Talk:Ranks and insignia of NATO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
Additional information...
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
  1. Red x.svg Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Red x.svg Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Red x.svg Structure: criterion not met
  4. Red x.svg Grammar: criterion not met
  5. Red x.svg Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces (general topics):
Sunset Taps.jpg
Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force
APP-6a Example1.svg
National militaries task force
WikiProject NATO (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of NATO on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


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

Naval ranks[edit]

When will the Naval ranks be completed?


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[edit]

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.=[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Officer Layout Army vs. Navy/Airforce?[edit]

NATO-Code is US-Code[edit]

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 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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? (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is who[edit]

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)Reply[reply]