"Fewer Ranks?" - article from 2018

[aramis]

Do we need to simplify the rank structures of UK Armed Forces?

By Nicholas Drummond This is an updated version of an article originally written for the Wavell Room blog in June 2018 (see wavellroom.com). It makes a case for a flatter hierarchy by cutting the n…

uklandpower.com

The case for change

Today, the Royal Navy, British Army, and Royal Air Force have 16, 18 and 23 different ranks respectively. Compared to other organisations, including commercial and government entities, this is a substantial hierarchy, especially when you factor-in five levels of General rank. Those who defend the existing rank structure argue that the manpower-intensive way in which the Armed Forces operate demands a hierarchy that allows effective command and control at all levels across each service. You need to know who is responsible and to whom responsibility devolves in case a commander is injured, killed or captured.

Just a taste... but it harkens close to CT's 6 rank system...

Stumbled across it today doing some reference art for my next T2K game. It's got some interesting discussion elements.

Oh, and for reference,

• it doesn't mention the UK "white stripes" - acting Corporal and Acting Sergeant.
• Poland in the T2K (1997-2000) era has 27 ranks, not counting the multiple Podchorążi (officer candidate) grades.
• US has (in that era) 9 to 11 commissioned officer, 0 or 4 warrant, and 10 to 15 enlisted ranks (by service) - Army having 2 each at E4 E8 and E9a, plus singular E9b, Navy 3 at E9 (incl E9b), AF 2 at E9 (Incl. E9B), for 20 to 30...

 

[Condottiere]

I think it depends, but there's a difference between gaming hierarchy and authority, as opposed to trying to implement it on a wide variety of humanity and organizations.

Idealism versus realism, or actuality.

I reconfigured the Confederation Navy into five junior/senior ranks, and five flag ones, to honour symmetry, in order to give O9 to the Grand Admiral, of which there would be only one in active service, and since I view Commodore as a temporary appointment to confer seniority and authority, a brevet rank in other words, I had to dig up some other minor subtitles for Admirals.

For the British, they have to adapt that imperialistic hierarchy legacy to fit a shrunk military, where you can't have more admirals than ships, and the adjustment has more to do with attracting and retaining personnel, so you can streamline hierarchy, but increase pay.

For the CAVALRY, I totally made up that hierarchy to emphasize the non commissioned and warrant ranks.

 

[Enoki]

I'd think it would depend on a combination of politics, tradition, and need. I'd also think rank systems would vary between the Imperium and other polities as well. I know this goes somewhat beyond ranks, but it has a point.

Given the Imperium is a monarchy with a significant noble presence, I'd think that society is highly stratified by social class. For example, if you were a noble, or a heir in a family to nobility, you automatically are made an officer and will get promoted to a rank fitting your status regardless of ability. Going beyond that is on you to prove your ability.

The same might go for those with high social status but not nobles, versus the average citizen, etc.

I'd also think there'd be other differences like a similar structure to the branches of military itself. There might be a pecking order to the services.

All that would then apply to each service itself.

So, I'd think you have five sets of rank and promotion in a service with some differences between them:

"Flag" ranks: These would be admirals and generals. They are as much political as military. Your social status, position in the hierarchy of your service--what you parts of it you worked in--play as much or more significant roles than sheer competence.

Examples: You are a minor noble who has a long record of command and combat experience. You get easily promoted into a flag rank. On the other hand, you from a family of merchants that has done well in business, and you have spent your career in technical and engineering fields doing quite well at those things. You get passed over and will never make flag rank as you are not considered "leadership" material.

Let's assume there are 4 or 5 possible flag ranks. The lower two or three get you a generic "flag" you "fly" on your ship, vehicle, building, etc., signifying your location and status. It confers a certain level of social and political status. The upper two ranks, and the top one in particular, get special flags, or even one of their own choosing. These have much greater significance socially and politically.

The officer ranks would likely be split between entry level, junior, and senior.

The entry level ones are like midshipman, cadet, ensign, 2nd LT, etc. You are an officer, but just barely. Anyone who is made an officer gets these ranks.
The junior level ones are the next two or three ranks above the entry level (depending on the system used). These are where you get some real responsibility and are learning the skills of being an officer within your service.
The senior ones are those competent, or connected, enough to warrant promotion to them. They consist of ranks between junior and flag.

I'd think there is also, again, a pecking order by what you do. Command and combat are usually at the top of that order. Specialist, technical, and other support functions that are vital to the service and warrant officer ranks by social status or level of skill required, are capped where those in these ranks are promoted separately within their field and can never go beyond senior level except in rare circumstances.

An example of the latter might be, an officer that is in engineering. He gets promoted to senior rank by showing exceptional competence. He is then given flag rank because he is promoted to being the fleet's top ship architect / designer or something like that. But he's still just an engineer and not quite as good as the general flag officers are socially or politically.

Officers by warrant are ones that get more pay and privileges but are not put in command in the sense actual officers are. These are technical ranks with the warrant officer being specialized at one or a few technical things in particular.
A variation of this would be quasi-civilians serving in a similar role. That is, they are technically not in the military but serving on a military vessel in a specialized role. Chaplain, surgeon / doctor, specialist with some ship's system or another that is fairly new, that sort of thing. They get treated as warrant officers would be.

The enlisted ranks really come down to three groups:

The lowest are the E-Nothings. That is, the first two to four enlisted ranks. You are not an NCO. The top rank in this group would likely be one where you are a quasi-NCO. You get some NCO authority and responsibility, but you really aren't an NCO yet.

Junior NCO's are ones promoted from the above ranks due to showing sufficient skills and ability. They are the ones that are reasonably expert at their job. They supervise small numbers of other enlisted to get things they are assigned done.

Senior NCO's are promoted from the junior ranks not only on competence but on their ability to work with (liaison) the officers. They are the go-betweens for officers to enlisted. They are more trusted than other enlisted and have more like quasi-officer powers and responsibilities. They are not so much hands-on as they are the ones making sure what the officers want is carried out correctly.

Again, you likely would have these ranks also broken up by the particular job or jobs being done. So, you might have combat ranks, technical ranks, support / specialist ranks, each with its own line of promotion and a pecking order of importance.

So, what you have boiling it down, are three groups of officer ranks, and three groups of enlisted ranks. How many separate ranks within those groups can vary. I'd thin that 2 would be the minimum giving 6 total.

In addition, you have the specialist "warrant" ranks with several in that group, and you have "flag" ranks with several in that group. Virtually all militaries fit into this pattern. Exactly how everything works can vary but the rank system is going to be similar with three tiers.

 

[Condottiere]

The Confederation is supposedly a meritocracy, at least ideologically.

So the way I saw it, junior and senior ranks are open to competition, but it gets political for a permanent flag rank, which number of slots might actually be regulated through the legislature.

If you have a patron, demonstrated capability, and have been politically vetted, you're a shoe in.

Two out of three being a requirement, and then the remaining open slots become contested; allowing a large number of officers to accumulate at the Captain rank allows leeway for correction, just in case, with sufficient authority and pay to retain experience and capability.

And brevet promotion to commodore, to settle any seniority and authority issues.

The Imperium probably has something similar, where loyalty, which could be demonstrated by social status, trumps the promotion stakes.

 

[aramis]

IMO, there's no reason to have ranks within the Flag Officer commissions. The first 40 years of the US, there was only one flag rank, and it was technically a brevet, rather than substantiative: Commodore. Single Star on the two gold epaulettes. Authority amongst the commodores was by position, not rank. We got the system used now in the USCW era (mid-19th). The documented by congress reason for creating admiral ranks was entirely due to other nations refusing to accept that a brevet to O7 was the local equal to their admirals, despite commanding the same nummber of ships and men.
The reason for RALH? Well, it was because the Navy decided to drop Commodore just at the start of WW 2... so Navy Captains getting their flag commissions went straight to 2-star Rear Admirals. The Army top brass balked. So the navy divided the list; top half were 2 stars pay, bottom 1 star pay, but still wearing 2. Army General Officer general griping at congresscritters resulted in the Navy finally just saying both 1 and 2 star admirals were "rear admirals" - with a handful of exceptions. CO US Naval War College & CO US Naval Academy were, for years, either promoted to or breveted to Commodore wearing 1 star.

Generals needing rank? There's a good argument for ranks in the ground forces general officer corps... they're far more likely to be issuing orders to troops who don't know the chain, and for general officers to have to take over for each other in battle losses. Navies, by contrast, the orders come to the officers, and officers known by the sailors actually command the sailors; it's much less common to have a ship functioning without its CO or XO still alive than for a Company or Battalion ashore to do so.

 

[Condottiere]

I think it becomes a matter of cultural and current necessity, maybe politics.

I also get the impression that if Congress could have just Federalized State military assets if and when required, they would have been quite happy to do that, at most, had a Coast Guard, at worst, gone the French route with Jeune Ecole.

It may have been Mahan, Teddy Roosevelt, and the perceived need to control sealanes and foreign investments, whether in the form of colonial possessions or power projection into Far East Asia, that required a more complex organization.

I had thought about that, and decided that if you managed to get on the Confederation Navy flag rank pole, the five subranks represented not just pay grades, but how much responsibility the Admiralty thought (and the legislature concurred) that you were capable carrying off, but collegially, all current serving, and retired, would be addressed as Admiral, unless formality was required or necessary, and outside of the Grand Admiral, all got the same basic retirement package (plus actual years served).

You can compare that with the Royal Navy at the time of Nelson, which Honorverse more or less borrows from, with subtle distinctions of flag colours, and when tactics and organizations then suited it, if you led the front, centre or rear of the fleet.

The Confederation Navy is a military organ of the Solomani Confederation as a whole, plus can (Con)federalize member planet naval assets as and when needed, which they themselves may have organized as part of multi planet units, so exercising authority of those would require the understanding that an equivalent Confederation ranking trumps theirs, and while they can be as elaborate as they want of nominal flag rank titles, actual stars/tiers are (Con)federally regulated,, so that a breveted Commodore actually would take precedence over one star member planet admirals, and doesn't need to take orders from a two star admiral (doesn't mean he won't)(.

With the ground forces, it was generally easier in concept, Brigadier being the brevet rank, first star Brigadier General, second Major General, third Lieutenant General, fourth Colonel General, and fifth General of the Armies of the Confederation.

I considered Captain General and Marshal, but Marshal had become some form of super agent in the MongosianVerse, so Field Marshal became a brevet rank for commander in chief, ground forces, system, while Captain General became a brevetted CAVALRY position.

 

[Dragoner]

IMTU rank is pay grade, as Chain-of-Command is how things are run, such as in reality, one of the other players in my university traveller game, an aerospace engineer, went on to head up an a maintenance section in the air force, a load toad is what they are called. It's an officer heavy unit with all the pilots, except once they land, those birds are his, and nobody gives his guys orders except for him, and only through him. He sent me pics of clean room tear downs of F-15E's that he was doing during OIF, and one understands why he runs that show.

 

[Chris Barlow]

IMO, there's no reason to have ranks within the Flag Officer commissions. The first 40 years of the US, there was only one flag rank, and it was technically a brevet, rather than substantiative: Commodore. Single Star on the two gold epaulettes. Authority amongst the commodores was by position, not rank. We got the system used now in the USCW era (mid-19th). The documented by congress reason for creating admiral ranks was entirely due to other nations refusing to accept that a brevet to O7 was the local equal to their admirals, despite commanding the same nummber of ships and men.
The reason for RALH? Well, it was because the Navy decided to drop Commodore just at the start of WW 2... so Navy Captains getting their flag commissions went straight to 2-star Rear Admirals. The Army top brass balked. So the navy divided the list; top half were 2 stars pay, bottom 1 star pay, but still wearing 2. Army General Officer general griping at congresscritters resulted in the Navy finally just saying both 1 and 2 star admirals were "rear admirals" - with a handful of exceptions. CO US Naval War College & CO US Naval Academy were, for years, either promoted to or breveted to Commodore wearing 1 star.

