (IMO T.S. Eliot made his poetry less poetic with all the notes he added!). Some sort of basis for approaching this needs to be established so I will attempt to start a framework to work in

1. All WO1 (OR-9) appointments are equal, although the actual level as well as sphere of responsibility may vary as indicated by appointment
2. All E-9 (OR-9) ranks are substantively the same, although the actual level as well as sphere of responsibility may vary as indicated by rank title or billet.
3. UK: The senior WO in a Regiment or Battalion is the the RSM
4. US: The senior NCO acting as adviser to a commanding officer is the Command Sgt Major
5. In the British Army three of these appointments held by a handful of individuals have been considered the most senior (I am currently unaware of equivalents in other services)
6. The most senior enlisted E9 hold a special tile in each of the four services.
7. Similar points may be raised for OR-8 ranks.
8. The US Air Fouce has a billet of First Sergeant that my be held by anyone from E7 to E9. (This is perhaps something that cannot avoid the notes)
9. The military unit given for each rank is merely a guide, not always a hard and fast rule.
   

Addtionally, there is no reason why we cannot be consistent for WO ranks in other British services. Dainamo 01:54, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

German ranks

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)

I started editing Army officer ranks and Air force officer ranks. I simply used US and British rank from the Comparative military ranks page and added Russian ranks to them. I hope someone else will add others soon. DimaY2K.

Rationalisation

There seems to be quite a mess of articles related to this one. Can I suggest we consider some kind of rationalisation? Perhaps this page could contain a list of NATO rank codes with a list of typical (English?) rank names for each, and then each country could have its own list of ranks by equivalence to NATO code. The NATO code would make it easy to cross-reference between countries, and we don't have to either privilege certain countries or have a huge unwieldy table --Khendon 11:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, I would think the following pages:

Army officer ranks

Naval officer ranks

Air force officer ranks

plus pages for rnaks below officers similar to these (not yet done) will eventually supercede this page entirely when they are complete, but this has been an excellent "project" page without which others would not have followed. Dainamo 02:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

German/Canadian ranks

I assume there's a good reason why someone seems to have unilaterally decided to replace all the German ranks with Canadian ranks? -- Necrothesp 11:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that it was probably due to the discussion on the removal of non-English speaking military ranks. However, there are many other armies that could have been included as well. --Madison Gray 01:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon comparative military ranks? Halibutt 09:12, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think maybe Comparative military ranks of English-speaking countries or something like that would be more appropriate. Canada, for example, is not what one could call an Anglo-Saxon Country. --24.77.34.62 18:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. This page is starting to duplicate Army officer ranks etc, but with a worse layout. Can we decide which countries we want on here or whether we want to get rid of it altogether? -- Necrothesp 22:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My vote is we get rid of it altogether. It's unnecessary - we just need a page for each country with the ranks of its armed forces compared to NATO ranks. The reader can then compare by cross-reference. --Khendon 10:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

US military branches compared

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)

It's not quite the same. -- 130.102.42.97 03:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:United States uniformed services comparative ranks

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)

Argentinian ranks and equivalences

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)

Detailed view of Swedish military ranks and its personnel

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)

North Korea

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

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

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)