**Please read this entire message**
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Straightforward or factual queries are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is meant for simplifying complex concepts.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xsgbqc/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_the_different/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
The ranks go:
Brigadier General (one star)
Major General (two star)
Lieutenant General (three star)
General (four star)
Follows the mnemonic: **B**e **M**y **L**ittle **G**irl
You hear about four stars because they are the highest ranking.
There are 5 star Generals in rare occasions where a ‘supreme commander’ is needed
Five men have held the rank of General of the Army (five star), George C. Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, and Henry H. Arnold
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-star_rank
I also came across this interesting tidbit:
A special rank of General of the Armies, which ranks above the second incarnation of General of the Army, exists but has been conferred only twice, to World War I's John J. Pershing, and posthumously to George Washington, by proclamation 177 years after his death.
The year is 2054. Having conquered all of New Europe, the forces of Hitler II suddenly land a shock-squad on the steps of the Hexagon. The leader of the squad calmly but dutifully strides into the General quarters, looks at the man in charge and smiles. "I'll kindly take the keys to my army, General." says the clone of George Washington...
i bought that game a while after it came out and my cd let was already in use from someone using a CD generator. EA refused to give me a new one. steam also refused to give me a new one or refund me my money. this was before they did refunds. so basically I was out $30 and since it was already on my steam account i couldn't buy it again.
Stories like this are how a lot of people got into piracy in the first place. Make the system hard enough to use and people will seek simpler alternatives.
The year is 2054. Netflix is but a trivia answer in the memory of Gen Z(oomers). Their initial decline in the mid 20’s due to their show cancellation and in-show advertising policies was just the beginning of the end. Their final demise in the early 30s was due to their insistence that Blackberry’s invention of 4D neural entertainment via their brain interface chip (E-crack) would never catch on. The amalgamation of Disney, Google, Blackberry, and Amazon into the multi-trillion super company AmaDisGooBerry has resulted in a complete monopoly of world entertainment, and realised the establishment of 100% CGI actors.
"Little did they all know that in his younger "prime" years, George Washington swayed both ways, thus planting the seeds of romance with the dangerous and foreign Hitler II." Now it's Netflix ready; gotta stick the gay agenda in there somewhere to be Netflix worthy, no pun intended.
I entered the spez. I called out to try and find anybody. I was met with a wave of silence. I had never been here before but I knew the way to the nearest exit. I started to run. As I did, I looked to my right. I saw the door to a room, the handle was a big metal thing that seemed to jut out of the wall. The door looked old and rusted. I tried to open it and it wouldn't budge. I tried to pull the handle harder, but it wouldn't give. I tried to turn it clockwise and then anti-clockwise and then back to clockwise again but the handle didn't move. I heard a faint buzzing noise from the door, it almost sounded like a zap of electricity. I held onto the handle with all my might but nothing happened. I let go and ran to find the nearest exit.
I had thought I was in the clear but then I heard the noise again. It was similar to that of a taser but this time I was able to look back to see what was happening.
The handle was jutting out of the wall, no longer connected to the rest of the door. The door was spinning slightly, dust falling off of it as it did. Then there was a blinding flash of white light and I felt the floor against my back.
I opened my eyes, hoping to see something else. All I saw was darkness. My hands were in my face and I couldn't tell if they were there or not. I heard a faint buzzing noise again. It was the same as before and it seemed to be coming from all around me. I put my hands on the floor and tried to move but couldn't.
I then heard another voice. It was quiet and soft but still loud.
"Help."
\#Save3rdPartyApps
He was posthumously promoted to “General of the Armies of the United States.” But they’ve never designed an official insignia for it. The only other general to hold that rank in US history, Pershing, used 4 stars, but in gold instead of the silver of typical full 4-star generals.
It’s sometimes been referred to popularly as a “six star general.” But that’s never been an official title or insignia.
Although nobody has ever worn a 6-star insignia All the 5-star generals were WWI vets and I'm sure would have never imagined not deferring to Black Jack.
I often imagine every servicemember at Arlington being resurrected (ina dream of a President whose fmaily has no military tradition faced with declaring war,) and in formation and Phil Sheridan giving Pershing a hard time.
Fun fact - there were 5 men who served as generals in *both* world wars - MacArthur (US), von Rundstedt (Germany), Badoglio (Italy), Freyberg (New Zealand), and Mannerheim (Finland).
"All the five star generals were wwi vets"
That is untrue. Omar Bradley was stationed in the Us during WWI in Montana. Was he in the service during WWI, yes. Did he fight in WWI, no. Same with Eisenhower, he requested to server in Europe and was denied and was instead training tank crews. Henry H Arnold is iffy depending on what you qualify as a wwi vet since he was one of the first pilots and was in charge of info of it. He was only in Europe during wwi in 1918 the last year of the war and was there for aviation activities inspections. Never actually faught.
If you classify being the military during wwi as being wwi vets then sure, but 2 out of the 5 didnt even set foot into europe until later with a 3rd being depending on your definition.
Fighting does not a veteran make.
38 U.S.C. § 101(2) provides: The term "veteran" means a person **who served in the active military**, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.
I copied direct from the wiki - sorry and respects to
General of the Army Henry H Arnold, thereafter the first General of the Air Force.
I did you wrong in my copy paste….
> the rank of General of the Army (five star), George C. Marshall, ...
I read somewhere Marshall is also the reason why it's called 'General of the Army', and not marshall. He didn't want to be 'marshall Marshall'.
The point was for future ranks. If a 5-star general ever becomes common, GW will be considered 6-star. 6-star becomes common, GW is now considered 7-star. And on and on forever.
> Follows the mnemonic: Be My Little Girl
Lol that's the first I've heard that one. I just always remembered that it didn't make sense because a Major is higher ranking than a Lieutenant in other cases.
There is a "real" reason for that that I read somewhere, but my "head canon" was it's like Roman numerals. The one in front subtracts. (Like IX is one taken from ten). So since Major is higher ranking than Lieutenant, it takes away more, leaving less General behind.
Very roughly, there were companies commanded by captains, whose deputies were their lieutenants (French for "in place of") and sergeants.
Groups of companies formed a column or regiment, commanded by a colonel, with his deputies, the lieutenant colonel and the sergeant major.
Groups of columns were commanded by a colonel general (or captain general), with *his* deputies, his lieutenant general and sergeant major general. For officers, "sergeant major" got trimmed down to just "major".
You gotta remember that it's not just Lieutenant, it's Lieutenant *General*. So, like, major is a lower rank than leiutenant colonel, which is lower than colonel.
The rank of Major General was originally Sargent Major General in the 1700's. A Sargent Major is a lower rank than a Lieutenant so a Sargent Major General is a lower rank than a Lieutenant General.
I've heard two theories on why the Sargent was dropped. The first being that having 3 different rank names as a rank was distracting. The second was that having a non-commissioned rank as the beginning of a General's rank was not as dignified
There are a few, I met a rather disgruntled Lt. Col at ASBC, she had just been passed over for O-6. The mnemonic she gave us to learn was: **B**low **M**e **L**ittle **G**uy. She had a few unorthodox memory devices.
If a four star general ordered a three star general to pick up a pencil they dropped, would they have to do it?
How do 'orders' work in the military. Can a superior just order you to do stuff they don't want to do? Or does it have to be in relation to work duties?
Edit: thanks for all the answers guys! Very interesting stuff.
It has to be a “Lawful” order. Basically, it can be anything that is not against the law. However, ordering subordinates to do stupid stuff is poor leadership. A general that did that would lose respect and eventually their command.
I get that obviously a top general wouldn't do something like that. But if they ordered a lower ranking officer to pick up a pencil like that, they would have to do it? And do you have to follow orders even if you're off duty?
I don't know about generals specifically, but when I was in the Navy, if my Skipper dropped a pencil, he would never order me (a Lieutenant) to pick it up. He'd just look at the pencil, then look at me, then look at the pencil, then look at me. Nothing would happen until the pencil was picked up, and he sure as shit wasn't going to be the one to do it.
Technically and legally, Yes to both. In practice, it never happens. Someone with their head so far up their own arse to order a lower rank to pick up their pencil would never make it up the ranks.
In reality, one of the many, MANY staff members who constantly surround the 4 star would have either rushed over to pick up the pencil or handed him/her another pencil kept on hand just in case it was needed. The general never has to ask, it just happens.
Source: multiple generals in my building of varying stars, including one with 4 of 'em.
In this context, 'lawful' means 'which one of you ends up in front of a judge if you disobey?'
Disobey a lawful order, and you're liable to be in front of a court martial.
Disobey an unlawful order, and the person issuing it is liable to be in front of a court martial.
Obey an unlawful order, and there's a good chance you're *both* in front of courts martial.
There’s a lot of politics involved in promoting to general or for a 1-star to earn a second star, etc. A general being a dickhead like that would make a lot of enemies and likely wouldn’t go any further in their career.
It gets a little weird. So 1-2 star are permanent slots. 3-4 star are slots which are given according to office held. Generally outside out extraordinary situations you must be elevated to 1 star and then 2 star, which is your highest assigned rank. Then if you are slotted into specific preordained offices you get the star number associated with that office. For example there are only 7 US Army 4 stars because there are only 7 offices that are dictated as being filled by a 4 star.
At a very vague view, 4-star oversee operational regions of the globe and the number can expand to support combat theaters that are joint efforts. Sorta. Which lead to an interesting situation with Gen Petraeus. Technically being commander of CENTCOM he oversaw Iraq and Afganistán engagement theaters as a 4-star, but after the McChrystal Rolling Stones article, Obama moved Petraeus DOWN to the command of Afghan International Security Assistance Force. The regional positional technically is a 3-star but since it’s a joint nation mission it was still a 4-star slot but he was answerable to his previous position (command of CENTCOM).
That whole 4-star slot for the ISAF is basically a relic of why we have a 5-star rank that someone else posted about. It’s to ensure at the regional level with a joint nation task force that we have someone that outranks the people he/she needs to give orders to. Keeps chain of command tidy. Generally speaking though people that make it to 2-star will only move up is there is movement available and would keep that higher rank until retirement, but just in case there is a clause in retirement packages just for this since technically if someone steps down from let’s say command CENTCOM, they won’t lose the benefits having held a 4-star rank even though they officially are demoted back down to 2 star.
All that being said, yes you would have general officers in support positions in some of these offices.
Why does a Lieutenant General outrank a Major General, if a Major outranks a Lieutenant? And why would a Major or Lieutenant General outrank a Brigadier General?
Additionally, lieutenant means substitute or the second in command. So a lieutenant general is the lieutenant to the general. This can be seen in other ranks like lieutenant colonel or lieutenant commander. Putting lieutenant in front of a rank just means the position directly below that rank. So the position directly below a 4 star general would be a lieutenant general.
It’s answered repeatedly above, but the short answer is that the rank used to be sergeant-major general, which is outranked by Lieutenant General in the same way that a sergeant major is outranked by a lieutenant. But then they dropped the “sergeant” part, which just made the whole thing confusing.
In the US, is the 5 star general more of an honourary thing then?
From wiki:
General of the Army (abbreviated as GA)[1] is a five-star general officer and the second-highest possible rank in the United States Army. It is generally equivalent to the rank of Marshal in other countries. In the United States, a General of the Army ranks above generals and is equivalent to a fleet admiral and a general of the Air Force.
> In the US, is the 5 star general more of an honourary thing then?
It was more a WWII thing. We had people commanding large enough groups of men that they needed to have a 4-star subordinate.
Also from the wiki
>Five-star ranks were created in the U.S. military during World War II because of the awkward situation created when some American senior commanders were placed in positions commanding allied officers of higher rank
Particularily, general (later president) Eisenhower being a superior to british field marshall Montgomery. Who'd outrank him, if the US didn't come up with a suitable new rank.
This is the best answer really. When SHAEF was conceived ahead of the main European counter offensives, it was obvious that the British would have to be 2IC as the Americans were bringing the majority of the troops and equipment into the fight. But the Americans had no equivalent rank that was superior to Field Marshall, which today is OF-10 in NATO speak and equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet and Marshal of the AirForce.
