Talk:Army officer ranks

Added

I add Canadain French title for complate shake

The ranks-chart in general

When different ranks are compared among contries, the rank itself is always the same. A major-general in one country is the same as a major-general in another. Suggesting that a Russian lieutenant-general is the same as a american major-general is not correct. Yes, they might have the same or similar position - but it is not the same rank. A lieutenant-general is always superior to a major-general regarding rank. Do not confuse rank with position - in reality, a colonel might posess more executive power than a general because of his position. But if they meet, it is no question who has to adress whom "sir". In WW2, both Patton and Clark - both lieutenant-generals, commanded a field-army of the same size as several German field-armies operating in the Russian theater. Some of these German armies was commanded by field-marshals. This does not make the rank lieutenant-general equivalent to field-marshal. The same position (army commanders), but not the same rank.

Russian Lieutenants

Though my original sources are no longer to hand, I had thought that a Russian junior lieutenant was equivalent to an Anglo second lieutenant and a lieutenant equivalent to a US 1st lieutentant or UK lieutentant. The rank of senior lieutenant in the Russian army (of which there is no direct equivalent) would be considered still the same as a 1st Lt. Dainamo 12:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Russian General of the Army

In russia the rank of general of the army is not an only wartime rank. In fact there are number of generals of the army corrently in Russia. DimaY2K

Russian Marshal

This table seems to imply that a Russian marshal is senior to the marshals of every other country. This is blatantly not the case. I would suggest it's more likely that a Russian major-general is equivalent to a brigadier in other countries (since Russia has no brigadier rank) and so on up. This was certainly regarded as being the case with the German Army before the invention of Brigadegeneral and the phasing out of Generaloberst. -- Necrothesp 21:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But Germany doesn't have the rank of General of the Army while Russia has. Second: In UK for example ranks of Field Marshal and Marshal of the Royal Air force a ranks of that specific branch of armed forces while in Russia this rank is above branches hance the name Marshal of the Russian Federation not of the Army or of the Air Force. -- DimaY2K 10:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just because an officer is called something doesn't make him automatically equal to officers in other countries with that title. Just because a Russian officer has the title of General of the Army doesn't automatically make him equal to an American General of the Army. That's one of the pitfalls of rank equivalency (and remember that in Britain and the US, an army is usually commanded by a general, so they are literally generals of the army - field marshals and generals of the army usually commanded higher formations). Germany indeed didn't have the rank of General of the Army, but equally Russia doesn't have any rank of plain General without any prefix or suffix, as do most armies - Russia goes straight from Lieutenant General to Colonel General. And your point about ranks being above branches would equally apply to a Marshal of France, who is considered to rank as OF-10 (i.e. equivalent to a British field marshal). -- Necrothesp 14:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In United States General holds position of Chief of Army Staff not commander of the army. In Russia this position is held by Colonel General, But Russia has also position of Commander-in-Chief of Ground Forces and he holds the rank of General of the Army. Second of all US has or had even higher ranks of General of the Armies and of Admiral_of_the_Navy. -- DimaY2K 15:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I said that in the US and Britain a general was the commander of an army, not the army. As in a strategic formation consisting of a collection of corps, not the whole organisation. There is more than one general in the British and US Armies. The Chief of the General Staff in Britain and the Chief of Army Staff in the United States, who are the exact equivalents (not the inferiors) of the Commander-in-Chief of Ground Forces in Russia, hold the rank of General. They do the same job (i.e. the professional head of the army) - they just have a different title. Second, the American ranks of General of the Armies and Admiral of the Navy would not be considered to be senior to officers of other countries. My point is that the table suggests that the Marshal of the Russian Federation is the most senior rank in the world, which is blatant nonsense. -- Necrothesp 16:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One of reasons that americans astablished the rank of general of the army to have a rank that is equal to the rank of Field Marshal since they were allies in Second Warld Wara and fought on the same front. While russia was on the other front so there was no need to equalise the ranks. another reason not to put rank of Russian Major General together with rank of Briegadir/Briegadir Genera is that in Britain rank of Briegadir considered as senior colonel rather than junior general. And if you notice I did not name the column There the rank of Marshal is as OF-11. And onother thing, I just checked and found out that corrent Commander-in-Chief of ground forces is Colonel General he was appointed to this post in november. And I personaly think that nato system of OF-10 to OF-1 cannot be perfectly applied to russia it can be seen in lietenant ranks as well. -- DimaY2K 09:45 01 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's my point. There is no good way to equalise ranks. This is merely an approximation. Even the ranks within NATO are merely an approximation (particularly at NCO level - there is no way that a US corporal is equal to a British corporal, who does the job of a US sergeant or even staff sergeant, yet NATO puts them on the same level). Which is why it's daft to imply that Russian marshals are senior to other marshals. Indeed, the British Brigadier is not a general. He is, however, considered to be equivalent to a Brigadier-General in other countries. He does the same job. Again, there are pitfalls in assuming that a rank with the same name is automatically equivalent and one with a different name is automatically not equivalent. Check out the equivalents in Comparative military ranks of World War I and Comparative military ranks of World War II. They are more accurate representations of true equivalency and make this table inconsistent. -- Necrothesp 10:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I've made the change with Marshal rank, but I still don't think that Russian General of the Army should be moved to Of-9 level. -- DimaY2K 14:08, 01 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's a definite improvement. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 17:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would agree that this is accurate now as both ranks, though different in RUSSIA would still be considered the same as any OF-10 rank in other countries. Dainamo 01:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latvia

