Uniform Insignia Forum

Hi, all!
I just perused some links posted, and must say I became thoruroughly confused. I mean, okay, the USA, USN, USMC, USAF, USCG are pretty big outfits, but having all these different kind of Sargeants just doesn't make sense to me. Not to mention, that with the USA there are 8 different ranks, but only 6 levels, which confuses the hell out of me. It appears to me - and please, correct me if I see things wrong - that beeing a Sargeant is much more about position and responsabilities than a rank. I wonder if anybody has any idea why all these ranks were established and why are they kept in service.

Hello Miklós Lovász,

you' re right: the title "Sergeant" is just like the confirmation that the owner belongs to the NCO corps. The different levels, especially those in the same pay grade show nothing but the position or the task level of the sergeant.

Regards

Cadet

If you really want to be confused a US Army Sergeant First Class can also be called a Platoon Sergeant

Jefferson 900 wrote:If you really want to be confused a US Army Sergeant First Class can also be called a Platoon Sergeant

Oh no, I'm not confused. Befuddled, wopuld be a more appropriate word

:) A First Sergeant can also be addressed as "Top", as in "Top Kick" or "Top Sergeant".

A lot of what goes in to the many different titles of rank is history and tradition, as in any military force. The first NCO ranks in the US Army date back to the Continental Army. When Baron von Steuben sat down with General Washington in 1776 or thereabouts, they set up the basic ranks as:

Private
Corporal
Sergeant
First Sergeant
Regimental Quartermaster Sergeant
Sergeant Major

I may have missed one or two but that is the general set-up. Corporals wore a green epaulet on the right shoulder, and all sergeants a red one on the right shoulder. The pay was slightly different, but the uniforms and insignia were the same for all sergeants. If you want to look at something truly complex, check out the WWI link on the following website if you haven't already:

http://www2.powercom.net/~rokats/armyhome.html

I'm sure it is listed elsewhere in the Forum. This website shows a good bit of the evolution of the insignia of the US Army, though it still misses some.

Miklós Lovász wrote:Hi, all!
I just perused some links posted, and must say I became thoruroughly confused. I mean, okay, the USA, USN, USMC, USAF, USCG are pretty big outfits, but having all these different kind of Sargeants just doesn't make sense to me. Not to mention, that with the USA there are 8 different ranks, but only 6 levels, which confuses the hell out of me. It appears to me - and please, correct me if I see things wrong - that beeing a Sargeant is much more about position and responsabilities than a rank. I wonder if anybody has any idea why all these ranks were established and why are they kept in service.

Hi Miklos et all - All right a topic I can’t resist - Sergeant’s – minor indeed (Actually that was pretty funny) I am just back from a bit of business travel so sorry for my tardiness. – (I have a question for you as well which I will post shortly)

Overall the US forces enlisted grades are pretty much in line with most other countries in terms of the numbers. If you want real complications look at the German Forces with the Feldwebel grades. – OberstabsYIKES !!

Maybe the easiest thing to say is this, The US, has combined “post” ,“rank” and “step” in some grades. In general a pay grade does mean a rank but not always and they are not the same. So an E-4 Corporal and an E-4 Specialist hold the same pay grade but not the same “post” or “rank”. The “pay grade” system is just a way of establishing a base and an equivalency between services, but as example on a joint service posting, a USN Petty Officer 2nd class does not care whether his subordinate is a Corporal or a Specialist, to him they are the same. To US Army members, they acknowledge the Corporal’s “rank” above Specialist. Also to be correct as example you do not have to be promoted from Specialist to Corporal to make Sergeant, you can make Sergeant from either. (I am willing to stand corrected if this has changed). So as example E-4 is one pay grade, Specialist and Corporal are two separate ranks, but they are really only one “step”.

As we all know if we go back far enough all “ranks” started as “posts”. You were a Captain as long as you were “Captain” after that you were just “Mister” again. In Rome the Tribune of the Vigiles was only Tribune as long as he held that “post”.

Rank systems today are actually more logical and less complex than they have ever been in history. The whole idea of “combined / unified /joint forces” (whatever you choose to call them) has made us all at least think first about how our own services relate to each other in terms of rank – (Not much of a problem in Canada these days, of course)

If you really want to get technical you can go back to Phillip of Macedon (Alexander the Greats father) for the first “recorded” Lance Corporal (Ouragos) File Closer. His job was to take over the file if the leader was killed but his main job was mostly to stop the other 6-7 guys from running away and he only got status no extra pay, but he was next in line to get a promotion. Of course …. he would be promoted to standing in front of the line………………..so he may not get paid for all that long.

An interesting thing is that the British Army has fewer grades than any other Armed Force, though if you really look closely you will find that more “ranks” (i.e. “steps” ) exist than are officially recorded. The British were never as concerned with having an equal number of enlisted ranks in each service. Even today the officially published RN rating structure essentially ignores the fact that a sizeable part of most of the rates in the technical branches never use the ranks of Leading Rate or Petty Officer progressing upward in the various Artificer or Mechanician grades (not Mechanic). Today they still have junior, ordinary, able, leading & petty grades but unless you know the RN you have no idea what rank a Weapons Operator or an Electrical Artificer 3rd class actually holds.

But back to the Yanks:
The US Army if you look at it actually with some changes in insignia kept the same basic structure as the British for 130 years or so.
Sergeants Major, Quartermaster/Paymaster Sergeants, First Sergeant, Sergeants, Corporals.
I guess if you want to understand it you have to go back to the days when a Corporal was actually a Corporal. By that I mean when a Corporal actually had some “rank”, ie leading a squad, section or team. After the Korean War the US Corporal pretty much became extinct in position if not in rank, and during the Vietnam War almost no Corporals were appointed. (The rank never disappeared but it was in abeyance) When the Corporal started to loose his status in this century, there became a need for more Sergeants.
Corps & Branches were another big influence
There were “Sergeants of the staff” who “ranked in staff matters” over other sergeants as early the “War of Independence”. As the Army grew, so did the staff Corps, and they were very separate, in 1860 there were 8 staff bureau’s & 2 corps: Adjutant General, Inspector General, Bureau of Military Justice, Quartermaster General, Subsistence, Medical, Pay, Ordnance Departments, Corps of Engineers, Corps of Topographical Engineers. In 1863, The Corps of Engineers and The Corps of Topographical Engineers were combined and the Signal Corps added. In 1865 at the end of the Civil War, the regular army was re-organized into 10 regiments of cavalry (1st-10th), 45 regiments of infantry, and 5 regiments of artillery, Adjutant General, Inspector General, Judge Advocate Generals, Quartermaster General, Subsistence, Medical, Pay, Ordnance Departments, Corps of Engineers, and Signal Corps.
Every Unit had a Sergeant Major, Regimental Quartermaster Sergeant, Commissary Sergeant, Hospital Steward, BandMaster or Principal Musician, plus on a company level a First Sergeant, Company Quartermaster Sergeant and others. When the war ended there was established - 1 General, 1 Lieutenant General, 5 Major Generals, 10 Brigadier Generals of the Line, and 8 Brigadier Generals of the Staff. (The Signal Corps and Inspector Generals Department were commanded by Colonels) The army contained 54,302 men. What happened was that all junior “ Sergeant’s of the staff” ceased to be, but the “senior Sergeants of the staff” stayed and became the Quartermaster, Paymaster (etc.) Sergeant’s which all ranked with Sergeant’s Major. Now in a period of “peace” as well the US was locked into this system and the promotion was tied to the branch, so various “Master” & “Staff” NCO’s became a fixture of the Army. On the Engineer side, Sergeants became “Staff Sergeants” and there were no Corporals but instead Staff Privates 1st & 2nd class.

After WWI, Master Sergeants evolved out of Quartermaster Sergeants, Paymaster Sergeants, Bandmaster Sergeants. Basically the concept was that to break the whole “branch/corps” concept so that a “Master Sergeant” could perform many tasks from QM Sgt to Sergeant Major. Between the wars, a Master Sergeant (or a Master Sergeant serving as a Sergeant Major was the pinnacle of an Enlisted man’s existence) The Technical Sergeant grade was created to recognize the fact that a modern world needed highly specialized and intelligent NCO’s. At this time the “First Sergeant” (Company Sergeant Major) grade was considered so unimportant that it was first going to be equal to a Sergeant, then a Staff Sergeant and finally was made equal to Technical Sergeant until 1941, when it was kicked up to it’s current level.