Generals needing rank? There's a good argument for ranks in the ground forces general officer corps... they're far more likely to be issuing orders to troops who don't know the chain, and for general officers to have to take over for each other in battle losses. Navies, by contrast, the orders come to the officers, and officers known by the sailors actually command the sailors; it's much less common to have a ship functioning without its CO or XO still alive than for a Company or Battalion ashore to do so.

True about the need for only one or two Navy Flag ranks. When the Navy in question like that of the USA 1785 to 1825 has no battleships and only a handful, fewer than 20 of very high quality frigates. However that sounds more like the Traveller equivalent of a small planetary Navy, rather than a Third Imperium subsector Fleet. Though I expect the Americans on this site to point out to this Brit. That the US Navy in 1812-13 did not need an Admiral to accept the surrenders of HMS Guerriere/ HMS Macedonian/HMS Java. To which this Brit replies that the US Navy officers of any rank were conspicuous by their absence when the British Army, Navy and Royal Marines occupied Washington DC later in the same war.

 

[mike wightman]

The fewer ranks article makes a lot of sense.
i have gone with this for a while:

Rank	enlisted	officer
1	soldier	lieutenant - platoon
2	section lead	commander - company
3	platoon lead	captain - battalion
4	company lead	major - regiment
5	battalion	colonel - brigade
6	regiment	general - division

 

[Condottiere]

We're using European historical military hierarchy; mostly.

Star Wars was some form of hybrid, as well as Battlestar Galactica.


These military ranks included that of general officer ranks, such as Grand General,[38] General,[39] Major General,[40] Vice General,[38] and Brigadier General.[10] Subordinate ranks included Colonel[41] and Lieutenant Colonel,[42] and rank of major was also used, inferior to the colonel-level ranks.[42]

More junior ground-based ranks in the Galactic Empire included the army rank of commander,[43] captain, and the lesser rank of lieutenant.[44] Following ground-based military ranks included that of Staff Sergeant,[45] First Sergeant,[46] Sergeant Major,[17] and Sergeant. The rank of corporal was followed by that of specialist and private.[47]

 

[aramis]

Original BSG had

Commander (apparently in at least 2 grades) (Adama, Caine, Chronos)
Colonel (Tigh)
Major (Sheba)
Captain (Apollo)
Lieutenant (Boomer, Starbuck, Athena)
Ensign (Greenbean)
Flight Officer (Omega)
Flight Sergeant (Jolly)
Sergeant
Corporal
Warrior (in at least 2 classes)

How do we know at least two grades of Warrior? Pilot episode, dialogue between Apollo and Boxey.
At least two grades of Commander? The other Commanders defer to Adama before finding out he's also the president of the Quorum of Twelve,,,,

This looks remarkably like the US Army Air Corps with senior NCOs missing. Except Ensign - but that means not needing second lieutenant.

Flight Officer was the actual title for early WW II USAAC Warrant Officers. (Insignia - rounded rectangle gold with blue cloisonne infil.)

Flight Sergeant was used informally (including in records - I've handled USAAC materials when working at the National Archives branch, and seen it in orders) for pilots who were Sgt, SSgts or TSgt - a position that didn't last long. The USAF later reuses it as a title for the position of leading NCO for a Flight (Platoon Equivalent).

The only serious weirdness about it is that of Commander instead of General.

But... Looking at the RAF during WW II... Flight Sergeant was the RAF Equivalent of the British Army Colour Sergeant. fitting it into the grade 2 ranks from the US AAC gets you a reasonable use. They also have Air Commodore. (Edit Pilot Officer, Flying Officer, Flight Lieutenant, Squadron Leader, Wing Commander, Group Captain, Air Commodore, Air Vice Marshal, Air Marshal, Air Chief Marshal... They're half navy, half job description.