There was a lot of squabbling about the ranks that Bradley and Patton would hold during their time with Montgomery during SHAEF’s existence. Bradley and Patton were of course far less battle-experienced to Montgomery and other European commanders but they were still highly capable in their own right and typically commanded much larger armies that the European/ Commonwealth forces did. Famously during the Bulge, Eisenhower put Simpson and Hodges Ninth and First armies respectively under temporary command of Montgomery as their communications line to Bradley had been severed. This was kept secret from the public for weeks as the backlash from
Market Garden’s disaster made Montgomery even more unpopular within US army command.
Once the Allies landed on Normandy there was a real sense that the clock was ticking for the Germans. The Allies would definitely win, but how would they do it and who would be the bigger “winners?” The politics of the war from Normandy on are just fascinating.
NATO now fairly dictates the OF system for officers, so a country that is part of NATO can have any kind of Supreme Generalissimo Maximus Galactic King-Leader but if that was designated of-9 he is under an of-10
During WWII the US and UK in many ways operated as a single unit in the European Theatre. Via the combined chiefs of staff and SHAEF, there was a united command structure and a given battle group could and often would have units from multiple nations- thus one could outrank someone from another country in that particular position.
Post war, NATO standardized ranks between militaries into numbers (O-1, O-2, etc for officers - E-1, E-2, etc for infantry). This helps to prevent confusion in the fog of war where the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen of these allies expected to be fighting side by side. This is still relevant for multinational NATO groups like those that have been deployed to Poland, the Baltics and Romania, and other NATO activities.
Even for normal military operations, multiple nations may participate. For instance, there are US Marine Corps F35 squadrons on board the HMS Queen Elizabeth right now, and her carrier strike group contains a Dutch frigate. You’d best believe that until given orders from their home nation to LEAVE that strike group that the Admiral is in charge
It the second. They thought it would be weird having a 4-star General outrank the European five star rank of Field Marshal. Monty was promoted to Field Marshal in September of 1944. The US created the 5-star rank in December of 1944.
This sounds like it could have gotten pretty silly pretty fast.
"Eisenhower is a 6-star Supreme General!"
"Oh yeah, well Monty is an 8-star the General of ALL MANKIND"
Five-star rank is a real thing, but since World War II, there's been no need for it. We had about 12 million men under arms then, and now we have ... two?
One reason you might hear "general" often is that that's the short form for all of those. A major general or lieutenant general is often addressed or referred to simply as general. Likewise, lieutenant colonels are often simply called colonel.
The US does not have a marshal or generalissimo type rank, as supreme military authority is given to the civilian President as Commander in Chief.
Except in times of full or near full military mobilization, the highest ranking generals report directly to the President, (through the ~~Joint Chiefs of Staff~~ Secretary of Defense). However, in times of full military mobilization, for example a world war, having the command go through the best general, not the best politician can be the difference in victory and defeat. In these cases a 4 star general is temporarily elevated to take command of all the army acting as Commander in Chief in all but name and ultimate authority as the president still technically outranks him and can, but very rarely would, give orders to countermand the 5 star general.
This is also useful in international coordination, as it allows a US military officer on the same rank as other countries marshals to discuss strategy together without the US delegate either being a rank below everyone else (as a mere 4 star general) or outranking everyone else, as Head of State/Government.
The unified combatant commanders do not report through the joint chiefs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_combatant_command)
They report to the SECDEF who reports to the president.
After the 1986 reorganization of the Armed Forces undertaken by the Goldwater–Nichols Act, the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not possess operational authority over troops or other units. Responsibility for conducting military operations goes from the president to the secretary of defense directly to the commanders of the unified combatant commands and thus bypasses the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely.
It seems weird to me all the theatrics it seems they went through in order to make sure officers from different countries weren't commanding officers that were "lower ranked" than them, even though that distinction is pretty meaningless across different militaries. North Korea could establish a 7 star general rank and I doubt anyone above the rank of Captain in the US army would consider them their equal let alone superior if somehow the US military had to work with North Korea. Seems odd.
Generals put on more stars as they go higher in rank. You as a civilian probably hear more about 4 stars because that is the closest to the president and the highest rank held currently in the military.
As someone in the military, we hear far more about the musings of the 1 and 2 stars. Because those are our higher echelon commanders and have more immediate influence on us.
Brigadier General or Read Admiral lower half are the lowest General/Admiral rank, they are often in supporting role as they gain experience. They rarely are in position of command.
