NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's an idea I had, run it up the flagpole and see if you salute it.

The United Nations,

REALISING that member states have the right to form military alliances with one another;

FURTHER REGRETTING that member states may also, at times, engage in hostilities with one another;

NOTING that differences in military hierarchical systems can lead to confusion between member states as to ultimate command in combat where two member states are allied against a common foe, as well as the potential for the soldiers of one member state failing to pay respects to superiors of another member state which may cause ill will between allies;

FURTHER NOTING that a member state that holds prisoners of war of another, belligerent, nation state may not be able to distinguish officers and men, and thus be unable to treat officers, warrant officers and other ranks in a correct manner as may be the case under international law or national custom;

UNDERSTANDING that the wearing of hierachical devices in combat situations may cause security and safety fears

The UN hereby,

INSTITUTES a common system of rank distinction that will clearly display the wearers rank and rank group, have mathematical logical consistancy, have the flexibility to incorporate national devices and variations in rank numbers, and be easily understood.

EMPHASISES that nations may use their own symbols, as long as the system itself remains consistant with the UN system

MANDATES that nations to use such a system, either alone or alongside current national military rank insignia, when fighting either alongside or against another member state, if the wearing of any rank insignia is deemed necessary or desirable. Nations may, if they so wish, only institute this system with combat uniforms.


What does this mean? Time to get MS paint out.

US army rank insignia (WWII)
http://www.28-110-k.org/images/rank_insignia.gif

Australian army rank insignia
http://www.vvaa.org.au/images/rank.gif

USSR (WWII)
http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/563/sovietranks-2.jpg
All very different, all very confusing, all rather illogical. The US officers system is a very good positional system (i.e. it's clear what rank group your in - bars are company officers, oak leaves battalion, eagle field, and stars general). The Commonwealth officers insignia is (sort of) mathematical and semi positional. A star equals one, a crown four, a crossed sword and baton seven, generals crown two, and crossed batons 11. Thus, a Lt-Colonel, the fifth officer rank, is a crown and a star = 4+1 = 5. It also is semi positional, as only generals have the crossed sword and baton, company officers just have stars, however it's not quite their as it doesn't divide battalion officers (major and Lt-Colonel) and field officers (Colonel and Brigadier), all of whom use crowns.

A better sytem would be as follows:
OR's: one symbol equalling 1 OR rank
NCO's: one symbol equalling 1 NCO rank
WO (not honoured as officer): 1 symbol equalling 1 WO lower rank
WO (honoured as officer): 1 symbol equalling 1 WO higher rank

Officers:
Company: 1 Symbol equalling one officer rank
Battlion rank: 1 Symbol equalling the position of the lowest battalion rank
Field: " " " " " " " " field "
General: " general "
Marshal: " marshall "


Now for some examples.

US using this system with it's own insignia and groups:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/USPROP1.jpg

Now the Commonwealth:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/AUSPROP1.jpg
(one mistake - Maj-Gen and Gen should have the crossed baton and sword plus two stars and three stars respectively)

And the USSR

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/USSRPROP1.jpg
(major shouldn't have a star above the hammer and sickle, colonel should be hammer and sickle plus two stars as colonel, not lt-col, was regimental commander (non bn based system)

Have a bored you all to death yet? Or does anyone care?

International Security, Mild?

I don't see any serious need for this.
I suspect that most nations would probably be unwilling to give up their own symbols, but that there would be cases where using your suggested standards as well as the national ones could actually increase confusion.
Also, what happens when some nations' forces subdivide a category (OR, WO, CO, etc) into significantly more distinct ranks than other nations' forces do?

Aoi Kiru Usagi Minzoku is in favor of standardized military rankings, although it is doubtful of the legality of this issue. However, it is steadfastly against the adoption of symbols from the armies of the USA, Australia, USSR, etc as they are extremely elaborate and not simple enough to comprehend to qualify as a standard marker.