Jolly is identified as a flight sergeant in dialogue several times - seeing him as Colour Sergeant equivalent feels about right.
We also know that BSG has some Corporals flying...

I would expect that Jolly is the SrNCO for Blue Squadron. The other Sergeants aren't named. (nor returning cast)

It only looks weird if one isn't familiar with the WW II era ranks of the Allies.

https://veteran-voices.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/WWII-US-Army-Air-Forces-Rank-Insignia.pdf

 

[Condottiere]

As I recall, for the United States Army, current helicopter pilots can be Warrant Officers; and that Allied pilots were retroactively commissioned.

I think it became a question of prestige, pay, and presumably, the increasing complexity of training.

As regards Galactica, it's a mix of both naval and army ranks, and if you take it at face value, Commander would be a combination of Commodore and Brigadier, assuming that rank holds direct command of both the crew and the Marines.

For the original series, I think they just made it up on the fly, while for the revised one, my assumption would be that the commanding officer of a battlestar would be so entitled, or at least, of the really big ones, and the accompanying task group.

 

[RogerD]

At the end of the day, the number and classification of ranks depends on the history, traditions and politics of each service. When you meet members of other services, there is a natural comparison to make to determine seniority.

There is no reason every service has enlisted vs commissioned or that there would not be one or more other categories.

The main reason we have the ranks we do is related to span of control for the size of ships involved. At each level you have 4-12 subordinates depending on the organization. Even that is a human number - other races might do better with more or less direct subordinates. I could see needing more than 10 levels for large empires.

The Imperium is basically using US Navy, US Marine and US Army ranks omitting the warrant officers. I assume that implies the US was instrumental in expanding beyond Earth, and subsequently influenced the Imperium. That seems to provide the standard services compare against.

Some sci-fi leans British like Falkenberg’s Legion, but really the names of the ranks doesn‘t matter much.

 

[Condottiere]

It seems awfully coincidental that until recently, the smallest tactical unit was company sized for most militaries.

As I recall, the Mongols and early Persians tended to prefer groups of ten, though that may also to do with easing administration.

Going by Traveller, I would guess that the Imperium already allows some form of provincial autonomy with military decisions at the sector level, hence why I suppose the greatest danger of rebellion or coups would come from sector admirals.

 

[aramis]

At the end of the day, the number and classification of ranks depends on the history, traditions and politics of each service. When you meet members of other services, there is a natural comparison to make to determine seniority.

There is no reason every service has enlisted vs commissioned or that there would not be one or more other categories.

Almost all modern armies make an officer/enlisted distinction. Sometimes, it's just a matter of promotion up... in others, there are educational or training differences. The USSR, in theory, took the top 10% of enlistees and sent them to NCO course, whose top 10% were sent to Praporshik school (a clade very comparable to US Warrant Officers through the late 1980s...) And in theory, the top few percent might be sent to an officer's course, and wind up as Mladshy Leitennant...

Almost every modern navy does so, as well...
Most police services make a similar distinction...
Most fire services also make a similar distinction.
Countries with separate air forces almost always make the distinction in their airforces, too.

There are geopolitical reasons, which are very strong compelling ones (such as the difference between being a criminal vs an Enemy Combatant) for purposes of the various warfare treaties..

But, we have two very compelling points of evidence for the need for it... The Red Army and the People's Liberation Army. Both abolished the officer/NCO/Soldier distinctions... and both, within 10 years, restored it. Trotski's limited discussion in English about it (taken while he was in Mexico) basically boiled down to it being a clear and useful distinction. Then, of course, the Red Army followed the US's lead about Flight Officers and created Praporshiki... having them functioning both like US direct warrants and like UK WOs, in the same forces and even units...

The Red Army has restored a system of ranks, too... Again, with Offer, NCO, and Troops distinctions.

