http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Com...military_ranks

Compares Officer and Enlisted ranks for Britain, US and Canada. With links for German, Russian and Israeli ranks

Its not entirely accurate,

with US Sgts the equivilant of British Sgts, more like senior tom or lance jack..........

The rank equivalents are accurate, but it doesn't show the responsibilities of ranks in the various armies e.g. Corporals as Section Commanders in the British Army.

Here's a good one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_a...rmies_Enlisted
Shows the official NATO equivalency (OR series)

That is bizarre.

The Turks and Greeks don't have a private or lance jack.

The Germans have 18 OR's to the Norwegians 3

That can't be right can it?

Gwailo wrote:

That is bizarre.

The Turks and Greeks don't have a private or lance jack.

The Germans have 18 OR's to the Norwegians 3

That can't be right can it?

It is right. There is no doubt that the UK have the more simplistic rank structure in Nato. The Norweigians OR's are actually civilians under contract. Only the Norweigan officers are regulars. Having served with Nato, I do believe that most OR6's and above would not make it into the Mess at the level of a Bristish SNCO. Saying that I have met a few that would be worthy, very few. Unfortunately the OR structure is based on the USA E system. If you take the average age of an American S/Sgt (OR6) which is 25 and the average age of a Brit Sgt (OR6) which is 27, there is a 2 year gap, that boils down to experience, thats why the Brits better the Yanks in this area. We tend to get promoted on experience where as are American friends tend to be promoted on their ability to do their ITD's on time.

I still don't agree with it even if it is the 'official listing' and I know Tomahawk6 is going to jump on his high horse about it but.....

When I was a Pte I was a rifleman in an Infantry Section. I did a 7 week internal course to be a LCpl.

When I was a LCpl I was the 2IC of a section and commanded a fire team. I then did 13 weeks of busting my guts out at Aldershot and Brecon to be a Section Commander. (there were also 3 US Rangers on this course and they ended up agreeing with us as well)

When I was a Corporal I was a Section commander (Squad Leader for all you spams) in charge of a section of 8. OK 7 + 3 (Wr).

When I was a Sergeant (OK I was Mortars by then) but I would have been a platoon sergeant in a rifle company instead I had a far better job than chasing 17/18 year old creatures around wiping their arrses for them.

Now I am a CSgt I have been a Mortar 2IC which is a job that is rank ranged between CSgt and WO2!

Just because the spams have sergeants for everything and we have a definate split between JNCO and SNCO they seem to think they know everything.....well they don't

SO DON'T BLOODY TELL ME ABOUT YOUR RANK SYSTEMS I KNOW WHAT WE DO AND I KNOW WHAT YOU DO!

I have worked along side our American cousins on numerous occasions - including 2 years in Berlin and at Brecon.

Rant over!

Originally Posted by Golf_one_one

Its not entirely accurate,

with US Sgts the equivilant of British Sgts, more like senior tom or lance jack..........

Agree completely. The list just reels off a bunch of ranks without looking at responsibilities, and as such is, in my opinion, a bit of a waste of time.

Is it true that a US tank commander is a 2nd Lt/Lt? If so, it makes a bit of a mockery, given that is the job of a Brit Cpl.

Originally Posted by Zoid

Originally Posted by Golf_one_one

Its not entirely accurate,

with US Sgts the equivilant of British Sgts, more like senior tom or lance jack..........

Agree completely. The list just reels off a bunch of ranks without looking at responsibilities, and as such is, in my opinion, a bit of a waste of time.

Is it true that a US tank commander is a 2nd Lt/Lt? If so, it makes a bit of a mockery, given that is the job of a Brit Cpl.

Mech would no better than I, but I believe most tank commanders are SSgts. A tank 2Lt or 1Lt would be a tank platoon leader, what in charge of three or four tanks including his own.

Originally Posted by bubblehead

Originally Posted by Zoid

Originally Posted by Golf_one_one

Its not entirely accurate,

with US Sgts the equivilant of British Sgts, more like senior tom or lance jack..........

Agree completely. The list just reels off a bunch of ranks without looking at responsibilities, and as such is, in my opinion, a bit of a waste of time.

Is it true that a US tank commander is a 2nd Lt/Lt? If so, it makes a bit of a mockery, given that is the job of a Brit Cpl.

Mech would no better than I, but I believe most tank commanders are SSgts. A tank 2Lt or 1Lt would be a tank platoon leader, what in charge of three or four tanks including his own.

You may be right - even so, the rank comparison chart does not hold there either, a Cpl doing the job of a Ssgt. It's not just armoured as well, there are numerous other examples. I reckon its got a lot to do with the US having plenty of manpower and being able to have plenty of people at that rank for the job, whereas with us Brits we don't, and have to make the person fit the job.

Its just not an accurate or fair comparison, IMO.