"Fewer Ranks?" - article from 2018

[Straybow]

The modern British Royal Army has about 80k active personnel. The British Royal Army of WW2 peaked at a smidge under 3 million. You don't need as many ranks when you've been whittled down by 97.3%. They had 8 enlisted ranks, but now use only 6.

By comparison, the Army of the USA was 8 million in WW2 and is currently a bit under 500k. In WW2 the US added technical ranks that mirrored regular enlisted ranks, and expanded those ranks from 7 to 8 (9, kinda). Since WW2 special ranks at the top have been added to handle manpower and materiel of the highly technical modern army. There are ten ranks E-1 thru E-9 and Special (E-10 kinda), but 13 positions with real differences between the 2 positions for each of the top three ranks.

(There are two roles at E-4, but they aren't really separate ranks. You go through one or the other, regular noncom track or specialist track. There are technically two roles at E-5 through E-7, but they're all just called Specialist E-whatever).

If, for some reason, we all had to fully mobilize millions of soldiers, The USA rank structure can handle it without modification. The Royal Army would have to reintroduce the ranks they stopped using.

Ironically, the German army decided to add a new officer rank, the Staff Captain (Stabshauptman). There were Captains who deserved promotion to Major but there were no roles for Majors open, so to keep Captains from retiring early they added the new rank. It is more than just a pay raise, but not a whole lot more.

 

[Condottiere]

We're learning, or relearning, a lot of lessons, by proxy.

You need a structure that's resilient, retentionable, and rescaleable.

 

[mike wightman]

The British Army does not have Royal in its title. It was constituted in 1707 and is authorised by an Act of Parliament that has to be renewed every so often. Individual regiments may have a lineage that allows them the Royal prefix, but we fought a war over this sort of thing (among other reasons). It can trace its roots to the New Model Army raised in 1645.

 

[Condottiere]

To be fair, sitting Parliament viewed standing armies sceptically.

 

[mike wightman]

There was no standing army until Parliament created one in 1645.

 

[Quint]

In my tweaking I ended up with 8 ranks each for officers and enlisted, but for each track that includes a Rank Zero "cadet/trainee/etc" and the Rank Six being the nominal maximum, similar to the discussion of Commodore in the OP. Rank Seven is often the "real" Flag/General Staff rank that designates the high-ranking Imperial position that has responsibility for more than a single system.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Scutage and John's need to pay his mercenaries; his barons were somewhat unhappy with his interpretation of this practice.

2. Ship money to finance government activities, especially raising troops, I'd like to say, though this may have been used more as a slush fund by Charles; the King's attempts to circumvent Parliament in order to monetize his subjects was viewed in a dim light.

3. After the Restoration Charles II pulled together four regiments of infantry and cavalry, calling them his guards, at a cost of £122,000 from his general budget. This became the foundation of the permanent English Army. By 1685 it had grown to 7,500 soldiers in marching regiments, and 1,400 men permanently stationed in garrisons. A rebellion in 1685 allowed James II to raise the forces to 20,000 men. There were 37,000 in 1678 when England played a role in the closing stage of the Franco-Dutch War. After William and Mary's accession to the throne, England involved itself in the War of the Grand Alliance, primarily to prevent a French invasion restoring James II (Mary's father).[30] In 1689, William III expanded the army to 74,000, and then to 94,000 in 1694. Parliament was very nervous and reduced the cadre to 7000 in 1697. Scotland and Ireland had theoretically separate military establishments, but they were unofficially merged with the English force.[31][32]

 

[mike wightman]

The New Model Army raised by Parliament in 1645 was the first English professional army. It was disbanded in 1660 and an English standing Army incorporated. The British Army proper didn't exist until 1707 (you can't have a British Army until you actually had a Great Britain).

 

[Straybow]

It is the Interstellar Navy that would need the greatest overhaul in rank structure. That piddly fractional planetary government known as the United States of America was vying for a 600 ship (wet) navy during one particular period of prosperity marked by a detant with a rival fractional planetary government called the Soviet Union. They thought that was really big.

A minor industrialized planet would need an interplanetary patrol fleet of that size just to police an average star system with a handful of planetary colonies, an asteroid belt or two with mining ops, and a few hundred habitats (some orbitals, some more distant from inhabited planets). Then they would need a real defense fleet with powerful vessels to face potential interstellar invasion. Sure, a major invasion could overwhelm local resources no matter how great. But a lesser invasion with an eye to using their system as a staging point could be thwarted.

The greater polity, be it a Confederation, a Republic, or Empire, would need tens or hundreds of ships for each inhabited star system in their domain.

In an analysis I read some time ago, now long lost, indicated that for each rank added, a military force could expand by a factor of four or more.

For a Star Navy, enlisted ranks would only need a few extra ranks on top. Each major fleet would manage its own and only token leadership at the grand polity level is needed. Officers and Flag ranks are where the structure can become overstressed. I add a subordinate Captain and three superior Captains, and three superior Admirals. Fleet structure can have more than 256 times as many major combat vessels, and the number of fleets managed can be at least 64 times as many.

Another factor that Traveller underestimates is population sizes. Yes, planets probably won't grow to hundreds of billions in most cases. But a single star system could have thousands of space habitats. An O'Neill cylinder could be the size of a small state or large county with population on the order of a million. The McKendree type cylinder is much larger, utilizing carbon nanotubes and other material advances. It could be comparable in size to North America or the current Russian Federation. It would easily support population in the hundreds of millions.

The resources available to such a civilization are staggering, especially the technically literate and skilled citizens from which the Star Navy could recruit spacehands and officers.

 

[Condottiere]

If we don't count Saxon household guards, I'd would say that it have been yeoman archers, used in expeditionary excursions to France, the happy few.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It is the Interstellar Navy that would need the greatest overhaul in rank structure.

Agree fully on the structural issue at scale. Enlisted structure mostly stays the same since the ships stay the same thus the tasks do as well, but additional command echelons will be needed to coordinate and direct fleets on a multi-system, let alone Imperial, scale.

Massive space habitats are useful (one features in the PbP I'm running, though not one that big), but FTL travel makes it easier to relocate to a different world rather than expand into space.

 

[Condottiere]

Actually, in terms of scale to the Travellermap, interstellar navies are rather small.

 

[aramis]

Actually, in terms of scale to the Travellermap, interstellar navies are rather small.

The canonical 3I only gets a small tax percentage... which it then leverages to meed it's needs by, what appears to me, fiat decree with fixed schedule payments in the only currency that it accepts for taxes... so every world has a need for credits...

Hans Ranke-Madsen and I once figured that, with its share of the budget on a first order analysis, the IISS could have 1 xboat per day per shown route each way... but the numbers we used were not yet known to us to be non-canonical (Striker rule 73), & we didn't account for the off-route Type S runs nor the paying mail haulers. That means 9 ships each way per link for each printed X-Mail hop, plus several XT for each system. It will average a hair over 8 days per jump in operation.
We also didn't do a deep dive on exclusion zones and the need to have XT's travel sometimes considerable distances for fuel, or alternatively, have additional non-starship XTT's (Express Boat Tender Tender) or XK (Express Boat Auxiliary Supply).

That said, the Not-Quite-Canon rule 73 notes 3% defense spending for worlds is normal, with 30% of defense spending being diverted to the 3I, the local army getting 40% of defense spending, leaving 30% for the system navy... so the IN, IISS, and IM split some 0.9% of the average world's GDP.
That's a LOT of moolah, even if we assume 70% for subsector military and Government, and 27% to the Sector, and the remainder for Domain and Central assets...

 

[mike wightman]

Defence spending as a percentage of GDP is at least something we can look to the real world to get an idea for the numbers.

Data goes back quite a long way for some counties,

Anyway a quick google shows me that in 1960 the average world spend was 6.3% falling to the 2.3% it is today with some noticeable patterns.

