Adoption of Army ranks for the Air Force?

Interesting...I can see how you approached it, very cool :)
Some points I'd like to bring up;

1) I would probably change "Supervising Journeyman Apprentice" to something like "Leading Journeyman Apprentice" or "Master Journeyman Apprentice" to avoid confusion with Senior JA's in acronym form (SJA and SJA).

Good point.

2) So regarding the combat ranks, Lancemen 2nd. Class are aircrew like aerial gunners and loadmasters, Lancemen 1st Class are bombardiers on strategic bombers, and Air Armsmen are enlisted pilots? Also, who would perform military law enforcement duties and/or base defense, the Aircraftsmen or Lancemen?

If these functions were in the hands of the Air Force rather than handled by the Army, I would envision these as duties for Aircraftsmen (Security). Combat personnel are peoiple who fight aircraft. Anyone whose job is securing bases or keeping rowdy men in line would not be dignified with that title. This Air Force has a very strong investment in the mystique of its 'knights of the skies'.

3) I see you're sticking with knightly unit designations as well; "lance", "conroi", etc. Would this naming scheme extend to this Air Force's ground organizations/units as well?

I imagine it would, though I think instead of 'Lance' they would choose something less combative. Of course the whole thing would quickly become quite impractical. My main idea was imagining a group of public-school educated gentlemen hashing out titles and ranks for a system over a Morris-designed table in a neogothic study hung with pre-raphaelite pictures.
 
If these functions were in the hands of the Air Force rather than handled by the Army, I would envision these as duties for Aircraftsmen (Security). Combat personnel are peoiple who fight aircraft. Anyone whose job is securing bases or keeping rowdy men in line would not be dignified with that title. This Air Force has a very strong investment in the mystique of its 'knights of the skies'.

It's possible the Army could handle it. Another piece of food for thought; what about paratroopers a la the Fallschirmjagers, or RAF Regiment? They would travel by air, deploy by air, receive special air-related training of great difficulty, and pretty much depend on aerial assets for resupply and heavy fire support.


I imagine it would, though I think instead of 'Lance' they would choose something less combative. Of course the whole thing would quickly become quite impractical. My main idea was imagining a group of public-school educated gentlemen hashing out titles and ranks for a system over a Morris-designed table in a neogothic study hung with pre-raphaelite pictures.

Nevertheless, this system could work IMO with just a little reworking to reflect more "modern" ranking conventions.

BTW I meant "Aircraftsmen" in my previous post, not "Apprentice". Mea culpa.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Instead of squire, I'd consider using either naval or cavalry specific ranks - so ensign or cornet.
I've also used ranks based on naval structure and "Technician" instead of Petty Officer (along with an alternate french style structure) in a interwar pulp rpg thing.

As for Para, like Marines, they're army troops detached to another service, at least in the way they were historically formed.
 
Last edited:
Instead of squire, I'd consider using either naval or cavalry specific ranks - so ensign or cornet.
I've also used ranks based on naval structure and "Technician" instead of Petty Officer (along with an alternate french style structure) in a interwar pulp rpg thing.

Seems reasonable to me, especially if that rank structure ends up too "cluttered" for whatever reason.

As for Para, like Marines, they're army troops detached to another service, at least in the way they were historically formed.

In the most basic sense, you're not wrong. However, to me the Army's always been about tanks/cavalry, artillery, and plain jane grunts with small arms (spears, pikes, muskets, rifles, etc.). Marines and Paras, by definition, must receive specialized training and perform highly difficult missions, which tend to set them apart in culture from regular line doggies. That's where a lot of the difference comes from IMHO
 
This is a bit tangential to the discussion now, but the USAF and US Army have very different enlisted rank structures, though both evolved from the U.S. Army system of WWII.

At that time, there were seven enlisted paygrades, from E-1 (the highest) to E-7 (the lowest). In order, they were

Master Sergeant (First Sergeant and Sergeant Major were positions, not ranks)
Technical Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Sergeant
Corporal
Private First Class
Private

In the 1950's, after the services were divorced, the military went to a nine-grade system, with three tiers. E7-E9 were supervisors and senior enlisted leadership, E4-E6 were technicians and junior leadership, and E1-E3 were the common rabble of lower enlisted.

The Air Force emulated the Navy's Chief Petty Officer ranks and called all E7-E9 "Master Sergeants", with E8 "Senior Master Sergeant" and E9 "Chief Master Sergeant", whereas the Army created a new E7 Sergeant First Class Rank, made E8s Master Sergeants and E9s Sergeants Major. The old position of Sergeant Major became known as Command Sergeant Major.

Now, in E4-E6 the Army had a two-track system of specialists and NCOs that was later revised. The specialists were just referred to as Spec-4, Spec-5, etc. Since the "Technical Sergeant" grade had been renamed "Sergeant First Class" and designated a senior NCO, the Army then had E6 Staff Sergeants, E5 Sergeants, and E4 Corporals.

The Air Force kept the rank of Technical Sergeant at E6, so Staff Sergeants were now E5s and Sergeants were E4s. Again, this was in keeping with the Navy style of designating E4-E6 "Petty Officer".

