Jump to content

Talk:United States Army enlisted rank insignia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]
  • I hope to get rid of these rather cartoonish insignia at some point. I'm drawing some using vector graphics. Larger, more accurate shapes, better color, much finer detail. - Wguynes 19:23, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Chart format

[edit]

John, I have no objection to your basic concept. I see your desire to make them left to right in order of seniority ranking and have submitted a temporary compromise. I think I can do better. My view is that a person visiting here is to get see the insignia first, and any descriptive text second. At least, that was the point when I designed all 8 of the armed forces insignia pages to begin with (see the navigation box for the other examples). I'm thinking of a way to cut this recent version down even more vertically without sacrificing having it hug the left border. I moved the specialist left, and moved the SMA down to E-9. How does it look for you? - Wguynes 01:27, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

How about this? —John | Talk 01:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of wasted space. (My view is roughly like your screenshot was) Why insist on a full page width table? A casual reader will not scroll down and read the addendum text. Do we change the other 7 pages? I think, with some work, I can address the verticalness of current version by using tables within outside table, thereby flattening some of the text and using some of the empty space. - Wguynes 01:59, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
How about this? - Wguynes 02:39, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
I have to say that I much preferred the old vertical format here, which is much easier to read on a computer screen than this horizontal format. Usability tests for online documentation show that users would much rather scroll vertically than scroll horizontally. It's much easier to use the scroll wheel on a mouse than to have to manually use the horizontal scroll bar on my browser window. --Deathphoenix 5 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Note: A few of the images do not yet have transparent backgrounds. I have tried to fix that but have been unsuccessful in getting adequate results. User:Patrick Henke

Merge

[edit]

with United States Army

[edit]

I don't agree with the suggestion that this page be merged with the U.S. Army page. Ideally this page will someday be expanded to also cover historical insignia which would not be appropriate to include on that page. -Caerwine 22:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

with United States Army officer rank insignia

[edit]

insignia placement

[edit]

This article doesn't mention where the insignia is placed on the outfit. It's the left sleeve, isn't it? Also maybe the article could mention which outfits these insignias are worn on. Are they worn on the service uniform, the combat uniform, both? Are they worn anywhere else? Thank you. Jecowa 06:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to google "AR 670-1", Wear and Appearance of the Military Uniform. On the ACU, the current standard duty uniform, the rank is worn on a hook-and-pile ("Velcro") patch in the center of the chest, and sewn onto patrol caps/boonie hats. Officers and Warrant Officers wear their rank both on the center of the ACU chest and on their black beret (if worn in lieu of the patrol cap, typically in a garrison environment). When wearing combat gear such as flak vests or body armor, the ACU's collar is upturned and velcroed shut, there is a patch of velcro on the underside of the front of the collar that the rank is placed on in this case (as the body armor would cover up the normal placement of it). In a tactical situation like that there'd also be rank on the front of the helmet. This is all subject to the individual unit commander's interpretation - if he says take your rank off for the next patrol, you do it (don't want enemy snipers knowing who is who, although there are other ways of telling who the officers are in many situations..) 84.173.135.215 16:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the rank now goes on the velcro patch on the outer tactical vest of the body armor, and seldom on the front of the helmet due to that location being covered with the NVG attachment plate.Caisson 06 (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Private E-1 and Private E-2

[edit]

in the US Army Private E-1 rank is simply just Private, and Abrivation is PVT i have changed this acordingly, please visit the following site for confirmation US Army Enlisted Rank Insignia Feeblezak 12:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the given source is that it does not provide an abbreviation for Private. I have left the latest change alone (apart from putting back in the old reference and fixing the new reference), but it would be nice if this could be cleared up. --rimshotstalk 14:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An enquiry on this article has given me several sources for the use of PV1, in particular this current pay rate document. Any editors to this article should keep that in mind when preferring the use of PVT. --rimshotstalk 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Army regulation 600-20 page 4 (http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_20.pdf) gives PV1 and PV2 as the correct abbreviations, I would think that you couldn't get a more definitive source.Hun9ryjoe (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enlisted Combatants

[edit]

Does anyone know if in the Unitied States Army enlisted personel can be fighting personel untill they hold the rank of First Sergeant/,Master Sergeant Or are all Non-Commissioned Officers elegible for combat duty? Feeblezak 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any rank from E-2 on up could see combat. E-1 is used for raw recruits and prisoners. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even an E-1 can see combat. (Example) An E-2 could get an Article 15 be reduced in rank to E-1 while in Iraq and see combat duty. Jons63 22:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All ranks in the US Army are capable of seeing combat. There are no restrictions on this. The ONLY effort the Army makes to keep certain ranks out of direct danger are field-grade officers, for reasons which should be obvious. 84.173.135.215 16:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even that is subjective. Battalion and brigade commanders are field grade officers yet they still conduct battlefield circulation. Staff field grades generally don't get that much time on the battlefield, but even then it depends on their command and the command policies. A lot of that depends on the individual too, because a lot of senior leaders don't want to admit they're out of the fight. The only personnel in the Army that are "prohibited" from fighting wholesale are chaplains. Supposedly females are not supposed to be exposed to direct combat action but that happens all the time in today's conflicts.If a soldier isn't complaining about something, there's a real problem....PushkinsBarber (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarge

[edit]

The article says that "Sarge" is never used. Can this be true today? Certainly it was commonly used when I was the Army from 1964-1970. I was never addressed by that term as I was a Specialist 5. Could somebody who is currently in the Army reply to this?

Alexselkirk1704 (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only heard one Soldier use the term "Sarge" in 14 years, and the SSG he was talking too destroyed him shortly thereafter. As a SFC myself, I would find it very disrepectful if a junior enlistedman or a junior NCO came up to me and called me "Sarge," but then I can't speak to the thousands of other NCOs in the Army. To me, the term "Sarge" hearkens back to a time when the Army had less professional education programs and a large number of the enlistedmen were draftees. Of course, that is all based on my experiences and my opinion.If a soldier isn't complaining about something, there's a real problem....PushkinsBarber (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sarge" was a part of the lexicon for many decades and was used as a term of familiarity but it faded out of acceptable use with the advent of the all-volunteer force and increased emphasis on respect for the professional statute of the NCO Corps which led to more formal use of the title Sergeant. Prior to the 1990's, it was also routine to refer to Sergeants, Staff Sergeants, Sergeant First Classes, and Master Sergeants as "Sergeant," but in the last decade or two it's become common for those ranks to be addressed with their full title.--AzureCitizen (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sarge" is really only used in extremely casual circumstances (ie Out-of-uniform) wherein both persons involved are on friendly terms with one another. This is sometimes also used between veterans/retirees as well, when wanting to recognize former rank while still wanting to maintain an overly casual tone. Also, contrary to AzureCitizen's comment, it is NOT common practice in the United States Army to address a Staff Sergeant or Sergeant First Class by his or her full rank. First Sergeants and Sergeants Major are addressed by their full title, whilst Command Sergeants Major and the Sergeant Major of the Army are simply addressed as "Sergeant Major". Referring to a Non-Commissioned Officer by his or her full rank IS common practice in the United States Marine Corps, however. When introducing ANY member of ANY force to another member of ANY force, it is considered proper procedure to use that servicemember's FULL TITLE. Notably, I am speaking entirely from personal experience, here (Specialist, Medically-retired, 2013). --107.7.147.20 (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For 107.7.147.20: I have 28 years service between USA and USAR (prior service NCO, then eventually a field grade in command), hence I am speaking entirely from personal experience here as well. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASU colors

[edit]

The rank insignias need to be recolored for the Army Service Uniform. I am sorry that I am not able to do it myself.JaMikePA (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think we should create 2 charts: 1 for ACU version and 1 for the ASU version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.236.67 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Master Sergeant

[edit]

I purchased some military documents off eBay, which included Recruiting & Career Counseling Journal from April 1965. The cover shows Revised Insignia and Grade Titles effective 1 Sept 1965. It shows what is now the PFC insignia as lance corporal, which is mentioned in the article. The current sergeant major insignia with star is chief master sergeant, and the current command sergeant major insignia with star and wreath as sergeant major. --21lima (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?

[edit]

The abbreviation for Corporal as 'CLP' should be fixed. 65.33.35.154 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing 3 instances of "CPL", which is correct, AFAIK. I don't see any instances of "CLP", which is what, I presume, you see and want corrected. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican War Chevrons

[edit]

Beginning with General Order 38 on May 2, 1833 dragoon sergeants wore three , yellow point down, chevrons on the dress coat and corporals two. Dragoon first sergeants wore sergeant's uniforms, including the three chevrons, with a yellow sash. Sergeants major and quartermaster sergeants wore the sash and an aiguillette. The chevrons were not worn on the fatigue jackets. There is no evidence of the addition of chevrons in 1846. They were added to the fatigue jackets in 1847 as they were the only uniform being worn in wartime. The chevrons were yellow for dragoons and riflemen and white for infantry and voltigeurs. The artillery wore yellow except for horse artillery companies that wore red. This did not change the chevrons worn on the dragoon dress coats. There is also no evidence of sergeants major wearing four chevrons. Gghbsab (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pay Grades

[edit]

The concept of pay grades was created on June 4, 1920 (41stat761). Prior to that date each rank was created by statute and had its own rate of pay. After that date the army could create whatever ranks it wanted within the seven, and later nine, pay grades. There was no such thing as pay grades prior to that date. All ranks were branch specific prior to 1920 as each branch of the army would have different enlisted ranks. Some, such as sergeant and corporal were used by many branches. Others such as master signal electrician were not. Gghbsab (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1821-1829 chevrons

[edit]

The chevron system of 1821 used yellow chevrons for the artillery and white for the infantry. There were no other enlisted men in the army at that time. The authorized NCO strength of the entire army at that time was 11 sergeants major (4 artillery and 7 infantry), 11 quartermaster sergeants (4 artillery and 7 infantry), 14 principal musicians (all infantry), 354 sergeants (144 artillery and 210 infantry) and 424 corporals (144 artillery and 280 infantry). The system was abolished in 1829. It is not clear what replaced it until 1832. Gghbsab (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1779 Epaulettes

[edit]

I must question the reference for epaulets from 1779 being form a book about the Lewis and Clark expedition that began in 1804. Gghbsab (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Service Uniform Insignia/Green Insignia

[edit]

I think we should also show insignia for the Army Blue Service Uniform, and the Green Insignia that can commonly be seen throughout the internet, to show that the insignia already shown in the article is not the only color insignia, and how different uniforms have different colors for insignia. I also think some viewers might prefer one color of insignia over others and it could be more visually appealing to them, making them want to stay on the article, further educating them on Army Ranks which is what they came for, so it wouldn't hurt to educate them more. What do you guys think? Chewingvanilla (talk) 01:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Army_enlisted_rank_insignia&oldid=1210938634"