 

[aramis]

Agree fully on the structural issue at scale. Enlisted structure mostly stays the same since the ships stay the same thus the tasks do as well, but additional command echelons will be needed to coordinate and direct fleets on a multi-system, let alone Imperial, scale.

Massive space habitats are useful (one features in the PbP I'm running, though not one that big), but FTL travel makes it easier to relocate to a different world rather than expand into space.

Really, the current enlisted system in the US (and in the 3I) has a lot of distinctions in rank that would be better handled by fewer ranks and positional authority.
Very few nations have 11 enlisted rank levels; the US does, ISTR Germany and Poland did at the turn of the century...
Let's see...

E1

E2

E3

E4

E4 nco

E5

E6

E7

E8

E9

E9

E9

E9b

Army

Pvt

PV2

PFC

Spc

Cpl

Sgt

SSgt

SFC

MSgt 1Sg

SGM

CSM

SMA

Marine

Pv

PFC

LCPL

---¹

Cpl

Sgt

SSgt

GySgt

MSgt 1Sg

MGySgt SgtMaj

SgtMajMC

Navy/CG

SR

SA

SN

---²

PO3

PO2

PO1

CPO

SCPO

MCPO

FMCPO⁴

CMCPO⁴

MCPON MCPOCG

USAF

AB

Amn

A1C

SrA³

---³

SSgt

TSgt

MSgt MSgt(FS)

SMSgt SMSgt(FS)

CMSgt CMSgt(FS)

CCMSgt⁴

CMSAF

USSF

Spc1

Spc2

Spc3

Spc4

----

Sgt

TSgt

MSgt

SMSgt

CMSgt

CMSSF

¹ Note that the USMC has never had a non-NCO of the same pay grade as Corporal,
² the USN had a seires of 4 grades there during WW I and WW II - exclusively for African-American Galley Stewards - they had no authority over sailors of Petty Officer 3rd class and up.
³ The USAF has an on-again/off-again relationship with the E4 NCO grade Sergeant; since 1953, there have been periods where there was no SrAmn, some where there was no Sgt (E4), and some times with both.
⁴ The super-supergrade Petty Officers have positional insignia and generally, but not always, progress only one step at a time; they are not substantiative, but are damned close to it. Likewise, the recently added rank of CCMSgt in the USAF is still an E9, bu is usually an experienced E9 of either E9. THe US Army CSM is the first of such super-supergrades, dating back to the 1970's, and is for higher commands.

Note also: all grades above E7 didn't exist until the latter half of the 20th C, and have exploded from position titles to substantiative ranks, and then the multiplicity of sequential titles without paygrade increases, and the awkward 10th pay grade authorized for the service SEAs, but not entitled to a full number increase...



The RN and BA:

BA	Private¹	LCpl	Cpl	Acting Sgt²	Sgt	CSgt	CSM³ WO2	RSM³ WO1
RN	Able	Leading Hand	(PO2)⁴		PO (PO1)⁴	CPO	WO2³	WO1³

¹ or one of almost a dozen alternate titles in various specific regiments
² Appointment, not substantiative rank, but formally prescribed with insignia and duties White stripes for the Acting Sgt. Lance Corporal seems to have been made substantive by the BA website...
³ CSM and RSM, and CQMS and RQMS are now WO Appointments, but were substantive ranks of enlisted at one time, and UK, German, and French warrants are a different concept than US Warrants and Russian Praporshiki.
⁴ Was a substatiative rank at some points in the 19th and 20th C. When only one grade of PO, the number is not used.

Note also: I am not certain of the army vs navy positioning.

The RN has been flattening their ranks since WW II... During which there were two grades of Commodore and 2 of colonel...

Comparing the USN and the RN for numbers... and noting they're already using one fewer subaltern officer grade (Ensign)... and, like the USN, the RN has a 5-star grade. Unlike the USN, the RN 5 star is not a substantiative rank, but instead a bestowed honor (since the latter half of the 20th C). (The USN 5-star is a wartime only slot, tho' may be worn outside of wartime if earned within.)