You need someone in charge. At some level, you want to distinguish between supervisor and boss. And at some level, you need someone to make the distinction between "what's good from my viewpoint" vs "what's good for the overall situation"... and someone to determine who needs more training versus needing to be caged...

They stick around as distinctions because they are to a great degree useful for getting young men to go kill other young men for geopolitics.

 

[RogerD]

There is no reason every service has enlisted vs commissioned or that there would not be one or more other categories.

I confess when I said this I was thinking mainly of aliens.

 

[whulorigan]

There is no reason every service has enlisted vs commissioned or that there would not be one or more other categories.

I confess when I said this I was thinking mainly of aliens.

I think the above is especially appropriate for Vargr. Or at least an easy promotional/demotional transition between what would otherwise be officer vs. enlisted ranks.

I also think that among Aslan "Officers" it is easy to imagine Females in a "Commissioned Warrant Officer" track, vs. Males in a "Commissioned Line Officer" track. Or even among enlisted personnel with Females equivalent to old US Army "Specialist/Technician" grades vs. Males in "NCO/Leader" grades.

Zhodani might even subdivide their tracks further, seeing that they can telepathically determine who is best suited for what position, while recognizing that psychologically it is good practice to promote and recognize all serving soldiers/ratings for good service, regardless of whether or not they are in leadership positions. It may be that there is a standard enlisted track (E1-E7) that is entirely for seniority of service and expertise, with nothing to do with leadership role. Perhaps certain E3s are then selected to go onto a separate but parallel "NCO" track (N3-N9) for those who are identified as having good leadership qualities. Consular Guard Units have "Commissioned Specialists" (somewhat like Commissioned Warrant Officers) for their base grades (equivalent in rank to lower officers, but acting as rank-and-file in such psionically-trained units).

 

[Condottiere]

1. Aslan - probably difficult to get promotion, so there may be a tendency for the more ambitious male Aslan to take inordinate risks to gain recognition and traction on the greasy promotion pole.

2. Vargr - really flat hierarchy, so social nuances indicate who's first among equals, second, third, and so on in the pecking order; charisma may will indicate who to follow, self interest (possibly sunk cost fallacy) to continue to do so, and fear to keep them in line and prevent desertion.

3. Commissioning is giving authority and responsibility to an individual by the government, to carry out their will and look after their interests.

4. Warrants seem to be retention of specialists, if you assume really senior non commissioned officers are great administrators.

5. The problem with the Soviet military is that they inherited an army that was very much top down, so double whammy in trying to run it by committee at the tactical level.

 

[aramis]

4. Warrants seem to be retention of specialists, if you assume really senior non commissioned officers are great administrators.

The UK current Warrant Officers are not specialist retention - they are equivalent to US supergrades in both skillsets and assignments. In fact, the British Army still uses the rank titles from before removing their supergrades enlisted men. RSM is a WO1 (the senior grade), CSM is a WO2 (the junior grade). Similar for RQMS and CQMS.

The US current Warrant Officers are not a single thing - there are two discrete populations...
Flying Warrants tend to be direct enlistment - they do basic, then flight school, and upon graduation, get their bar (at CWO2).
Specialist Warrants are usually former NCOs, but not usually former supergrades (E8-E9). Most I've talked with are either E6 or E7 at selection, in technical fields, and selected for administrative capabilities.

19th C warrant officer positions are now all officer positions in the US and UK. In a fit of severe irony, a number of technical positions supposed to be filled with O1 to O3 are instead being filled with CW2 to CW4... largely the same positions historically warrant-held in the early to mid 19th...

 

[RogerD]

I think of Warrant Officer grades as being about trust vs. responsibility - you can pilot a WMD as a Warrant Officer, but you don't really command others.

For example, the USAF demands all pilots be officers, but the US Army puts Warrant Officers in those roles. USN expects pilots to command the aircrews, but the USAF does not. Marines used to have "flying sergeants" but I don't believe that's been the case in quite some time. Different services, different traditions and histories...