Talk:Ranks and insignia of NATO

Translation

It would be nice to include an english translation of the ranks from non-english-speaking countries.

Naval ranks

When will the Naval ranks be completed?

Templates

Templates introduced, edit takes you to the template. Rather simple to edit. -- Cat ^chi? 00:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The French, how much I hate them

It isnt the french I hate it is the way they do their ranks I hate... Should be done in a day or two... -- Cat ^chi? 01:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aside from OF-10 Army is now done, I still hate the exessive number of Itallian, French ranks.=

Any inacurate info so far? -- Cat ^chi? 07:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You might want to turn all the "No Equavalent" into "No Equivalent". -- Necrothesp 10:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done, I hope :) --the wub 11:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Broken beyond repair

Since the page didn't load today, I tried to subst: in the templates, but now I'm stuck half way. I can't even revert. Check Ranks and insignia of NATO/template version for a nowiki'd edition of the last template version. BTW, I think it's not the templates that kill it, but the tables that stress the rendering engine to the point of timing out. Well, if the server is untypically fast you can try to revert to Cool Cat's version, but that one won't work either. I guess we just have to split this page up. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is stupid. I do not understand why this doesnt work, with lots of static templates it works perfectly, generic template makes it unworkable. Ill revert back to very static version. -- Cat ^chi? 06:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page was working perfectly before I introduced generic templates. Also images are resised to 50 pixels. It was working perfectly before that. -- Cat ^chi? 06:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not think neither the tables nor the number of templates is the problem. This page is unmanagable without the templates. You are welcome to dictate what I can do and what I cannot and snub your nose. I do not have the ability to deal with this any other way.when page is done there will be 1400+images on this page. -- Cat ^chi? 06:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wierd I was trying to revert to DmitryKo's version. It was a working version. Templates themselves changed a bit. Images were made smaller and thats about it. -- Cat ^chi? 06:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok I have reintroduced al the templates and commented them out, all templates are on Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO/Army. Now it works with 2 templates. 5 templates. Fine till poland... -- Cat ^chi? 07:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We found out yesterday that it was the lengthy wikitable syntax that was bogging down, not the templates. When I substed in the templates it happened instantly, but even with NO templates in the article (everything was substed in) it took forever for the tables to render. silsor 16:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I am using so many templates is to allow Transclusion. However the table issue still is an issue. ANy suggestions on how to fix? -- Cat ^chi? 08:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Change Enlisted to non-Officer

I suggest re-naming all of the articles on this topic using the more neutral "non-officer" as opposed to "enlisted". This would make the articles easier to understand as to what they relate to. For example, many Commonwealth armed forces use the British term other ranks where the US uses enlisted. Therefore a neutral and easily understood compromise would perhaps lead to more clarity.

"Non-Officer" sounds very odd. "Non-commissioned personnel" or something similar is better. -- Necrothesp 11:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Officer Layout Army vs. Navy/Airforce?

• Has there been any discussion of moving the Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers to a layout like Ranks and insignia of NATO Air Forces Officers and Ranks and insignia of NATO Navies Officers? The wikignome in me had a small seizure when I was flipping through the pages. :) I'd be glad to help, but didn't want to reinvent the wheel. PS Replying here is ok, on my watchlist. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

NATO-Code is US-Code

No doubt the NATO-Code is an US-Code: We see the category of Warrant Officers, which do not exist in many Defense Forces. Otherwise we don't see the classical division in Generals, Officers, Subaltern Officers, "Sub-Officers" in German spoken Forces like Austria, Germany or Switzerland called "Unteroffiziere", which are divided into two classes. Sub-officers with sword-knot and Sub-officers without the sword-knot. The mix of Brigadier General with Major General and Lieutenant General is an English / American tradition too. Previous there was the French system with général de brigade, général de division, général du corps d'armée et général d'armée or the German system Generalmajor, Generalleutnant, General, Generaloberst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.196.38 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