Category	US	UK	UK percentage of US (nearest 0.1%)
Total Staffing Active	349,593	34,130	9.8%
Total Hulls	480 total in commission 290 deployable	72	24.8%
Total Displacement	4,635,628	431,000	9.3%

 

[Spinward Flow]

We also didn't do a deep dive on exclusion zones and the need to have XT's travel sometimes considerable distances for fuel

Fuel runs for Tenders are best handled by assigning Scout/Couriers to the task as runabouts. The Type-S could also shuttle around any passengers brought in/departing on XBoats (which have capacity for a single middle passenger) as well as shuttle relief crews to the Tenders (and so on and so forth). If the distance from fuel to jump point is less than 1 day round trip at 2G, at a cadence of 1 XBoat dispatch per day then a Type-S can shuttle enough fuel per day to support a Tender's operations. Scout/Couriers could be deployed on a rotating basis for "fetch and carry" dispatch services to Tenders at XBoat hubs before being relieved by another Type-S returning to the system, freeing up any "overflow" for J2 mail dispatches to nearby star systems on a "catch as catch can" basis.

To be honest, the LBB S7 Tenders look like they're barely adequate for the task to me, and I seriously have to wonder how they manage to transit 4 parsecs to deploy to new stations in other star systems, given their design.

 

[whartung]

It is the Interstellar Navy that would need the greatest overhaul in rank structure.

This is an interesting point.

As I understand it, in the Marines they have a system of no more than 3 reports. That is if you're, say, an officer, then you have 3 people that directly report to you.

So, given that as a basis (wisely or not), you can work out how many ROLES you may need in your hierarchy, though not necessarily ranks. I think its fair that at some levels folks can share rank, but one can have authority over another base on their role. (Perhaps thats not realistic).

Obviously the organization is not that simple.

And fleets are not men.

But, if we naively go with a "4 report rule", then you can figure out how many levels based on how many men. Since 4^levels = # men.

So, how big is the imperial galactic army? 10M? 100M? With 100M you need 13-14 levels, and even then it really breaks down among the Sub Sector and Sector organization of the worlds. Those are too coarse.

 

[mike wightman]

For a system navy that is akin to a coast guard you need the ship commander, above that you need a squadron coordinator a fleet coordinator and then an overall commander coast guard.

For an intersteller navy you can not take your high command with you, the command structure of the fleet is self contained since they can not communicate easily with the command structure outside the system. So once again you have ship commander, squadron commander and then fleet commander. If several fleets are present you may or may not have a combined fleets commander.

rank	01	02	03	04	05	06
commands escort class	department	ship	squadron	fleet
commands capital	department assistant	department	ship	squadron	fleet

 

[Condottiere]

1. If it's Age of Sail command structure, ship and fleet commanders have a great deal of independence of action.

2. Since only the Spinward Marches ecks boat network is visible to me (in the sense that it's not just a bunch of lines on hexagonal map) it looks rather inefficient.

3. Fleet command is a commander plus staff, divided into task forces, sub divided into task groups, supported by a fleet train.

4. Considering the time lag, naval high command would be mostly administrative and bureaucratic.

5. It's likely that in terms of hierarchy, fleet command would depend on it's importance as to how many task forces are attached to it, and since there's a form of detachment, not limited by the usual three to five subunits span of command.

 

[Straybow]

But, if we naively go with a "4 report rule", then you can figure out how many levels based on how many men. Since 4^levels = # men.

Well, that's more at the Staff Sergeant+ and Captain+ levels. A corporal or sergeant can have a whole squad directly reporting. Lieutenants can directly command soldiers as well.

So, how big is the imperial galactic army? 10M? 100M? With 100M you need 13-14 levels, and even then it really breaks down among the Sub Sector and Sector organization of the worlds. Those are too coarse.

My thinking is that all armies are local. Subsector, Sector, and Imp will operate at superflag ranks. For my scheme, 4 ranks of Generals are local, and the supers are Field Marshal, High Marshal, and Grand Marshal.