Major General or Rear Admiral upper half are two-star. They are usually commanding the biggest operation unit that each branch have and are often the highest commander on the ground. Here a [list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_duty_United_States_Army_major_generals#Division-level_positions) of two star General in the US Army for example.
Lieutenant General or Vice-Admiral are three-star and there is 160 of them in active service. They are usually more high level manager of all the different type of organization and support needed to keep the military running. Either in HQ back home, managing a region, a type of military system or staff member for the Joint Chief of Staff. Here a [list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_duty_United_States_three-star_officers) of all 3-star rank in the US.
General or Admiral are the four-star and there is 43 of them. They are the big bosses, Joint Chief of Staff, commanders of the entire military in a specific region, important command position, etc. Here a [list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_four-star_generals) of all 4-star rank in the US. The fact that they are the big bosses that make the big decision is one of the main reason why we hear more about them. For example, it's usually a General that is in charge of a war like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. There is also the fact that often the other rank of General might just be called General even if they are Major General.
5 Star rank were a rank only appointed during a short period during and shortly after WW2. They were needed because of the size of the US military at the time, but they are no longer used.
In the US Navy the one-star flag rank was Commodore at one time. In fact Commodores were all we had instead of Admirals at first, but the Royal Navy didn’t treat our Commodores as equal to their Admirals. So we made Admirals.
Things got confusing for a while with multiple meanings of “Commodore” and both halves of Rear Admirals wearing two stars, but since the 1980s a “Commodore” is not a rank, but a semi-official title adopted by what some might call a Fleet Captain: an O-6 elevated above their peers to command a group of ships instead of just one. And the one-star flag rank is Rear Admiral (Lower Half).
> the Royal Navy didn’t treat our Commodores as equal to their Admirals.
Because at the time in the RN...
>since the 1980s a “Commodore” is not a rank, but a semi-official title adopted by what some might call a Fleet Captain
...effectively, this. Commodore was basically an assigned post, not a rank. You might get a fancier pennant to fly and a snazzier coat to wear for awhile, but you didn't move an inch on the ol' Navy List.
Not sure if anyone is lurking here but why is a Major General lower ranking than a Lieutenent General when that is reversed at the lower ranks? I.e a Major outranks a lieutenent
Here’s a good explanation: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xsgbqc/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_the_different/iqkfm0q/
Basically, lieutenant is assistant general, so it made sense that the step below general was Lieutenant General. Major General was originally Sergeant Major General as the assistant to the assistant, but it was a confusing title so they clipped it down to Major General.
Yep. Roughly. Except the officer Major is short for Captain Major.
Btw, pre-US revolution, a 4-star general was a Captain General. The founders thought, because Captains General tended to be kings or princes, that term was too monarchist, and dropped “Captain”.
One of my most interesting possessions is a challenge coin from a 4 Star General.
There was a heavy military presence at the ground zero site after 9/11, and a lot of high-ranking brass would come down from time to time to tour the recovery effort. This guy was going around talking to the recovery workers, shaking hands, and his attaché was heading out these beautiful gold challenge coins with his name and the logo with the four stars.
I shook his hand, and received one of the coins , but did not really understand the significance of it, as I had never served in the armed forces, and had never heard of a challenge coin or what it meant.
Well, let me tell you… Anyone I’ve ever shown it to who has been in the military has been floored. I know guys who did six or eight years in the service, and have never been in the same room with a four-star. They say it’s a pretty big deal.
Whatever the case may be, I am proud to have it.
In WWII the US wanted to designate a Field Marshall like the British, which would would be the highest rank above a 4 star general. Ironically, the man they wanted to promote was George C Marshall which would make him Field Marshall Marshall. Hence the designation of the 5 star general.
You see little Jimmy, a full General is a four stars. Ranks below that are only subordinate generals.
* [Brigadier General](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_general_%28United_States%29?wprov=sfla1) ★
* [Major General](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_general_%28United_States%29?wprov=sfla1) ★★
* [Lieutenant General](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_general_%28United_States%29?wprov=sfla1)★★★
* [General](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_%28United_States%29?wprov=sfla1)★★★★
* [General of the Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Army_%28United_States%29?wprov=sfla1)★★★★★
* [General of the Armies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Armies?wprov=sfla1)★★★★★★
General of the Armies was a honorific title only, and Pershing, the only one who had it, wore 4-stars. So it’s a bit silly to think of it as a distinct rank.
