[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
SHAEF wasn’t that different than an outfit like CENTCOM, by the way.
[/QUOTE]
I think that’s pretty much the case. Eisenhower had very few forces under his direct command. SHAEF headquarters personnel with probably some attached units, like Signal Corps, Engineers, Transportation, Medical, etc. He also had command of Bradley, Montgomery, Eaker and whoever was the top Navy commander. Otherwise he was removed from direct command. He just plain couldn’t tell one of 1st Army Corps or Division commanders what to do.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
The US Army and Air Force is a slight exception: to avoid making Gen. George Catlett Marshall “Field Marshal Marshall,” our five star ranks were “General of the Army” and “General of the Air Force.”
[/QUOTE]
Didn’t stop them making Major Major Major a Major though.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
… and whoever was the top Navy commander.
[/QUOTE]
Admiral Kirk. (No joke.)[sup]1[/sup]
- The Enterprise was in the Pacific, though.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
He was also given the right to design an insignia for his special rank, which he did not do.
[/QUOTE]
IIRC, the US Army Uniform Regulations (AR 70-3?) provides that the Chief of Staff of the US Army may design his own uniform.
[QUOTE=hajario]
Another example of this would be if there was a small army base. The base is small so a Colonel would be in charge of the entire base. Also located on the base might be the headquarters of some group that only has a few people on that base but also offices on a bunch of other bases too. The total number of people in that group could be much more people on the base where the headquarters is located so the group is headed by a Brig. General. Even though the BG is a higher rank, the Colonel is the one who gets to say what happens on the base.
[/QUOTE]
This is a real-life situation. I’ll give you the example of Naval Air Facility Atsugi (collacated in Japan with the JMSDF Naval Air Station Atsugi). The commanding officer of the NAF is a Captain. At least one of the tenant units on the base has an Admiral as the commanding officer. All personnel on the base are subject to the lawful regulations the base commanding officer promulgates.
Henry (Hap) Arnold was a five star general in the army, and when he was made the commander of the newly distinct service of the United States Air Force, he was General of the Air Force, the first and last.
George Washington was promoted to “General of the Armies of the United States” in 1976, by an act of Congress, with a specific order making it retroactive to July 4th 1776 for the specific purpose of making him outrank every other person in the history of the US military.
Tris
[QUOTE=hajario]
Another example of this would be if there was a small army base. The base is small so a Colonel would be in charge of the entire base. Also located on the base might be the headquarters of some group that only has a few people on that base but also offices on a bunch of other bases too. The total number of people in that group could be much more people on the base where the headquarters is located so the group is headed by a Brig. General. Even though the BG is a higher rank, the Colonel is the one who gets to say what happens on the base.
[/QUOTE]
Heh, when I did Ground School in JROTC, our instructor stressed the concept of Pilot-In-Command. No matter what his rank, the designated PIC is the first and last word of what happens on that plane. If the pilot is a Second Lieutenant and the General is walking around while the plane is experiencing turbulence, the difference in ranks will NOT keep the LT out of trouble if the General breaks his neck bouncing off the ceiling. In this case, the proper teminology is “Sit your ass down, Sir.” 
To further stress the point, we were told that if Our Lord And Savior, Jesus Christ (caps emphasized when he spoke) descended from Heaven in the Second Coming and appeared in the airplane, you should say “Sit down and buckle up, Lord.”
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
So? Why does it have to compare? Why do we have to follow the exact same practice as we followed in WWII? Scale isn’t really that big an issue to me, if there’s a clear need for higher levels of command and if making someone 5-Star general made things a bit more logical and concise, I’d advocate in favor of it wholeheartedly.
SHAEF wasn’t that different than an outfit like CENTCOM, by the way.
