The rank structure and rank insignia system accommodate both Brigadier and Brigadier-General. A service may have either. Brigadier and Brigadier-General are equivalent ranks, but whereas a brigadier is essentially a senior colonel, a brigadier-general is a junior general.

There must be no difference between the uniform of brigadiers and 'full' colonels (gorget patches, cap peak ornamentation, cap badge, sword type, shoulder cords, waist sash, and so on) with the single exception that brigadiers wear a third star. There must be no difference between the uniform of major-generals and brigadier-generals with the single exception that brigadier-generals wear the sword and baton device on its own. (The status of an equivalent rank of another service is irrelevant. For example, that the navy of the same country has a flag rank instead of Commodore is not a justification for brigadiers having general officers' insignia or other distinctive general officer items.)

The rule can be expressed by two simple equations:
Brigadier = Colonel + 1 star;
Brigadier-General = Major-General – 1 star.

Brigadier:		Brigadier-General:
	Shoulder rank insignia
COAT SHIRT	Gorget patches	COAT SHIRT
	Cap peak
	Waist sash

Some services, when introducing Brigadier-General to replace Brigadier, neglect to change the rank insignia from a crown/national emblem and three stars to a crossed sword and baton on its own. Why they don't do this is a mystery as the insignia system clearly accommodates both without requiring alteration to anything else. Giving Brigadier-General the same insignia as Major-General minus a star is such a very obvious thing to do. Other services have not replaced Brigadier but have introduced general officer uniform items for the rank anyway. So some services' brigadiers or brigadier-generals are now wearing a ludicrous and random mixture of Brigadier and general officer items. Consequently it's impossible to determine which of these two ranks such officers hold by looking at their uniforms, which to a significant extent defeats the purpose of wearing indications of rank.

How many times does this have to be said? A commodore – by definition – is a senior captain, not a junior admiral.

The rank structure and rank insignia system accommodate both Commodore and a Commodore-equivalent flag rank. A service may have either. However, there is no real tradition of a Commodore-equivalent flag rank. Such ranks are recent and unnecessary contrivances for the sole purpose of having a rank fully equal in status as well as seniority to Brigadier-General.

Some services have replaced Commodore with a second grade of Rear Admiral, which is extravagent, ridiculous and causes amibiguity. It's bad enough turning commodores into flag officers without giving them a title of a higher rank as well, and giving them the title of a rank that is higher than Brigadier-General is inconsistent with the goal of making their status equivalent to that of brigadier-generals. (No one would regard having a second grade of Major-General instead of Brigadier or Brigadier-General as a sensible idea.)

Commodore-Admiral (which was used briefly by the USN), though it may sound a little awkward (common usage would diminish the awkwardness), is the title that's most consistent with tradition whilst being that of a flag rank that isn't a higher rank. Its position in relation to other officer ranks is self-evident.

There must be no difference between the uniform of commodores and captains with the exception that commodores wear:
    - a broad stripe, with a non-flag officer-size ring against its upper edge, instead of captains' four narrower stripes; and
    - two stars on each tail-coat shoulder board instead of one (if the service has ceremonial tail-coats and determines that boards are to be worn on them).

There must be no difference between the uniform of rear admirals and commodore-admirals with the exception that the latter wear:
    - a flag officer-size ring against the upper edge of the broad stripe instead of having a second stripe; and
    - shoulder boards without a star in addition to the crown/emblem and sword and baton.

(Again, the status of an equivalent rank of another service is irrelevant. For example, that the army of the same country has a general rank instead of Brigadier is not a justification for commodores having flag officers' insignia or other distinctive flag officer items.)

Furthermore, the rank of Commodore is represented by a broad pennant whereas Commodore-Admiral, being a flag rank, must have a flag. (If the traditional format of Commonwealth naval rank flags is to be applied, Commodore-Admiral would have a flag that is defaced with three discs.)

Commodore:		Commodore-Admiral:
	Shoulder board
	Sleeve rank insignia
	Cap peak
	Rank pennant/flag shape

Amazingly, some services pretend that commodores are junior admirals instead of senior captains. Some commodores now have distinctively flag officer uniform items, rank flags and other things distinctive to flag ranks. When encountering an officer who wears flag rank insignia, you would naturally address him or her as 'Admiral', not 'Commodore'. Pretending Commodore is a flag rank doesn't make it so.

There are commodores who are wearing a ludicrous mixture of commodore and flag officer items. For example, Royal Navy commodores retain commodores' caps, but now wear rear admirals' shoulder boards. Pakistan Navy commodores retain commodores' shoulder boards, but now wear flag officers' caps. Some services (such as the navies of Pakistan and New Zealand) even go as far as having commodores dressed entirely as rear admirals (i.e. one rank below Vice-Admiral) when wearing certain orders of dress. Consequently it's impossible to determine what rank these officers hold by looking at their uniforms, which to a significant extent defeats the purpose of wearing indications of rank. That there are admirals and commodores who apparently don't know the difference between admirals and commodores is staggering. (If they want to treat their commodores as flag officers so desperately, why don't they replace the rank with an actual flag rank?)