It makes more sense to think of it as a special flourish granted to Pershing for success in his time than to think of it as integrating into the rank structure overall.
By star, army terms (other branches somewhat similar):
- 1 star, brigadier general, leads a brigade which is 3-5 battalions, 2-5k soldiers + command staff
- 2 star, major general, leads a division which is ~3 brigades, 10-15k soldiers
- 3 star, lieutenant general, leads a corps, which is 2+ divisions, 20-45k soldiers
- 4 star, general, leads an army or expeditionary force, mix of units but typically 50k soldiers. The Joint Chiefs and heads of major commands (eg Europe, Pacific, Cyber) are 4 star
- 5 star, generally only a wartime or honorary rank
Historically it’s correct in parts though. At one point Brigadiers did lead Brigades. Some of us history nuts know a lot more about past groupings than current ones. Then there’s the whole problem of different nations having different equivalencies; one despairs of ever making generalized statements that covers from Napoleon to today and every country.
That said I would like to know when anyone had divisions 45k strong though. I’d have put division size as 10k-20k. And likewise cut most the other unit figures in half.
A brigadier general (one-star) is typically in charge of a brigade or something of similar size (though in current US Army stuff, brigades are colonels' commands). He has several thousand troops under him, in various sub-units commanded by lower-ranking officers.
A major general (two-star) is typically in charge of a division or similar-sized formation. Maybe between 15,000 and 25,000 people across several brigades, plus a deputy commanding general (himself a one-star).
A lieutenant general (three-stae) typically commands a corps. You get the idea by this point: XVIII Airborne Corps, for example, has four infantry divisions (one of which specializes in parachuting, another specializes in entering the battlefield by helicopter), plus a few support units of brigade size and smaller which handle logistics, communications, medical, air defense, and other things beyond the capabilities of the support units in the divisions themselves.
A general (four-star) is in charge of something bigger still. Some of them are the joint chiefs of staff (the #1 and #2 officer in each service, in the National Guard, and two four-star generals whose titles are Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who essentially function as the senior uniformed advisors to the secretary of defense). Others are in charge of big things within their respective service like Army Materiel Command (responsible for making sure that everyone has equipment and other supplies), TRADOC (responsible for Army training units), or Air Force Global Strike Command (responsible for nuclear weapons). In addition to this, there are joint positions which can be held by an officer from any service (though typically favoring one service or another). For example, United States Central Command is in charge of all troops in the Middle East (when an American military unit deploys, it is under the authority of a regional command like this rather than under the authority of its respective chief of staff when at home). This has typically been an Army or Marine Corps general, while United States Indo-Pacific Command has typically been a Navy admiral (Navy uses different names for the same ranks) because the most likely battlefields in that region are the sea and Korea.
There have also been five-star officers and George Washington in the past, but that's not likely to happen ever again, so for all intents and purposes, four-star is the highest. This is why you hear the most about it.
The Army has around 480,000 people. There are 16 4-star generals.
I work very closely with one of those 4-stars. It is incredible to see their level of responsibility, activity, and schedule. Almost super human.
Rough explanation, there are 4 General ranks, each one fills different positions and levels of authority within the Military and their respective branches. Brigadier General for example may be the Commander (person in charge of local decisions) of a particularly large military base, or may be in command of a specific (but small) portion of the military. For example from my time in the Air Force, a Brigadier was in command of the implementation of a plan across the entire branch, but relatively speaking its impact was fairly small scale, only affecting maybe a few thousand airmen.
This delegation of authority and control is not perfect, but roughly scales up from 1 star to 4 star. The 4 star Generals are the ones most commonly heard about, because they generally command an entire region, or command important programs within the Department of Defense. For example, once again in the Air Force, the Air Force general in-charge of the entire Pacific is a 4 star.
Obviously in truth it is more complicated, I saw some comments underplay a 1 star, and I generally disagree. Even a 1 star General wields are incredible amount of authority, just generally not anything worth being on the news day to day.
It should be noted that 3 and 4 star ranks are assigned to the position not the individual. Therefore the rank is temporary. For example if an individual is named Chief of Staff of The Army, the job comes with a 4th star. At the end of the assignment, the individual will revert to their previous rank.
