Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Infantry holds ground.
There tends to be a lot of that dirtside.
There tends to be a lot of that dirtside.
"Fewer Ranks?" - article from 2018
- Thread starter aramis
- Start date
It's been argued about at US DoD since it was the War Department...
Then again...
US CW:
- Division = 2-10 Rgt, non-permanent
- Rgt = 8-16 Co
- Co = 2 Plt
- Plt = 2 Sct
- Sct = 2 Sqd
- Division 1-5 Bde
- Bde 2-3 Rgt or 3-5 Bn
- Rgt 2-4 Bn
- Bn 2-4 Co
- Co 3-5 Plt
- Plt 3-5 sqd or 2-3 sct
- Sct 2-3 Sqd
In the 1880s, there were 7 enlisted grades, but more than a dozen specific titles with distinctive insignia, plus special pay bonuses in some specialties (armorer, musician, saddler, farrier) and still had both Rgt SgM & RQMS, with Co having Co 1Sgt & CoQMS, and the sometimes standing, sometimes ad hoc, battalions being allowed a Bn 1Sgt and BQMS.
The Marines followed suit about 2 decades later...
in the 19teens, the US Army had made literally over 100 discrete ranks within 7 pay grades...
Not been true since the 1980's... and Spec 8/9 have never been used in Active Duty; all the Spec 8's and 9's were National Guard or Reserve. (Source: US Army Historical Website)
In the late 70's, Sp6 & Sp7 were no longer authorized for promotion to; in the mid 1980's, Sp 5 was discontinued and all remaining Sp 5/6/7 were either moved to the non-active components or transferred to Sgt/SSgt/SFC. There are some individuals pushing for renaming the Spc grade to LCpl... I've seen two petitions over the last decade... but it's unlikely to happen, even if only because it would create a bit of an issue in insignia supply and design.
Also, Most US Army Corporals now have had time as Spc - it's functionally a rank, not a positional, and Corporals have authority over Spc. The same issue was true with SrA and Sgt in USAF; SrA had no authority, while Sgt (e4) was an NCO with authority (minimal as it was).
The dual titles at E7 and E8 generally are considered the same rank, but the ones at E9 are rank-like, sequential position increases.
And, to further muddy the waters, there have been units in the USAFR and AFNG where the first sgt was a Staff or Tech sgt (E5/E6) and authorized a 1Sgt diamond... but the diamond in USAF use
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
In the future, advanced militaries may consist entirely of specialists; they may even need college degrees.
Cross training may even be a requirement.
This would work for short, sharp conflicts, where professionalism would, or should, overcome even enthusiastic amateurs.
Ranks (and pay) should reflect the amount of responsibility and authority leaders and commanders bear and wield.
Cross training may even be a requirement.
This would work for short, sharp conflicts, where professionalism would, or should, overcome even enthusiastic amateurs.
Ranks (and pay) should reflect the amount of responsibility and authority leaders and commanders bear and wield.
MThompson016
SOC-12
It's not uncommon for there to be an Senior Chief (E8) positionally senior to a Master Chief (E9) in the Navy. Aboard my first submarine, our Chief of the Boat was a Senior Chief, and the Engineering Department Master Chief (EDMC or Bull Nuke) an actual Master Chief. The COB was respected for his position, and the Bull worked with him professionally. In theory, the line departments were supposed to have an E8/E9 Department Enlisted Advisor, but it was not uncommon for Navigation/Operations and Weapons to have a subsequent tour Chief in that role.
It's a fair point. The beauty of rank is that the authority is implied without having to know the special edge cases.
I don't know how much seniority has on any of this, whether a General of 10 years out ranks a General of 15 years. If so, that can mess things up as well.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
Seniority always counts when the rank is the same.
If the rank is different, or if the junior (time-wise) General is specifically placed in a slot in the chain-of-command that is over that of the senior (time-wise) General of the same rank, then not.
Sometimes, a General of junior rank (e. g. Brigadier) is appointed to a command position over that of a General of senior rank (e. g. Major) if the urgent need to fill the slot precludes moving a more-senior General to the location of the position.
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
In the generalities, date of rank is pretty meaningless most of the time. It mostly affects seating order in formal dinners and who's where in the line of command. In theory, if you're LT x, and you know LT W was promoted the day before you, you salute him... but what I've seen in 30 years of being around EAFB and Ft. Richardson, Lt's salute each other almost simultaneously or not at all...
Likewise, date of commission breaks date of rank ties. But again, that is seldom relevant.
Reminder: line of command is "who the boss' slot when the boss is incapacitated." Chain of command is "who's above me, and above them, up to the top"
In all US Military Regulation, position trumps rank, excepting the generals/admirals in combat, provided it's within the same unit.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
I didn't do much research, and the way I saw references to Specialist in articles made me think they were used more recently through 7. I never saw references to 8-9.
I have the feeling that a far future Army is gonna need more enlisted nerds, and room to promote nerds without cluttering up the command structure. They are the saddlers and farriers of the advanced tech. They don't need to be in charge of people, and probably don't want to be in charge of people.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
I didn't know that GB wasn't coincident with the united crown, but Scotland had its own, fully empowered Parliament until 1707. Learn something new every day.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
The English felt that Scotland was too big to fail, and bailed them out, but kept the controlling shares; one perk was that the Scots had access to whatever markets the English had access to.
Chain of command seems dependent on individual policy for each armed forces; I don't know what or if there is a term for it, I call it legalistic, since it's the literal following of orders with little room for interpretation, but that requires a very clear chain as to exactly who is entitled to give those orders, for what, and to whom.
Being the captain of a ship seems to elevate that command to being unquestioned master of it, that even if the admiral in direct command of the squadron or fleet the ship is a part of is onboard, cannot overrule, though can court martial subsequently.
Chain of command seems dependent on individual policy for each armed forces; I don't know what or if there is a term for it, I call it legalistic, since it's the literal following of orders with little room for interpretation, but that requires a very clear chain as to exactly who is entitled to give those orders, for what, and to whom.
Being the captain of a ship seems to elevate that command to being unquestioned master of it, that even if the admiral in direct command of the squadron or fleet the ship is a part of is onboard, cannot overrule, though can court martial subsequently.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The English had wanted rid of the Scottish Parliament for several decades. Scottish armies were defeated twice during the "Civil War" and Scotland occupied. The Scottish economic woes could have been recovered from but the English and Scottish supporters of unification seized the opportunity. The commission that was set up to investigate unification was effectively bribed by the English (many of the Scottish Commissioners were also landholders in England).
There is a lot of UK history that is if not deliberately obfuscated it is badly taught or ignored. Unless you come from Northern Ireland or Scotland you are unlikely to be taught much about Scottish or Northern Ireland history (sadly for Wales it has never been a "country" in its own right and has been under the English thumb so to speak for nearly a thousand years).
For example nearly everyone learns of the last invasion that resulted in regime change, the Normans in 1066.
The real last invasion that resulted in regime change was actually the Dutch invasion of 1688 that was retconned as the Glorious Revolution. Had James II shown a bit more spine he could have defeated the force William had brought across (although it may have been a close run thing - the English Army vs the Dutch and German seasoned mercenaries that William commanded - it's an interesting battle for a wargamer).
I just wonder how much longer the class division between enlisted and officer - perhaps organisation along specialism will become a thing.
There is a lot of UK history that is if not deliberately obfuscated it is badly taught or ignored. Unless you come from Northern Ireland or Scotland you are unlikely to be taught much about Scottish or Northern Ireland history (sadly for Wales it has never been a "country" in its own right and has been under the English thumb so to speak for nearly a thousand years).
For example nearly everyone learns of the last invasion that resulted in regime change, the Normans in 1066.
The real last invasion that resulted in regime change was actually the Dutch invasion of 1688 that was retconned as the Glorious Revolution. Had James II shown a bit more spine he could have defeated the force William had brought across (although it may have been a close run thing - the English Army vs the Dutch and German seasoned mercenaries that William commanded - it's an interesting battle for a wargamer).
I just wonder how much longer the class division between enlisted and officer - perhaps organisation along specialism will become a thing.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
It's basically the reason you have a navy, and get the personnel to swear fealty to the monarch.
As regards the officer corps, their primary specialty is to command and motivate their underlings.
As regards the officer corps, their primary specialty is to command and motivate their underlings.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
Yes, a real war between James and William would have been a toss up. Britain was still divided between Protestant and Catholic, with Protestant nobles supporting William. But I don't think James wanted a full-on war against his daughter and son-in-law. I think he saw what one Civil War did, and after initial resistance failed he fled.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
James II had a few children - his eldest daughters would reign as Queen Mary (joint ruler with William of Orange) and then Queen Anne.
The problem for James were his later children by his Catholic wife who he intended to raise as Catholoic.
They all went with him to exile in France and included the Prince of Wales James (who would have become James III).
James (III) had a son Charles, who would have become Charles III had the uprising of 1745 lead to the overthrow of the Hanoverians and the restoration of the Stuart line.
The problem for James were his later children by his Catholic wife who he intended to raise as Catholoic.
They all went with him to exile in France and included the Prince of Wales James (who would have become James III).
James (III) had a son Charles, who would have become Charles III had the uprising of 1745 lead to the overthrow of the Hanoverians and the restoration of the Stuart line.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
There were a lot of crosscurrents at work during James Two's reign, which under similar circumstances, his brother, while rather debauched, was politically wily enough to avoid.
In a way, Charles the Second seemed more like a reflection of James the First, while James the Second got stuck with the mentality of Charles the First.
In a way, Charles the Second seemed more like a reflection of James the First, while James the Second got stuck with the mentality of Charles the First.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Yup, that's the guy, Bonnie Prince Charlie, the grandson of James II.
Daft factoid - Lady Dianna Spencer the Prince of Wales' mother was directly descended from the line of the Stuarts via the illegitimate children of Charles II.
So when William becomes king the Stuart line will have returned to the throne - sort of
Daft factoid - Lady Dianna Spencer the Prince of Wales' mother was directly descended from the line of the Stuarts via the illegitimate children of Charles II.
So when William becomes king the Stuart line will have returned to the throne - sort of