Thanks for spotting my mistake, Necrothesp. --DimaY2K 17:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Spanish General

In this table there is rank of plain general, while on World Rank Insignia there is rank of General de Ejército instead. Can anyone tell which one is correct?

Netherlands

The "Armee generaal" seems highly peculiar to me. "Veldmaarschalk" seems more likely.

Quote from the Dutch wiki nl:Maarschalk: Nederland had van 1840 tot 1881 zijn laatste veldmaarschalk in de persoon van prins Frederik, de tweede zoon van Koning Willem I. (The Netherlands' last field marshal from 1840 to 1881 was prince Frederik, the second son of king William I of the Netherlands.

Oberführer and Reichsmarschall

Since Brigadeführer was rated equal to a Generalmajor, and Standartenführer to an Oberst, Oberführer had not army equivalent and had navy equivalent - Kommodore - Kapitän zur See on admiral's duty. Oberführer - this rank mean colonel in general's duty, not senior colonel! You are right Reichsmarschall was not an army rank,but it was the highest a generic rank for all German armed forces:for army,for air force and other!See http://www.fortunecity.de/business/gebraucht/358/html/militaerische_raenge_der_wehrmacht.html.--Tt1 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oberführer did indeed have an army equivalent. Oberführers wore the epaulettes of an Oberst, not a Generalmajor. It was a rank in and of itself, not a colonel acting on general's duty as you say. Show some proof as to this status. It was a full rank, not an appointment like commodore, and considered by the Germans themselves as being a senior Oberst. Yes, Reichsmarschall was a generic rank. However, the only person who ever held it was a Luftwaffe officer. Where is the proof that it was also established as an army rank? It does not therefore belong here. -- Necrothesp 16:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reichsmarschall was a generic rank for all military forces in Nazi Germany Third Reich. That held it was the only one person and he was Luftwaffe officer is not the proof was not as an army rank. In many countries only one person held the highest a generic rank. Marszałek Polski rank have only one person in some time in Poland and he is from army, but this rank also the highest and generic rank for all other military forces in Poland. Rank Gensüi in Japan have only one person in WWII time and he is from navy, but this rank also the highest and generic rank for all other military forces in Japan. Göring hold the rank as Hitlers successor to leadership of the Reich,not because of the Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe.--Tt1 18:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, you're wrong that there was only one Gensui and he was from the Navy. Gensui was an honorary title also held by at least five army officers in WWII (three of whom were created in 1943). But the fact that Reichsmarschall was generic does not mean it was established for the army - you may have noticed that the title of this article is "Army officer ranks" not "Generic military ranks". It therefore does not belong in this list, since it was not created specifically for the German Army and was in fact never held by an officer of the German Army. -- Necrothesp 23:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC

In the German rank systems of WW2, there was no rank equivalent of todays Brigadier general. The lowest general-rank in the army was major-general and under this was colonel (oberst). The same system was - and still is - used in the Russian army (where a 1-star general is a major-general). Today, SS-Oberführer is an equal to brigadier-general although it never was a general rank within the SS. In this way, it is correct to say that the German army (of WW2) had no equivalent to this SS-rank. In the German WW2 army, as with the present Russian army, there is a rank-gap between colonel and major-general. In most countries of today, this gap is filled with the rank brigadier-general (although it is not a general rank within the British Army).

Finland

I changed the Finnish OF-10 rank from Suomen Marsalkka (Marshal of Finland) to Sotamarsalkka (Field Marshal) because the former is an unique rank awarded to then Field Marshal C.G.E. Mannerheim on 4 June 1942. -- Graniitti 18:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Suomen marsalkka and sotamarsalkka are not actual military ranks (see Finnish_Defence_Forces#Military_Ranks). And since they are definitely not used anymore they should be removed from the table. -- Jniemenmaa 19:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonel General

The article has a note before the table that says that in "the German Empire and Russia - often it is considered that in these countries a colonel-general equates to an OF-9 rank, a general to OF-8."

That may be true for the German Empire. But the table says that for the Russian Federation, General armii is OF-9 and General-polkovnik (Colonel General) is OF-8. So should the note be changed? - Shaheenjim 17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Informative ?

Does this article really convey any information? --Malin Randstrom (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)