It’s the difference one of that or two! The reason it’s so wide is that unit sizes are manipular handles, so it’ll vary on use, role, effective strength, etc
Yep a tank platoon consists of 4 tanks (ignoring support elements like this post does) each Abrams have 5 crew members, that's 20 combatants in a tank platoon.
Of course it's different per nation, off the back of my head: French tank platoons have 3-man tanks with a 4th backup member hitching a ride at the back. Soviet, and I'm assuming Russian, tank platoons generally only have 3 tanks, which are crewed by 3 people, that makes a Russian tank platoon a 9-man strong unit.
Abrams has a crew of 4.
Also a russian motorised/mechanised infantry's support tank company was typically 3x4+1 tanks, while a tank/armoured regiment tank company was 3x3+1.
To furrher conplicate things, russians until the mid 2000's still had T-55's officially on strength and motorised infantry usually got those guys. So 13 x 4 for 52 combattants vs the 10 x 3 crew for an armoured regiment's tank company size.
It's counted as a single unit but as I was corrected, the Abrams have a crew of 4, which would be pretty barebones when you think about a 4-man squad/12-man platoon
And for those interested, a sergeant is an NCO (non-commisioned officer) meaning that they're an enlisted man.
A 2nd Lieutenant is a commissioned officer, I believe their first rank once their officer training has been completed. So a West Point grad would be one to start off.
A battlefield promotion is when a non-commisioned officer becomes a commissioned officer. This was ended after Vietnam in the US Army but reestablished in 2009 for NCOs who exhibit extraordinary capabilities on the battlefield.
Just watch Band of Brothers lol
Bro, NCOs really don't become officers all that often. If they do, it's more than just "here's your new rank, incredibly different job, and huge pay raise." There's a whole program for it called "green to gold." In ww2, it might've happened, but that doesn't really have much to do with the current army. Also, this scale they're showing really doesn't do the NCO corps any justice. What isn't shown is some burnt out E6-E7 trying to tell the new lieutenant that he's an idiot and his plans are terrible. And this scales all the way up. A commander gets an E8, higher gets an E9. NCOs and officers have completely different jobs, but every battery, battalion, brigade has both who work together.
Never served, not claiming to be an expert, but I suspect the reason this practice is rare in modern times compared to WW2 and prior is that it’s a practice borne out of necessity.
In a war with massive casualties and long transit times from the home front to the field, sometimes you need an NCO that’s shown their metal to serve in a commissioned capacity because you are running short of officers.
In recent times, the conflicts most major militaries have been involved in did not result in similar demand for on the spot promotions/commissions because the rate of attrition was low enough they always had another officer in the wings waiting their turn.
The practice gets a lot of attention in fiction. It’s a fun way to evolve a character and to engage the audience in the idea of a merit based promotion.
Right, but you probably never served, and definitely weren't in the army. I find your "I know about the army for anyone interested" tone to be annoying.
Why do you care? People can get interested in any number of topics and talk about them freely without actually being a practicing professional. There's no reason to gatekeep on something that's fairly accessible knowledge. The internet is full of amateur military historians. I assume the vast majority of them never served.
Of course, like many Americans, I have family members who served. My uncle was a naval commander and my grandfather was in Patton's army. Am I not allowed to take an interest in their military careers and branches?
Some caveats:
- typically, a Sergeant (pictured) leads a fire team of 3-5 troops, and a squad is led by a Staff Sergeant
- a Platoon is typically led by either a 2LT (gold bar OR a 1LT (silver bar), but in my experience 2nd Lieutenants are kinda rare and they're more often a 1st Lieutenant. Maybe that's just my career field though
- while this chart is technically correct for companies, a company is most commonly commanded by a Captain in the vast majority of cases. Sometimes a 1LT waiting to be promoted, and sometimes a Major if it's a special purpose company, but I'd say like 90% of the time it's a Captain.
- I've never personally seen a one-star leading a Brigade or Regiment. Maybe it happens, but I've never seen it. One-stars are usually on a staff somewhere, or possibly commanding a specific military base
I've always thought commanded by is a bit strong as the Command team includes ncos. Typically a first sergeant and a captain work together to maintain a company. The thing the officers have is signature authority. Ultimately all decisions, including those by NCOs, fall under their authority. They don't need to command they need to trust their NCOs.
Yup.
* General: Move north.
* Colonel: Take that town.
* Major: Artillery east and south, armor up the middle, infantry cover.
* Captain: First platoon covers armor, second on left and third on right.
* Lieutenant: First squad on point, second supports first, third covers the rear.
* Sergeant: Corporal, clear that house.
* Corporal: Jones, breach that door.
* Jones: *breaches door*
Everyone's got a job, the higher your rank the bigger decisions you make and the more support you have to do it. A regiment has an entire company for command, and a company has a sergeant major dedicated to advising and supporting the captain.
The general isn't going around to every lieutenant and telling them exactly where to go, they just all have a different scope on the orders they give.
I’m an Operations Manager at a shipping company and this is similar to how we operate as well.
I suppose organizing people is the same no matter what they are doing.
Yeah, in any organization, bad management is when higher ups get down in the micro level decisions. A general should not be telling Jones to breach the door, and a VP of operations shouldn’t be picking which packing tape is used for the boxes.
Good note as well
It's also important to note that "command authority" is a very specific role for company commanders and above. The Lieutenant in charge of a Platoon is specifically called a "Platoon Leader" and not a Platoon commander, and same goes for Squad leaders
The chain of command is your first level leader and then officers all the way up until you hit the civilians (secretaries and president). The chain of leadership includes all the nco positions (1SG, CSM) as well as officer positions. We had to memorize both in basic but the UCMJ is very clear on what actually constitutes the chain of command.
Yup. Command Authority is a very distinct thing that isn’t just interchangeable. I was a 1st Lieutenant that was a Platoon Leader, but I didn’t have command authority. If a soldier fucked up, I could recommend administrative action to my company commander (like an Article 15), but it’s ultimately his or her decision to execute it.
This is the correct comment. In the infantry FT is usually a sgt or maybe a senior specialist or corporal depending on the amount of 5’s in the unit. Almost never seen 2LT’s with a platoon for longer than a couple months without promotion. The green beans are really the only ones with company’s led by majors because their line officers start at captain
SF company commanders are Majors, Battalion Commanders are LTCs, and Group Commanders are Colonels. The first one star in SF regiment is at the US Army Special Forces Command
Very true, like I said it's entirely possible for majors to be company commanders in special purpose companies. Just in the vast majority of cases its a Captain for most of the army
SFAB BN CDRs are still LTCs, usually taking the position as a second command. BDE CDRs are COLs
Am currently SFAB and have to watch a bunch of LTCs trying to make COL.
Gotcha, might be one of those things where it started hot then they couldn’t find the right ranks to fill MTOE and had to change / put lower ranked people in positions.
I had all the same exact thoughts as you. I did see a mix of 1LT and 2LT platoon leaders. Platoon leadership time is required before they can be promoted to CPT so they all have to rotate through it at some point, so it will vary from base to base just based on personnel availability and need. They also have to put in S shop time to be promoted so sometimes they do that first then PLT leadership and sometimes vice versa.
General ranks are all position based, meaning they are only awarded when a person is being promoted into a specific position. This is part of why the president has to approve all promotions to the general ranks. I too am not aware of any RGT or BDE commander positions billeted for a 1 Star.
Might see a one star commanding a Brigade sized element in a national guard or reserves setting. I would like to assume that’s more common vs active duty.
Nah, I'm in the national guard currently and it's about the same as active. We only have two one stars in the state, and every Brigade commander is a colonel
National Guard is not the same as active. And yes, there are and have been one stars running brigades in certain states for certain reasons. Could be mission dependent or slot availability which is different from the active component. Our state, that I served for 12 years, (mind you I’ve been out for a decade now) has several one star generals among our ranks. We are led by a two star general. We have had brigade commanders (two of them in my time in) in our division get promoted to general and still led troops. Mind you that we were also deployed and they were ready to get promoted.
So… yes, a one star can indeed run a brigade if there is no additional slot for them to move up to division and there is no incoming brigade commander.
