WAS: RE: [OT] Sevice, now RANKS, which isn't really OT if you use your imagination...

6 posts ยท Jan 15 2003 to Jan 16 2003

From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 03:06:24 -0500

Subject: WAS: RE: [OT] Sevice, now RANKS, which isn't really OT if you use your imagination...

Hi folks,

> How about the ranking and titles in other nations

Yeah. It can be difficult to compare ranks of the same name directly
across different nations' militaries - they have different
responsibilities, etc.

In the British Army, for example, a Corporal is a real NCO rank - they
have command responsibility (over, for example, a fire team or equiv.). In the
Canadian Army, Corporal is a "holding" or "qualification" rank -
everyone gets there eventually if you have sufficient time in and the right
training. So in the infantry, you might have a section (squad) with two or
three Corporals who don't actually have any command responsibility per se
(well, maybe they're the senior of a pair of "fire team buddies" or whatever
they call it). John A. was telling us a while back that the US army sometimes
makes people "Corporals" as a means of putting them in a position of greater
responsibility without actually promoting them to a "real" NCO rank (Sergeant)
if they don't yet have the sergeant's course.

In the CF, a section commander would be a Master Corporal or Sergeant, and the
platoon's senior NCO would normally be a Warrant Officer. I don't know why we
have Master Corporals... I think that's descended from the "Caporal Chef"
tradition in the French military or something... I know they wanted to
eliminate the old "Lance Corporal" rank we used to have, in an effort to try
to remove some of the overt British influence and develop "Canadianness" or
some such silliness.

FWIW, the Canadian Army non-comissioned ranks are:

Private - Recruit (Pte(R))
Private (Pte) Corporal (Cpl) Master Corporal (MCpl) Sergeant (Sgt) Warrant
Officer (WO) Master Warrant Officer (MWO) Chief Warrant Officer (CWO)

The comissioned ranks are basically the same as the US, though the
responsibilities at each rank level are somewhat different.

For example, in the US army, Lieutenants command platoons (normally) and
Captains command companies (normally) - though that's generalizing and
there are lots of exceptions. In the Canadian army, Lieutenants command
platoons also (normally), but Majors command companies. An infantry company
would have a Major commanding, a couple of Captains (one as 2ic and the other
as the "Battle Captain") and Lieutenants as platoon leaders.

Anyway, don't want to put everyone to sleep here...;)

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 03:52:21 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: WAS: RE: [OT] Sevice, now RANKS, which isn't really OT if you use your imagination...

--- Adrian Johnson <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:34:59 -0500

Subject: Re: WAS: RE: [OT] Sevice, now RANKS, which isn't really OT if you use your imagination...

> At 3:52 AM -0800 1/15/03, John Atkinson wrote:

Welcome to middle management. ;-P

From: Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@w...>

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:32:23 +1100

Subject: Re: WAS: RE: [OT] Sevice, now RANKS, which isn't really OT if you use your imagination...

From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>

> I got it Monday morning. :)

Congrats. Bravo Zulu.

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 05:03:32 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: WAS: RE: [OT] Sevice, now RANKS, which isn't really OT if you use your imagination...

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

Wash your mouth out with soap.

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 05:04:18 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: WAS: RE: [OT] Sevice, now RANKS, which isn't really OT if you use your imagination...

--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au>
wrote: