Military ranks: An introduction

The Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, Charles Krauthammer, remarked in 2010 that:

“Clashes of values and the struggle for primacy constitute a constant in human history that accounts for that other constant – conflict and war”

Even though Krauthammer was commenting on contemporary US foreign policy, his insight applies to the entirety of human history – and, if it is true that history is written by the victor, then our shared history is necessarily a product of conflict.

At the risk of oversimplifying, it may be posited that attaining success as a country is a result of being good at warfare.  Such military success may result from various factors, not least of which are firepower (think Hiroshima, Nagasaki) and sheer numbers (the Soviet Red Army).  However, these virtues of military power are not shared equally amongst nations – not all countries have aircraft carriers (in fact, only ten countries have at least one in service) or 2,3 million man armies (such as the Peoples’ Liberation Army of China).  Nevertheless, discrepancies in firepower and numbers may be mitigated by an army that is disciplined and organised for, as Socrates noted:

“A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house”

One of the most effective way to organise, command and control any group of people is to establish a hierarchy that circumscribes authority, fixed roles and responsibilities.  In armed forces around the world, this hierarchy has become an established feature in the form of military ranks.  In any military organisation, personnel and their accompanying ranks may be distinguished according to two categories, namely:

• Officers – Those individuals that exercise authority via a commission (see example below).  A commission is a document that charges an officer with specific duties and responsibilities, and is issued in the name of the head of state (e.g. the President or King).  It can therefore be said that officers exercise the direct authority of the head of state and, as such, must be obeyed accordingly.  Historically, the officer corps was drawn from nobility and aristocracy, resulting in a clear class distinction between them and other soldiers.  This is no longer the practice and officers are expected to undergo intensive training in order to develop leadership and decision making skills and are often university graduates.  Officer ranks span from Lieutenant (most junior) to General (most senior).

Officer ranks of the British Army (click to enlarge).  Many other countries also follow the British system of military ranks. Note that the army is only one component of a typical armed forces, which usually consists of an army, navy and air force.

An example of an officer’s commissioning scroll issued during the Civil War. The commission is issued in the name of the President of the USA and is accordingly signed by Abraham Lincoln

• Enlisted personnel  – These individuals comprise the majority of military personnel in an armed force and can be further delineated according to two categories, namely non-commissioned officers (NCO’s) and other ranks.  NCO’s are enlisted personnel who under the command of an officer are granted delegated authority to supervise other soldiers for specific purposes.  NCO’s are often referred to as the “backbone” of an army, and serve as a link between officers and other ranks.  NCO ranks generally span from Corporal to Sergeant.  The remainder of soldiers are referred to as ‘other ranks’ and is usually designated by rank of Private.

Enlisted ranks of the US Army. Note the progressive addition of chevrons for each rank. The rounded bottoms visible on some ranks are called “rockers”.

The ratio of officers to enlisted men as varied across time and place.  In 1940, the Wehrmacht had one officer to every 33 enlisted men (ratio of 1:33), whilst the British Army during the same time had a officer ratio of 1:8.  The French Army in 1940 (prior to its ignoble defeat) had an officer ratio of 1:4, as did the Italian Army.  It is therefore interesting to speculate that the higher the officer/enlisted ration, the more effective the army. Bearing in mind that in 1940 the Wehrmacht consisted of 4.5 million men and the French Armée de Terre 3,3 million men, the ratio of officers to enlisted men may be depicted as follows:

Officers to enlisted men. Wehrmacht – 1940

Officers to enlisted men French Armée – 1940

The main advantage of having fewer officers in relation to enlisted men is that orders are communicated much faster through the chain of command onto the battlefield.  Keeping with the example above, for an order to be communicated to 100 German troops in 1940 will involve only three officers (one officer for every thirty-three men) in contrast to the French army, where issuing an order to 100 soldiers will involve a staggering 25 officers (one for every four men)!  The German model is clearly more efficient, provides less chance for miscommunication and can be expedited in less time – all of which were crucial factors in the Wehrmacht’s eventual Blitz of France in the summer of 1940.  However, with modern armies becoming more specialised and concentrated, there is a trend towards a higher officer ratio (e.g. the modern US Armed Forces has a ratio of 1:5.3).

At the end of the day it is true that for any organisation to function there needs to be more people following orders than there are issuing them – the military is no exception.  Accordingly, it is the officers’ duty to identify goals and formulate strategy and, along with the NCO’s, lead the enlisted men in realising those objectives on the field of battle.  This is of course a task of immense responsibility, given the prospect of loss of life and limb in war.