HOME
PREVIOUS PAGE | INTRO | NEXT PAGE



MISTAKES IN THE APPLICATION OF
BRITISH-STYLE ARMED FORCES RANK INSIGNIA



OTHER RANKS



RANKS

Navies and air forces have less need of the maximum number of warrant officer (WO) and non-commissioned officer (NCO) ranks than armies and marine corps. It's not necessary for every rank to have an equivalent in other services. Consequently ranks may be omitted at various levels in the rank structure.

Warrant officer and senior non-commissioned officer (SNCO) ranks:

ARMY / MARINES AIR FORCE NAVY
Warrant Officer Class I Warrant Officer Class I
or (if there is no WO2) Warrant Officer
Warrant Officer Class I
or (if there is no WO2) Warrant Officer
Warrant Officer Class II Warrant Officer Class II
or no rank
Warrant Officer Class II
or no rank
Staff Sergeant / Colour Sergeant Flight Sergeant Chief Petty Officer
Sergeant Sergeant Petty Officer


The more traditional arrangement for junior non-commissioned officer (JNCO) ranks and lower levels:

ARMY / MARINES AIR FORCE NAVY
Corporal / Bombardier Corporal Leading Rate or Leading Seaman
Lance Corporal / Lance Bombardier no rank no rank
Private / Marine (highest grade thereof) Leading Aircraftman Able Rate or Able Seaman
Private / Marine Aircraftman Ordinary Rate or Ordinary Seaman


JNCO ranks and below if full inter-service parity is desired:

ARMY / MARINES AIR FORCE NAVY
Corporal / Bombardier Corporal Leading Seaman
Lance Corporal / Lance Bombardier Lance Corporal Lance Cpl-equivalent naval rank (see notes)
Private / Marine Aircraftman Seaman


• Ranks are stated in English; they are to be construed as referring to relevant non-English counterparts as well (e.g. references to Corporal apply to Naik).

• Titles for the trainee grade immediately below Ordinary Rate and equivalents have been omitted from these charts and are beyond the scope of this article.

• Either Colour Sergeant (normally for infantry and marines where used) and Staff Sergeant co-exist or a service has only one of them (normally Staff Sergeant in this case, though Colour Sergeant may be used as well, but as an appointment/duty title).

• Bombardier and Lance Bombardier are Artillery equivalents of Corporal and Lance Corporal respectively (Corporal and Lance Corporal may be used instead).

• Corps/regiment-specific titles for privates (Gunner, Trooper, Sapper, etc.) have been omitted from these charts only for presentation purposes.

• Private could be used instead of Marine (as it has been in the past) or in addition (Marine being used in the way that different army corps have different titles for privates).

• Leading Rate, Able Rate and Ordinary Rate are generic terms. Individual sailors' titles include the occupational specialty designation (e.g. Leading Machinery Technician). Alternatively, 'Seaman' can be used across the entire service (occupational designations being used in addition when relevant).

• If a naval equivalent of Lance Corporal is desired, upgrading Able Rate/Able Seaman (as several services have) is probably the best (though not entirely satisfactory) course of action. It's a minimal change that results in some AB retaining their title and level of responsibility (and it doesn't involve any change to a higher rank). A better alternative would be Senior Able Rate/Senior Able Seaman, but this would require maintaining Able Rate/Able Seaman rather than having a generic title for levels below the lowest NCO level.


RANK INSIGNIA

Warrant Officer Class I / Warrant Officer.
    Coat of arms suitable for representing the royal/presidential warrant.
Warrant Officer Class II.
    Either:
        - large crown or national emblem, or;
        - large crown or national emblem within a wreath.


Staff Sgt / Colour Sgt / Flight Sgt.
    Three downward-pointing chevrons below a small crown or national emblem.
Chief Petty Officer.
    Forearm: three gold buttons disposed horizontally on the outside of the sleeve.
    Otherwise: vertical foul anchor within a wreath below a crown or national emblem.
Sergeant.
    Three downward-pointing chevrons.
Petty Officer.
    Two crossed foul anchors below a crown or national emblem.
Corporal / Bombardier.
    Two downward-pointing chevrons.
Leading Rate / Leading Seaman.
    Vertical foul anchor.
Lance Corporal / Lance Bombardier.
    Downward-pointing chevron.
Lance Cpl-equivalent naval rank.
    Two vertical lengths of rope loosely entwined in the manner of a square knot.
Leading Aircraftman.
    Horizontal two-blade propeller.
Able Rate / Able Seaman (equivalent of Leading Aircraftman).
    Vertical length of rope loosely entwined in the manner of an figure-eight knot.


• The crown (or comparable royal headdress) is that of the relevant monarch. For countries without a crowned head of state, a national emblem is used instead of a crown. (See page 1 for more on the subject of national emblems.)

• Either or both (for different types of appointments held by members of the same rank) Warrant Officer Class II (WO2) designs can be used. An advantage in using only the version with the wreath is that it is clearly distinguishable from the badge of the rank of Major when officer and warrant officer insignia are worn in the same way (e.g. on the front of utility clothing). Where the other design is used in such circumstances, it can be distinguished by the inclusion of a border around the crown/national emblem.

• Chief Petty Officer (CPO) may be represented by buttons on the forearm part of both sleeves of certain garments or by the CPO badge on the upper left sleeve of those garments. (The badge design is the shoulder slide design in any case.)

• Anchors are of the 'Admiralty' type, depicted (unrealistically) with the ends of the stocks over the flukes.

• At present there is unwarranted variation in badges representing the naval equivalents of Lance Corporal and Leading Aircraftman. The designs described above are the best of those used currently. Having two lengths of rope for the Lance Corporal equivalent and one for the Leading Aircraftman equivalent in a design that is otherwise the same is an excellent way of indicating that they are both Able Rate/Able Seaman whilst also indicating the different rank levels.

• The absence of Lance Corporal or an equivalent rank is a compulsion to distinguish leading aircraftmen and able rates from (less experienced) aircraftmen and ordinary rates. Hence the acceptability of badges for Leading Aircraftman and Able Rate/Able Seaman (but not the equivalent grade of Private or Marine).

• Chevrons may be used to represent a number of years' service/good conduct and Drum-, Pipe- or Bugle-Major appointments. They are not be confused with rank chevrons.




RANK INFLATION

Ranks being in the right order with the right insignia no longer guarantees an absence of misrepresentation, due to the increasing problem of chronic 'over-ranking'.

The purpose of NCOs is to provide supervision and leadership, so the lowest (genuine) leadership positions are to be filled by the lowest-ranking NCOs. For example, the typical and ideal rank of a rifle section (comprising 8-12 men) commander is Corporal and the typical and ideal rank of the deputy commander (who is also a fire team commander) is Lance Corporal. This is the lowest leadership position; the other members of a section are privates.

Some services have effectively downgraded NCO ranks by commonly appointing NCOs to positions that are significantly less than commensurate with the ranks they hold. For example, a sergeant of one service ends up being equivalent to a corporal of another (but may still have the traditional status and privileges of a sergeant). Apart from being misleading and causing unnecessary expense, awkwardness and complication, the practice makes ranks less meaningful than they ought to be, which is ultimately detrimental to morale, and the resulting impression of unwarranted aggrandisement damages the dignity and credibility of the service.

(It is not inordinately difficult to avoid rank inflation. The most drastic method of avoiding it is simply to divide Ordinary Rate/Seaman and its equivalents into several grades without increasing the number of ranks.)


ADDITIONAL RANKS

It would be feasible to make do with no more than five rank levels from Lance Corporal to Warrant Officer Class I. There is certainly no need for more than six. (Note that the number of salary levels or other classifications may be much greater than the number of rank levels. It is neither necessary nor desirable for them to be the same.)

However, some services have created superfluous additional ranks. There are two kinds of superfluous rank. It could be an extra 'rung on the ladder' or it could be one of two (or more) ranks at what is basically the same rank level (some people hold one rank and other people hold the other). An example of the latter kind is the RAF's Chief Technician, which co-exists with Flight Sergeant at Staff Sergeant/Chief Petty Officer level.

The latter type is merely unnecessary and potentially confusing whereas the first kind can be problematic in more – and more significant – ways. Generally, adding a rank is either a misconceived response to over-ranking that exacerbates the problem or causes it in the first place. Even if it didn't, it would still gratuitously complicate and obfuscate the matter of equivalence with military ranks of allies. It also causes unnecessary complication and waste in terms of managing people's career progression (such as the bureaucratic cost of carrying out unnecessary promotions).


'JUNIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER' RANKS

India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have junior commissioned officer (JCO) ranks, which constitute a series of ranks that is between and distinct from normal officer and non-officer ranks. The concept is widely and rightly regarded as unnecessary and anachronistic. The introduction of a proper arrangement of WO and SNCO ranks, and the phasing out JCO ranks, would not be inordinately difficult.