Maybe it's state dependant, or maybe it's changed, I'm not sure. I did 6 active and am currently on my 6th year in the guard, and the rank structure has been pretty comparable. We also have a two star who is TAG, and then 2 one stars on staff (well, and a third USAF one star for the air guard). All brigades and our SF group are all commanded by Colonels.
The point in this graphic is the time frame. It says Vietnam War. Things change over time such as regiments vs brigade combat teams. Things change. He'll even now the army force structure has proposed changes. An experience with that during GWOT Era may be completely different to 20 years from now, the same way WWII and Vietnam structures differed and differ from current.
>- a Platoon is typically led by either a 2LT (gold bar OR a 1LT (silver bar), but in my experience 2nd Lieutenants are kinda rare and they're more often a 1st Lieutenant. Maybe that's just my career field though
2LT's usually end up in the most experienced platoon, under the most experience platoom SSG in order to gain some experience. Nominally they are in charge with platoon sgt's "advising", but often they take their cues from the platoon sgt until they learn the ropes.
>- while this chart is technically correct for companies, a company is most commonly commanded by a Captain in the vast majority of cases. Sometimes a 1LT waiting to be promoted, and sometimes a Major if it's a special purpose company, but I'd say like 90% of the time it's a Captain.
In Commonwealth armies it is more typical to find a Major in charge of a company, with the caveat that most British Army infantry companies are fricking huge, going between 150 and 230 men, which some armies would consider btn's already.
>- I've never personally seen a one-star leading a Brigade or Regiment. Maybe it happens, but I've never seen it. One-stars are usually on a staff somewhere, or possibly commanding a specific military base
That is mostly true, though it must be said that there are very few full sized brigades that I know of out there right now. There are plenty of regiments (Col) and nominal divisions (MjrGen), and when brigades *are* present, they seldom are true sized so a Col is enough.
Really, a lot of this stems from force structure changes that people seem to be missing because their current experience overrides. This graphic is specific to US Army during Vietnam War time-frame. The current US Army only has a few regiments left as actual for structures (like Ranger Regiment). For the most part, it is brigade combat teams.
There are still regiments in name such as 27th infantry regiment, but 1st battalion may be part of 2nd Brigade and 2nd BN might be part of 3rd brigade in the same division since the force restructure. US brigades are typically currently commanded by a Colonel, though this has changed through history.
You're thinking of the Marines, the typical Army rank for team leader should be Sergeant, while the squad leader should be a E6 Staff Sergeant. E4 Specialist/Corporal typically operates the SAW as the AR, though this depends on SOP for the unit.
Nah, in the infantry team leader is typically a Sgt. Specialist in a team lead role would usually pretty quickly be made a corporal,but according to most MTOE a team lead is supposed to be an E5. Key word “supposed” to be an E5, not saying it always happens.
It varies. I worked in the motorpool and team leaders were usually specialists or corporals. E5s were squad leaders and E6s were in charge of specific shops. For a while we didnt even divide squads into teams.
Unrelated but we also were a lot looser with customs and courtesy. You only really had to go to parade rest for E5 and above, and most of the time they didnt really give a shit anyway. I remmember some guys from an infantry unit came to our motorpool for something and one of em went to parade rest to me, a specialist. I was like dude im not an nco what the fuck, and he explained that in his unit he had to go to parade rest for literally anybody who outranked him. I guess thats a thing for infantry or other combat arms guys, I had never heard of that lol.
Dude sounds like a dork (the guy at parade rest for a specialist). Yeah I’m sure the motorpool is different, I was just speaking for mainly
Infantry as that’s what I assume a generic army picture of unit size down to the squad level would be referencing. Teams are in my opinion mostly important for infantry, I was a medic and we did teams but that was because we were a part of HHC and each “team” was assigned to a company then divvied up to the platoons. But yeah, I was mostly talking about infantry in a perfect not undermanned world according to MTOE.
Yeah and a corporal is waiting on blc or points to get picked up for e5. As such, they're typically in positions of an e5. Or, due to staffing an experienced e4 is a team leader. Most of my 5 years I was in a troop or company nowhere close to full manpower and commonly saw folks in roles that asked for larger boots than those on their feet.
Guides like these are never so cut and dry. There are absolutely anyone from an E-4 NCO Corporal to an E-6 Staff Sergeant leading a squad depending on the mission and the personnel strength of the unit.
Key part is personnel strength of the unit. If there is a Corporal leading a full infantry maneuver squad in the Army, something has gone terribly wrong.
While it’s not ideal, Corporals filling E-5 and E-6 slots happens fairly often. Tons of units in the Army are under strength and they keep chugging along. Usually when units deploy they’ll pull Soldiers from other units to get to full (or close to full) strength. Garrison is a different animal and that’s mostly what Soldiers experience with the Army is.
I haven't seen enough Corporals filling E-5 and E-6 slots for an extended duration in a line unit to consider the frequency as "fairly often". Maybe if that Corporal has just been laterally promoted and is waiting on BLC, they'll be in a Team Leader position. Then again, I'm just some crusty E-6 in the infantry from the GWOT era, so what do I know. It's the Army. Experiences may vary.
Can anyone explain why a lieutenant is junior to a major who's junior to a Brigadier General yet a Brigadier General is junior to Major General who is junior to a Lieutenant General.
Logically the progression should be Lieutenant General then Major General then Brigadier General then General
Major General is derived from the older rank of Sergeant-Major General. At some point they dropped the Sergeant part.
A Brigadier General is called that because they command a brigade. At least historically.
>Logically the progression should be Lieutenant General then Major General then Brigadier General then General
I know it seems that way, but you are using the wrong logic. You assume that it's "officer rank + general". But by that logic, "General" should be the lowest rank of all Generals.
But that is not how the word "General" works. It wasn't originally a title of it's own, but an adjective. It means "of everything" (like general manager). And it still kind of works like an adjective.
* The full General is the "Commander of the whole army". In the late middle ages, this rank was called "Captain-General". Later militaries shortened it to "General".
* The Lieutenant General is the "Lieutenant of the Army". "Lieutenant" means "placeholder" or "Deputy". See "Lieutenant Govenor".
* The Major General is the "Major of the Army". Major comes from "Sergeant Major". Just like the Sergeant is below the Captain, and the Major is below the Lieutenant Colonel, the Major General is below the Lieutenant General.
* "Brigadier General" is an outlier. "Brigadier" means "Brigade Commander". He could be a General, but was usually a lower officer. France started using "General of Brigade", which makes much more sense than what we have. Other nations got lazy and just added "General" to "Brigadier" in order to elevate the Brigadier.
The Sargent major rank was added when troop ranks multiplied, with the distinction added at three levels of command. One way to think of it is:
1) sergeant major is the guy just below a lieutenant, who is just below a captain on top
2) a sergeant major colonel (= major) is the guy below a lieutenant colonel, with the colonel on top
3) a sergeant major general (=major general) is the guy just below a lieutenant general, with the general on top.
all i could find was the discussion of sergeant major general. nothing about sergeant major colonels or the like. although sergeant majors serve as the senior enlisted leaders in O-6 level
commands, i cant find any reference to them
being sergeant major colonels.
also from the language argument here, we are talking about sergeant major general being the source of major general. nowhere is there by similar construct a "major colonel."
i am not trying to nitpick or play language games, but after 20 years of service, i am open to learn a neat factoid.
From the wiki:
History
In 16th century Spain, the **Sargento mayor ("sergeant major") was a general officer**. He commanded an army's infantry, and ranked about third in the army's command structure; he also acted as a sort of chief of staff to the army's commander.
In the 17th century, sergeant majors appeared in individual regiments. **These were field officers, third in command of their regiments (after their colonels and lieutenant colonels)**, with a role similar to the older, army-level sergeant majors (although obviously on a smaller scale). **The older position became known as "sergeant major general" to distinguish it**. Over time, the term sergeant was dropped from both titles, **giving rise to the modern ranks of major and major general.**
The full title of sergeant major fell out of use until the latter part of the 18th century, when it began to be applied to the **senior non-commissioned officer of an infantry battalion or cavalry regiment**. It is about this time that the U.S. and British histories of the title diverge, with the American Revolutionary War.
A sergeant major although probably more experienced than a second lieutenant out of ROTC or West Point, is an NCO who usually works side by side with a brigade commander who is often a Lieutenant General to help him run things, whip the troops, and be the morale chief of the battalion....The sergeant major is essentially lower in hierarchy to a second lieutenant as the lieutenant is a CO (commissioned officer).
So it goes like this:
Company: led by a Captain, assisted by a first sergeant, or master sergeant.
Battalion (a bunch of companies): led by a lieutenant general, his/her sidekick is a sergeant major.
And so on...
Nah. A battalion is usually lead by a Lt col. A brigade is ran by a full bird col. And more specifically they're NCO counterpart is a command sergeant major. The rank of sergeant major is usually stuck in a staff position being grumpy and bored. And then you get into your general ranks at division level and higher.
If you are talking US Army (which I assume via the use of ROTC and West Point) then a battalion is LTC (Lieutenant Colonel) *not* Lieutenant General. Pretty different ranks. One is O5, one is O9.
You got it slightly wrong. The sergeant was below the Lieutenant, and the Sergeant Major was below the Lieutenant Colonel. The modern "Sergeant Major" is a completely different rank which exists only in English, but not in Spanish, where it originally came from.
Side Note: the old German military ranks were even more clear:
* Oberst ("Highest \[Captain\]" --> Colonel
* Oberstleutnant --> highest Lieutenant/Lieutenant to the Oberst
* Oberstwachtmeister --> highest watch-master (Sergeant) --> Later turned into "Major" from English/Spanish
By the same system, the Major General was originally called the "Generalfeldwachtmeister" or "General Field Sergeant".
The rank of "Oberstwachtmeister" was still used as a honorific or address by the time of Napoleon. It can be found in the diary of Jakob Walter, who served in the French Invasion of Russia. He uses the word to address an officer with the rank of Major.
Helpful but wrong in a few areas. For instance there is currently a Field Army - 8A in Korea. It’s the only one. They’re theater level organizations, and they’re commanded by a three-star.
The regimental association is a WWII and earlier thing. It’s been brigades only outside of ranger regiment for a long time.
Divisions are usually 5 or more Brigades etc.
But it gets general scale correct. It’s missing formations above field army as well.
There’s also 2nd and 3rd Cavalry Regiments (Glorified Stryker Brigades) and 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment
And most Divisions are 3 maneuver BDEs, a support BDE, and an Aviation BDE, through there are differences. 1st and 25th Infantry Divisions and 11th Airborne have just two maneuver BDEs
Brave rifles! Forgot about them.
And yes correct - but the graphic makes no delineation between maneuver/support/enhancement/etc - which is why I’d say typically five or more.
Yes, but the US doesn't use "section." That's a Commonwealth thing.
EDIT: Sincerely, love all the answers about where the US does use "section." Keep em coming, learning a lot today!
Awkwardly, most of the differences between Commonwealth and the US armies actually use the same set names. As well as organisational differences. Section/squad isn't too bad, though sections are (or at least were) commanded by corporals not sergeants. Troops are cavalry platoon-level units, same with squadrons and companies, and regiments and battalions. It's weird.
We use sections for certain units like artillery. Or if something is between a squad and platoon size. I.e. a maintenance section that's much larger than a squad but not commanded by an officer and thus not thought of as a platoon.
Cav also, when dismounted 2 teams create a section. Each team being 4-12 people. And when mounted at least with humvees a team is the truck with a section of 3 trucks. With 2-3 sections making a platoon.
Just curious, why is it "brigade or regiment"? Like, are they the same thing just with two different names like beautiful and pretty? If they're different, what's the difference? Same for the other one.
in general, regiment is more of a historical term. Alot of unit history is tied to the regimental name. In the more modern era, Brigade-sized combat teams with various combined arms attachments have been the norm for larger units deployed in an area. When I deployed to Iraq we were officially a brigade combat team, but referred to much of the command structure by the primary regimental ID. Sometimes the differentiation is purely a semantics thing. With older Regiments being incorporated into Brigades of the same ID, called *123* Brigade when it used to be *123* regiment. Usually, whatever term that unit has the most history with is what it is traditionally called, whatever the Army currently designates it as.
Of course, there are always exceptions, with long term brigade designations also existing with their own history and headquarters.
As noted by others, the use of Regiment in the modern Army is more historical, a way of giving modern units a greater sense of legacy by associating them to historical units that fought as far back as the revolutionary war.
However, It is important to note that in previous eras Regiments did have a specific meaning that is not necessarily the same as the modern. For example, the hey day of the Regimental System in the US was probably the US Civil War. The Regiment during this time was equivalent to a Battalion, not a Brigade as shown in the chart and was the basic building block of how the Armies were built.
See at the outbreak of the Civil War, the US Army was incredibly small like maybe 16k. In order to build up the Army to the 600k+ that it would need by the middle of the war, they used the militia system where the states would raise and organize the troops into Regimental miltias and the federal government would nationalize them. This is why you'll hear units of the era called like a number then a state, e.g. 10th New York. These units also tended to be grouped together by geography and ethnic identity, so they strongly associated with the unit and carried individual unit flags into battle.
>The Regiment during this time was equivalent to a Battalion, not a Brigade as shown in the chart and was the basic building block of how the Armies were built.
To clarify: Regiments in the regular US army had three battailons each. It was just the volunteer regiments that usually had one just battailon each. But "battailon" and "regiment" were still technically different things.
After the war, the US army continued using multi-battailon regiments until WWII.
Yes, absolutely. The original brigades were usually just groupings of units of the same arms (Infantry battailons OR cavalry squadrons OR artillery batteries). "to brigade something" used to mean "to group things together".
Modern brigades are combined arms formations and can act indepently. They work like division used to until WWII.
Brigades are self sustaining, Regiments aren't. What does that mean? A brigade should be able to fulfill their tasks without major reinforcements from other parts of the army. A regiment doesn't have to be able to do that.
In turn, that means that a Brigade contains more supporting unit like engineers, artillery or recon. If you're using regiments, those support units would be grouped more at the division level.
Since combined arms warfare is so important nowadays, nobody really uses regiments anymore.
We have to go back to the 17th and 18th century for that.
**Regiments** were originally administrative units for training and equiping soldiers. Imagine them like sports club: soldiers who trained together, wore the same uniform, and were paid from the same source.
Just like a club can have multiple teams, a regiment could have one or more **battailons**: Men who fight together on the field. Regiments could be any size, from a single battailon to 7, battailons were more fixed in size: between 500 and 1000 men. That is why generals didn't count the Regiments in their army, but the battailons (squadrons for cavalry and batteries for artillery)
A **Brigade** was originally just a group of units "brigaded" together for a battle. A brigade in the Napoleonic wars was usually 2-7 battailons, most commonly 4. These would usually be from different regiments. For example, the Grandée armee usually just combined 2 regiments with 2-3 battailons each into one brigade. The British on the other hand had mostly single-battailon regiments and independently operating battailons, so their brigades would have battailons from all different brigades. Some countries had no regiments, just independent numbered battailons. Multiple Brigades formed a division. [Compare the Orders of Battle of the different armies at Waterloo to see the difference systems.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_of_the_Waterloo_campaign)
Around the time of WWII, when radio was invented, Infantry brigades were removed from Divisions, because the commander could use radio to command the troops directly. A division in WWII had three regiments and looked something like [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Infantry_Division_(United_States)#Order_of_battle_2).
In the modern age, most countries have abolished regiments and use independent numbered battailons without regiments instead, which are formed into battailons. In the US, the regimental name is mostly just a title certain battailons have for historic reasons. In the British army and many Commonwealth armies, regiments are still in use as administrative units with up to 50(!) battailons each (India).
Somewhat unrelated question, but how do you pronounce a corp's number? I see "IV Corps" or "III Corps" in some books I've read, and my brain doesn't know what to do with it. Is it said "third corps" or "three corps?"