Lower enlisted stayed pretty much the same, and the only change to this system was that both the Army and the Air Force decided to stop designating E4s as NCOs in the 1980s. It's a bit more complicated than I'm making it, but basically all Air Force E4's are Senior Airmen now and nearly all Army E4's are Specialists.
 
Lower enlisted stayed pretty much the same, and the only change to this system was that both the Army and the Air Force decided to stop designating E4s as NCOs in the 1980s. It's a bit more complicated than I'm making it, but basically all Air Force E4's are Senior Airmen now and nearly all Army E4's are Specialists.

Well, this may be splitting hairs but the Army still has Corporals, who are basically Specialists who have the prerequisite leadership training to be an NCO yet aren't eligible for promotion to Sergeant yet. Granted, they're only about 3% of total E-4s in the Army but at least they present the option (besides, most Army E-4s don't stay ones for long if they get leadership training when they should).

I'm of the opinion that NCO ranks for all branches should start at E-4 as it is; by then, the vast majority of enlisted personnel would've had at least three years' service by that point, completed their career field training and gotten field experience. Trying to postpone leadership and/or occupational responsibility to E-5 is IMHO inefficient, and besides E-4s are supposed to be groomed for NCO status at E-5; treating E-4s as "junior" NCOs would allow proper transition in that regard. In fact, AF Times recently held a poll showing an overwhelming support for either adopting a split-rank system like the army, or making E-4s all NCOs.

Anyway, just my $0.02.
 
I wasn't really going to bring it up, but yes, an E4 in a leadership position in the Army may or may not be a Corporal depending on his company commander's policy. I was a Specialist squad leader, but later I had a company commander who laterally transferred everyone we sent to the board to Corporal even if the were in non-NCO positions like machine gun team leaders.

Back in the late 80's, the Air Force had both Sergeants and Senior Airmen, with both at grade E4. I'm somewhat hazy as to whether this was a parallel track or, as the Internet suggests, a Sergeant ranking higher than a Senior Airman but being in the same paygrade. Either way, this is a bit irrelevant to the discussion other than as a history of why USAF ranks are what they are.

Well, this may be splitting hairs but the Army still has Corporals, who are basically Specialists who have the prerequisite leadership training to be an NCO yet aren't eligible for promotion to Sergeant yet. Granted, they're only about 3% of total E-4s in the Army but at least they present the option (besides, most Army E-4s don't stay ones for long if they get leadership training when they should).

I'm of the opinion that NCO ranks for all branches should start at E-4 as it is; by then, the vast majority of enlisted personnel would've had at least three years' service by that point, completed their career field training and gotten field experience. Trying to postpone leadership and/or occupational responsibility to E-5 is IMHO inefficient, and besides E-4s are supposed to be groomed for NCO status at E-5; treating E-4s as "junior" NCOs would allow proper transition in that regard. In fact, AF Times recently held a poll showing an overwhelming support for either adopting a split-rank system like the army, or making E-4s all NCOs.

Anyway, just my $0.02.
 
Quite right, moving on.

I wonder where intel specialists would fall, esp. given that the airborne ones tend to be placed in....precarious circumstances at times.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Seems reasonable to me, especially if that rank structure ends up too "cluttered" for whatever reason.
At some point I also tried to go for a simplified, uncluttered version that was a combination of NATO and French-style structures. I actually was happy because it satisfied a few oddities of all systems (like having Commodore/Brigadier as non-flag ranks; Cadet was a borrowing from the old german rank system) plus I could have the same ranks for all officers until the senior officer ranks. It basically just went Cadet - Ensign - Lieutenant - Captain - Commander - $Senior Field Officer (I used Commodore for the senior captain equivalent, Brigadier instead of Colonel and Aquilifer for the Air one), then moving on to three parallel structures based on Admiral, General/Marshal and Ardian/Constable for airforce.

My main difference was in the bottom ranks

I wonder where intel specialists would fall, esp. given that the airborne ones tend to be placed in....precarious circumstances at times.
I'd say as part of their service's support branch, so air intel with air ranks. I'd probably go for a "Paras and Marines use the logistics of their assigned service" thing, even if they still keep nominal army ranks.
 
At some point I also tried to go for a simplified, uncluttered version that was a combination of NATO and French-style structures. I actually was happy because it satisfied a few oddities of all systems (like having Commodore/Brigadier as non-flag ranks; Cadet was a borrowing from the old german rank system) plus I could have the same ranks for all officers until the senior officer ranks. It basically just went Cadet - Ensign - Lieutenant - Captain - Commander - $Senior Field Officer (I used Commodore for the senior captain equivalent, Brigadier instead of Colonel and Aquilifer for the Air one), then moving on to three parallel structures based on Admiral, General/Marshal and Ardian/Constable for airforce.

My main difference was in the bottom ranks

Fair enough. On a side note, there are two other "medieval" style ranks that IMHO could transfer over well for the enlisted/NCOs: Yeoman, used here in the 14th/15th century context of a trusted but commoner-born man-at-arms, and Coistrel, an Anglicization of a Norman word for "dagger-bearer", an armed assistant for a knight or knight banneret. Just food for thought in case using something like "Technician" doesn't work out.
 
Top