Have not had as much time as I would have liked but I am heading back to Winnipeg for the weekend so will give this a little more thought.
Yes generally agree with the following caveats
Whether it is a “grid” or “grades 1 through 10” does not really matter in general as the principal is the same.
In terms of breaking them down into rank groupings, this too is OK in general.
Question
Is it possible to “annotate” or “comment” on a specific rank that is a little aberrant? I am thinking of ranks where promotions are only marginal or where they convey a different status
Few examples:
Canada: Currently in Canada Corporals & Leading Seamen are no longer “NCO’s” but trained soldiers/airmen/sailors. The junior NCO’s start at Master Corporal/Master Seaman.
USA: In the US Forces both the Navy & Marines start junior NCO status at the E-4 grade (Petty Officer 3rd class /Corporal) while the Army & USAF start at E-5 (Army Sergeant / USAF Staff Sergeant)
Germany: Obergefreiter, Hauptgefreiter, Stabsgefreiter, Oberstabsgefreiter – My understanding (if I am wrong please correct me) is that a couple of these promotions are really based simply on seniority (the “old sweats” system) and carry little or no more authority than each other.
Zdzislaw :
Maybe we need a grading system that allows marginal gradations
i.e. Junior (or senior) NCO’s 1,2,3 etc but where there are several NCO’s who are only a little more senior they could be a “1a”, i.e. a little more senior that 1 but defiantly not a “2” . This applies mostly to European & Asian structures but even the US would benefit from this – A US Army Master Sergeant and a First Sergeant hold the same rank grade (E-8) but the First Sergeant is more “senior”.
Zdzislaw Rudzki wrote:- 2 degrees of "in between" ranks between NCO and WO. This is more historical approach regarding the ranks of Polish Arny 1918-1939 and Polish Army in Excile ranks (French in origin "adjutant" rank)
- 6 degrees of "pure" W.O.ranks
- 3 degrees of JCO ranks (just to stick to the historical origin)
“In between” /Warrants / JCO /
My suggestion would be similar, but I would suggest we ignore historical trends except by annotation (as above) and make this one grouping. If we think of this whole category as “in betweens” it makes it easier
Rationale: French (and other) Adjutants and Warrant Officers I are today similar in rank and duty. I think they are clearly “Senior NCO’s” rather than “in betweens”
Indian & Pakistani Junior Commissioned Officers are really as different from their Viceroy Commissioned Officer ancestors as is the RN Warrant Officer of today from his 1945 predecessor. Today’s JCO’s are quite similar to US Commissioned Warrant Officers who command platoons and perform other function that in 1945 would have been forbidden them.
Russian Michmanii have moved up in status and are true “Warrant Officers”
Also just so we don’t get hung up on the category titles “Junior NCO’s” “Senior NCO’s” etc. I think that we can name the categories later , if we instead think of them Group A or Category 1 or some such it will be easier to get past our traditional views of “what a Warrant Officer is” or what a “senior” officer is. This also might make it easier to adapt the system into whatever languages are needed –
Food for thought.