Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: rqdms@lims04.lerc.nasa.gov (Dennis Stockert) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Confusion... Message-ID: <1991Jun22.041610.2991@cbnews.cb.att.com> Date: 22 Jun 91 04:16:10 GMT References: <1991Jun21.014233.14421@cbnews.cb.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.cb.att.com (william.a.thacker) Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center Lines: 31 Approved: military@att.att.com From: rqdms@lims04.lerc.nasa.gov (Dennis Stockert) In article <1991Jun21.014233.14421@cbnews.cb.att.com>, Bob.Underdown@f1040.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Bob Underdown) writes... > > >From: Bob.Underdown@f1040.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Bob Underdown) > >Would someone care to explain why a Major outranks a Lieutenant but in >the Civil War, a Lieutenant General was considered a higher rank than >Major General? [....] I'm not totally sure I understand the specific question you have, but in those services with this rank structure (in the U.S.), it's still the same today.... a major still outranks a lieutenant, and a lieutenant general still outranks a major general. The general officer ranks are, lowest to highest: brigadier general, major general, lieutenant general, and general (omitting the very rare top rank of 5-star general :-) As to =why= the apparent inconsistency of the relative status of the terms "major" and "lieutenant", I guess I'll leave that to the military history buffs (I =know= you're out there .... :-) *********************************************************************** * Dennis Stockert * Life is what happens to you while * * rqdms@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov * you're planning other things - Mom * *********************************************************************** * No one that knows me would mistake my opinions for those of * * any respectable organization * ***********************************************************************