Can someone explain US army ranks to me?

And when was this supposed to have happened? That's the salient bit. The wiki article on the subject is a complete mess, btw. and I can find no other sources for *when* this is supposed to have happened, just assertions like this one.

That's good enough for me!

Seriously, I love this discussion. It's teaching me a lot of things I was highly unlikely to learn any other way.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

It largely depends on the circumstances (mainly combat) and the era. In the US, there were a lot fighting Generals and Colonels through the years, decreasing as we get to the modern era. For example, Colonel Robert Gould Shaw (see the movie Glory) and General George Armstrong Custer, both fought in the Civil War at those ranks.

However, the most decorated US soldier of WWII was Army Captain Matt Urban who was often in the thick of battle. The two other most decorated soldiers were Army Private Audie Murphy (WW II) and Army Sergeant Robert Howard (Viet Nam). During WWII, Murphy was promoted up through the ranks until he became a 1st Lieutenant. He fought in battle at each rank level.

Lt. Col. William Darby was responsible for establishing the Army Rangers, and fought in combat at that rank. A couple years later he was killed in action while a General, after assuming command when the Brigadier General he was serving under was likewise killed.

In WWII, General Frank Merrill of "Merrill's Marauders" fame was a fighting general in the newly-established Army Rangers. (I see his commemorative sign all the time here in New Hampshire.) It should also be noted that Merrill's Marauders were the source of stories like The Dirty Dozen. That's because a number of the soldiers who volunteered did so to get out of the stockades or jails and went on dangerous, out-of-the-ordinary missions. So sometimes the movies do have a basis in reality.

That sort of thing does happen from time to time for covert ("black ops") soldiers. A perfect real-life example is that of Lt. Col. Robert Howard, whose decorations as Sergeant were modified because of the secret nature of his operations. From what I understand, he took his orders directly from superior officers outside the direct chain of command, what in today's corporate culture would be termed a "dotted line direct report." Officially he gets his orders from his direct superior, but in practice he gets his orders from the General.

My friend's dad had a similar situation when he was with FTD at Wright-Pat. (No, not the florists, the Foreign Technology Division. ) They worked in secret, so they actually received orders from someone other than their direct bosses.

Having never served in any military capacity, my 'knowledge' is strictly from books and movies.

That being said, the one I remember and believe above all others about the military is that in general, a good new officer will first and foremost listen very closely to his NCOs. Because those guys have the experience that will keep them and their unit alive while the new officers learn up fast.

Every time I hear someone in movies/tv/books etc. called "Gunny" (short for Gunnery Sergeant), I always pay close attention to what that guy has to say.

So as good as it must be to be a General, (and of course, I do have a lot of respect for all the officers of the military), I see the real heroes as those guys who spend their time "Embracing the Suck" as it is known. Google it if you want some funny (grownup) reading.

Commissioned officers are often "upwardly mobile" - they are looking to get promoted and advance their careers in the military. Nothing wrong with that, but almost by definition that means they don't tend to stay in one place with the same job very much. Conversely, enlisted men generally have terms of enlistment, and often leave military service after some number of years.

Non-commissioned officers, at least on average, tend to be both committed to a career in the military and yet also less likely to move up, down, or sideways very far: they tend to last longer doing the same or similar related jobs. That's what tends to make them the "backbone" of many modern armed forces: they are the most stable, and thus experienced, part of them.