The JCO ranks of most parts of the armies of India and Pakistan are (in ascending order) Naib Subedar, Subedar, and Subedar-Major. The Armoured Corps titles are Naib Risaldar, Risaldar and Risaldar-Major. The air forces of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the Bangladesh Army, confuse the matter by calling their equivalents warrant officer ranks. The navies of these countries make even more of a mess by calling their equivalents chief petty officer ranks. (Logically, subedar/risaldar ranks should be higher than WO ranks and WO ranks should be higher than CPO ranks.)

Unhelpfully, rank insignia of subedar/risaldar ranks are the same as for Second Lieutenant, Lieutenant and Major but for the addition of a coloured band below these devices, which is counter-intuitive. Distinguishing one rank from another by adding something to the same design normally indicates a higher (or at least the same), not lower, rank.

Rank insignia of equivalents in the other services are even less clear about what they represent. The specific titles and insignia of warrant officer and chief petty officer equivalents of subedar ranks are dealt with below in conjunction with those of other countries.


WARRANT OFFICER RANK TITLES

Warrant Officer Class I and Warrant Officer Class II: obvious, simple and self-explanatory. Yet there is considerable inconsistency, ostentation and lack of clarity in the naming of warrant officer ranks.

In some services the highest is Chief Warrant Officer, Master Warrant Officer or (in the Nigerian Air Force) Air Warrant Officer. In some services the second-highest is Master Warrant Officer, Senior Warrant Officer or Warrant Officer. Some have a third warrant officer rank, such as Warrant Officer, Junior Warrant Officer or Assistant Warrant Officer. (Note the contradictions between different services.) Canada has the particularly grandiose arrangement of Chief Warrant Officer, Master Warrant Officer (which, despite the ostentatious title, is just WO2-level) and Warrant Officer.

Calling the second- or third-highest WO rank 'Warrant Officer' is particularly problematic, as that is (as it must be) the name of the WO1-equivalent in services that have only one WO rank. This is especially egregious in Canada, where 'Warrant Officer' supplants Staff Sergeant and Flight Sergeant, and (owing to chronic over-ranking) functionally supplants Sergeant as well.

Adding something like 'Senior' or 'Chief' and removing 'Class I' is problematic on several grounds. For example, it could be construed as ranking above WO1, it doesn't accommodate the optional omission of a WO2-level rank (e.g. if Senior WO were the standard title, a number of services would have senior warrant officers without warrant officers for them to be senior to), and it pointlessly defies tradition and international conformity. Adding something like 'Junior' or 'Assistant' and removing 'Class II' is similarly problematic. For example, it could be construed as ranking below WO2 and, again, it pointlessly defies tradition and international conformity.

Some services retain conventional WO1 and WO2 rank insignia despite unorthodox titles, which (though it ensures that the rank levels are indicated clearly) doesn't counter the inclination to address or refer to the wearers by the conventional titles.


WARRANT OFFICER APPOINTMENT INSIGNIA

It is unusual for insignia of rank to be combined with insignia of appointment. There is no requirement for different people of the same rank to have different badges of rank or distinctive appointment insignia. The traditional exception is that certain warrant officer positions were/are distinguished by an addition to the rank badge, normally a wreath surrounding the crown/national emblem or coat of arms.

Some services have introduced series of rank badges that also represent appointments held by those who hold the highest non-officer rank. Several of these series are gratuitously extensive and complicated, and lack logic, neatness, uniformity and – above all – clarity. South Africa goes as far as having six different badges for WO1s, five with officers' stars above the coat of arms and two with (even more bizarrely) general officers' swords as well. (Why not just something like a row of, say, dots, underneath the coat of arms with each dot representing a level above battalion-level?)

Some services have a wreath around the coat of arms for all members who hold the highest warrant officer rank. The wreath does not misrepresent the rank, but for this rank the wreath (if used at all) is usually, traditionally and best reserved for appointments of a special nature.


CROWN / NATIONAL EMBLEM SUBSTITUTE

Some services use something other than a crown/national emblem for WO2, Staff Sergeant, Chief Petty Officer and Petty Officer badges. As well as simply creating unnecessary (and often untidy) deviation from the format, it creates ambiguity. Such insignia may be susceptible to being construed as representing higher or lower ranks than intended.