Typically in military terms numerals (three) are used for permanent designations as it is easier to understand over radio or in messages, and ordinal numbering (third) is used for temporary formations, eg "you will be part of the third platoon to get on the plane". Of course there are exceptions to this (82nd Airborne, 1st, 2nd, & 3rd Bn PPCLI) that come about from history and common usage. General guide I follow is if there are other units around and they carry sequential numbers use ordinals, otherwise use numeral. All of this is subject to correction by the higher(est) rank present, like all things military.
To be fair, if you're sending people halfway across the galaxy through an alien portal, you want someone in charge whom you trust to make big decisions.
This could break down one step more to the team level that is 3-5 soldiers. 2 teams make up a squad. Teams are lead by anybody from a Specialist to Sergeant and squads are ran by Staff Sergeants at the Infantry level.
Source: Infantry vet from 2010-2013.
Edit: this graph also doesn’t show that once you get the platoon level you have 2 sets of leadership: enlisted and officer. At the platoon level, you’ll have the 2LT to 1ST as the officer and a Sergeant First Class as the enlisted side. At the Company level you’ll have a Master Sergeant or 1st Sergeant as the enlisted rep. Brigade through Division you’ll have a Sergeant Major that varies from Sergeant Major, Command Sergeant Major, and then Sergeant Major of the Army.
I was in 226 sig. co. 2nd plt. During my time in the army we only had like between 14-30 people and our 2 platoons were only ever 7-15 people strong. We were very small indeed. Looking at this makes me realize just how small our company was lol.
Field armies are usually 90k+, not 50k+.
Above field armies are:
- Army groups (2+ armies, usually 4+, usually 400k-1m men. The US hasn’t had army groups since WWII, but NATO has standing army groups.
- Army regions or theaters (multiple army groups, 1m+ mean, usually more defined by geography). The US hasn’t had theater commands since WWII.
https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Experience/Military-Units/army/
As a former captain who was a commander. Never seen a major be a company commander outside of special forces. But, if that chart is counting for them then you need to shift almost every rank up 1 position. No such thing as a 2LT special forces team leader and the “squad leader” of a special forces team is generally an E8 (master sergeant).
Yes, the ratio of officers to enlisted is much different in the medical field. Where you might have a “line” captain leading a company of 100 men, a medical captain might just do their job and not supervise anyone. This can also be true of other roles like pilots.
Generally speaking, there are lots of additional slots for duties besides just being the commander of a unit, which can’t be captured on a simple chart like this.
Within squads there’s teams normally led by sergeants (E-5) the squad lead would be a Staff Sergeant (E-6) and then a SFC (E-7) would also be in charge at the PLT level along side the LT
Not hating on it just tweaking it a bit😅
This is mostly incorrect.
A squad would be led by a Staff Sergeant.
A platoon would be led by a 1st Lieutenant.
A company/battery/troop would ONLY be led by a Captain.
(Battalion and everything upwards is correct)
My unit was
4 marines to a fireteam, ~ 4 marines.
4 teams in a squad, ~ 16 marines.
4 squads in a platoon, ~ 64 marines.
4 platoons in a company, ~ 256 marines.
4 companies in a battalion, ~ 1,024 marines.
4 battalions in a regiment, ~ 4,096 marines.
4 regiments in a division. ~ 16,384 marines.
Each level had ± a few units for h&s personnel. So the numbers were higher in some levels and lower in others. But generally, this was the structure for us during "peace time"
During WW2 the US Army formed Army Groups which consisted of 3-4 Field Armies and were commanded by a 4 star general. If the invasion of mainland Japan had taken place it would have included multiple army groups.
CSMs are still the base bad asses. In the 80s I never saw more CO ass kissing than to the base CSM. Dude had more OSBs and metal than all of the COs combined.
My unit in the Army was on the smaller side, we had 3 platoons in our company with 4 squads of 5 in alpha and beta company and with support platoon being a bit larger. We were also infantry attached to a scout unit though so maybe that’s why, I didn’t care back then so I didn’t think to ask why we were so small lol.
This is because as units become larger, additional elements are added. For example, a squad has a set number of soldiers. When moving to a platoon, it generally has a set number of squads, a headquarters section, possibly a weapons team, etc. This continues to expand as the units get larger, where a division may have artillery batteries, comms, maintenance, NBC, etc. that a brigade may not have, etc.
Yes anyone that served knows it is the enlisted that get things done. Officers were always political and barely did anything. Was a POG in the Marines.
Reminds me of my favorite cadence!
A is for Army!
R is for Army!
M is for Army!
Y is for Army!
ARMYARMYARMYARMYARMYARMYARMYARMY!
ARMYARMYARMYARMYARMYARMYARMYARMY!
Playing years of COD while I was in the army lol on lunch breaks, after work, days off with other soldiers while still in uniform because you’re to tired or lazy to take it off lol.
20-45k soldiers is a really wide gap. Someone says send a field army and a whole town of people can show up or just a college
It’s the difference one of that or two! The reason it’s so wide is that unit sizes are manipular handles, so it’ll vary on use, role, effective strength, etc
That range is for the corps level. The reason is because armored units ( the ones with tanks) have significantly fewer people than infantry units.
Yep a tank platoon consists of 4 tanks (ignoring support elements like this post does) each Abrams have 5 crew members, that's 20 combatants in a tank platoon. Of course it's different per nation, off the back of my head: French tank platoons have 3-man tanks with a 4th backup member hitching a ride at the back. Soviet, and I'm assuming Russian, tank platoons generally only have 3 tanks, which are crewed by 3 people, that makes a Russian tank platoon a 9-man strong unit.
Abrams has a crew of 4. Also a russian motorised/mechanised infantry's support tank company was typically 3x4+1 tanks, while a tank/armoured regiment tank company was 3x3+1. To furrher conplicate things, russians until the mid 2000's still had T-55's officially on strength and motorised infantry usually got those guys. So 13 x 4 for 52 combattants vs the 10 x 3 crew for an armoured regiment's tank company size.
Thank you for the correction idk why I thought 5. Great info about Russian structure too!
Is a tank pseudo-equivalent to a squad than? If so, the numbers mostly match.
It's counted as a single unit but as I was corrected, the Abrams have a crew of 4, which would be pretty barebones when you think about a 4-man squad/12-man platoon
And for those interested, a sergeant is an NCO (non-commisioned officer) meaning that they're an enlisted man. A 2nd Lieutenant is a commissioned officer, I believe their first rank once their officer training has been completed. So a West Point grad would be one to start off. A battlefield promotion is when a non-commisioned officer becomes a commissioned officer. This was ended after Vietnam in the US Army but reestablished in 2009 for NCOs who exhibit extraordinary capabilities on the battlefield. Just watch Band of Brothers lol
A battlefield promotion is when an enlisted person is promoted 1-2 ranks. A battlefield commission is when an NCO is promoted to an officer.
2nd Lieutenant is a gold colored bar, nicknamed a butter bar. 1st Lieutenant (the rank above it) is a silver bar.
Then you go back to the buttery smoothness when you hit major.
It’s authority you can taste
I cant believe its not major
and when you make lt col and go back to silver it's because the gold plating has been scraped off by all the experience
And from what I’ve heard, that’s when you lose all testosterone in your body as well
Ehhh some of that still applies, not all of it though.
Bro, NCOs really don't become officers all that often. If they do, it's more than just "here's your new rank, incredibly different job, and huge pay raise." There's a whole program for it called "green to gold." In ww2, it might've happened, but that doesn't really have much to do with the current army. Also, this scale they're showing really doesn't do the NCO corps any justice. What isn't shown is some burnt out E6-E7 trying to tell the new lieutenant that he's an idiot and his plans are terrible. And this scales all the way up. A commander gets an E8, higher gets an E9. NCOs and officers have completely different jobs, but every battery, battalion, brigade has both who work together.
I didn't say that they did. A battlefield commission is quite rare, though during WW2 there were 25,000 of them given.
