PRELIMINARIES
INTRODUCTIONThe following question was put to me: if an international standardised approach to military rank insignia were to be devised, how should it be done? An interesting idea. This article is merely one answer to that question. It's not something actually being pushed for (though that isn't to say the idea doesn't have some merit). So don't take it too seriously.In recent times there has been an increase in the frequency and extent of instances of co-operation between military forces of increasingly large numbers of countries. So the ability of military personnel (and others) to easily identify the seniority of their allies' ranks has become a more prominent issue. However, there has also been an increase in the variety and meanings of military rank insignia designs.
Different services may use very different components in their rank insignia, but those components may be used according to the same formula. Hence the rank insignia system is the same in these cases however varied the designs and styles. Conversely, different services may use identical components according to completely different formulae, so though they may appear to be similar, the systems are different. Even where two services use the same components according to the same system, those components may nevertheless represent ranks that are not equivalent. As a result there is plenty of potential for misidentification of people's grades.
Standardisation doesn't mean that different services would all have the same rank insignia or even use the same systems. There can be a number of standard systems and having standard systems does not necessarily involve having shared designs for individual elements of rank insignia. Different components, styles, methods of wear, etc. could remain.
The ideal outcome would be that a person could in nearly all cases recognise the correlation between any rank insignia arrangement and any grade of a service without knowing anything more than which rank insignia system(s) that service uses, rather than having to memorise each rank's insignia design. In other cases it's also necessary to know a small number of specific designs from which the rest can be accurately deduced.
DEFINITIONS AS APPLIED IN THIS ARTICLE
"Rank" encompasses the definitions of equivalent terms, e.g., "rate" in the context of the US Navy.In cases where it is necessary to refer to any number of equivalent ranks, the term "grade" is used. Commodore, Brigadier, Air Commodore, Flotilla Admiral and Brigadier-General are different ranks that are equivalent, so they would be referred to as being of the same grade. In many contexts the distinction is unnecessary and "rank" is used to refer to any of a number of equivalent ranks.
"Monarchy" refers to a nation that has a reigning monarch; "republic" refers to a nation that does not have a reigning monarch.
The definition of "stripes" can be taken to encompass "bands", "bars", "rows of braid", etc.
THINGS TO AVOID
There are certain aspects of rank insignia currently used in certain military services that should be avoided owing to their susceptibility to result in misinterpretation and the excessive effort required to avoid misidentifying what the designs represent.Such problematic aspects include:
1. Relying on subtle variation in size to distinguish different grades. For example, a 20 mm-diameter star on its own representing a different grade from that represented by a 16 mm-diameter (but otherwise identical star) on its own.2. Relying on variation in position to distinguish different grades. For example, a star above a stripe representing a different grade from that represented by the same star below the same stripe.
3. Relying on variation in orientation to distinguish different grades. For example, two upward-pointing chevrons representing a different grade from that represented by two downward-pointing chevrons.
4. Superfluous devices. If a component of rank insignia can be removed without hindering the ability to distinguish ranks from each other, it's often the case that that element shouldn't exist. For example, the Dutch equivalent of Rear Admiral has Rear Admiral's stripes below two stars, which implies that the rank is two ranks higher than it actually is (Rear Admiral's stripes + two stars = full Admiral). The stars can be removed, leaving the stripes to represent the rank with perfect accuracy. In some cases it seems abundantly obvious and unambiguous which rank a particular design represents when in fact the intention is to represent a lower rank.
5. Relying on variation in colour to distinguish different grades. This is an especially problematic element. Different colours are used to represent any of a variety of things, or just vary according to the type of uniform. When different coloured but otherwise identical devices are used to represent different grades, it's not self-evident that this is the case, it's not necessarily clear which colour "outranks" which, and it's not necessarily clear whether all insignia of one colour outrank all insignia of another. For example, does a gold chevron outrank a red chevron and two red chevrons outrank a single gold one, or do all the gold designs outrank all the red designs? The following exceptions should be made on the basis that they are well-known, too immutably traditional to reasonably advocate abolition, in the French system's case reasonably widespread, and the number of these exceptions is small: French-style officer insignia (specifically Colonel and Lieutenant-Colonel, and their equivalents) and US officer insignia (specifically Lieutenant-Colonel and Major, and First Lieutenant and Second Lieutenant, and their equivalents).
6. Components of a misleading type. Certain kinds of devices have strong connotations with certain kinds of ranks. For example, chevrons have an especially strong connotation with enlisted ranks, so they should not be used for officer ranks. Horizontal stripes with a curl have a strong connotation with officer ranks, so they should not be used for enlisted ranks.
