Uniform Insignia Forum

Hi all!

Here is something to ponder for all of us, especially Pavel and the other admins: given the impossibility to translate various names of ranks mot-a-mot, how about we do a general list, based on US and/or UK names and use it as a general reference? I mean, one can translate a rank as "division general" and it would be no doubt correct, but how about we translate EVERY such rank as "major general"? And the same should also apply to Police ranks as well ... hmmm?

Well, I see that there are two different things - the one is literal translation, the other giving an equivalent. In my opinion what we should do is to give a translation because some rank names (especially in non-military organisations) may mean nothing to English spoking readers. Regarding equivalents it is a bit harder (remember the discussion about German generals few weeks ago) - it is more or less possible with military, but in other services there could be no UK/US equivalents at all (like in Polish forestry "ranks"). In conclusion - let's give translations and for military just give the group indications (whether it is general / field / company grafe officer, WO or NCO rank etc.)

Perhaps a compromise could be to give descriptions as thus:

1. Untranslated title
2. Literal translation of term into English
3. NATO-esque grade designation
(see Erwin's post dated 4/27/03 in the Europe forum)
4. Anglic equivalent

Therefore, for a French naval officer:

Capitaine de Frégate
Frigate Captain
Commisioned Officer, 4th Grade
Anglic equivalent = Commander


Comments?
Erskine

Hi Erskine herrwiggly here, I notice that you have an Avatar depicting the national flag of Scotland, so does my wife as she is a direct descendant of the Erskines on her father's side of the family. She has her family history chart showing her family back in Scotland for the past 1200 years. Her mother's family go back to Scoland nearly a 1000 years back to William the Conquerer. Maybe there is a family connection with the Erskine name. :D :D :D Cheers

Hi all.

I can only agree with Erskine, his suggestion seems to be the most appropriate :)

Erskine Calderon wrote:Perhaps a compromise could be to give descriptions as thus:

1. Untranslated title
2. Literal translation of term into English
3. NATO-esque grade designation
(see Erwin's post dated 4/27/03 in the Europe forum)
4. Anglic equivalent

Therefore, for a French naval officer:

Capitaine de Frégate
Frigate Captain
Commisioned Officer, 4th Grade
Anglic equivalent = Commander


Comments?
Erskine

I am coming in late here but just throwing in my thoughts.

For the most part this is a most logical system, and I think works very well.

A couple of things I would perhaps open for discussion as well if I may.

If the goal of this site is to become a reference point for rank/insignia enthusiasts as well more official sources. There are many alphabets which come to mind (Cyrillic, Hebrew, Chinese (multiple), Japanese, etc.) , Specifically for those ranks that derive from “distinctly” different alphabets, I think it would be most useful as well to have the following

1. Un-translated title in original language & alphabet
1.a If title used is in a distinctly different alphabet - Direct translation of title
2. Literal translation of term into English
3. NATO-esque Grade designation
3.a general assumption of Grade designation
3.b Anglic equiliilant

Example

Russia
Капитан 3-го ранга
Kapitan, Tretyego Ranga
Captain, Third Rank
Commissioned Officer, 3rd Grade
Anglic equivalent = Lieutenant Commander

Israel
ןגס
Rav-Seren
(????????)
Commissioned Officer, 3rd Grade
Anglic equivalent = Lieutenant Commander

The key thing for me is to keep as much of original intent of the rank title as possible while giving us all a good opportunity to understand it.

And as a former NATO officer, I really think the emphasis (and explanation) should be on the word equivalent (as in “not precise”). I am speaking on English translations of course and would hope the same concepts would apply to any language translations.

PS: In general, I would personally rather have as much "original" information as possible rather than translations that could be misquoted.

PPS: It is so very difficult to equate some ranks unless you have a very clear set of parameters. As an example an “Army Captain” in many Asian countries will generally command larger units and more people than in the West has generally more command responsibility. Overall however he will have less autonomy & training. But as an example does a Canadian or British Major who normally commands a 150 men outrank a Korean Senior Captain who commands 400? Is a Russian Rear Admiral who commands a single ship (generally only in the submarine force but there are currently 3 Rear Admiral who command individual submarines) still higher than an RN Commodore who commands 10 ships. Even amongst a Countries own internal forces there are conflicts. As a final example a Royal Marine Captain when serving a sea ranks with a Lieutenant Commander, and out ranks every Navy Lieutenant or Army Captain. A Royal Marine Captain performs most of the same general duties as a British Army Major, commanding a “company” sized unit etc.