After 1918 and before the Army again created the “rank” of Sergeant Major in the 60’s ----- all Sergeants Major were in fact Master Sergeant’s holding the post / billet of Sergeant Major.

1919-41
1st Grade: Master Sergeant
2nd Grade: Technical Sergeant /First Sergeant
3rd Grade: Staff Sergeant
4th Grade: Sergeant
5th Grade: Corporal

in 1937, the new “Technician” grades were introduced the US, which were a way to acknowledge a”non substantive promotion” i.e. a promotion of skill not rank, they lasted until the big re-org in 1948.

However, in spite of this logical step, when the US Army (Air Corps) wanted to recruit new young men in WWII rather than make them “Technicians” , they graduated basic training as Corporals, branch training as Sergeants and as enlisted aircrew they would be a Staff Sergeant. So a normal B-17 would have 4 Officers & 6 Staff Sergeants aboard. This is by the way no reflection on the bravery of the men involved, being called Staff Sergeant was a small price to pay for dying so quickly. In the US Navy or Marines he would be 2 or 3 ranks lower . (Mind you this also followed a British/ Commonwealth pattern, my cousin Ross Meggison, left the RCAF in 1945 as a Flying Officer, serving over 5 years as a tail gunner & instructor. – of the 92 gunners in his class in 1940, he was the only survivor. In case anyone ever wondered why a “hairybag” like myself would care or know about the AF – he is why)

But as to why there are grades that exist today. When in the 60’s the Corporal “disappeared”, and Sergeant effectively became deputy Squad leader & Team Leader, Staff Sergeant remained in in the WWII billet of Squad Leader, SFC as Platoon Sergeant, and above was 1st Sergeant as Company NCO. On an equal level generally at a Battalion level would be a Master Sergeant as Operations, Intelligence, and potentially as Supply, Transport, or MP Sergeant (etc).

Well, Robb, what can I say, except: WOW! Now you put me in the reeeeal fog of war. (btw, thanks for the appreciation showed to my little joke :lol: ). The basic idea is somewhat clearer than used to be, but there is one thing i'd like to get sure about: one Sargeant can hold then different appointments with different levels of responsability retaining the same rank, right? In other words, just like a major can command a company or a battalion or do staff work, so a sargeant can do several different jobs while beeing still a sargeant and not having to get promoted to cheif sargeamt major genearal or something? Am I correct or am I hopelessly lost?
Oh yeah, I'm waiting for your question with great interest:-)

Yes and no. In the US Army, at least, rank generally means a certain kind of position, but not always, and certain ranks can be many different positions, as in the rank of Major.

As a side note, I'd like to address my favorite rank, corporal. Corporal is still very much alive in the US Army, though not as common as it once was as explained above. Since the inception of the current Specialist ranks, Corporal has fallen into disuse in some jobs, such as Combat Service Support and Combat Support fields (Supply, Maintenance, MI, Chemical, etc.). The Combat Arms still use Corporal on a frequent basis. Generally, though, the idea is that a soldier is made acCorporal based on his position. If he is an E-4 in a supervisory position or in a sergeant's position, it is at the commander's discretion to make the E-4 a corporal. It doesn't always happen, and it rarely happens outside of tactical units or in fields that are not Combat Arms. In every duty assignment I was in as an E-4 I was in a sergeant slot, but I was a Specialist because I wasn't a full-time supervisor. And as far as promotions go, there has always been much maneuver room for which way a Specialist could be promoted. I was promoted directly to Sergeant, and my grandfather was promoted from Specialist 5 to Staff Sergeant instead of becoming a Sergeant first, but it has always been possible for soldiers to be laterally promoted, say from Specialist to Corporal. This is especially true for guys who are stuck in jobs that don't promote quickly. They will be "promoted" to corporal if they show NCO qualities.