So, what is the point of this entry? The NATO rank codes are exactly that--they are NATO vice U.S. codes, thus the title "NATO Rank Codes", which come from the NATO document shown in the References: "STANAG 2116: NATO Codes for Grades of Military Personnel. NATO. 13 March 1996" (as STANAG stands for "Standardized NATO Agreement"). The codes were developed, and agreed upon by member nations, so as to provide a vehicle for relating the military ranks of each member nation into the overall NATO structure. They are not "U.S. Codes" as we do not use them within our own services, but only do so when required to determine relative rank with other NATO member's grades of rank. We also have various sub-categories within our various rank class structure: such as junior enlisted (USA, USMC, USAF), non-rates (USN, USCG) noncommissioned officers (USA, USMC, USAF), junior noncommissioned officers (USA), petty officers (USN, USCG) senior noncommissioned officers (USA, USAF), staff noncommissioned officers (USMC), chief petty officers (USN, USCG) warrant officers (USA, USMC) chief warrant officers (USA, USN, USMC,USCG), commissioned warrant officers (USN, USMC, USCG) senior chief warrant officers (USA, USN, USMC, USCG), "field grade" warrant officers (USA), limited duty officers (USN, USMC), restricted line officers (USN, USMC), unrestricted line officers (USN, USMC), Staff Corps officers (USN) company grade officers (USA, USMC, USAF), junior officers (USN, USCG), field grade officers (USA, USMC, USAF), senior officers (USN, USCG), general officers (USA, USMC, USAF), senior general officers (USA, USMC, USMC), flag officers (USN, USCG), senior flag officers (USN, USCG), etc. Among U.S. Services, we use our own "E/W/O" grade of rank system; within NATO, all nations use the "OR/WO/OF" grade of rank equivalency system. So, again, what is the point of this entry? CobraDragoon (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree and disagree with the comment. I agree, because NATO codes almost repeat the American system, except that O-1/O-2 was combined into OF-1. I disagree, because American warrant officers are, so to speak, ministers without portfolio: officers who do not command anyone. This is how they differ from European warrant officers. It makes sense to write about this nuance, but only with a link to the official websites of the US Armed Forces, and even better, with a link to regulatory documents. JurKo22 (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

OF-1

If the point of this scheme is the ability to compare ranks across NATO militaries, how come it uses a system with a unified lieutenant rank (OF-1), when virtually all NATO militaries treat this as two separate ranks? 31.208.55.234 (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a good question that I have wondered, too. If the US, e.g., was the only country that had 2 LT ranks I could see it. But almost all the NATO countries' armies and air forces have 2 LT ranks. So why? Venqax (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Who is who

Code	Typical positions, functions
OR-1	recruit
OR-2	private
OR-3	well-trained soldier
OR-4	fire team leader (corporal)
OR-5	fire team leader (sergeant)
OR-6	squad leader (full sergeant)
OR-7	platoon sergeant
OR-8	company sergeant
OR-9	battalion sergeant and higher

--Юе Артеміс (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Even the US Army and USMC have different approaches. I am going to make a similar approach using at least 4 examples: US Army, US Marines, British Army, Ukrainian Armed Forces. The rest are in order if I find reliable sources. JurKo22 (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

About future sections

This is one of the articles that got me started editing Wikipedia. Unfortunately, my English is not as good as my knowledge in this area. I have already written some things in the comments to the last edit, but I want to discuss future sections here. I think it is easiest to name them as the corresponding documents are called: "Other rank codes in Bi-SC Directive 040-002" (before "Comparison to US system"); "STANAG 2116 in STANAG 2019" (after "Comparison to US system"). JurKo22 (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Please Do Not Shoot the Pianist. He Is Doing His Best )))

I have published the main part of the changes, but that is not all. Please check my English. The sources are checked by me as much as possible. There may be more. JurKo22 (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the editorial changes. The bulk of the work has been done, but there are still interesting nuances that need to be considered. The fact is that in the US military there are two approaches to that minimum rank for an NCO: the Army/Air Force approach (E-5/OR-5) and the USMC/Navy approach (E-4/OR-4). I briefly looked at them, but it makes sense to make comparison tables. It may be that it makes sense to consider the British and Canadian experience, and even the Ukrainian one, which I am now well versed in. It makes sense to do something similar for officers, primarily army officers. I leave naval officers for later, because for now this is the most closed segment. It also makes sense to explain why the USAF does not have warrant sergeants: as I see it, their role is performed by NCOs. But for this it is necessary to find, preferably, regulatory documents, which I give preference to, because there cannot be errors there.