IC: There's no real need for this, and agree with some of St Edmund's concerns about its implementation.

OOC: I like it's potential benefits in RPs/factbooks/wikipages. If someone would actually create the standard logos for UN-member military ranks, they could be used in any RP/factbook/wikipage that contains military personnel (though using national symbols isn't prevented by not having this legislation.)

Well, I think there's some point in it. As the proposal states, if two member nations fight alongside one another, and use wildly differing insignia, it could be very confusing. I also think the 'FURTHER UNDERSTANDING' point very persuasive.

I'm confused, though, about what 'UNDERSTANDING that the wearing of hierachical devices in combat situations may cause security and safety fears' means. Could you explain?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

I'm confused, though, about what 'UNDERSTANDING that the wearing of hierachical devices in combat situations may cause security and safety fears' means. Could you explain?
It is common practice in some militaries to either remove rank insignia in combat situations or use blacked out or subdued versions of the normal insignia (rather than the shiny brass insignia, like on dress uniforms).

There are two reasons for this. One, you don't want your officers to be easily identifiable at a distance (by snipers, for example). Two, you don't want any shiny insignia or brightly colored patches on your uniform in combat. Makes it easier for the enemy to see you.

I believe that's what the Cobdenians had in mind, but they can explain further if needed.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Yes, it's primarily to do with sniper security.

I would like allay concerns about lack of flexibility. If, for example, a country doesn't use a battalion system or has colonel as head of a battalion instead of a Lt-Colonel, for example, it would use the same insignia as a Lt-Colonel but with one more star, as opposed to it's own insignia. As you can see above, it allows for more ranks in each group if needs be, and more subdivisions. For example the marshall ranks of the USSR (and in the commonwealth, although not shewn above, would have distinct insignia for a field marshall). As you can see, the US OR's insignia has three divisions (WO, NCO's and "privates") which use different insignia. Half chevrons for privates (as far as I'm aware, sergeants and corporals don't command units in the US, hence I'm treating them as senior privates), chevrons for NCO's and bars for WO's. In the australian one, I use the same idea for privates and NCO's, but two seperate systems for the WO's as WO3's and WO2's are treated as senior NCO's (hence thin bars), where as WO1 is treated as junior officers (hence thick bar). If WO2 was treated as an officer, it would have one thick bar and WO1 two thick bars.

To demonstrate flexibility, I'm going to use the US sysmbols and focus on the officer ranks, although others could be used. It's just easier to C&P!

Lt Colonel as Battalion Commander, Brigadier-General (i.e. junior general), senior rank general of army, two Lt ranks. (e.g. US)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/USPROP2.jpg

Lt-Col as Bn. Commander, Brigadier (i.e. senior colonel), Field Marshal as senior rank, two Lt ranks (e.g. Commonwealth)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/USPROP3.jpg

Colonel as Battalion Commander or non-battalion based organisation system, no Brigadier rank, Field Marshal as senior rank, three lt ranks. (e.g. modern Russia, although there is an additional general rank which I forgot to include)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/USPROP4.jpg

Captain as Battalion Commander, Brigadier-General, two Lt ranks (e.g. East India Company Army)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/USPROP6.jpg

Colonel as Regimental commander, no brigaider rank, four generals, three marshall, three lt's (e.g. USSR WWII).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/USPROP7.jpg

(as far as I'm aware, sergeants and corporals don't command units in the US, hence I'm treating them as senior privates),
Sergeants (E-5) and Corporals (E-4) can be (and often are) squad leaders in Infantry units. I've even seem Sgt. E-5s assigned as Platoon Sergeants. No idea about how they are assigned in armor, artillery, engineers, etc. though.

Years ago (1980's) you would see a lot more Sp4's than Corporals. Corporal is considered an NCO rank while Sp4 is not, even though they're paid the same.

OoC: Righto; it would be different then with the non NCO ranks having the half stripe and NCO full chevron

We find ourself in agreement with the delegation of St Edmundan Antarctic. While we are normally keen on international standardisation, we don't see a pressing need for this particular effort.