Now, back to rank and position. It depends on the unit. We've all seen this or something like it, but I'll put this simply as a reference:

Team Leader: Sergeant
Squad Leader: Staff Sergeant
Platoon Sergeant: Sergeant First Class
Company First Sergeant: First Sergeant
Battalion and above Sergeant Major: Command Sergeant Major

Corporals can be team leaders and rarely squad leaders
Sergeants are usually team leaders but can be squad leaders
Staff Sergeants are usually squad leaders or platoon sergeants in certain fields
Sergeants First Class are usually platoon sergeants, or NCOICs of similar responsibility
First Sergeants are always company first sergeants, though they can be assistant commandants and chiefs of certain NCO schools
Master Sergeants are usually staff NCOs, but we have a battalion in our unit that has a Command Sergeant Major slot that is always filled by a Master Sergeant. He is addressed as Sergeant Major, though.
Command Sergeants Major are prinicipal NCOs in Battalion and higher formations, though they can be Commandants of certain NCO schools. These CSM Commandants are given the same authority as a lieutenant colonel, to include court-martial authority.
Sergeants Major are almost always staff NCOs, though there are certain exceptions

And there are always exceptions. This post is terribly long, so I'll cut it off. The bottom line is that the US Army has certain ranks that it wants in certain posts, but the rule is 2 up and 1 down, which means that the Army wants a platoon sergeant to be a Sergeant First Class, but they will accept anything from a Master Sergeant to a Sergeant. It doesn't look good to be rated 1 down though. It can even hurt a sergeant's career to be senior to the position he is assigned to.

Robb Mavins wrote:If you want real complications look at the German Forces with the Feldwebel grades. – OberstabsYIKES !!

In the German military enlisted and NCO ranks are mainly indicators for service time and payment!
At the lower levels promotion is more or less automatic.
Someone who passes the training courses and becomes a Unteroffizier will automatically become a Stabsunteroffizier one year later.
(NCOs of this level are usually group or vehicle commanders.)
Likewise, a Feldwebel will automatically get a promotion to Oberfeldwebel.
(NCOs of this level are usually deputy platoon leaders or platoon leaders.)
While the promotions mean a minor increase in pay and command authority the duties and privileges stay the same so it wouldn't be wrong to regard these ranks as being "Junior" and "Senior" levels of the same rank.
In fact, in the NATO tables U and SU are both OR-5 while Fw and OFw are both OR-6.
The higher ranks from Hauptfeldwebel onwards have almost identical functions (platoon leaders, company sergeants, administrative posts). Their promotion is based on total service time and time spent in the preceding rank.
Many don't even reach the rank of Stabsfeldwebel until end of service.

For those of you concerned with the USAF ranks, heres how it all breaks down. Once upon a time in the USAF, you had to basically take a test for the star on your rank insignia. Now, why is there no sergeant but there's a staff sergeant?

Because, an E-4 without the star was like a specialist. He had no command, but it was a temporary position. With the star, he was a sergeant. Do not ask me why they kept it at senior airman and not sergeant, and don't ask about skipping corporal either.

Miklos, I agree that the US forces have too many sergeants, but what about Romania with all the plutonieri, especially since they added the plutonier adjutant sef? (I actually like it that Romania has many ranks, I think the more, the better, but I just want to see other people's reaction to the plutonieri.)

Well, "plutonier" would roughly equivalate with "platoon sergeant", so all of them are sergeants. Over here there was no tradition to appoint Warrant Officers, although some claim - wrongly - that the so called "maistru militar" class (i.e. military master ... military foreman???) would qualify for this, while actually it's only the class of technical sergeants.
In 1877, the ranks were something like this: corporal (brigadier with the cavalry and gendarmes), sergeant, sergeant adjutant and period. Once the value of the NCO's was recognised to be more than just runners for the officers, and the ranks of the army swelled, there came the need for more NCO ranks, given that a good man is hard to be retained in the service if he can't expect some tangible expression of advancement. Thus, the various "plutonier" ranks appeared (which, btw means exactly what the Polish "plutonowy" means). The topmost rank, (plutonier adjutant sef i.e. sergeant major) was added in the early '90's in an attempt to match more closely the rank structure of the US NCO corps. So at this time we have 6 NCO ranks which mean more promotions to earn and thus a better chance to retain good NCO's, since the status of the military profession unfortunatelly has dropped in the last decade and a half.
And one more thing: this January, the Chief of the General Staff (one person who should never have been made a general, anyway) did a sensible thing (copyying the US, no doubt): he appointed a Sergeant Major of the Army to act as his adviser on NCO-related issues.

Thanks a lot for the information. I didn't really know that much about the history of these ranks and I surely didn't know about the appointing of this Sergeant Major of the Army. Thanks again!