Posted on Feb 27, 2015
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
34.4K
173
62
4
4
0
Ranks
Enlisted ranks
Is it time to unify the rank structure of the armed forces? I worked with a Navy Captain. After serving in the Army and referring to "full birds" as Colonels, it's a little uncomfortable to call as O-6 a Captain when that's rank of O-3 in the Army. Likewise, we have ranks with the same title, but different grades. For example, a master sergeant is E-7 in the USAF and E-8 is USMC. Since we use the same pay charts, wouldn't make since to unify the ranks so say a staff sergeant is an E-6 is all branches? Would are your thoughts?
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 38
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
1LT Nick Kidwell
2
2
0
Edited >1 y ago
No.

Because tradition, customs and courtesies. Also history.

And just because.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Financial Management Technician
1
1
0
No, the branches are all separate entities with histories and lineage.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Recruiter
1
1
0
No. Even though I could probably think of several different reasons, two of my more passionate reasons are history and tradition. Some may disagree, but IMO each branch has strong foundation of tradition that should not be dismissed by the good idea fairy. It is what helps to define us as branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. Each individual worked hard to attain their place in their branch and have a certain sense of pride which they all deserve to have. I think it would hurt morale to a certain extent by trying to "simplify" things. There has been talk for some time of everyone going to one uniform which I hope never passes, but to totally strip tradition would be a major black eye to Esprit de Corps.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
>1 y
I have great respect for tradition. However, I get concerned when dismiss alternative ideas simply because "we've always done it" a certain way. We use the pay chart, I just wondered the ranks were different. Esprit de Corps is certainly a consideration, but should it be the only consideration?
Over the years, the good idea fairy (GIF) has run rampant; However, every once in a while even the GIF actually has a good idea.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Recruiter
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
I agree that there is always great ideas with change, but I don't think this is one. No idea good or bad should sacrifice our identity.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SrA Matthew Knight
1
1
0
Ranks are fine the way they currently are. I will say however that there needs to be an emphasis on teaching people the ranks of other branches. I personally went through tech school with other branches so I learned them quick but I know many people who won't have a clue what I am talking about when I use ranks from a branch such as the Navy or Coast Guard.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO3 Electronics Technician
1
1
0
One word. Tradition.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 Joan (Tipka) (Plummer) Fisher
1
1
0
The Navy's Ranking not only goes back in history but also displays a persons actual rating for enlisted and what Corps the Officer is. You can look at a Petty Officer's Rating Badge and service devices to determine if they are Aviation, Surface, Submarine, or Medical and what their Job is. Also the Fowled Anchor of the Chief Petty Officer has Naval symbolism. The Entire Naval Uniform and Rank structure has a long respected history.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
>1 y
Thanks for the insight
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Fire Support Nco
1
1
0
I do not feel that it matters that ranks look different in other Branches, that is what makes each Branch unique and it just laziness on the individual to not learn the different ranks of who they will work with.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Small Group Leader
1
1
0
It would make it easier for all uniformed persons. Then even people fresh out of basic would know how and when to deliver the appropriate respects when around members of other forces.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Richard Riley
1
1
0
Unifying the rank structure is not going to solve any longstanding problem but it will squander tradition for the sake of simplicity .....
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Maj Mike Sciales
1
1
0
I see a lot of tradition in our rank structure. Tradition should never be given up lightly. If we are going to change, then we have to go to the Navy Ranking system. The officer sleeve insignia are pretty much standard world-wide. We could not abandon those rank insignias.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Jim Z.
1
1
0
Combining ranks would take away the heritage of the services and probably cause more in-service fighting of my rank system should be used over yours. I know the Marines would not want to give up their system just as much as the Army and the Navy. as SGM Mikel Dawson said learning the rank structure is just a thing.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Recruiting And Retention Nco
1
1
0
The individual branches have a tradition of their ranks. Don't fuck with it.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Jim Woods
1
1
0
Along with the same field uniform (camo pattern).........
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Student
1
1
0
Tradition matters. Unless we are just going to start wearing Armed Forces on the left side of our chest we need to retain the historical ties to our own branch.
The only rank I wish that the Navy would bring back full-time is the rank of Commodore. That should be what a 1-star is called instead of both a 1 and 2 star Admiral being a Rear Admiral. I just think Commodore is B.A.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Hhc Company Commander
1
1
0
I think it generates a sense of identity. I can't imagine calling a Gunny "Sergeant First Class", or having a "Master Sergeant of the Boat". These ranks are part of our traditions, from the Master Chief to the Gunnery Sergeant.....and a Captain.

