# Officer Ranks **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 16, 2019, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-ranks/837179 "2019-07-16T18:40:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2019, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-ranks/837179/21 "2019-07-17T01:18:53Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > I guess my “bite his lip” comment was because in my mind I was thinking about Lindemann and Lütjens on the Bismarck. From my meager knowledge of things, sounds like they had major tactical disagreements but that may have been unique to them, the German Navy, or just the fact that the Bismarck was unique… > [@robby](#): > > One of the unique factors might have been the fact that the task force that Lütjens commanded consisted of just two ships, the battleship _Bismarck_ and the heavy cruiser _Prinz Eugen_, and at some point before the final engagement that sank the _Bismarck_, the two ships were separated. So you then had an admiral in charge of a single-ship “task force” consisting of only the flagship. My interest in this was piqued by your comment, **Karl** , and from my reading, it seems that some of the disagreements between Lindemann (captain of the _Bismarck_) and Lütjens (task force admiral) were the types of disagreements you might expect. Lindemann was thinking tactically (hunt down the _Prince of Wales_ that had attacked _Bismarck_ and which had itself been damaged after a brief engagement), while Lütjens was thinking more strategically and following orders to “avoid unnecessary contact with similar enemy units” in hopes that _Bismarck_ could still successfully break out into the Atlantic. After _Bismarck_ was damaged, Lindemann apparently wanted to retrace their route through the Denmark Strait and return to Bergen, Norway. Lütjens wanted to follow orders and continue trying to make their way south. The disagreements were settled very simply – Lütjens overruled Lindemann and ordered a course set for occupied France. Admiral Lütjens also apparently ordered _Prinz Eugen_ (the other ship in the task force), to break away from the _Bismarck_. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2019, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-ranks/837179/22 "2019-07-17T01:38:14Z")
> [@robby](#): > > You didn’t ask, but in the Navy, you originally had just two officer ranks: Captains and Lieutenants (and Midshipmen, who were officer trainees). The Captain was in charge of the whole ship (and a given ship only had one captain). Lieutenants (might be several) were their assistants. Interestingly, the original term was “Captain of the ship’s company”- i.e. the Captain was the captain of the soldiers/fighting men on board the ship. The Master was the head guy of the sailors. So originally Captains were captains, as this usage came about in the late medieval period as well, when there wasn’t too much distinction between soldiering on land or sea. Eventually, this morphed into ship captains being more equivalent to land-based colonels, as ships got larger, they were roughly equivalent to land-based regiments. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-ranks/837179/23 "2019-07-17T18:26:07Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Interestingly, the original term was “Captain of the ship’s company”- i.e. the Captain was the captain of the soldiers/fighting men on board the ship. The Master was the head guy of the sailors. So originally Captains were captains, as this usage came about in the late medieval period as well, when there wasn’t too much distinction between soldiering on land or sea. > > Eventually, this morphed into ship captains being more equivalent to land-based colonels, as ships got larger, they were roughly equivalent to land-based regiments. Is this the origin of the term, “Master and Commander?” ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2019, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-ranks/837179/24 "2019-07-17T21:00:04Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > Is this the origin of the term, “Master and Commander?” Sort of… the way I understand it is that as time passed, ship Captains ended up commanding the whole ship, and since larger ships were roughly equivalent in manpower to a regiment, that’s why land Colonels = naval Captains in rank. However, there were a lot of ships out there that were smaller than a Captain’s billet (i.e. ‘unrated’ ships) but larger than what they’d let a Lieutenant command, so they came up with the rank of Master and Commander to distinguish the captains of those ships from actual Captains (Post Captains), and from mere Lieutenants. This was based on the size of the ship primarily- they were mostly sloops and smaller ships. So what you had was basically Lieutenants commanding boats and very small ships - for example, Captain James Cook commanded HMS Endeavor on his first voyage of discovery as a Lieutenant. Masters & Commanders commanded mid-range ships- basically anything smaller than a sixth-rate (28 guns) or 20-24 gun ‘post ships’. I have the impression it was nebulous on the lower-end of the scale though. Master and Commander was kind of a weird animal though; it was a rank, but a ship-commander rank, meaning that even on enormous first rates like HMS Victory, there was just the Captain, several Lieutenants, and a bunch of Midshipmen. Masters and Commanders were strictly ship commanders, unlike today, when Commander is just a rank, not a job title, and there can be several Commanders serving aboard a large ship like an aircraft carrier. ---
**Author:** ![KMS94](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ad7895/32.png) [@KMS94](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KMS94)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-ranks/837179/25 "2019-07-19T00:49:23Z")
I’ve always thought they had it backwards. It seems like the rank you have the most of, your average, newer inexperienced soldiers would be called “general,” in the “of no particular importance” usage. Your highest ranks, of which there were fewer and much more selective, should obviously be “Privates.” The mnemonic I always used to keep the order straight was “Be My Little General” for Brigadier O7, Major O8, Lieutenant O9 and Generals O10. ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-ranks/837179/26 "2019-07-19T03:10:52Z")
It’s “general” in the sense of “broad”, or “big picture”, as opposed to “specific”. A lieutenant commands one specific platoon of 50 men, and trains with them, and gets to know them very well. A general is in command of a much broader swath of people, and his connection with individuals is much more tenuous. In theory, any group larger than a regiment is temporary. Regiments can be re-shuffled as needed, and a general officer can be re-assigned to a different continent at a moment’s notice. ---
**Author:** ![Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boozahol_Squid_P.I)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-ranks/837179/27 "2019-07-19T03:28:09Z")
> [@mbh](#): > > A general is in command of a much broader swath of people, and his connection with individuals is much more tenuous. In theory, any group larger than a regiment is temporary. Regiments can be re-shuffled as needed, and a general officer can be re-assigned to a different continent at a moment’s notice. None of this is true for the US Army, at least. Generals have very close working relations with many people, although he tends to work with Colonels and Majors and Sergeant Majors instead of Staff Sergeants. I’ve worked in Corps level command offices, and there was no less traffic from subordinates than the S-3 1st Lieutenant had down in supply. Regiments in the US Army are for the most part an esoteric relic of the past, where Brigades tend to be the standard largish unit of soldiers. A brigade combat team might be made up of three infantry battalions theoretically from different regiments, a cav squadron with its own regiment, and half a dozen assorted support companies all with different lineages supposing a connection to a larger regiment, which for all practical purposes is meaningless. There are a few Armored Cav Regiments that still function as a cohesive group, and there’s the 75th Ranger Regiment, but that’s it. I know the British Army kept their regimental tradition alive longer, but I was under the impression that it, too, was on its way out as smaller-than-regimental groups were assigned as modular pieces to task groups. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-ranks/837179/28 "2019-07-19T03:34:14Z")
I always get a kick out of Cordwainer Smith’s go-captains and stop-captains. **KMS94** : That’s the same mnemonic taught to us in BCT back in the late 1970s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-ranks/837179.md?page=1)