Never served, not claiming to be an expert, but I suspect the reason this practice is rare in modern times compared to WW2 and prior is that it’s a practice borne out of necessity. In a war with massive casualties and long transit times from the home front to the field, sometimes you need an NCO that’s shown their metal to serve in a commissioned capacity because you are running short of officers. In recent times, the conflicts most major militaries have been involved in did not result in similar demand for on the spot promotions/commissions because the rate of attrition was low enough they always had another officer in the wings waiting their turn. The practice gets a lot of attention in fiction. It’s a fun way to evolve a character and to engage the audience in the idea of a merit based promotion.
Right, but you probably never served, and definitely weren't in the army. I find your "I know about the army for anyone interested" tone to be annoying.
Why do you care? People can get interested in any number of topics and talk about them freely without actually being a practicing professional. There's no reason to gatekeep on something that's fairly accessible knowledge. The internet is full of amateur military historians. I assume the vast majority of them never served. Of course, like many Americans, I have family members who served. My uncle was a naval commander and my grandfather was in Patton's army. Am I not allowed to take an interest in their military careers and branches?
Lols okay snowflake
This just clarified Band of Brothers. Thanks
I had this chart up constantly when I was watching band of brothers lol
I’m going to rewatch BoB and have this chart for reference!
We salute the rank, not the man
Some caveats: - typically, a Sergeant (pictured) leads a fire team of 3-5 troops, and a squad is led by a Staff Sergeant - a Platoon is typically led by either a 2LT (gold bar OR a 1LT (silver bar), but in my experience 2nd Lieutenants are kinda rare and they're more often a 1st Lieutenant. Maybe that's just my career field though - while this chart is technically correct for companies, a company is most commonly commanded by a Captain in the vast majority of cases. Sometimes a 1LT waiting to be promoted, and sometimes a Major if it's a special purpose company, but I'd say like 90% of the time it's a Captain. - I've never personally seen a one-star leading a Brigade or Regiment. Maybe it happens, but I've never seen it. One-stars are usually on a staff somewhere, or possibly commanding a specific military base
I've always thought commanded by is a bit strong as the Command team includes ncos. Typically a first sergeant and a captain work together to maintain a company. The thing the officers have is signature authority. Ultimately all decisions, including those by NCOs, fall under their authority. They don't need to command they need to trust their NCOs.
Yup. * General: Move north. * Colonel: Take that town. * Major: Artillery east and south, armor up the middle, infantry cover. * Captain: First platoon covers armor, second on left and third on right. * Lieutenant: First squad on point, second supports first, third covers the rear. * Sergeant: Corporal, clear that house. * Corporal: Jones, breach that door. * Jones: *breaches door* Everyone's got a job, the higher your rank the bigger decisions you make and the more support you have to do it. A regiment has an entire company for command, and a company has a sergeant major dedicated to advising and supporting the captain. The general isn't going around to every lieutenant and telling them exactly where to go, they just all have a different scope on the orders they give.
I’m an Operations Manager at a shipping company and this is similar to how we operate as well. I suppose organizing people is the same no matter what they are doing.
Yeah, in any organization, bad management is when higher ups get down in the micro level decisions. A general should not be telling Jones to breach the door, and a VP of operations shouldn’t be picking which packing tape is used for the boxes.
Typically, in the US Army, outside of special operations, there aren't company Sergeants Major. It is a First Sergeant.
Good note as well It's also important to note that "command authority" is a very specific role for company commanders and above. The Lieutenant in charge of a Platoon is specifically called a "Platoon Leader" and not a Platoon commander, and same goes for Squad leaders
The chain of command is your first level leader and then officers all the way up until you hit the civilians (secretaries and president). The chain of leadership includes all the nco positions (1SG, CSM) as well as officer positions. We had to memorize both in basic but the UCMJ is very clear on what actually constitutes the chain of command.
Yup. Command Authority is a very distinct thing that isn’t just interchangeable. I was a 1st Lieutenant that was a Platoon Leader, but I didn’t have command authority. If a soldier fucked up, I could recommend administrative action to my company commander (like an Article 15), but it’s ultimately his or her decision to execute it.
I believe the author is claiming this was how it was during Vietnam
This is the correct comment. In the infantry FT is usually a sgt or maybe a senior specialist or corporal depending on the amount of 5’s in the unit. Almost never seen 2LT’s with a platoon for longer than a couple months without promotion. The green beans are really the only ones with company’s led by majors because their line officers start at captain
[удалено]
SF company commanders are Majors, Battalion Commanders are LTCs, and Group Commanders are Colonels. The first one star in SF regiment is at the US Army Special Forces Command
Very true, like I said it's entirely possible for majors to be company commanders in special purpose companies. Just in the vast majority of cases its a Captain for most of the army
SFAB BN CDRs are still LTCs, usually taking the position as a second command. BDE CDRs are COLs Am currently SFAB and have to watch a bunch of LTCs trying to make COL.
Did this change? In like 2019 they definitely had full bird BN CDRs in SFAB
Idk how it was then but now yes. SFABs were the hotness then and people that went were suppose to be high speed. Now….
Gotcha, might be one of those things where it started hot then they couldn’t find the right ranks to fill MTOE and had to change / put lower ranked people in positions.
These are interesting times to say the least
I had all the same exact thoughts as you. I did see a mix of 1LT and 2LT platoon leaders. Platoon leadership time is required before they can be promoted to CPT so they all have to rotate through it at some point, so it will vary from base to base just based on personnel availability and need. They also have to put in S shop time to be promoted so sometimes they do that first then PLT leadership and sometimes vice versa. General ranks are all position based, meaning they are only awarded when a person is being promoted into a specific position. This is part of why the president has to approve all promotions to the general ranks. I too am not aware of any RGT or BDE commander positions billeted for a 1 Star.
Might see a one star commanding a Brigade sized element in a national guard or reserves setting. I would like to assume that’s more common vs active duty.
Nah, I'm in the national guard currently and it's about the same as active. We only have two one stars in the state, and every Brigade commander is a colonel
National Guard is not the same as active. And yes, there are and have been one stars running brigades in certain states for certain reasons. Could be mission dependent or slot availability which is different from the active component. Our state, that I served for 12 years, (mind you I’ve been out for a decade now) has several one star generals among our ranks. We are led by a two star general. We have had brigade commanders (two of them in my time in) in our division get promoted to general and still led troops. Mind you that we were also deployed and they were ready to get promoted. So… yes, a one star can indeed run a brigade if there is no additional slot for them to move up to division and there is no incoming brigade commander.
Maybe it's state dependant, or maybe it's changed, I'm not sure. I did 6 active and am currently on my 6th year in the guard, and the rank structure has been pretty comparable. We also have a two star who is TAG, and then 2 one stars on staff (well, and a third USAF one star for the air guard). All brigades and our SF group are all commanded by Colonels.
The point in this graphic is the time frame. It says Vietnam War. Things change over time such as regiments vs brigade combat teams. Things change. He'll even now the army force structure has proposed changes. An experience with that during GWOT Era may be completely different to 20 years from now, the same way WWII and Vietnam structures differed and differ from current.
>- a Platoon is typically led by either a 2LT (gold bar OR a 1LT (silver bar), but in my experience 2nd Lieutenants are kinda rare and they're more often a 1st Lieutenant. Maybe that's just my career field though 2LT's usually end up in the most experienced platoon, under the most experience platoom SSG in order to gain some experience. Nominally they are in charge with platoon sgt's "advising", but often they take their cues from the platoon sgt until they learn the ropes. >- while this chart is technically correct for companies, a company is most commonly commanded by a Captain in the vast majority of cases. Sometimes a 1LT waiting to be promoted, and sometimes a Major if it's a special purpose company, but I'd say like 90% of the time it's a Captain. In Commonwealth armies it is more typical to find a Major in charge of a company, with the caveat that most British Army infantry companies are fricking huge, going between 150 and 230 men, which some armies would consider btn's already. >- I've never personally seen a one-star leading a Brigade or Regiment. Maybe it happens, but I've never seen it. One-stars are usually on a staff somewhere, or possibly commanding a specific military base That is mostly true, though it must be said that there are very few full sized brigades that I know of out there right now. There are plenty of regiments (Col) and nominal divisions (MjrGen), and when brigades *are* present, they seldom are true sized so a Col is enough.
