Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Rank of military officers
Message-ID: <1991Feb7.020112.4066@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 7 Feb 91 02:01:12 GMT
References: <1991Feb4.063141.20048@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb6.032439.22085@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: The Boeing Co., MMST, Seattle, Wa.
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)

 
> From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
> 
> Dept. of trivia:  there are actually theoretically two higher Army ranks
> (don't know about USAF and USMC), although neither has been used lately.
> There is a five-star general, "General Of The Army"; insignia is five
> stars in a circle.  And there is "General Of The Armies" -- note plural --
> which was used only once, for Pershing in WWI; he was given authority to
> design his own insignia for it, but apparently never did so.

  (a short side-note)  The five-star rank was created - especially for
  Eisenhower so he could 'match' the British Field-Marshal rank.  (It was
  also told that the 5-star rank was created so German Field-Marshals could
  properly surrender to an 'equal' officer (?))

  5-stars (from memory) Eisenhower, McArthur, Nimitz, Hap Arnold, Bradley -
  (did I forget anyone?).  Does anyone know why the U.S. didn't use the
  rank Field-Marshal - like all the European forces?  


  mts