Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6112375" data-attributes="member: 95493">I was more than done with this thread back in Oct but here I go again.The outline I gave before is exactly what you would find online in virtually all sources. Some countries may have alternates but the lists I gave there are the default used in almost all (especially, but not limited to, western, industrial) countries and in the UN forces. I'll agree they are modern uses and not historical but that isn't what I was giving. I was giving the lists as they currently exist.In the case of Captain of a ship. That has to do with being the top naval officer on the ship at the time. You could be a seaman, lieutenant, captain, commander or even an admiral [assuming he was the "captain/commander" at the time instead of a captain](also, I'm not an expert so this is just to the best of my knowledge). It is an honourary title and it means captain of the ship. It is not an official rank off the boat. As soon as a more senior officer shows up, that person would become captain. If that "captain" lieutenant were to leave and talk to other naval officers they would refer to him as lieutenant NOT captain, regardless of what his juniors called him while on duty. In that case it is not a rank, it is a title. It means "guy in charge" more than anything. Captains and commanders, in the explanations I have given, refer to RANKS not titles.Beyond this, I will reiterate that Captain (assuming navy) will be equivalent to a full colonel (in the army), each having a silver eagle insignia indicating rank. Naval Commanders would be equal to (military) Lt. Colonel, each with a silver oak leaf. In this naming convention, it would be strange to ever see a Commander outrank a captain. There are no commanders above captain, there are "commanders of X force" but those are titles and not ranks and usually are given to high ranking admiral/generals.If you want to use something completely different that is fine. But that is not the typical naming convention and I pointed that out WAAY back. Beyond that if the OP (I think it was) was using commander in place of colonel then that would work out fine too, as Captain in the army is two silver bars. Only in that case would it make sense, for colonels (renamed to commander) to outrank captain. Otherwise, by normal standards, it is incorrect. Honestly I don't care what they end up (or since it has been 6 months, likely, ended up) doing. I just wanted to point that out what the ranks should look like. I don't see why I ever got the pushback I ever got. Look ranks up on wiki or other sites, they are fairly clear.If you want to talk about NCOs then I can certainly see how much confusion it cause, those are not standardized as much as I would like at all.</blockquote>

Verification