Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines
Moderators: Miklós Lovász, kaldi, Chuck Anderson, Pavel Močoch, Erskine Calderon, Lukasz Gaszewski, ChrisWI, Zdzislaw Rudzki
by SFMRAS » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:57 am
Not exactly sad to see it go. I'm surprised it was a complete axing, though.
I know when I design naval ranks/rates, i trim it down to branch titles, weaponsman - torpedoes, missiles, energy weapons, kinetic weapons, etc. - engineeringman, medic, etc. Kind of expected something similar.
-
SFMRAS
- COMMUNICANT

-
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:03 am
by Helios88 » Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:02 am
I think it is a sort of improvement: also in the army, if I don't get wrong, a corporal is a corporal regardless it is a rifleman, a tank driver or a missile operator.
-
Helios88
- VISITOR

-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:12 pm
by Silverturtle » Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:29 pm
Helios88 wrote:I think it is a sort of improvement: also in the army, if I don't get wrong, a corporal is a corporal regardless it is a rifleman, a tank driver or a missile operator.
True; but some folks when I was in the service resented that fact that an E-5 clerk made the same salary as an E-5 aircrewman.
-
Silverturtle
- VISITOR

-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:08 am
by jrichardn2 » Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:14 pm
Purely as an observer, I liked the hint of ancient tradition in the system - "Boatswain's Mate" or "Machinist's Mate" hinted at long-ago existence of a warrant Boatswain or Machinist to whom the petty officer was a mate.
In the British-derived navies (please correct me if I'm wrong) I understand that the corresponding ranks have been "Petty Officer" and "Chief Petty Officer" for a very long time.
But I do wonder if Silverturtle is onto something. Maybe the USN would've been better off reducing the number of ratings to a dozen or fewer so that the technical and warfighting ratings were clearly differentiated from the support ratings.
-
jrichardn2
- COMMUNICANT

-
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:32 pm
by Helios88 » Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:01 pm
Silverturtle wrote:Helios88 wrote:I think it is a sort of improvement: also in the army, if I don't get wrong, a corporal is a corporal regardless it is a rifleman, a tank driver or a missile operator.
True; but some folks when I was in the service resented that fact that an E-5 clerk made the same salary as an E-5 aircrewman.
I think that this could be overcome by giving the same salary to both sailors, AND giving a special surplus to difficult tasks or jobs.
-
Helios88
- VISITOR

-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:12 pm
by Silverturtle » Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:13 pm
Helios88 wrote:
I think that this could be overcome by giving the same salary to both sailors, AND giving a special surplus to difficult tasks or jobs.
It's been that way since the early 1970's -- it doesn't matter if you're a Navy yeoman or a Navy torpedoman; if you're both an E-5, you get the same pay. But I think the torpedoman would get extra for hazardous duty pay.
-
Silverturtle
- VISITOR

-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:08 am
by Luke2 » Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:32 pm
Doesn't aircrewmen get fligth pay in addition to basic pay? Doesn't ratings that serve at sea get sea pay? A yeoman on a ship is as likely to be killed as a torpedoman.
-

Luke2
- ADMINISTRATOR

-
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:06 pm
- Location: Sweden
by Silverturtle » Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:16 pm
Luke:
On the sea pay you might be right -- I do know that in the USAF you do receive extra flight pay if you were an aircrew member; no matter if you were a pilot, navigator, flight engineer, etc.
But I flew; but never got the flight pay . .

-
Silverturtle
- VISITOR

-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:08 am
by marcpasquin » Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:26 pm
Silverturtle wrote:But I flew; but never got the flight pay . .

in what role ?
Marc Pasquin
-
marcpasquin
- ADMINISTRATOR

-
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: australia, formely quebec
-
by gghbisa » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:26 pm
This idea has been scrapped.
The NAVADMIN is available here:
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/21/cno-doc-navy-ratingsApparently there was a huge backlash in the fleet and the navy listened.
It is also possible that with Secretary Mabus’ term ending, it may have been thought that the new administration would reverse the decision anyway. It is notable that the new order comes from Admiral Richardson and not Mabus.
-
gghbisa
- VISITOR

-
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:25 am
Return to AMERICA - MILITARY BRANCH & RANK INSIGNIA
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest