Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: baldwin@cad.usna.mil (J.D. Baldwin) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Rank of military officers Message-ID: <1991Feb7.015957.3728@cbnews.att.com> Date: 7 Feb 91 01:59:57 GMT References: <1991Feb4.063141.20048@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb5.043249.6192@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Canoe U. Lines: 56 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "J.D. Baldwin" Henry Spencer writes (in response to Mike Schmitt): >> General Admiral 4-stars > >Dept. of trivia: there are actually theoretically two higher Army ranks >(don't know about USAF and USMC), although neither has been used lately. They have traditionally been considered wartime ranks--I don't think there's been any talk about reviving them for purposes of the current conflict. I suppose it's expected to be too short to be worth the trouble. Mr. Spencer added the Army ranks of General of the Army and General of the Armies to the list. There is also a Navy "Fleet Admiral" five-star rank. It has only ever been held by Nimitz, King, and a couple of others. It, too, is considered a wartime rank. There is not, to my knowledge, an "Admiral of the Navies" equivalent. Mr. Schmitt again: >> Army-AirForce-Marine Navy Insignia >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> Brigadier General Rear Admiral(l/h*) 1-star >> >> (*Rear Admiral (lower half) wears 2-stars) Dept. of even-more-trivial-trivia: "Rear Admiral Lower Half" wasn't really a rank until very recently. In the old days, a 1-star "admiral" was called a "Commodore," but this caused some confusion with the traditional title of a squadron commander, whatever his rank, who is called "Commodore." (There exists similar confusion when a Navy Commander is the Captain of a ship, but no one seems to care too much about that one.) Until around 1982 or so, Commodore was considered a wartime rank, and when a Navy Captain made flag rank, he pinned on two stars and became a Rear Admiral (the "lower half/upper half" distinction was still made for purposes of pay, but no one really cared which admirals were lower or upper half). Then someone decided to bring back the Commodore rank (rumor is that the USAF and USA whined that the Navy guys didn't have to go through a period of wearing one star). That didn't work out for the "confusion" reason mentioned above. So, when they went back to the Rear Admiral Lower / Upper Half, it became a one-star/two-star distinction, and the actual abbreviation for the rank is different. A Rear Admiral, Lower Half, signs his correspondence, for example, with "Lower Half" after the rank. No one, of course, addresses such an officer with the "half" distinction. He's just "Admiral" or "Rear Admiral Smith." Not that it's pertinent, but I think all this is stupid! Bring back the Commodore rank, or let's just have Rear Admirals with two stars again. This "Lower Half" business sounds too much like Admiral (junior grade). Gross. -- From the catapult of: |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _,_J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to _|70|___:::)=}- U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / baldwin@cad.usna.navy.mil |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~