Unlike the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal New Zealand Navy (among others), the Royal Australian Navy still recognises that Commodore is not a flag rank. However, there is one very conspicuous error. Like the RCN and RNZN, the RAN has extended the wearing of gold-covered shoulder boards on all garments requiring boards from just flag ranks down to Commodore, but no further. (If not worn by all commissioned officers, the gold-covered versions should be limited to flag officers.) As contrived, vain, anomalous, untidy, clumsy, pointless, potentially misleading and silly as this is, the stupidest aspect of this change is that the new commodores' boards are actually the tail-coat boards of mere captains.

The reason why Australian commodores have captains' boards is the same as the reason why other countries' commodores have rear admirals' (one rank below Vice-Admiral) boards: it is believed, wrongly, that 'one-star officers' should have one star regardless of what else rank insignia include. Terms such as 'one-star officer' refer to the number of stars worn by officers of services that have a different and incompatible system of representing rank. Our commodores are not literally 'one-star' officers. Our literal 'one-star' officers are second lieutenants.

The confusion over flag officers' stars (see page 1) is bad enough, so why extend the problem to Commodore? Changing commodores' rank insignia is especially stupid as there is no reason (sensible or otherwise) for doing so because the broad stripe is a universally recognised symbol for ranks at this level regardless of whether they're flag ranks.

Air Commodore is more complicated because, though it is not a marshal rank, it is an 'air' rank. In some contexts it is grouped, as a non-marshal rank, with Group Captain. In other contexts it is grouped, as an air rank, with Air Vice-Marshal and above. For example, air commodores share certain items of uniform/insignia with other air ranks but are not entitled to those that are distinctive to marshal ranks. With Commodore and Brigadier in sister services it would be sensible to put more emphasis on the marshal rank/non-marshal rank distinction (rather than the air rank/non-air rank distinction). However, owing to Air Commodore's hybrid nature, it is acceptable for it to retain its air-rank accoutrements.

Brigadier, Commodore and Air Commodore are more sensible ranks than equivalent general, admiral and marshal ranks for a number of reasons. There is no adequate reason for replacing Brigadier, Commodore and Air Commodore with general/flag/marshal ranks. Aggrandisement seems to be the only basis for such alteration. It entails no difference in pay, seniority or responsibility.

There is no real tradition of a Commodore-equivalent flag rank, nor was there ever an Air Commodore-equivalent marshal rank before Air Commodore. Brigadier-General does have a history, but so does Brigadier (on its own and as part of the title brigadier-general). So it seems the whole notion of having a general, flag and/or marshal rank at this level hinges on Brigadier-General being an orthodox – but not better – alternative to Brigadier.

There is no obstacle to military services of a single nation having equivalent ranks at this level that don't have equivalent status, e.g. Brigadier-General with Commodore. Unfortunately, services of nations that have such a combination tend to commit errors in the way ranks are represented or treated on the irrelevant pretext that their equivalents in the other services are general or flag officers.

'International conformity' is a laughable pretext for replacing Brigadier, Commodore or Air Commodore with a general/flag/marshal rank. The position of brigadiers, commodores and air commodores in the hierarchy is not only perfectly clear, but arguably clearer than the position of their general/flag/marshal equivalents. (For example, an officer of the rank of brigadier is identified as a 'brigadier' whereas a brigadier-general is normally identified simply as a 'general', like officers of other general ranks.)

Inter-service protocol cannot be a factor because whether an officer is treated in a manner befitting a general officer/flag officer/marshal or non-general officer/flag officer/marshal is based on the status of the equivalent rank of the host nation or service. For example, brigadiers are treated as having either the same status as or greater status than they have in their own services. Brigadier-generals are treated as having either the same status as or lesser status than they have in their own services.

There is greater functional similarity between the sixth officer rank and the seventh than there is between the seventh and the eighth. For example, both Colonel and Brigadier are above battalion-level and below division-level. Two ranks for one level of command. Captains and commodores command similar groupings of ships (very few modern warships require captains of the rank of Captain).

There has been much criticism (and rightly so) of the recent substantial increase in the number of senior officers of many services. This problem can be countered by making all appointments to the seventh-level ranks temporary (for which there is considerable precedent). Brigadier, Commodore and Air Commodore are much more suitable for this purpose as promotion to these ranks – and subsequent reversion to Colonel, Captain and Group Captain – requires less change in uniform and status. This being the case, it would be desirable that other services had non-general/flag/marshal ranks at this level for the sake of conformity with the more versatile arrangement.

It is even feasible in many cases to omit all ranks at this level, as is the case in some countries. (It may result in a small increase in the number of eighth rank officers, but this would be off-set by a much larger increase in the number of sixth rank officers.)

The scales are weighted in favour of Commodore, Brigadier and Air Commodore. That this is so makes brigadier-generals, and equivalent admirals and marshals, seem somewhat pretentious, as if they are not quite 'real' generals, admirals or marshals.

HOME