OOC: but it is fun!

Well, I'll see how I feel after the metric r&r, and then there's the single hulled tankers which is probably more pressing.

If anyone wants any MS paint designed rank insignia for their factbooks or whatever, I'm sure I could come with something!

Ambassador Seigfried, refreshed and slightly tanned from his short vacation to the tropical south of Catawaba, reads over proposal before looking up. "I do not see anything glaringly wrong with this piece of legislation and applaud the ambassador from Cobdenia for a very clean bit of work. However, I see this as rather unnecessary."

He set the proposal down on this table and leaned back in his chair, happy to be out of his wheelchair. "I am a colonel in the Catawaban Marine Reserve." He turned half way in his chair and waved to his aide, Celedri Ord. "Miss Ord is a private first class in the same branch." The tall Taung woman nodded to the Floor.

Hayden turned to face his fellow delegates. "Our ranking system follows a very Western format so is quite easy to grasp for many foriegn powers, but I do not see the need to standardize a ranking system across all governments. With our current relations with other nations' militaries, we introduce foriegn military personnel through liason officers and hold orientation briefings to inform our personnel to foriegn ranking structures to better facilitate communication. I see good cooperation between allied powers as the responsibility of those allied powers not the United Nations."

It should be obvious to you that every countries rank structure is unique and steeped in tradition that have been in place for (in some cases) decades. It is unreasonable to ask an entire nation to change all of their rank structure just so that some poor soldier who is too mentally handicapped to take five minutes to learn the basic rank structure of an allied nation. Is it not the sole purpose of basic military training for soldiers to be able to see, process, and remember new information in the future? If a military individual cannot remember a few clear, simple images that denote rank how can they be trusted with a sovereign nation's security?

It is suggested that, before jumping headlong into a military alliance, that member nations decide beforehand who controls what, as part of the alliance conditions.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to take this in a slightly different direction? Rather than mandate a single uniform rank insignia system for all militaries, why not create an official United Nations rank insignia that would be worn in addition to the nation's proper insignia?

In Sophista, for example, visiting officers and enlisted personnel wear the uniforms and insignia of their native land, along with an equivalent Sophistan insignia on their right breast pocket. It allows them to maintain their military heritage and national pride while at the same time providing an easy way for Sophistan forces to recognize officers, NCOs, and lower enlisted without having to memorize a new matrix of symbols for every joint operation.

Just food for thought.

We have had no problems figuring out who our enemy is and who our friends are in peace or battle. We train our military as needed to know the difference.

First General Order of Battle: Kill the enemy before they kill you.
Second General Order of Battle: Don't stop to salute kill the enemy before they kill you.
Third General Order of Battle: If they shoot at you and miss then you had better not miss them.
Fourth General Order of Battle: If the enemy is armed but not in uniform kill him before he kills you.
Fifth General Order of Battle: If the enemy is not armed don't let him get armed.

These are but a few of the General Orders our troops learn to follow.


As for the structure of our military that is consider classified to protect our troops and those in the individual units. As we have two main defense forces in place.. Royal Guard defend the borders and Royal Watch police and protect our townships. Both have same rank structure and are trained in the same manner as far as fighting skills and such. As all future citizens must complete two years of National Service where they learn basic military skills.


Also as noted by another member earlier. Why is it not practical to have visiting military to wear some place clearly vissible to local military the local rank equal to their own? We do that when officers from allied nations train here or we with them... Forces involved in joint traing wear ranking of both nations.. or when more than two nations are training with us we expect them to have given training to their troops before to let them know their friend... and not mistake them for enemy... as we will train our own to know them as friend and not enemy...

Sound idea, but I think overall there isn't a need. Plus, militarily speaking, there may be strategic advantages to having a unique system that is not easily understood by your enemy. Imagine if your enemy has no trouble identifying your officers, but you can't identify theirs.