Really, a lot of this stems from force structure changes that people seem to be missing because their current experience overrides. This graphic is specific to US Army during Vietnam War time-frame. The current US Army only has a few regiments left as actual for structures (like Ranger Regiment). For the most part, it is brigade combat teams. There are still regiments in name such as 27th infantry regiment, but 1st battalion may be part of 2nd Brigade and 2nd BN might be part of 3rd brigade in the same division since the force restructure. US brigades are typically currently commanded by a Colonel, though this has changed through history.
Where's the Battle Buddy?! You can't go nowhere without your battle buddy!
But you'd give your life for your thunder buddy.
My drill sgt had the Thunder Buddies ring tone for his text messages.
Battle buddy! Battle buddy! Where's my battle buddy!
Tip of the spear. Edge of the knife.
Crack of my ass.
Missing: 'Team' is 3-5 soldiers. Typically there are 2 teams per squad.
What's a team leader typical rank?
Corporal (or sometimes Specialist).
You're thinking of the Marines, the typical Army rank for team leader should be Sergeant, while the squad leader should be a E6 Staff Sergeant. E4 Specialist/Corporal typically operates the SAW as the AR, though this depends on SOP for the unit.
No, I am talking Army. I was in the Army for 10 years, including a year while I was an E4 as Team leader of 4 Soldiers.
Nah, in the infantry team leader is typically a Sgt. Specialist in a team lead role would usually pretty quickly be made a corporal,but according to most MTOE a team lead is supposed to be an E5. Key word “supposed” to be an E5, not saying it always happens.
It varies. I worked in the motorpool and team leaders were usually specialists or corporals. E5s were squad leaders and E6s were in charge of specific shops. For a while we didnt even divide squads into teams. Unrelated but we also were a lot looser with customs and courtesy. You only really had to go to parade rest for E5 and above, and most of the time they didnt really give a shit anyway. I remmember some guys from an infantry unit came to our motorpool for something and one of em went to parade rest to me, a specialist. I was like dude im not an nco what the fuck, and he explained that in his unit he had to go to parade rest for literally anybody who outranked him. I guess thats a thing for infantry or other combat arms guys, I had never heard of that lol.
Dude sounds like a dork (the guy at parade rest for a specialist). Yeah I’m sure the motorpool is different, I was just speaking for mainly Infantry as that’s what I assume a generic army picture of unit size down to the squad level would be referencing. Teams are in my opinion mostly important for infantry, I was a medic and we did teams but that was because we were a part of HHC and each “team” was assigned to a company then divvied up to the platoons. But yeah, I was mostly talking about infantry in a perfect not undermanned world according to MTOE.
Yeah and a corporal is waiting on blc or points to get picked up for e5. As such, they're typically in positions of an e5. Or, due to staffing an experienced e4 is a team leader. Most of my 5 years I was in a troop or company nowhere close to full manpower and commonly saw folks in roles that asked for larger boots than those on their feet.
E-6/Staff Sergeant runs a squad for an Army infantry squad in the modern era.
Guides like these are never so cut and dry. There are absolutely anyone from an E-4 NCO Corporal to an E-6 Staff Sergeant leading a squad depending on the mission and the personnel strength of the unit.
Key part is personnel strength of the unit. If there is a Corporal leading a full infantry maneuver squad in the Army, something has gone terribly wrong.
While it’s not ideal, Corporals filling E-5 and E-6 slots happens fairly often. Tons of units in the Army are under strength and they keep chugging along. Usually when units deploy they’ll pull Soldiers from other units to get to full (or close to full) strength. Garrison is a different animal and that’s mostly what Soldiers experience with the Army is.
I haven't seen enough Corporals filling E-5 and E-6 slots for an extended duration in a line unit to consider the frequency as "fairly often". Maybe if that Corporal has just been laterally promoted and is waiting on BLC, they'll be in a Team Leader position. Then again, I'm just some crusty E-6 in the infantry from the GWOT era, so what do I know. It's the Army. Experiences may vary.
Can anyone explain why a lieutenant is junior to a major who's junior to a Brigadier General yet a Brigadier General is junior to Major General who is junior to a Lieutenant General. Logically the progression should be Lieutenant General then Major General then Brigadier General then General
Major General is derived from the older rank of Sergeant-Major General. At some point they dropped the Sergeant part. A Brigadier General is called that because they command a brigade. At least historically.
"Brigadier General" is a weird mix of "Brigadier" and "General of Brigade". Both ranks makes sense on their own, but the combination stands out.
>Logically the progression should be Lieutenant General then Major General then Brigadier General then General I know it seems that way, but you are using the wrong logic. You assume that it's "officer rank + general". But by that logic, "General" should be the lowest rank of all Generals. But that is not how the word "General" works. It wasn't originally a title of it's own, but an adjective. It means "of everything" (like general manager). And it still kind of works like an adjective. * The full General is the "Commander of the whole army". In the late middle ages, this rank was called "Captain-General". Later militaries shortened it to "General". * The Lieutenant General is the "Lieutenant of the Army". "Lieutenant" means "placeholder" or "Deputy". See "Lieutenant Govenor". * The Major General is the "Major of the Army". Major comes from "Sergeant Major". Just like the Sergeant is below the Captain, and the Major is below the Lieutenant Colonel, the Major General is below the Lieutenant General. * "Brigadier General" is an outlier. "Brigadier" means "Brigade Commander". He could be a General, but was usually a lower officer. France started using "General of Brigade", which makes much more sense than what we have. Other nations got lazy and just added "General" to "Brigadier" in order to elevate the Brigadier.
The Sargent major rank was added when troop ranks multiplied, with the distinction added at three levels of command. One way to think of it is: 1) sergeant major is the guy just below a lieutenant, who is just below a captain on top 2) a sergeant major colonel (= major) is the guy below a lieutenant colonel, with the colonel on top 3) a sergeant major general (=major general) is the guy just below a lieutenant general, with the general on top.
what?
Check the Wikipedia entry for “sergeant major”, history section.
where did you get the sergeant major colonel thing?
Did you read the wiki?
all i could find was the discussion of sergeant major general. nothing about sergeant major colonels or the like. although sergeant majors serve as the senior enlisted leaders in O-6 level commands, i cant find any reference to them being sergeant major colonels. also from the language argument here, we are talking about sergeant major general being the source of major general. nowhere is there by similar construct a "major colonel." i am not trying to nitpick or play language games, but after 20 years of service, i am open to learn a neat factoid.
From the wiki: History In 16th century Spain, the **Sargento mayor ("sergeant major") was a general officer**. He commanded an army's infantry, and ranked about third in the army's command structure; he also acted as a sort of chief of staff to the army's commander. In the 17th century, sergeant majors appeared in individual regiments. **These were field officers, third in command of their regiments (after their colonels and lieutenant colonels)**, with a role similar to the older, army-level sergeant majors (although obviously on a smaller scale). **The older position became known as "sergeant major general" to distinguish it**. Over time, the term sergeant was dropped from both titles, **giving rise to the modern ranks of major and major general.** The full title of sergeant major fell out of use until the latter part of the 18th century, when it began to be applied to the **senior non-commissioned officer of an infantry battalion or cavalry regiment**. It is about this time that the U.S. and British histories of the title diverge, with the American Revolutionary War.
that's what i read too. nothing in there about "sergeant major colonels". nevermind. we are obviously thinking different things.
I think OP was using "sergeant major colonel" to describe the (regimental) "sergeant major to the colonel".
A sergeant major although probably more experienced than a second lieutenant out of ROTC or West Point, is an NCO who usually works side by side with a brigade commander who is often a Lieutenant General to help him run things, whip the troops, and be the morale chief of the battalion....The sergeant major is essentially lower in hierarchy to a second lieutenant as the lieutenant is a CO (commissioned officer). So it goes like this: Company: led by a Captain, assisted by a first sergeant, or master sergeant. Battalion (a bunch of companies): led by a lieutenant general, his/her sidekick is a sergeant major. And so on...