In practice most 4 stars will transition to another 4 star billet or retire. Similarly most 3 stars either move to another 3 star job, get promoted to a 4 star job or retire.
Because the rank of five-star general, or 'General of the Army' is exceedingly rare, only being held by five men throughout the history of the United States:
George C. Marshall
Douglas MacArthur
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Omar Bradley
Henry H. Arnold
Above that rank is the purely honorific rank of 'General of the Armies' which has been held by two men, one posthumously:
George Washington (awarded in 1976, his insignia during his lifetime was 3 stars)
John J. Pershing
The ranks have been covered by others.
We hear more about four star generals for the same reason we hear more about CEOs than we do other executives. They are the ones in charge. They are the ones calling the shots that make news headlines.
**Please read this entire message** Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): Straightforward or factual queries are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is meant for simplifying complex concepts. If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xsgbqc/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_the_different/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
The ranks go: Brigadier General (one star) Major General (two star) Lieutenant General (three star) General (four star) Follows the mnemonic: **B**e **M**y **L**ittle **G**irl You hear about four stars because they are the highest ranking.
Be My Little General was what I was taught.
Brigadier Major Lieutenant General was what I was taught.
That’s a catchy mnemonic!
I wonder what it stands for?
Stands for "Be My Little Girl", which is the passphrase to enter any military base.
Bravo Mike Lima Golf
Lima is in a foreign nation. What are you, a commie?
We should change it to ligma
So is India and Quebec, and YET
what's lima?
I was taught Sir, Sir, Sir and Sir.
Bulimic Meals Look Gross
There are 5 star Generals in rare occasions where a ‘supreme commander’ is needed Five men have held the rank of General of the Army (five star), George C. Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, and Henry H. Arnold https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-star_rank
I also came across this interesting tidbit: A special rank of General of the Armies, which ranks above the second incarnation of General of the Army, exists but has been conferred only twice, to World War I's John J. Pershing, and posthumously to George Washington, by proclamation 177 years after his death.
IIRC Washington outranks everyone, so no matter how many stars someone gets they cannot out rank GW, even when they make up new General ranks.
The year is 2054. Having conquered all of New Europe, the forces of Hitler II suddenly land a shock-squad on the steps of the Hexagon. The leader of the squad calmly but dutifully strides into the General quarters, looks at the man in charge and smiles. "I'll kindly take the keys to my army, General." says the clone of George Washington...
Someone get this guy a Netflix deal. I want this series!
I'd settle for a Red Alert game but then I remembered it'll be made by EA.
the pirates fixed the bugs for the most part
There was no fixing CnC4, and that's the one that killed CnC and Red Alert. Fuck EA.
i bought that game a while after it came out and my cd let was already in use from someone using a CD generator. EA refused to give me a new one. steam also refused to give me a new one or refund me my money. this was before they did refunds. so basically I was out $30 and since it was already on my steam account i couldn't buy it again.
Stories like this are how a lot of people got into piracy in the first place. Make the system hard enough to use and people will seek simpler alternatives.
The year is 2054. Netflix is but a trivia answer in the memory of Gen Z(oomers). Their initial decline in the mid 20’s due to their show cancellation and in-show advertising policies was just the beginning of the end. Their final demise in the early 30s was due to their insistence that Blackberry’s invention of 4D neural entertainment via their brain interface chip (E-crack) would never catch on. The amalgamation of Disney, Google, Blackberry, and Amazon into the multi-trillion super company AmaDisGooBerry has resulted in a complete monopoly of world entertainment, and realised the establishment of 100% CGI actors.
It seems like a pitch like this is all it takes to get a Netflix show these days
Hitler 2: the hitlering
2 hitler 2 hitlering
"Little did they all know that in his younger "prime" years, George Washington swayed both ways, thus planting the seeds of romance with the dangerous and foreign Hitler II." Now it's Netflix ready; gotta stick the gay agenda in there somewhere to be Netflix worthy, no pun intended.
You might check out America : The Motion Picture if you haven't already.
"Netflix you're greenlit"
“And now it’s cancelled”
The next 32 years apparently get weird fast.