As for me, I laugh when I see the new SPCs frantically trying to identify the rank, or watching the LTs freak out and salute the PO1 because they don't know the structures and just see the bird.

As I've said in other posts, we are different branches. We have our own traditions, our own unique identities. That is what provides us with the Esprit de Corps. It is CRITICAL to the successes of the mission that we continue to take pride in the work we do, the heritage that we come from, and work together to forge our own identity. Together we are the United States Military, but we are not "identical quadruplets", just 4 "kids" from the same cloth. I enjoy my Soldiers getting to work with Sailors, Marines, and Airmen, because it serves to illustrate the differences between the branches that make us all great.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Executive Officer
1
1
0
It does make sense, but we are a military of tradition. We are separate branches and have separate traditions.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Daniel Cahill
1
1
0
It will turn out costing millions of dollars and no cost benefit as the cost of change would have benefit justification....save tax payers money to stave off sequestration.... that is a real issue to have the law changed to keep the services going.... over a 10 year period sequestration will gut all of the services.... focus efforts on getting that law changed!!
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Spc 1 J W.
1
1
0
Edited >1 y ago
No. Just because you feel "uncomfortable" doesn't mean it should change. I'm sure when you addressed that Navy 0-6 as Captain, they didn't feel uncomfortable about it. The end of March I will go over 33 years of military service. I started out in the Navy and now I'm in the Air Force Reserve. All of the armed forces talk about how their recruits are smarter than ever. I think our smarter than ever force can figure out who is what.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
>1 y
Msgt Wendelin, the Navy wouldn't be unconfortable. However, if I called an Army Colonel captain he certainly wouldn't have an issue although the ranks look the same. While I agree with you that recruits can and do figure it out, I am interested in more consistency amongst the military community.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Spc 1 J W.
Spc 1 J W.
>1 y
I'm guessing you meant Army Colonel would have an issue with being addressed as Captain. That's where whoever says it apologizes to the Colonel for misidentifying them. Easy peasy
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Cpl Tim Linville
1
1
0
Tradition.  Viva la differance'
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
GySgt Joe Strong
1
1
0
From my time in the Joint world, the problem is on the Enlisted side that the expected responsibility and capacity for independent action without seeking guidance from a higher rank varies greatly from Service to Service. If I see an E4 from one service I may know I can ask them for a particular item or service. I also know that if I see someone from another service it may take as much as an E6 or E7 to approve the same request.
The unified ranking would only work IMHO, if there was also only one unified Service.
Which I am also vehemently against, but that's another topic.
But if you wanted to make the Officer ranks unified, I think that might work, maybe an Officer or two could weigh in with their thoughts on that, but I think the Enlisted need to stay the same.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
>1 y
Good Point! something to consider
(0)
Reply
(0)
CW3 Network Architect
CW3 (Join to see)
>1 y
Other than the Naval services (Navy, Coast Guard), the officer ranks ARE unified. If I see railroad tracks, and the guy or gal isn't Navy, I'm calling them Captain, and am confident that they wouldn't object. Same with the oak leaf (gold for Major, silver for Lt. Col)...the only difference is in the Army, when TALKING to them, we address Lt. Cols as 'Colonel'. I know Marines don't do that.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.