Instead of a national emblem, some services use the same coat of arms for the second-highest warrant officer rank as for the highest. All of Botswana's WO1s have a wreath on their badge (as opposed to just WO1s holding certain appointments) and WO2s have the same badge but without the wreath. In the South African armed forces, the only difference between the badges of WO1 and WO2 is the shape of a line around the coat of arms, effectively rendering the coat of arms irrelevant (it's the lines that distinguish these ranks, not the designs within them). For a rank lower than WO1 it's sensible to avoid any design that features a shield, as it would be susceptible to being interpreted, entirely reasonably, as WO1 insignia.


WARRANT OFFICER RANK INSIGNIA: THE WEIRD & WACKY

Some services use a national emblem or something more elaborate that includes a national emblem (with or without a wreath around it) instead of a coat of arms for the highest warrant officer rank. A national emblem is a WO2 design, not a WO1 design, and demands that interpretation. A more elaborate design that includes a national emblem but isn't a coat of arms may be susceptible to being interpreted as a WO2 design also.

If there isn't already a coat of arms that is suitable for representing WO1, a national emblem (or elements of the national flag) could be displayed on a shield for this purpose. If a rank badge design features a shield it can be construed as a coat of arms and therefore as the badge of the rank of Warrant Officer Class I.


National emblem
(fictitious example)
National emblem adapted to
create coat of arms for WO1


Some services' insignia for warrant officer ranks are eccentric, extravagent and give no clue that they have anything to do with these ranks.

WO1s of the Royal Malaysian Navy have a zigzag (like an angular version of the McDonald's logo) and WO2s have two narrower zigzags. (There's no rank with a single narrow zigzag.) The rank badge of WO2s of the Royal Malaysian Air Force comprises a bird superimposed on a wreath (which looks like part of a cap badge). Yet WO2s of Malaysia's army have the right design.

The highest Sri Lanka Air Force warrant officer rank is represented by an elaborate national emblem above a simple national emblem within a wreath (that looks like unkempt shrubbery) above a red stripe. The other warrant officer rank has the same but without the stripe.

Canada has the right badge for the second-highest WO rank (crown in wreath), but uses the other WO2 design (crown without wreath) for the third-highest WO rank (which supplants Staff Sergeant/Flight Sergeant and shouldn't exist).

The Bangladesh Army's (and Ministry of Defence Constabulary's) JCO ranks are represented in the manner of subedar ranks despite having warrant officer titles. Pakistan Air Force JCO rank insignia also resemble those of subedar ranks despite WO titles, but with the addition of a bird in the designs.

Indian Air Force WO/JCO rank insignia comprise a black disc depicting a national emblem above a bird, with officers' rank braid for the higher two (of three) of these ranks. The inclusion of an officer's stripe implies an officer rank and the inclusion of something in addition to it implies a higher officer rank than the one with the stripe on its own.

Bangladesh Air Force WO/JCO rank insignia are very grandiose. Each design comprises one, two or three red and blue stripes underneath a badge depicting a wreath surrounding a national emblem above a bird and (below the wreath) a ribbon displaying four stars.


CHIEF PETTY OFFICER RANKS EQUIVALENT TO WARRANT OFFICER RANKS

Several naval services have additional chief petty officer ranks at warrant officer levels, which is inconsistent with the tradition of having no more than two SNCO ranks, creates disparity in relation to warrant officers of other services and has led to a number of other problems. (CPO ranks at these levels are suitable if their equivalents are sergeant, rather than warrant officer, ranks.)

Given that most Commonwealth military services have warrant officer ranks, the existence of chief petty officer ranks at these levels is deceptive. There have been instances where warrant officer-equivalent chief petty officers have been assumed to be junior to warrant officers (even by lower-ranking warrant officers) because of the chief petty officer title.

The denial of warrant officer titles, and the various attributes that go with those ranks, to sailors has been a significant cause for complaint.

There is a lack of consistency in the way that warrant officer-equivalent chief petty officers are treated. As warrant officer equivalents they get some of the attributes of warrant officers, but in other ways they are treated as NCOs. Different services have different combinations of WO and NCO attributes for such ranks. For those countries that have subedar ranks there are three different sets of attributes at these levels.

The rank class mismatch caused by having one CPO rank at Staff Sergeant-level and others at warrant officer levels complicates the matter.

There is inconsistency in both the number of chief petty officer ranks and their names. Titles for the highest include Chief Petty Officer First Class, Master Chief Petty Officer and (deep breath) Master Chief Petty Officer Class I. Titles for the second-highest include Chief Petty Officer Second Class, Fleet Chief Petty Officer and Master Chief Petty Officer Class II. The term 'Master Chief' (which was appropriated from the US Navy, in which it is limited to the highest non-officer level) sticks out like a sore thumb in Commonwealth navies. Lengthening it by adding 'Class I'/'Class II' makes it more egregious. 'Fleet Chief' is especially misleading in that it sounds a lot less like a rank of the second-highest non-officer level than an appointment title for someone of the highest non-officer rank (i.e. the pre-eminent non-officer in a fleet, as in the USN).