Hi!
I would like to reffer to your statement.
You are certainly right in case of keeping as much of original intent of the rank title as possible while that gives us all a good opportunity to understand it and that will be undoubtedly helpful in understanding rank systems from around the world.In case of
Капитан 3-го ранга
Kapitan, Tretyego Ranga
Captain, Third Rank
Commissioned Officer, 3rd Grade
Anglic equivalent = Lieutenant Commander
I think that the statement
Commissioned Officer, 3rd Grade
is not the best, because some nations have more than 6 commisioned officer ranks, so maybe it will be better to divide officer ranks into:
Company Grade
Field Grade
General Officers
or
Junior
Senior
Flag Officers ( Navy ).
I believe that the translation from Kapitan, Tretyego Ranga into Captain, Third Rank is enough to understand the meaning of this rank and than it should be rather something like Senior Commisioned Officer, because Commissioned Officer, 3rd Grade is not equivalent to the russian sense of this rank.In this place should be something that clearly shows us what is the place of this rank in the rank structure i.e. is this a Junior,Senior etc. rank.
What do you think about it?

I agree that the method several people have mentioned would be a very useful system.

However there still remains the question of what to use as the English equivalent. It's easy for ranks like Captain and Lieutenant Commander, but should it be "Commodore" or "Rear Admiral (Lower Half)", "Brigadier" or "Brigadier General", "Lieutenant" or "First Lieutenant"? And should Air Force ranks be translated as, for instance, "Group Captain" or "Colonel"?

I would suggest that the British names be used, because for the most part they are simpler (Commodore is much easier to understand than Rear Admiral (Lower Half)), and the enlisted grades are far more clear than the multitude of confusing Sergeant ranks in the US system.

Reffering to your arguments I would agree that in some places the British system is more useful, but only when we are speaking about commisioned officer ranks. Maybe you are right, that in the British system the enlisted grades are far more clear than the multitude of confusing Sergeant ranks in the US system :arrow: but you can not simply force the U.S.Goverment to change their NCO ranks into the British system ranks :D ,so that it will be all easy to understand.The British system is to "short" and has not enough NCO ranks to be used instead of or even to be compared with the US one.

I'm not talking about changing the actual ranks used by Armed Forces, merely the English equivalents given on the website.

So, for instance, I think that the German naval rank of "Flottillenadmiral" should be described as "Commodore" rather than "Rear Admiral (Lower Half)".

And as for the enlisted ranks:

US - UK
All "Private" ranks - Private
Corporal - Lance Corporal
Sergeant - Corporal
Staff Sergeant - Sergeant
Sergeant First Class - Staff Sergeant
Master Sergeant - Warrant Officer 2nd Class
Sergeant Major - Warrant Officer 1st Class

Hi Dernat & Proteus
In reply I would like to refer to Erskine’s comment about Erwin’s post
http://forum.rankinsignia.info/viewtopic.php?t=499&highlight=nato
which lists this site Link: http://www.mindef.nl/mpbundels/20_serie/dp_20_10/20_10_bijlage_h.htm
for the basic NATO rank equivalencies used in the 90’s .

Denat wrote:Hi!
I would like to reffer to your statement.
You are certainly right in case of keeping as much of original intent of the rank title as possible while that gives us all a good opportunity to understand it and that will be undoubtedly helpful in understanding rank systems from around the world.In case of
I believe that the translation from Kapitan, Tretyego Ranga into Captain, Third Rank is enough to understand the meaning of this rank and than it should be rather something like Senior Commisioned Officer, because Commissioned Officer, 3rd Grade is not equivalent to the russian sense of this rank.In this place should be something that clearly shows us what is the place of this rank in the rank structure i.e. is this a Junior,Senior etc. rank.
What do you think about it?

Thanks

In terms of breaking the ranks into grades (flag, senior, junior) I agree but there are difficulties as mentioned above. Check out the about NATO site listed and throw your feedback here.

Proteus wrote:I agree that the method several people have mentioned would be a very useful system.

However there still remains the question of what to use as the English equivalent. It's easy for ranks like Captain and Lieutenant Commander, but should it be "Commodore" or "Rear Admiral (Lower Half)", "Brigadier" or "Brigadier General", "Lieutenant" or "First Lieutenant"? And should Air Force ranks be translated as, for instance, "Group Captain" or "Colonel"?

I would suggest that the British names be used, because for the most part they are simpler (Commodore is much easier to understand than Rear Admiral (Lower Half)), and the enlisted grades are far more clear than the multitude of confusing Sergeant ranks in the US system.

The main difficulty is that the traditional UK / Commonwealth NCO rank system is too small to accommodate the multiple NCO ranks of other countries. Even Canada has difficulty and we have more NCM ranks. As an example in the British Army, NCO’s of the same rank occupy positions over each other, i.e. A Sergeant can be both Platoon Sergeant and Section Leader, an RN Petty Officer can direct several other equally ranked PO’s because he is the “charge hand” no rank increase just made senior.

And it is not only the US, but most other European and Asian Countries have far more NCO ranks than the UK .

Hence the thought behind the “grading system” of rank of NATO. We all know that an RN CPO is both equal to and higher than a USN CPO so an RN CPO is ranked as equal to both a USN CPO and a USN Senior Chief because he performs the same duties, by the time he is promoted to Warrant he is equal to a US Master Chief Petty Officer or a Canadian Chief Petty Officer 1st class.

Proteus wrote:I'm not talking about changing the actual ranks used by Armed Forces, merely the English equivalents given on the website.

So, for instance, I think that the German naval rank of "Flottillenadmiral" should be described as "Commodore" rather than "Rear Admiral (Lower Half)".

And as for the enlisted ranks:

US - UK
All "Private" ranks - Private
Corporal - Lance Corporal
Sergeant - Corporal
Staff Sergeant - Sergeant
Sergeant First Class - Staff Sergeant
Master Sergeant - Warrant Officer 2nd Class
Sergeant Major - Warrant Officer 1st Class

OK, but it is still not enough to compare those two systems.
I will give you the example of USMC:

E-1 PVT - Private
E-2 PFC - Private
E-3 LCPL - ???
E-4 CPL - Lance Corporal
E-5 SGT - Corporal
E-6 SSGT - Sergeant
E-7 GySGT - Staff Sergeant
E-8 MSGT/1SGT - Warrant Officer 2nd Class
E-9 MGySGT/SGTMJ -Warrant Officer 1st Class

WO1 - ???
CWO2 - ???
CWO3 - ???
CWO4 - ???
CWO5 - ???

Please note that ranks of Warrant Officer 1st,2nd Class are no equivalent to MSGT/1SGT and MGySGT/SGTMJ. How would you show differences for example between Master Gunnery Sergeant and Sergant Major? What will be equivalent to the ranks of Warrant Officers? So you see that the British system is to "short" and has not enough NCO ranks to be used instead of or even to be compared with the US one.

Well couldn't we try to compare them with the UK ranks like this (this is based on that comparison page):

United States
Sergeant
OR-5
English Equivalent: (Junior) Sergeant

United States
Staff Sergeant
OR-6
English Equivalent: (Senior) Sergeant

United States
Sergeant First Class
OR-7
English Equivalent: Staff Sergeant

And so on...

So the comparison would be:

Private E1 - (Junior) Private
Private E2 - (Senior) Private
Private First Class - Lance Corporal
Corporal - Corporal
Sergeant - (Junior) Sergeant
Staff Sergeant - (Senior) Sergeant
Sergeant First Class - Staff Sergeant
Master Sergeant - Warrant Officer II
Sergeant Major - Warrant Officer I

And for Canada:

Private Recruit - (Junior) Private
Private Basic - (Senior) Private
Private trained - Lance Corporal
Corporal - Corporal
Sergeant - Sergeant
Warrant Officer - Staff Sergeant
Master Warrant Officer - Warrant Officer II
Chief Warrant Officer - Warrant Officer I

(The brackets are to make it clear that the "Junior" and "Senior" are not part of the rank.)

Proteus wrote:
I'm not talking about changing the actual ranks used by Armed Forces, merely the English equivalents given on the website.

So, for instance, I think that the German naval rank of "Flottillenadmiral" should be described as "Commodore" rather than "Rear Admiral (Lower Half)".

And as for the enlisted ranks:

US - UK
All "Private" ranks - Private
Corporal - Lance Corporal
Sergeant - Corporal
Staff Sergeant - Sergeant
Sergeant First Class - Staff Sergeant
Master Sergeant - Warrant Officer 2nd Class
Sergeant Major - Warrant Officer 1st Class





OK, but it is still not enough to compare those two systems.
I will give you the example of USMC:

E-1 PVT - Private
E-2 PFC - Private
E-3 LCPL - ???
E-4 CPL - Lance Corporal
E-5 SGT - Corporal
E-6 SSGT - Sergeant
E-7 GySGT - Staff Sergeant
E-8 MSGT/1SGT - Warrant Officer 2nd Class
E-9 MGySGT/SGTMJ -Warrant Officer 1st Class

WO1 - ???
CWO2 - ???
CWO3 - ???
CWO4 - ???
CWO5 - ???

Please note that ranks of Warrant Officer 1st,2nd Class are no equivalent to MSGT/1SGT and MGySGT/SGTMJ. How would you show differences for example between Master Gunnery Sergeant and Sergant Major? What will be equivalent to the ranks of Warrant Officers? So you see that the British system is to "short" and has not enough NCO ranks to be used instead of or even to be compared with the US one.

That Guest Was me !!! But some error occured or something like that :oops:

Anonymous wrote:Please note that ranks of Warrant Officer 1st,2nd Class are no equivalent to MSGT/1SGT and MGySGT/SGTMJ.

Why not?

Anonymous wrote:How would you show differences for example between Master Gunnery Sergeant and Sergant Major?

I wouldn't. They aren't really different grades of rank - merely positions. It's similar to how a WO1 assigned as the senior NCO in a regiment is called "Regimental Sergeant Major" - the US just happens to differentiate the two positions with insignia as well as name.

Proteus wrote:I'm not talking about changing the actual ranks used by Armed Forces, merely the English equivalents given on the website.