I think that there is no objection to the fact that I divided the sources according to the degree of reliability and gave specific examples when the source looks reliable, but there are significant comments to it. JurKo22 (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Consider dividing sources, according to your opinion of value, objected to. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I see that my innovation was killed, but that’s okay. The main thing is that the main misconceptions are corrected. In this case, I will try to correct the comments as soon as possible, plus I will provide the necessary additions in the right way. The fact is that I did not have time to mention the Danish Army, where the OR-4 is also an NCO. Plus, I still think that Directive 040-002 should be quoted, but to a lesser extent. Thanks again for the edits! JurKo22 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I understand, we are talking about the Dictionary of Acronyms in Foreign Armies (2021). I think that I should reformulate my thesis, because it has another obvious problem: there are no correspondences for a number of titles, and then the question arises, how correct are the correspondences that are given. JurKo22 (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

One more thing. There are no questions regarding Austria: the official website explicitly warns that everything is unofficial. There is a question about Ireland: I searched the entire ie domain, but found only three publications. Since one of them was hacked to death by an unknown sergeant, I will give another, from a more official source. Plus I will reformulate the thesis. JurKo22 (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You're going down a rabbit hole of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and you need to use a better word than "thesis". See also WP:TRUTH if you have a moment. The major part of the article should be 1) what are the codes used for 2) how are the codes defined and then 3) how are the codes used outside NATO for attempts at comparison. But stick to what sources say. If sources compared the the armies of Elbonia to NATO ranks but differed, you'd just write "In Elbonia the top rank is described as equivalent OR-6 but commentators compare it to OR-7 due to..... " GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, which is what I tried to do in the latest edition of the article. The example of Israel is an interesting and illustrative example, but this article is not intended to analyze it thoroughly. It is given only to show what happens when Stanag 2116 is tried to be used in areas for which it was not intended. For if, for example, we want to apply Stanag 2116 to the Soviet rank system, then our codes will end before the Soviet “big stars on shoulder straps” run out. JurKo22 (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad the article is complete, I just corrected a typo and edited the notes. The South African Journal is little known and does not add anything new to what has already been said. The Osprey Elite series is quite well known, as it is known that lately there have been complaints about it, plus David Campbell has already expressed his vision (I’m talking about codes). As for Asher Shafrir, in References I left the original source (an article in a scientific journal), and in Notes I indicated a reprint of this article in Academia.edu, which is easier for the user to access. Notes arranged in chronological order. JurKo22 (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Final article structure

Thank you all for the edits and comments. I think that the final structure of the article should be as it is now: we start with the general, move on to general details, then to national ones, and end with a short visual example from the series “what happens if you start hammering nails with a smartphone.” With this structure, you can supplement the national section with interesting general details, redirecting from there to specialized articles. I'll try to go through the sources tomorrow and pick up the excess ones. I consider it necessary to leave the 5th edition of STANAG 2116, because there will be one clarification with reference to it. JurKo22 (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

it shouldn't be selected for interesting - it should be selected for applicability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. So, the structure and main content of the article have been agreed upon, all that remains is to put things in order with the sources and eliminate/indicate a number of inaccuracies. JurKo22 (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

So, in general, the article is finished. You just need to check one or two more sources. I decided to describe the problem with Soviet ranks in the comments. To solve it you need to enter at least one more code (OF-11), but even that won’t be enough... JurKo22 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the editorial edits. I think that the article is completely finished: all the necessary comments are there, the links are brought to a single standard so that they are convenient to use. If there are no objections to this approach, then I will continue to use it for other Wikipedia articles. JurKo22 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Geography

NATO countries. Eruope. Countries. European union🇦🇺🇦🇮🇦🇮🇦🇱🇦🇽🇦🇽🇦🇿 82.5.49.187 (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)