The RCN has two warrant officer-level chief petty officer ranks (CPO First Class and CPO Second Class) and no other CPO rank. This suggests either that all Canadian CPOs are filling warrant officers' positions, in which case they deserve to be called warrant officers (they don't even get grand NCO titles like 'Master CPO'), or that they are filling CPOs' positions, in which case they shouldn't be so senior.

Rank insignia of these 'super-chiefs' are a huge mess also. Sri Lanka's have a partial CPO badge with gold stripes more befitting an air force officer's mess jacket. Likewise, India's and Bangladesh's (JCO ranks in both cases) have a vaguely CPO-like badge with one or two gold stripes underneath. Pakistan's JCO rank insignia are very similar to those of subedar ranks despite chief petty officer titles.

Canada and some other countries use warrant officer rank insignia for these ranks despite CPO titles. Having seen the rank insignia, you would logically conclude that the wearer was a warrant officer and address him or her accordingly. However, despite their choice of insignia, these services would regard doing so as wrong.

There is no obstacle to having warrant officer ranks in naval services. Having WO ranks in all services ensures inter-service parity in every respect without complication; the problems of defining and recognising the differences are avoided completely.


CHIEF PETTY OFFICER BERET BADGE

Some naval services use the CPO beret badge design on shoulder slides.

Firstly, the design itself is gratuitously ambiguous in a number of cases, the wreath being more elaborate than that of the CPO cap badge. It is almost identical to the WO cap badge design of several Commonwealth navies. Ideally beret badge designs (and the like) should be as similar to dress cap badges as the difference in size and materials allow. Secondly, no other shoulder slide (officer or OR) design is derived from that of a headdress badge.

The correct design for CPO slides (and sleeve badges) is the descendant of the sleeve badge chiefs had when they still wore the square rig jumper, which is the basis of the modern CPO shirt collar badge design. The anchor is a smaller version of the Leading Rate sleeve badge anchor, there is no circlet in the wreath and the wreath is different from that of headdress badges.


MALAYSIA: CHIEF PETTY OFFICER BADGE

The RMN's Chief Petty Officer sleeve badge has crossed anchors instead of a single anchor within the wreath, which misleadingly implies a non-existent NCO rank immediately above CPO.


SERGEANT INSIGNIA

The insignia of a Canadian sergeant includes a maple leaf above the chevrons. This would be the appropriate design for Staff Sergeant in the event that the Canadian monarchy is abolished, but it's Staff Sergeant, not the monarchy, that's been abolished. That Canadian sergeants are over-ranked makes the presence of the national emblem all the more excessive and misleading.

The insignia of a Bangladesh Army sergeant includes an arc attached to the upper chevron. This design is applicable, not to Sergeant, but an NCO rank immediately above Sergeant (as in the US Army and US Marine Corps, for example).


CANADA: PETTY OFFICER & SEAMAN RANKS

Canada has Petty Officer Second Class, which was abolished in other Empire/Commonwealth navies a great many years ago owing to its conspicuous superfluity, which seems to be held by people filling positions befitting the rank of Leading Seaman. Not only is Leading Seaman displaced by PO Second Class, it's also displaced by the uniquely Canadian rank of 'Master Seaman'. Making the arrangement even more clumsy is that PO First Class (despite not being a WO, or even CPO, rank) is equivalent to a WO rank (the one that replaced Staff Sergeant) while PO Second Class is equivalent to Sergeant. PO First Class even has the rank badge of WO2. The insignia of lower Canadian naval ranks misrepresent them as sergeant and corporal ranks.


CANADA: 'MASTER CORPORAL'

Canada has the unique arrangement of Master Corporal instead of Corporal, and Corporal instead of Lance Corporal. Naming the lower rank Corporal invites the assumption that it is the higher rank and, despite being in the wrong place, it has Corporal's insignia, which reinforces this assumption. (In fact, owing to chronic over-ranking, Canadian corporals are not even Lance Corporal-equivalents; they're effectively privates.)

This arrangement gives the impression that it's a concession on the part of Anglophonic Canadians to Francophonic Canadians, Caporal-chef being senior to Caporal in the French tradition. You might make the obvious arguments against this concession: that Anglophonic Canadians outnumber Francophonic Canadians and English is more widely understood amongst Canada's allies than French (therefore the French-language versions should be compatible with the English-language versions, not vice-versa, e.g. Caporal and Sous-caporal).