So, for instance, I think that the German naval rank of "Flottillenadmiral" should be described as "Commodore" rather than "Rear Admiral (Lower Half)".

And as for the enlisted ranks:

US - UK
All "Private" ranks - Private
Corporal - Lance Corporal
Sergeant - Corporal
Staff Sergeant - Sergeant
Sergeant First Class - Staff Sergeant
Master Sergeant - Warrant Officer 2nd Class
Sergeant Major - Warrant Officer 1st Class

Proteus

I would not disagree with you on the Commodore concept but the whole point is I think to find a meaningful format that makes sense to all.

1. Un-translated title in original language & alphabet
1.a If title used is in a distinctly different alphabet - Direct translation of title
2. Literal translation of term into English
3. NATO-esque Grade designation
3.a general assumption of Grade designation
3.b Anglic equilivilant

as my post above

The anglic equivalent could easily be Rear Admiral (Lower Half) / Commodore. The only reason that the US style “interpretive equivalent” is used so often is obvious I am sure. But also and speaking from one of the few Navies that actually have Commodore as an actual flag rank, if you look at all of the European Navies, that use Flotilla Admiral or some derivative of it, they all had the rank of Commodore and have moved away from the title. Also in the RN Commodore is still (and never was) not a permanent rank and many officers and promoted from Captain to Rear Admiral.

Robb Mavins wrote:Also in the RN Commodore is still (and never was) not a permanent rank and many officers and promoted from Captain to Rear Admiral.

They changed that very recently. I think it became a real rank in 1997.

Proteus wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please note that ranks of Warrant Officer 1st,2nd Class are no equivalent to MSGT/1SGT and MGySGT/SGTMJ.

Why not?

Anonymous wrote:How would you show differences for example between Master Gunnery Sergeant and Sergant Major?

I wouldn't. They aren't really different grades of rank - merely positions. It's similar to how a WO1 assigned as the senior NCO in a regiment is called "Regimental Sergeant Major" - the US just happens to differentiate the two positions with insignia as well as name.

British Army WO are Non Commissioned Warrants are not equal to US Warrants

In terms of the USMC Master Gy Sgt & Sergeant Major they hold the same pay grade but the Sgt Maj outranks the M/Gy/Sgt .

That wasn't Anonymous, that was me :P
You are certainly right that the main difference between MGySGT and SGTMJ is position they are holding, but still this is important to distinguish those ranks in some way.But when I was writting that ranks of Warrant Officer 1st,2nd Class are no equivalent to MSGT/1SGT and MGySGT/SGTMJ I just wanted to say that USMC has another 5 Warrant Officer ranks so it makes no sense to compare British Warrant Officers with U.S. senior NCO's. British Warrant Officers are more equivalent to U.S. Warrant Officers than to senior NCO's.

Proteus wrote:

Robb Mavins wrote:Also in the RN Commodore is still (and never was) not a permanent rank and many officers and promoted from Captain to Rear Admiral.

They changed that very recently. I think it became a real rank in 1997.

If so then, I stand corrected and about time , though I will say I saw on the XMAS promotions list 2001, a Captain directly appointed Rear Admiral. That could be for merit however.

And just as an aside, the poor Commodore rank has gotten slagged so badly in the last while, I am glad for that it has finally got "official" respect

Denat wrote:That wasn't Anonymous, that was me :P
You are certainly right that the main difference between MGySGT and SGTMJ is position they are holding, but still this is important to distinguish those ranks in some way.But when I was writting that ranks of Warrant Officer 1st,2nd Class are no equivalent to MSGT/1SGT and MGySGT/SGTMJ I just wanted to say that USMC has another 5 Warrant Officer ranks so it makes no sense to compare British Warrant Officers with U.S. senior NCO's. British Warrant Officers are more equivalent to U.S. Warrant Officers than to senior NCO's.

No they are not British Warrants are important but do not hold the same duties or rank as US Warrants
Check out my post under USN Warrant Officers here
http://forum.rankinsignia.info/viewtopic.php?t=1090&highlight=warrant
or British RN Warrants here
http://forum.rankinsignia.info/viewtopic.php?t=107&highlight=warrant

Resuming this discussion, the British rank system is not equivalent to U.S. one, especialy when we are talking about NCO ranks and it will remain the same unless HM Queen Elizabeth II as Commander-in-Chief will make some changes in it.The NCO ranks are very different all around the world, in contrary to Commisioned Officer ranks, which are following one general pattern, dividing them into Junior, Senior and General Officer ranks.
I presume that's the only solution of this problem.Reffering to the NCO ranks we can simply divide them into junior and senior ones. And that's all we can do.

Hi all!
How about we come up with a system of our own? Lots of good ideas were aired on this forum, so how about putting them together and going for the easiest and simplest choice? Something like this:

Private 1
Private 2
Corporal 1
Corporal 2
Sergeant 1
Sergeant 2
......
Sergeant 99
WO 1
WO 2
.......
WO 99
LT 1
LT 2
LT 3
CPT 1
CPT 2
Major
LTC
COL
GEN 1
GEN 2
GEN 3
GEN 4
GEN 5.