[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn’t you compare? I don’t understand your point. If you are talking about why there isn’t a need for a 5-star general now, why wouldn’t you look at the one and only time that it was needed? The reason why it was necessary then is because of the scale. It wasn’t needed in Korea after MacArthur, it wasn’t needed in Viet Nam. Both cases had more troops in the field than today. Sure SHAEF and CENTCOM are Joint Commands but that’s where it ends. Scale is the whole point. That’s why Captains don’t command Brigades. The scale of the conflict and the other political factors made it necessary then. Those same factors are not there now. I will conceed that there may be some reason in the future when they would feel the need to make another 5-star general. That’s why the rank is still on the books. I think it is so unlikely that I can not think of a circumstance where it would happen again.
At the time the 5 star rank was created the publicly announced reason was so that the US would have a rank equivalent to Field Marshall. I don’t recall anything being said about the military being so big that additional high ranks had to be added on.
For each job a hierachical organization chart is constructed and it is a strictly top-down command structure. In case of uncertainty about precedence among organizations engaged in a large and complex job, headquarters usually meets with all concerned where an arrangement is worked out and an appropriate special order is issued to put the arrangement into effect.
There is no real need to add top, or over-the-top, ranks. In addition, there is nothing unusual about generals being allowed to design their own uniforms. Up to and through WWII that was the case for all General and Flag rank officers. The famous"Eisenhower jacket" is a good example. Ike wanted a dress jacket that was a bit handier than the regulation officer’s blouse with the relatively long skirt. So he had the skirt removed so that the blouse ended at the waist. Being a General he was allowed to do this. However, ordinary troops liked the look so much they started having issue blouses altered in the same fashion. This was a no-no on two counts. First, the blouses were government property for enlisted personnel and second, when either enlisted and officers wore them they were out of uniform. It got to be quite a hassle in the ETO and the army finally gave in and made the Eisenhower jacket a regulation alternative to the long blouse.
As a side note, among many officers seniority is vital. We had a Rear Admiral commander who was an absolute nut on seniority, in addition to being a bastard. His civilian aide snickered that whenever another Rear Admiral telephoned the first move was to The Book to find out the caller’s date of rank. The Admiral wanted to know whether he should be obsequious or condescending.
This also carried over after retirement. My boss served on several investigatory boards that included retired general and flag rank officers. He said that the sessions were free-wheeling as to planning but when it came time to decide on the final output the senior officer present was deferred to.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
At the time the 5 star rank was created the publicly announced reason was so that the US would have a rank equivalent to Field Marshall. I don’t recall anything being said about the military being so big that additional high ranks had to be added on.
For each job a hierachical organization chart is constructed and it is a strictly top-down command structure. In case of uncertainty about precedence among organizations engaged in a large and complex job, headquarters usually meets with all concerned where an arrangement is worked out and an appropriate special order is issued to put the arrangement into effect.
There is no real need to add top, or over-the-top, ranks. In addition, there is nothing unusual about generals being allowed to design their own uniforms. Up to and through WWII that was the case for all General and Flag rank officers. The famous"Eisenhower jacket" is a good example. Ike wanted a dress jacket that was a bit handier than the regulation officer’s blouse with the relatively long skirt. So he had the skirt removed so that the blouse ended at the waist. Being a General he was allowed to do this. However, ordinary troops liked the look so much they started having issue blouses altered in the same fashion. This was a no-no on two counts. First, the blouses were government property for enlisted personnel and second, when either enlisted and officers wore them they were out of uniform. It got to be quite a hassle in the ETO and the army finally gave in and made the Eisenhower jacket a regulation alternative to the long blouse.
As a side note, among many officers seniority is vital. We had a Rear Admiral commander who was an absolute nut on seniority, in addition to being a bastard. His civilian aide snickered that whenever another Rear Admiral telephoned the first move was to The Book to find out the caller’s date of rank. The Admiral wanted to know whether he should be obsequious or condescending.
This also carried over after retirement. My boss served on several investigatory boards that included retired general and flag rank officers. He said that the sessions were free-wheeling as to planning but when it came time to decide on the final output the senior officer present was deferred to.
[/QUOTE]
That is certainly one of the big reasons, as I stated earlier. Not only would Ike be a General in command of Field Marshals, he would be an incredibly junior general. In 1940 he was a colonel at the dead end of his career. Again that is a situation that I don’t think will ever be duplicated therefore the rank will never be used again.