If such a concession is warranted, the best way of doing it would be an equal compromise, such as Chief Corporal/Caporal-chef (two chevrons) and Lance Corporal/Sous-caporal (one chevron). This way, it's entirely clear in both languages which is the higher rank and which is the lower rank. Though otherwise redundant, the addition of 'chief' and 'sous' would not be much of an inconvenience (people of both corporal ranks would normally be addressed as 'Corporal'). In any case, 'chief' is more consistent than 'master' with both the French (e.g. Caporal-chef) and English (e.g. Chief Petty Officer) traditions regarding NCO rank titles.


BELOW LANCE CORPORAL LEVEL

Despite the fact that chevrons are traditionally and conspicuously synonymous with sergeant and corporal/bombardier ranks, several services have adopted this device for members below Lance Corporal-level.

Having abolished Lance Corporal, the Canadians misrepresent both the highest grade of Private and its naval equivalent as Lance Corporal.

The Royal Australian Air Force replaced the proper badge of Leading Aircraftman (two-blade propeller) with Lance Corporal's chevron not only despite the fact that the rank is neither Lance Corporal nor equivalent to Lance Corporal (obviously why Leading Aircraftman didn't have the chevron in the first place), but also despite the fact that the Australian Army has always used the design for the right rank (it's not hard to imagine soldiers being particularly contemptuous of this change). It seems as though the RAAF was more concerned about merely eliminating a 'gap' in a rank insignia chart than continuing to represent Leading Aircraftman as clearly, correctly and unpretentiously as it is in other air forces.


AUSTRALIA: STAFF SERGEANT, FLIGHT SERGEANT & CHIEF PETTY OFFICER

The RAN and RAAF have created a messy complication in upgrading Flight Sergeant and Chief Petty Officer from Staff Sergeant level to Warrant Officer Class II level. Flight sergeants and chiefs now have the same pay and seniority as WO2s (despite less experience and authority), but in certain other ways (such as for the purposes of the Defence Force Discipline Act) they are not regarded as WO2-equivalents. In fact, a number of positions now filled by flight sergeants and chiefs might be regarded as properly lower than Staff Sergeant level. (No change was made to their uniforms as a consequence of their upgrading. Flight Sergeant retains the same rank insignia as Staff Sergeant despite no longer being equivalent.)

Owing to change in the number of officers, warrant officers, senior NCOs, junior NCOs, and privates and equivalents in proportion to each other, retaining Staff Sergeant-level ranks is decreasingly worthwhile. Ideally the senior non-officer at platoon level is a sergeant and the senior non-officer at the level immediately above is a WO2. This means that staff sergeants and sergeants fill positions at what is basically the same level. So sergeants (possibly WO2s in very few cases) can fill staff sergeants' positions without lower or WO ranks being affected. The Australian Army is (at the time of writing) taking such an approach and phasing out Staff Sergeant.

A logical response from the RAN and RAAF – especially given their evident desire to have WO2 equivalents – would be:
    - return Flight Sergeant and CPO to their proper positions and phase them out;
    - introduce Warrant Officer Class II and rename Warrant Officer Warrant Officer Class I; and
    - in future fill Flight Sergeant/CPO positions with (mostly) sergeants/petty officers and (for the more significant positions) WO2s.
(The uniform of a navy or air force WO2 would be the same as for the present rank of WO of the relevant service but for a WO2 badge instead of the coat of arms.)

Introducing a Lance Corporal-level rank may also be expedient.

Though the RAN would probably be firm in its reluctance to abolish CPO, it couldn't retain it properly without moving it back down to where it belongs, in which case it would no longer have equivalents, and abolishing it would have several advantages. As well as providing correct, clear and practical parity between the non-officer ranks of the three services, such an arrangement is more efficient and would counter the increasing tendency towards over-ranking (e.g., if there are no CPOs, they can't be appointed to POs' positions).

(Note: My personal preference would be to return to the pre-World War I arrangement of:
    - just one army WO rank; and
    - staff/colour sergeants – and chief petty officers and flight sergeants – filling what later became WO2 level positions.
However, unless this arrangement were adopted by many services throughout the world it would be troublesome because of the potential for confusion between this arrangement and modern ones.)





PREVIOUS PAGE | INTRO | NEXT PAGE





HOME

Copyright © 1999 – 2020