Talk:Officer (armed forces)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Military history WikiProject (Rated Start-Class) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Moved
Moved to Officer (military). Geoff NoNick 19:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree with moving this page to Officer(Military). The problem is that it then opens up the whole argument over the usage of the term "military" which can mean different things to different people: i.e. to most Americans, it means "of the armed forces", but in Commonwealth English, military has a more precise meaning of "of an army". In order to avoid confusion over the relevance of the Officer (military) article, as to whether it pertains solely to army officers or officers of all armed forces, I suggest a rename. Can this page therefore me renamed once again, perhaps to "Officer (armed forces)" which seems to be a more neutral approach with the issue.
-
- Sounds reasonable enough. Geoff NoNick 03:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] General Definition
There is much in the article as it exists that is either overly specific to a particular nation or which is just not general enough. I know of no definition of a commissioned officer that refers specifically to the "use of deadly force." Geoff NoNick 19:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rank Duplication
I seriously disagree with the appending of the table of British commissioned officer ranks to each article discussing a military officer rank. This seems to be entirely unnecessary duplication that could be better served by maintaining the table in a central location (perhaps Commissioned Officers?) and inserting links in these articles. Ray Trygstad 23:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, and the same goes for U.S. military ranks. I believe the articles to refer to already exist. Geoff NoNick 19:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- In reading this article I began to wonder why the U.S. rank chart is shown. WP:POV or lack of other information? Now I'm wondering if perhaps changes were made to this and other articles that were never finished, or they were never throught through to judge the impact of the moving of material. Either way, doesn't seem right to me to show only American ranks. BigNate37 03:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I've removed the US rank chart. There is a link to "Comparative military ranks" under "See Also" that can help people looking for information about specific armed forces. As I see it, this article should provide more of a general overview about officers. Geoff NoNick 19:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Highest Royal Marine rank
I corrected the statement that the highest rank currently held by a Royal Marine officer is that of major general: there are two serving Royal Marine lieutenant generals. The professional head of the Royal Marines (the Commandant General RM) is a major general, but there is nothing stopping a Royal Marine filling a higher-ranking tri-service or MoD appointment. Franey 11:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know if a Royal Marine can fill a four-star (i.e. full general) appointment? Chief of Defence Logistics seems unobjectionable; maybe even Vice-Chief of Defence Staff, who I believe is junior to the service chiefs: but I'm pretty sure you have to be a service chief before you can be Chief of Defence Staff, and I can't see the Navy making a bootneck First Sea Lord. Franey 11:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- There have certainly been RM full generals in the past and the rank is still available to RM officers (as far as I know), but I suspect in practice it would only be used in wartime. -- Necrothesp 14:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Prussian Military Messing
While it is true that many countries copied some aspects of the Prussian Army - at it's height of influence in the C18 - this seems pushing things somewhat. All the major European armies had aristocratic officer corps -v- the ranks drawn from hoi polloi. They had had seperate facilities and messing long before the rise of prussia as is easy enough to find in accounts of the crusades or the hundred years war.Alci12 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] dEVELOPED nATIONS
I take umbrage at the inference that officers in the most developed nations are purely graduates. That is a ridiculous notion. Note that the two most capable militaries in the world- the USA and Great Britain- allow members of the ranks to succeed and gain commissions if the ability is there. Only the best are officer- if they come from the ranks, that does not make one nation less fucking developed than another. (unsigned)
I think the statement in question is this:
Most developed nations have set the goal of having their officer corps university-educated, although exceptions exist in some nations to accommodate officers who have risen from the non-commissioned ranks. Most advanced militaries, however, require university degrees as a prerequisite for commissioning, even from the enlisted ranks. The Australian Defence Force, the British Armed Forces, the Israel Defense Forces and the New Zealand Defence Force are different in not requiring a university degree for commissioning.
I know that the US Army does not require a bachelor's degree for commissioning, but I don't want to speculate about the other services. Ninety semester hours are required, however. I'm editing it to simply say "post-secondary education." --VAcharon 00:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Which US Rank Leaves The Front Line
At what rank in the US army does a officer leave the front line combat leader role into more of a managing position? Zachorious 00:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- An officer can be moved away from "front line" duties (i.e. the directing of combat personnel) to "managerial" duties (the directing of non-combat personnel) at just about any rank, and can similarly be switched back at any time. That being said, I think you'll find that it's uncommon for officers above the rank of LCOL to be involved in the direction of troops at the tactical level. After that rank, the place of an officer is usually in an HQ. Geoff NoNick 19:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] As defined against...
I am not a historian of modern military history, and so I may be mistaken on this one, but isn't there a general term for all non-officers? Would it not be helpful to mention in the introduction, by way of another method of description or definition, that anyone who is not an officer is called X? Unlike individual ranks, like Captain or whathaveyou, Officer is a very wide grouping of different positions and ranks; I should think that it would be helpful, on a very basic level, to be made aware that all soldiers are essentially divided into Officers and non-Officers. LordAmeth 06:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- You might be thinking about Other Ranks or Ratings in the Navy, at least in the British system; Officers and Other Ranks or Officers and Ratings.ALR 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There is. They are called 'enlisted men' to differentiate them from the officers. They have their own command structure and promotion tracks. This is where the 'non commissioned officers' come from (NCO's). In the American Army, a great deal of responsibility belongs to the NCO's They are known as the 'backbone' of the Army. --LucasRN 02:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History
Maybe something about the history of having Officers, the destinction between enlisted and officer, why have them at all, who has them etc. - 01:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