7. Relying on a curl in a stripe, chevron, etc. or comparable kind of "flourish" or variation to distinguish different grades. It's never self-evident whether such variations have an effect on representation of grade, and in almost all cases they don't.
8. Identical designs representing different ranks in the armed forces of the same nation. In most cases where this happens the different ranks are equivalent and recognising the part of the armed forces to which a person belongs allows one to determine which of the equivalent ranks the person holds. However, there may be instances where the correct rank is not obvious and generally in such cases it's better if different but equivalent ranks have either different but equivalent rank insignia or the same rank insignia with something in addition that indicates which is the relevant rank. For example, two stars with an anchor may be Rear Admiral and two stars with an eagle may be the air force equivalent.
9. Unwarranted inconsistency in the way grade is represented on different garments. It is a widespread and immutable tradition that admiral ranks' shoulder-boards normally display rank insignia of a completely different style than those worn on sleeves. In some navies this traditionally applies to all officer ranks. In many other cases, however, inconsistency is just an inconvenience.
10. Relying on too-subtle differences to distinguish different ranks, or using devices that are too inconspicuous. For example, using a small seven-pointed star for one rank and an eight-pointed but otherwise identical star for another rank. You don't want to have to stand toe-to-toe with someone and peer through a magnifying glass before you discover whether you're required to salute that person.
11. Using a design that is used elsewhere far more commonly for a rank that isn't equivalent. For example, Luxembourg's army has British Army-style officer rank insignia, which are used in many countries. However, each rank above Captain has an additional star. A major has the insignia of a lieutenant-colonel, a lieutenant-colonel has the insignia of a full colonel, and so on (which is also an example of "superfluous devices").
12. Insignia or other uniform items that are supposed to be distinctive to certain ranks being given to one or more others. An obvious example is the silly confusion between Brigadier and Brigadier-General that has occurred in some armies, which has resulted in the former having certain distinctions of the latter or vice versa, thus making it unclear whether such an officer ought to be addressed as "Brigadier" or "General".
13. Illogical sequence. For example, stars with no bar outranking identical stars with a bar.
METHOD
The first step was to establish which are the dominant systems of representing ranks of military services, modify elements that impede clarity (if any), and define them efficiently without imposing unwarranted limitations. It has been regarded as essential that a service could adhere to a standard system without having to go unduly far beyond its own rank insignia tradition, so a number of alternative systems are provided. Military services would choose, if they wanted to, whichever of those systems suited them best.Standard systems should be those that make the correlation between rank insignia and seniority easy to learn and make it easy to deduce the position of a rank from knowledge of insignia of more senior or junior ranks. They should not be unduly prone to misinterpretation or require unnecessary effort to avoid misidentifying ranks.
Insignia systems have been chosen and designed so that the same insignia design of different systems represents the same grade wherever feasible. One regular-size chevron represents the same grade whatever the system, one narrow stripe represents the same grade whatever the system, etc. Where commonality is not feasible, it is often the case that misidentifying a grade is highly unlikely, e.g. no one is going to assume that a twenty-year-old second lieutenant who wears a star is a general officer.
IMAGES
For simplicity and clarity most images are in the form of simplified black or black and grey illustrations, colour not having any effect on the representation of rank. Where colour is significant in distinguishing ranks, the required colours are specified and shown.Illustrations are examples only. There may be a great many more valid interpretations of the specifications. And they are not necessarily intended to represent insignia arrangements as they exist – or existed – in particular military services.
MISCELLANEOUS
Difference in the design of insignia components from the specifications herein would be acceptable as long as the design resembles the specified design enough for their equivalence to be obvious and unambiguous.A number of services do without ranks at certain levels. For example, many Commonwealth navies don't have a Lance Corporal equivalent. Some services have a non-admiral/general/marshal rank at Brigadier-level, some have an admiral, general or marshal rank, and some services don't have any rank at this level. Such practices should not have any effect on the accuracy of the representation of ranks that are used (e.g. a particular rank has two stars regardless of whether there is a rank with one star). An "omission" in the sequence may look untidy on a rank insignia chart in some cases, but that has no practical impact and therefore should not be regarded as a problem. Neatness is desirable, not mandatory.
Systems are numbered/listed in no particular order.
Multiple stripes, chevrons or arcs are disposed in a "stacked" formation.
The matter of insignia representing officer cadets is beyond the scope of this article.
Commissioned officer ranks page