And the same for the Navy. Or, equally, we can list both the UK and US equivalencies, where there are some, list only one where the ranks does not exist in the other hierarchy or none, if there is non.
How about this idea?

Hi
Sounds good, but I have some doubts:
- How does the Brigadier rank from some countries fit into proposed scheme? Is it a highest field grade officer or lowest general?
- What about NCO ranks between corporal and sergeant (as we had in Poland and as I remember from your previous posts there are also equivalent of "plutonowy" (of which we have 2 levels) in Romania.
- I suggest to divide highest ranks in two steps: generals and marshalls (note USSR 3 marshall ranks)
- One more specific thing. What about JCO from India and Pakistan? Now they are treated (I suppose) as WO but that was quite a separate category.

Anyway it is a good idea. I will try to prepare "table of equivalent ranks" based on few different rank systems from various countries.

Other point - police forces.
In some countries (all Warsaw Pact countries but not only) the ranks for militia closely followed the military ones, while in the British tradition there are comissars, inspectors etc. Now the Polish police changed the rank names and structure but still there are much more ranks then in "classic" police forces. Same applies to let's say State Fire Service in Poland which also used to follow military rank scheme.

Zdzislaw Rudzki wrote:Hi
Sounds good, but I have some doubts:
- How does the Brigadier rank from some countries fit into proposed scheme? Is it a highest field grade officer or lowest general?
- What about NCO ranks between corporal and sergeant (as we had in Poland and as I remember from your previous posts there are also equivalent of "plutonowy" (of which we have 2 levels) in Romania.
- I suggest to divide highest ranks in two steps: generals and marshalls (note USSR 3 marshall ranks)
- One more specific thing. What about JCO from India and Pakistan? Now they are treated (I suppose) as WO but that was quite a separate category.

Other point - police forces.
In some countries (all Warsaw Pact countries but not only) the ranks for militia closely followed the military ones, while in the British tradition there are comissars, inspectors etc. Now the Polish police changed the rank names and structure but still there are much more ranks then in "classic" police forces. Same applies to let's say State Fire Service in Poland which also used to follow military rank scheme.

Well, the "plutonowy" issue can be solved simply, as the name comes from "platoon", therefore it must be translated as Sergeant. To my opinion, Brigadier is the lowest generals' rank, since in most forces, the "unit" is the regiment, so the "brigade" is a higher unit, therefore the CO must be a general. As to the Indian JCO - well, if they have WO's, than these JCO should be considered as steps of the lowest commissioned rank and designmated as Lieutenant 1A, 1B, etc. If there are no WO's ...

As to the Police: wherever an equivalency with military ranks can be applied, let's apply it. Or let's just come up with a similar system, after all, these ranks have a structure similar to that of the military hierarchy (and lots of names are identical, to boot).

Here is a table of different nations' general officer ranks in the period of World War II. This table clearly shows, that there will be as many problems with finding the equivalent ranks for generals as with any other ranks and there is no easy solution of that.

http://www.generals.dk/Ranks.htm

Hi Everybody !

Gentlemen, once again this discussion is endless and hopeless :( :(

You'll never find the right adequation rank/function. If you have a perfect knowledge of all the armies in the world, that could be possible, without that, you're taking the royal road to misleading and confusion... and about an attempt to make litteral translation into English... :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Maréchal des logis" ( "corporal" in the cavalry, gendarmerie, train... ) :"marshall of the homes" :?: :?: :lol: :lol: Completely ridiculous isn't it ??

Olivier

COMAULT, Olivier wrote:Hi Everybody !

Gentlemen, once again this discussion is endless and hopeless :( :(

You'll never find the right adequation rank/function. If you have a perfect knowledge of all the armies in the world, that could be possible, without that, you're taking the royal road to misleading and confusion... and about an attempt to make litteral translation into English... :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Maréchal des logis" ( "corporal" in the cavalry, gendarmerie, train... ) :"marshall of the homes" :?: :?: :lol: :lol: Completely ridiculous isn't it ??

Olivier

Hm, hm ... mon cher Olivier, quite hard you come down on us, quite hard! I wonder, would it not have been somewhat more constructive to come up with an idea? Just in case it proves to be THE idea? Hm? And frankly, I don't think this is hopeless ... we just have to think and talk it over and then make a decision. All of us, including those friends and colleagues who seem to be somewhat skeptical about the idea:-).

I would like to reffer to the statment:

Gentlemen, once again this discussion is endless and hopeless

This discussion is neither endless nor hopeless - we were just trying to create some general rules of universal translation of ranks and we've got some effects. Briefly speaking rank structure all around the world is following one simple pattern:
-enlisted ranks
-junior NCOs ranks
-senior NCOs ranks
-junior officers ranks
-senior officers ranks
-general officers ranks
and the differences are not preventing us from finding some conclusions.
The idea of creating some table of equivalent ranks is very usefull and this forum is the best place to do it.

COMAULT, Olivier wrote: "Maréchal des logis" ( "corporal" in the cavalry, gendarmerie, train... ) :"marshall of the homes" :?: :?: :lol: :lol: Completely ridiculous isn't it ??

Not to be picky, but that is what it means in French, no? If it is so silly, why don't they change it?

Erskine

Hi Everybody!
Chuck Anderson here!!

I'm unalterably opposed to any implementation of a single universal standard translation for ranks. Of course we do need a lingua franca of some kind so that we may communicate with each other as needed, but I fear that, (like so many times), it will be our members whose basic language is not English who will be expected to bear most of the responsibility of learning our "single universal standard translation". (I'm reminded of the old addage that if you speak English loud enough, anybody will understand you.)

I think that it would be great if we could have a glossary of some kind, with important words translated across the languages of our fellow enthusiasts. This can be developed,instituted and maintained quite easily and would keep our rank insignia web site international as it should be.
Such a multilingual glossary seems a good first step for all concerned.

If we don't try this attempt at being multilingual we are doing a dis-service to our fellow enthusiasts from around the world!

Chuck Anderson
USAFWO1_1975@military.com

Zdzislaw Rudzki wrote:Hi
Sounds good, but I have some doubts:
- How does the Brigadier rank from some countries fit into proposed scheme? Is it a highest field grade officer or lowest general?
- What about NCO ranks between corporal and sergeant (as we had in Poland and as I remember from your previous posts there are also equivalent of "plutonowy" (of which we have 2 levels) in Romania.
- I suggest to divide highest ranks in two steps: generals and marshalls (note USSR 3 marshall ranks)
- One more specific thing. What about JCO from India and Pakistan? Now they are treated (I suppose) as WO but that was quite a separate category.

Anyway it is a good idea. I will try to prepare "table of equivalent ranks" based on few different rank systems from various countries.

Other point - police forces.
In some countries (all Warsaw Pact countries but not only) the ranks for militia closely followed the military ones, while in the British tradition there are comissars, inspectors etc. Now the Polish police changed the rank names and structure but still there are much more ranks then in "classic" police forces. Same applies to let's say State Fire Service in Poland which also used to follow military rank scheme.

Hi Zladislaw:

I have a couple of suggestions here, I'll email you a couple of ideas if OK, I am travelling for a couple of days so I will get to it as quick as I can

Erskine Calderon wrote:

COMAULT, Olivier wrote: "Maréchal des logis" ( "corporal" in the cavalry, gendarmerie, train... ) :"marshall of the homes" :?: :?: :lol: :lol: Completely ridiculous isn't it ??

Not to be picky, but that is what it means in French, no? If it is so silly, why don't they change it?

Erskine

Generally I don’t think any dialogue is wasteful and this is obviously an important issue so;

Actually many rank titles are silly, we just get used to them. Some are anachronistic like the relatively “new” rank of Squadron Leader (RAF) who no longer commands a Squadron or Corporal of Horse who is not a Corporal but a Sergeant (British Army).

Zladislaw’s comment about the rank of plutonowy is also important, we probably need some kind of “context” information. i.e. what is a French ADF (au dela de la duree legale) Sergent or what is a starszy plutonowy. A lot of services have different rank insignia and titles for career vs non career or officer candidates.

Personally, yes I am interested in knowing what the mighty French Army “Marechel des logis” title translates to as well as the fact that it equates to French Sergeant or that Brigadier-chef and Caporal-chef are the same rank (Incidentally neither are on the French Army rank page).

In general translations are literal and some are not. In Canada (whose armed forces have two official languages as does Belgium) ranks have 2 official titles one English, one French. As an example I was commissioned both as an Acting Sub Lieutenant / Sous-lieutenant intérimaire (marine). Today in the CF I would be commissioned Acting Sub Lieutenant / Enseigne de vaisseau 2e classe. These are the “official” rank titles in use in in the 1980's and today.

However as previously mentioned, in my first post in this thread, I would find it useful to see:

Orginal language rank title unaltered in orginal alpahabet & equivilant
Капитан 3-го ранга - Kapitan, Tretyego Ranga
Or
ןגס - Rav-Seren

An idea of where that rank fits in the table by either a standard equivalent or a grading system i.e. commissioned officer x grade - or - senior commissioned officer x grade would be fine

These I would rather see than a translation as I think that this would benefit many who join us not knowing a lot about rank systems in general or rank systems out side their own country.

Chuck Anderson wrote:Hi Everybody!
Chuck Anderson here!!

I'm unalterably opposed to any implementation of a single universal standard translation for ranks. Of course we do need a lingua franca of some kind so that we may communicate with each other as needed, but I fear that, (like so many times), it will be our members whose basic language is not English who will be expected to bear most of the responsibility of learning our "single universal standard translation". (I'm reminded of the old addage that if you speak English loud enough, anybody will understand you.)

