# Other Countries Ranks.......is there....



## catalyst (3 Jan 2009)

.....a poster that has photo's of different countries ranks?

I've seen one somewhere (but can't remember where, not here) and I'd be nice to get to know the other countries' ranks here at KAF. 

PS - KAF-ites.....come see me at the Sea Can and say hi!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jan 2009)

Try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_military_ranks. Found it by 'googling' International Military Ranks.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jan 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_Insignia_of_NATO

It has a chart showing the equivilances for each of the NATO country ranks. They have posters floating around KAF with all these information, one off the top of my head is in the entrances to RC(S) HQ.

The army enlisted ranks list has bad formatting, Cdn MCpl should be OR5 and Sgt should be OR6.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Jan 2009)

Unless my eyes are deceiving me the table shows Sgt as OR6 and MCpl as OR5. The rank images are in the wrong spot though.


EDITED FOR SPELLING


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2009)

I know that you could once upon a time find the NATO rank chart on the NATO site, but I haven't been able to find that for some time now.  Perhaps they have dispensed with it.  It looks like Wiki is the sole source now for these things.  You may also want to look up the Warsaw Pact rank charts.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Unless my eyes are deceiving my the table shows Sgt as OR6 and MCpl as OR5. The rank images are in the wrong spot though.



The lables are correct.  The images are way off.  Cpl rank is in the Pte Basic location next to a Pte (T) slip on.  I may guess that some twit edited the Wiki page and may have removed the "No Hook Pte" image and threw all the rest out of line.  If you click on the images, the info seems to be correct......MCpl comes up as OR5.

Anyone know their way around Wiki, enough to correct it?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Jan 2009)

No joy in fixing the page  :-\


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2009)

Calls for a msg to their site gurus.


----------



## Loachman (3 Jan 2009)

Catalyst said:
			
		

> PS - KAF-ites.....come see me at the Sea Can and say hi!



How do we know who is you?


----------



## catalyst (4 Jan 2009)

I'll be the one in shorts 

Just look for Michelle.

Thx for the links - I'm going a hunting for one, it would be good to have up in our area since we interact with so many different people.


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2009)

Here is another more local reference: http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/NATO_Rank_Comparison


----------



## hugh19 (4 Jan 2009)

I am thinking I have issues with that reference. I mean in the UK a Sergeant is the 2ic of a platoon, I believe a Canadian sergeant is a section commander as is a staff sergeant in the US. So these comparisons don't really match up. Or am I in left field?


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jan 2009)

sledge said:
			
		

> I am thinking I have issues with that reference. I mean in the UK a Sergeant is the 2ic of a platoon, I believe a Canadian sergeant is a section commander as is a staff sergeant in the US. So these comparisons don't really match up. Or am I in left field?



I think that your issues are really "Non-issues".  You will also find that a Canadian MCpl can be a Section Commander, as well as Sgts or WOs being Platoon 2ic, and in some cases a WO being a Platoon Comd.  This all has nothing to do with the overall ranking.  There are other factors involved in this ranking; dealing more with Training to attain ranks, responsibilies and authority granted to various ranks, etc.  Just because in the UK a Sgt may be a 2ic of a Platoon doesn't throw this whole chart out of wack.  The UK also has L/Cpls as Section Comds.

Another point is:  The position a person may fill does not necessarily reflect their rank, nor does their rank necessarily reflect a position that they fill.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2009)

No George, he's right.  The chart is out of whack.

I would assume any rank comparison chart would aim to compare relative levels of responsibility.  A Sergeant in the British Forces, who fills a TO&E slot as Pl 2IC, has more responsibility than a Canadian Sergeant who fills a TO&E slot of a section commander.  Ad hoc appointments (MCpls as Section Commander) or comparison of level of training don't really factor into the comparison level.

The chart is inaccurate.  It's a non-issue if we don't care about the veracity of the information.


----------



## McG (5 Jan 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> No George, he's right.  The chart is out of whack.


The chart is from a STANAG, which means it the official NATO standardization agreement on rank equivalencies (even if guys are employed differently within their home nation).


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jan 2009)

Well, the STANAG is right outta 'er then....


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, the STANAG is right outta 'er then....



Pffffft.......like that ever happens !

Sheesh


----------



## AmmoTech90 (5 Jan 2009)

As MCG said, it's a STANAG thing.  The most important purpose I have seen a direct comparison from the chart used for was to determine who got quartered where on an American base.  I'm sure that in multi-national HQs it's used to determine who gets the bigger monitor.

In reality things are much more flexible.  I was a Canadian WO who filled a deployed British line position which called for a WO2.  I was a "Warrant Officer", good enough, fill the position.  And yes, my British CoC was aware, that strictly speaking, I was SSgt equivalent.  From what I saw, a WO (in a Commonwealth army) was a Warrant Officer.

So yes, common sense prevails for the most part.


----------



## Zoomie (6 Jan 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ad hoc appointments (MCpls as Section Commander)



Why is that ad-hoc?  Don't corporal's go on their ISCC (Infantry Section Commanders Course) to get their leaf anymore?  

Isn't MCpl the first tier of leadership in the army anymore - hence a section commander, crew commander, etc?

Maybe not so "ad-hoc" and more like how it is...


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jan 2009)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Why is that ad-hoc?  Don't corporal's go on their ISCC (Infantry Section Commanders Course) to get their leaf anymore?
> 
> Isn't MCpl the first tier of leadership in the army anymore - hence a section commander, crew commander, etc?
> 
> Maybe not so "ad-hoc" and more like how it is...



Ad hoc because, at least in the Infantry, a section commander is a TO&E Sergeant's position qualified DP3A.  Now, granted this is only the Small-Arms instructor course, but it usually implies that the Sergeant has been a Section 2IC (and thus learned from a section commander) and has done the MCpl positions within the battalion (usually logistical roles such as CQ 2IC) and made the RSMs list.  There is usually (but not always) a noticable difference between the two in experience.

I'm sure British/Aussie Lance Corporals and US Sergeants routinely do a job a level up from their rank - it still means that they are all at the same "level" on the table.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Jan 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_Insignia_of_NATO
> 
> It has a chart showing the equivilances for each of the NATO country ranks. They have posters floating around KAF with all these information, one off the top of my head is in the entrances to RC(S) HQ.
> 
> The army enlisted ranks list has bad formatting, Cdn MCpl should be OR5 and Sgt should be OR6.



Since some of the discussion is focused around what seems to be discrepancies in where a Canadian Sgt/MCpl (and other ranks) sit in the table, then the text of the original reference (STANAG 2116) should be consulted.  Wasn't able to find a link to an "official" copy at the NATO standardization website but the text is at this link.



> Agreed English texts
> STANAG 2116
> 1992 (Edition 5)
> 
> ...



In the applicable table for Canadian non-officer personnel the following


> OR-6 Sergeant/Sergent
> 
> OR-5 Sergeant/Sergent (3)
> Master Corporal/Caporal chef
> ...



Of note in the table for British ORs


> OR-6 & OR-5 (5)   Sergeant
> 
> OR-4 Corporal
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (6 Jan 2009)

Your last two quotes from the STANAG are included with the footnotes of the table in the Army.ca Wiki.


----------