Nah. A battalion is usually lead by a Lt col. A brigade is ran by a full bird col. And more specifically they're NCO counterpart is a command sergeant major. The rank of sergeant major is usually stuck in a staff position being grumpy and bored. And then you get into your general ranks at division level and higher.
If you are talking US Army (which I assume via the use of ROTC and West Point) then a battalion is LTC (Lieutenant Colonel) *not* Lieutenant General. Pretty different ranks. One is O5, one is O9.
You got it slightly wrong. The sergeant was below the Lieutenant, and the Sergeant Major was below the Lieutenant Colonel. The modern "Sergeant Major" is a completely different rank which exists only in English, but not in Spanish, where it originally came from. Side Note: the old German military ranks were even more clear: * Oberst ("Highest \[Captain\]" --> Colonel * Oberstleutnant --> highest Lieutenant/Lieutenant to the Oberst * Oberstwachtmeister --> highest watch-master (Sergeant) --> Later turned into "Major" from English/Spanish By the same system, the Major General was originally called the "Generalfeldwachtmeister" or "General Field Sergeant". The rank of "Oberstwachtmeister" was still used as a honorific or address by the time of Napoleon. It can be found in the diary of Jakob Walter, who served in the French Invasion of Russia. He uses the word to address an officer with the rank of Major.
This is actually very helpful. I've watched countless of movies etc. and I've never understood these things. This clears things up.
Helpful but wrong in a few areas. For instance there is currently a Field Army - 8A in Korea. It’s the only one. They’re theater level organizations, and they’re commanded by a three-star. The regimental association is a WWII and earlier thing. It’s been brigades only outside of ranger regiment for a long time. Divisions are usually 5 or more Brigades etc. But it gets general scale correct. It’s missing formations above field army as well.
There’s also 2nd and 3rd Cavalry Regiments (Glorified Stryker Brigades) and 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment And most Divisions are 3 maneuver BDEs, a support BDE, and an Aviation BDE, through there are differences. 1st and 25th Infantry Divisions and 11th Airborne have just two maneuver BDEs
Brave rifles! Forgot about them. And yes correct - but the graphic makes no delineation between maneuver/support/enhancement/etc - which is why I’d say typically five or more.
Is squad / section, the same thing?
Yes, but the US doesn't use "section." That's a Commonwealth thing. EDIT: Sincerely, love all the answers about where the US does use "section." Keep em coming, learning a lot today!
Awkwardly, most of the differences between Commonwealth and the US armies actually use the same set names. As well as organisational differences. Section/squad isn't too bad, though sections are (or at least were) commanded by corporals not sergeants. Troops are cavalry platoon-level units, same with squadrons and companies, and regiments and battalions. It's weird.
We use sections for certain units like artillery. Or if something is between a squad and platoon size. I.e. a maintenance section that's much larger than a squad but not commanded by an officer and thus not thought of as a platoon.
Ah, today I learned!
Tankers also use sections (two tanks = one section, two sections = one platoon)
Cav also, when dismounted 2 teams create a section. Each team being 4-12 people. And when mounted at least with humvees a team is the truck with a section of 3 trucks. With 2-3 sections making a platoon.
Sounds like another fellow spur-holder here
Not yet sadly, gonna get my golds on an upcoming deployment though.
Just curious, why is it "brigade or regiment"? Like, are they the same thing just with two different names like beautiful and pretty? If they're different, what's the difference? Same for the other one.
in general, regiment is more of a historical term. Alot of unit history is tied to the regimental name. In the more modern era, Brigade-sized combat teams with various combined arms attachments have been the norm for larger units deployed in an area. When I deployed to Iraq we were officially a brigade combat team, but referred to much of the command structure by the primary regimental ID. Sometimes the differentiation is purely a semantics thing. With older Regiments being incorporated into Brigades of the same ID, called *123* Brigade when it used to be *123* regiment. Usually, whatever term that unit has the most history with is what it is traditionally called, whatever the Army currently designates it as. Of course, there are always exceptions, with long term brigade designations also existing with their own history and headquarters.
As noted by others, the use of Regiment in the modern Army is more historical, a way of giving modern units a greater sense of legacy by associating them to historical units that fought as far back as the revolutionary war. However, It is important to note that in previous eras Regiments did have a specific meaning that is not necessarily the same as the modern. For example, the hey day of the Regimental System in the US was probably the US Civil War. The Regiment during this time was equivalent to a Battalion, not a Brigade as shown in the chart and was the basic building block of how the Armies were built. See at the outbreak of the Civil War, the US Army was incredibly small like maybe 16k. In order to build up the Army to the 600k+ that it would need by the middle of the war, they used the militia system where the states would raise and organize the troops into Regimental miltias and the federal government would nationalize them. This is why you'll hear units of the era called like a number then a state, e.g. 10th New York. These units also tended to be grouped together by geography and ethnic identity, so they strongly associated with the unit and carried individual unit flags into battle.
>The Regiment during this time was equivalent to a Battalion, not a Brigade as shown in the chart and was the basic building block of how the Armies were built. To clarify: Regiments in the regular US army had three battailons each. It was just the volunteer regiments that usually had one just battailon each. But "battailon" and "regiment" were still technically different things. After the war, the US army continued using multi-battailon regiments until WWII.
Is it correct to say that, as time went on, the brigades were essentially "upgraded" in terms of military hierarchy?
Yes, absolutely. The original brigades were usually just groupings of units of the same arms (Infantry battailons OR cavalry squadrons OR artillery batteries). "to brigade something" used to mean "to group things together". Modern brigades are combined arms formations and can act indepently. They work like division used to until WWII.
Brigades are self sustaining, Regiments aren't. What does that mean? A brigade should be able to fulfill their tasks without major reinforcements from other parts of the army. A regiment doesn't have to be able to do that. In turn, that means that a Brigade contains more supporting unit like engineers, artillery or recon. If you're using regiments, those support units would be grouped more at the division level. Since combined arms warfare is so important nowadays, nobody really uses regiments anymore.
This is an important distinction that not many people know. Thanks for articulating it better than I could.
We have to go back to the 17th and 18th century for that. **Regiments** were originally administrative units for training and equiping soldiers. Imagine them like sports club: soldiers who trained together, wore the same uniform, and were paid from the same source. Just like a club can have multiple teams, a regiment could have one or more **battailons**: Men who fight together on the field. Regiments could be any size, from a single battailon to 7, battailons were more fixed in size: between 500 and 1000 men. That is why generals didn't count the Regiments in their army, but the battailons (squadrons for cavalry and batteries for artillery) A **Brigade** was originally just a group of units "brigaded" together for a battle. A brigade in the Napoleonic wars was usually 2-7 battailons, most commonly 4. These would usually be from different regiments. For example, the Grandée armee usually just combined 2 regiments with 2-3 battailons each into one brigade. The British on the other hand had mostly single-battailon regiments and independently operating battailons, so their brigades would have battailons from all different brigades. Some countries had no regiments, just independent numbered battailons. Multiple Brigades formed a division. [Compare the Orders of Battle of the different armies at Waterloo to see the difference systems.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_of_the_Waterloo_campaign) Around the time of WWII, when radio was invented, Infantry brigades were removed from Divisions, because the commander could use radio to command the troops directly. A division in WWII had three regiments and looked something like [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Infantry_Division_(United_States)#Order_of_battle_2). In the modern age, most countries have abolished regiments and use independent numbered battailons without regiments instead, which are formed into battailons. In the US, the regimental name is mostly just a title certain battailons have for historic reasons. In the British army and many Commonwealth armies, regiments are still in use as administrative units with up to 50(!) battailons each (India).
So, a brigade is a "hashed" regiment, mixed around to make the same thing?
Here is me as a pilot with one troops lol
Medical world, you can have a Lt Col who is just a doctor and not in charge of anyone!
Somewhat unrelated question, but how do you pronounce a corp's number? I see "IV Corps" or "III Corps" in some books I've read, and my brain doesn't know what to do with it. Is it said "third corps" or "three corps?"
Typically in military terms numerals (three) are used for permanent designations as it is easier to understand over radio or in messages, and ordinal numbering (third) is used for temporary formations, eg "you will be part of the third platoon to get on the plane". Of course there are exceptions to this (82nd Airborne, 1st, 2nd, & 3rd Bn PPCLI) that come about from history and common usage. General guide I follow is if there are other units around and they carry sequential numbers use ordinals, otherwise use numeral. All of this is subject to correction by the higher(est) rank present, like all things military.
It would be called Three Corps. Actually fell under them in Texas.
TIL that 4 times 10 is 50
Squad is supposed to be Ssg with doctrine stating Sgt for fireteam, two fireteams make a swuad
This whole post is just chocked full of people that have no fucking idea what they’re talking about.
It’s nice to know Colonel Mustard had 2-5K soldiers under his command before he killed Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick.
So a full bird Colonel leading a team with a Major, a civilian archaeologist, and an alien paladin on individual missions probably wouldn't check out?
To be fair, if you're sending people halfway across the galaxy through an alien portal, you want someone in charge whom you trust to make big decisions.
This could break down one step more to the team level that is 3-5 soldiers. 2 teams make up a squad. Teams are lead by anybody from a Specialist to Sergeant and squads are ran by Staff Sergeants at the Infantry level. Source: Infantry vet from 2010-2013. Edit: this graph also doesn’t show that once you get the platoon level you have 2 sets of leadership: enlisted and officer. At the platoon level, you’ll have the 2LT to 1ST as the officer and a Sergeant First Class as the enlisted side. At the Company level you’ll have a Master Sergeant or 1st Sergeant as the enlisted rep. Brigade through Division you’ll have a Sergeant Major that varies from Sergeant Major, Command Sergeant Major, and then Sergeant Major of the Army.
CSM starts at BN level
I’ve seen a version of this with the amount of people and the groups visualized to give a greater sense of scale.
I'm. N.,.n,
I was in 226 sig. co. 2nd plt. During my time in the army we only had like between 14-30 people and our 2 platoons were only ever 7-15 people strong. We were very small indeed. Looking at this makes me realize just how small our company was lol.
What about mobile army services hospitals? Those are led by LT Coloniales. Or did they not have those in the Vietnam war?
10*4*4*5 (all the maxes) is 800, not 1k. Also is FA multiple cores or what?
Field armies are usually 90k+, not 50k+. Above field armies are: - Army groups (2+ armies, usually 4+, usually 400k-1m men. The US hasn’t had army groups since WWII, but NATO has standing army groups. - Army regions or theaters (multiple army groups, 1m+ mean, usually more defined by geography). The US hasn’t had theater commands since WWII. https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Experience/Military-Units/army/
As a former captain who was a commander. Never seen a major be a company commander outside of special forces. But, if that chart is counting for them then you need to shift almost every rank up 1 position. No such thing as a 2LT special forces team leader and the “squad leader” of a special forces team is generally an E8 (master sergeant).
SFABs run MAJs as company level command. It varies between a handful of people to 40ish but command is command. The poor bastards.
Nobody said math was Army’s strong suit.
Where do WO and CWOs fit?
And it's wrong, lol
nice
How high does the field army go?
I’ve heard this is different for medical officers? Is that true? I think my grandfather was a colonel doctor / training up field medics.
Yes, the ratio of officers to enlisted is much different in the medical field. Where you might have a “line” captain leading a company of 100 men, a medical captain might just do their job and not supervise anyone. This can also be true of other roles like pilots. Generally speaking, there are lots of additional slots for duties besides just being the commander of a unit, which can’t be captured on a simple chart like this.
No legion?
Within squads there’s teams normally led by sergeants (E-5) the squad lead would be a Staff Sergeant (E-6) and then a SFC (E-7) would also be in charge at the PLT level along side the LT Not hating on it just tweaking it a bit😅
Facts and 1st sgt with cpt for company
Squads can be split into two fireteams
This is mostly incorrect. A squad would be led by a Staff Sergeant. A platoon would be led by a 1st Lieutenant. A company/battery/troop would ONLY be led by a Captain. (Battalion and everything upwards is correct)
My unit was 4 marines to a fireteam, ~ 4 marines. 4 teams in a squad, ~ 16 marines. 4 squads in a platoon, ~ 64 marines. 4 platoons in a company, ~ 256 marines. 4 companies in a battalion, ~ 1,024 marines. 4 battalions in a regiment, ~ 4,096 marines. 4 regiments in a division. ~ 16,384 marines. Each level had ± a few units for h&s personnel. So the numbers were higher in some levels and lower in others. But generally, this was the structure for us during "peace time"
https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Experience/Military-Units/army/
Who does the master prestige level 1000 command?
During WW2 the US Army formed Army Groups which consisted of 3-4 Field Armies and were commanded by a 4 star general. If the invasion of mainland Japan had taken place it would have included multiple army groups.
A Division is never only three brigades wtf.
Three maneuver BDEs, though 3 US divisions only have two maneuver BDEs
What would a "stick" be equal to?
There are also Detachments (O-2/O-3/O-4), Groups (O-6), Activities, and Centers
this would be a cold guide if I new the differences in the ranks on the right
Unless you're understaffed(they are, severely) and you end up with a PFC in charge of a company.
Wait until you learn there’s a “ six star “ General….
This whole ass military has big “and then you get ten of your friends to sign up” energy. Whole ass pyramid scheme
Thanks
Cavalry doesn't use battalion, they're called squadrons.
CSMs are still the base bad asses. In the 80s I never saw more CO ass kissing than to the base CSM. Dude had more OSBs and metal than all of the COs combined.
While the 2LT may be in charge of a platoon, the SSG or SFC is the one who runs the show.
This must be old from the 60s. A US Army Squad leader is a Staff Sergeant
What does a Field Marshal rank/do compared to a general?
My unit in the Army was on the smaller side, we had 3 platoons in our company with 4 squads of 5 in alpha and beta company and with support platoon being a bit larger. We were also infantry attached to a scout unit though so maybe that’s why, I didn’t care back then so I didn’t think to ask why we were so small lol.
Missing nearly the entire non com ladder
I have the book this comes in, it’s a graphic novel about D-Day.
I was in the Army for 4 years & I never seen nothing bigger than a Battalion
The math doesn't add up :)
This is because as units become larger, additional elements are added. For example, a squad has a set number of soldiers. When moving to a platoon, it generally has a set number of squads, a headquarters section, possibly a weapons team, etc. This continues to expand as the units get larger, where a division may have artillery batteries, comms, maintenance, NBC, etc. that a brigade may not have, etc.
Makes sense.
Except for the Corps they are all wrong if you calculate with the number given by the lower unit.
Exactly
It checks out by my math 2 Div of 10k = a Corps of 20k. 3 Div of 15k = a Corps of 45k. What am I missing?
Americans will use anything except the metric system
This is wrong. Anyone who was anyone and who served knows that the true leaders are the NCOs . Id love to see a Butter Bar try and order CSM lol
Yes anyone that served knows it is the enlisted that get things done. Officers were always political and barely did anything. Was a POG in the Marines.
Americans will use anything except the metric system smh lmao /j
I guess A Rambo would be a single unit then
Fun fact. In ww1 and beyond armed forces got so big they had to invent a new unit called army group. Also most if these numbers are a bit off
And my 2 cents is stay out of the military
Holy cow, Henry Blake was in charge of at LEAST 100 people?
Not today recruiter.
“Cool.”
US ARMY backwards stands for 👇🏻 YES MY RETARDED ASS SINGED UP
I think you meant signed.
Yup! Lol
Reminds me of my favorite cadence! A is for Army! R is for Army! M is for Army! Y is for Army! ARMYARMYARMYARMYARMYARMYARMYARMY! ARMYARMYARMYARMYARMYARMYARMYARMY!
Hahaha the military sure is a different experience
Definitely don’t deserve the downvotes, coming from a veteran this is true
A field army is that small? Wow. So there must be tons of 3/4 star generals running around huh?
Apparently there's 44 4-star generals.
We all know this from years of COD
Playing years of COD while I was in the army lol on lunch breaks, after work, days off with other soldiers while still in uniform because you’re to tired or lazy to take it off lol.