If we don't try this attempt at being multilingual we are doing a dis-service to our fellow enthusiasts from around the world!

Chuck Anderson
USAFWO1_1975@military.com

Hi Chuck

I don’t think that the intent here is a single everything to “English” translation.

I agree with you in general, as in my original post, my point is that I wanted to see the actual unabridged rank titles in the original language and alphabet. I am also trying to avoid the “anglicizing” of ranks.

My concern is only to create a useful site for “reference users” i.e. people who are coming here for information knowing very little. We have all seen highly intelligent people make mistakes in insignia or rank of another (or their own) country. (If any one wants to comment on that aspect please make a new post topic rather than replying here)

I think that the goal might be to provide some kind of multi–lingual equivalencies for a rank grading system as we go forward.

and just as quick thought, I don't think any one is suggesting "rules made in stone" just a kind of "best effort" to make it easier for all. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about ranks, and structure and I have benefited from this forum and the site.

Maybe all we need for now is a moderated "sticky" topic with notes on the various armed forces in the various forums.

OK - 4 posts in a row via my hotel connection is enough

Cheer's all

Anonymous wrote:and just as quick thought, I don't think any one is suggesting "rules made in stone" just a kind of "best effort" to make it easier for all. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about ranks, and structure and I have benefited from this forum and the site.
Maybe all we need for now is a moderated "sticky" topic with notes on the various armed forces in the various forums.
OK - 4 posts in a row via my hotel connection is enough
Cheer's all

Sorry that was me - travelling sucks

Let me put out some thoughts.

I am not going to give the various nation's rank the equivalent names but just to put them in a kind of table. Let me propose as follows (based of my knowledge of various ranks through nations and their histories):

- 4 degrees of private (in Poland we have 2 of them but I've seen some more like "recruit" etc.) - In Poland there are 2 such ranks "szeregowy" and "starszy szeregowy"

- 5 degrees of junior NCOs. The distinguish between the junior and senior NCO ranks could be the ability of conscript people of getting such rank or not. Just an example criteria. In Poland we have "kapral", "starszy kapral". "plutonowy" , "starszy plutonowy" in this area. Although the usual conscript soldier will end with the "starszy kapral" rank

- 4 degrees of senior NCO ranks. (well.... this is based on Polish rank system - the number of sergeants in US army is overcounting anything )

- 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 be sticked to the historical origin)

- 5 junior officer ranks (this will cover all of the rank systems)

- 4 senior officer ranks - see above

- 1 "in between" rank. This is the rank of "brigadier" in some systems which lies "in between" field and general officer's ranks (Belgium 1940 for example)

- 4 general officer ranks

- 3 marshall ranks (mainly reserved for USSR forces)

Let me know your opinion

Z.

Zdzislaw Rudzki wrote:Let me put out some thoughts.

I am not going to give the various nation's rank the equivalent names but just to put them in a kind of table. Let me propose as follows (based of my knowledge of various ranks through nations and their histories):

- 4 degrees of private (in Poland we have 2 of them but I've seen some more like "recruit" etc.) - In Poland there are 2 such ranks "szeregowy" and "starszy szeregowy"

- 5 degrees of junior NCOs. The distinguish between the junior and senior NCO ranks could be the ability of conscript people of getting such rank or not. Just an example criteria. In Poland we have "kapral", "starszy kapral". "plutonowy" , "starszy plutonowy" in this area. Although the usual conscript soldier will end with the "starszy kapral" rank

- 4 degrees of senior NCO ranks. (well.... this is based on Polish rank system - the number of sergeants in US army is overcounting anything )

- 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 be sticked to the historical origin)

- 5 junior officer ranks (this will cover all of the rank systems)

- 4 senior officer ranks - see above

- 1 "in between" rank. This is the rank of "brigadier" in some systems which lies "in between" field and general officer's ranks (Belgium 1940 for example)

- 4 general officer ranks

- 3 marshall ranks (mainly reserved for USSR forces)

Let me know your opinion

Z.

My thoughts exactly! Just give them some generic code, so that we would know, where exactly a certain ranks is in the hierarchy. And frankly, I don't give a damn, whether the first generals' rank is called Brigadier General, Generalmajor or General de brigade or Big Pink Hoolahopp! What interests me is to know that THIS insignia stands for the lowest general officer's rank, it's called this or that in the original language and then I'd know how it would translate in any language.

Hi Everybody !

...Going to the fourth page !!

Maybe, an alternative solution is the use of some "grid" ??

Do you know the nice DIA rankwallcharts ? Those I have are from the 80's, but it was a first attempt to put all the rank insignia of the world...( Of course, the equivalency was given according to the the US rank insignia, but after all... ) The advantage of a grid-system is that the different "classes" are clearly seen. you can find some exemples, although in BW. On :

http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html

These are extracts from the "Countries Studies", they are not up to date, but are generally correct.

( Rob, You're right, of course, the "maréchal des logis" is a sergeant, and a "brigadier" is a corporal :oops: :oops: :oops: shame ! shame ! )

Olivier

Hi
Olivier
Thanks for posting the DIA/ MILINT charts, I personally kept meaning to do this and forgetting. If I might suggest, I encourage you to post this site as “a new topic” as well. This is a fantastic resource and while occasionally some insignia is missing, this was defiantly the best first great stab at the whole rank universe.

I used to access this from this internal site http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/#toc
Same site pointers I think.

For whomever is looking you really sometimes have to look carefully to find some insignia as it is sometimes hidden. In general if you look under a country and the section under Defense or Military rank insignia exists there is a PDF there but also look under Police, Security, Intelligence or Auxiliary Forces.
As an example
Israel IDF all http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/israel/il05_04d.pdf
Columbia Officers http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/colombia/co05_04a.pdf
Enlisted: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/colombia/co05_04b.pdf

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.

I would appreciate some rank standards as per post above, I would like. I agree to see orignal rank and estimate of equivilant.

Thank you

Well it looks we now at least have a central place to at least continue these kind of discussions so maybe we can finish this off under General Discussions http://forum.rankinsignia.info/viewforum.php?f=57 when we are ready to.

Thank you to those mysterious forces that created this group

I wonder why we don't simply use the STANAG 2116 as it is pretty straight forward and already included those countries that one usually compares other countries to.

This way it shouldn't be too difficult to fit countries into the grid not included in the STANAG.

Facts about the STANAG. The STANAG already compared military ranks of countries that have lots of differences in their respective ranks and more or less found a way to compare them.

It consists of OF-1 to OF-10 (Officers) where
OF-1 are all lieutenants
OF-2 all captains
OF-3 majors
OF-4 lt. colonels
OF-5 colonels
OF-6 to OF-9 General ranks
and OF-10 General of the Army equivalents

This way the lieutenant and captain problem is solved.

WO1-4 for Warrant Officers and

OR-1 to OR-9 (Other Ranks) where (at least in the German Army)

OR-1 to OR-4 do not hold a command
OR-5 are leaders of small squads
OR-6 to OR-9 are senior sergeants that lead larger squads or work in staff positions.

This STANAG already gives a pretty useful grid where each country should fit in one way or the other.

I suppor the suggestion that STANAG 2116 should be used. For non-Nato countries some principles have to be created. I suggest that for commissioned ranks, the historical status hierarchy should be used, that is, a Captain is an OF-2, whether he commands a platoon, a company or a battalion. For non-commissioned ranks, I suggest a system based on key-positions. What is the normal rank for a squad leader, platoon sergeant, first sergeant in the army concerned? Then adjust the surrounding ranks accordingly. Details can be argued in this forum.

The general principles are derived from STANAG 2116:

"5. Officer and other rank posts will be identified by a NATO code within the following grades:
a. Officers OF 1 - 10
b. Other ranks OR 1 - 9
c. Warrant officers WO1 - 4
6. For NATO purposes, OR-5 to OR-9 inclusive are considered Non-Commissioned Officers."
Source: http://www.lvnslinga.lv/stanag.htm

What about the Scandinavian flat rank systems? Well, Norway in already included. Based on the Norwegian example, and the information provided below, I would suggest the following for Sweden.

NATO Code Army
OF-10 *
OF-9 General
OF-8 Generallöjtnant
OF-7 Generalmajor
OF-6 Brigadgeneral, Överste 1 graden
OF-5 Överste
OF-4 Överstelöjtnant
OF-3 Major
OF-2 Kapten
OF-1 Löjtnant, Fänrik
OR-9 *
OR-8 *
OR-7 Fanjunkare
OR-6 Sergeant
OR-5 Överfurir
OR-4 Furir
OR-3 Korpral
OR-2 *
OR-1 Menig

NOTE: Promotions to the ranks of Överste 1 graden, Fanjunkare, Överfurir no longer take place.

Two Swedish systems for rank grouping.

1972-1983
Code Series Level Ranks

H 1000 Higher commanders = Generals
R 2000 Regimental commanders = Colonel
FB 3000 Training battalion commanders = Lieutenant Colonel
B 4000 Battalion commanders = Major
K 5000 Company commanders = Captain
P 6000 Platoon leaders = Löjtnant, Fänrik
T 7000 Section leaders = Fanjunkare,Sergeant
G 8000 Squad leaders = Överfurir, Furir, Korpral
M 9000 Privates = Menig

1983---
Competence level Ranks

1 Generals, överste
2 Överstelöjtnant med särskild tjänsteställning
3 Överstelöjtnant, Major (with Staff College)
4 Major
5 Kapten
6 Löjtnant, Fänrik
7 Sergeant
8 Furir
9 Menig

NOTE: Överstelöjtnant med särskild tjänsteställning is a LTC with special rank. Has the same rank insignia as a LTC in competence level 3. MAJ with staff college has the same rank insignia as MAJ in competence level 4.