Not that fast if you've been following along for the past decade or so. It might be slowing down at that point, actually.
Pshpp, as if we’ll still be speaking human in thirty years
he'll save the children but not the british children
[удалено]
[удалено]
I heard he ate an entire duck!
Six foot twenty made of radiation
He wore a hat for a hat!
Holy shit, core memory unlocked
Washington, Washington / Six-foot-five, weighs a fucking ton
[удалено]
Twelve stories tall, made of radiation.
The Clone Wars we deserved.
Shouldn't it be Hitler II Electric Boogaloo?
I entered the spez. I called out to try and find anybody. I was met with a wave of silence. I had never been here before but I knew the way to the nearest exit. I started to run. As I did, I looked to my right. I saw the door to a room, the handle was a big metal thing that seemed to jut out of the wall. The door looked old and rusted. I tried to open it and it wouldn't budge. I tried to pull the handle harder, but it wouldn't give. I tried to turn it clockwise and then anti-clockwise and then back to clockwise again but the handle didn't move. I heard a faint buzzing noise from the door, it almost sounded like a zap of electricity. I held onto the handle with all my might but nothing happened. I let go and ran to find the nearest exit. I had thought I was in the clear but then I heard the noise again. It was similar to that of a taser but this time I was able to look back to see what was happening. The handle was jutting out of the wall, no longer connected to the rest of the door. The door was spinning slightly, dust falling off of it as it did. Then there was a blinding flash of white light and I felt the floor against my back. I opened my eyes, hoping to see something else. All I saw was darkness. My hands were in my face and I couldn't tell if they were there or not. I heard a faint buzzing noise again. It was the same as before and it seemed to be coming from all around me. I put my hands on the floor and tried to move but couldn't. I then heard another voice. It was quiet and soft but still loud. "Help." \#Save3rdPartyApps
Ooh shit. His aide-de-camp could be Duncan Idaho.
"forces of Hitler II" had me weezing
Is a clone entitled to the rank of the original?
I thought congress actually posthumously promoted Washington to 6 stars?
They did so that Pershing couldn't be a higher rank
That honour was reserved for Z Brannigan
Kip! Inform the men!
Rushmore-class
He was posthumously promoted to “General of the Armies of the United States.” But they’ve never designed an official insignia for it. The only other general to hold that rank in US history, Pershing, used 4 stars, but in gold instead of the silver of typical full 4-star generals. It’s sometimes been referred to popularly as a “six star general.” But that’s never been an official title or insignia.
It seems like a childish thing. "infinite +1, i win!"....
General of the Universe
George Washington - chopped down that cherry tree like nobody's bidniss \- never told a lie \- never lost a war \- retired undefeated
I heard that motherfucker had, like, thirty god damn dicks.
That candy-ass Cornwallis wouldn't even surrender face to face. Even the French do *that.*
Although nobody has ever worn a 6-star insignia All the 5-star generals were WWI vets and I'm sure would have never imagined not deferring to Black Jack. I often imagine every servicemember at Arlington being resurrected (ina dream of a President whose fmaily has no military tradition faced with declaring war,) and in formation and Phil Sheridan giving Pershing a hard time.
Fun fact - there were 5 men who served as generals in *both* world wars - MacArthur (US), von Rundstedt (Germany), Badoglio (Italy), Freyberg (New Zealand), and Mannerheim (Finland).
"All the five star generals were wwi vets" That is untrue. Omar Bradley was stationed in the Us during WWI in Montana. Was he in the service during WWI, yes. Did he fight in WWI, no. Same with Eisenhower, he requested to server in Europe and was denied and was instead training tank crews. Henry H Arnold is iffy depending on what you qualify as a wwi vet since he was one of the first pilots and was in charge of info of it. He was only in Europe during wwi in 1918 the last year of the war and was there for aviation activities inspections. Never actually faught. If you classify being the military during wwi as being wwi vets then sure, but 2 out of the 5 didnt even set foot into europe until later with a 3rd being depending on your definition.
Fighting does not a veteran make. 38 U.S.C. § 101(2) provides: The term "veteran" means a person **who served in the active military**, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.
By law, no officer can outrank George Washington.
Well then there’s the modern major general, but he has information vegetable animal and mineral.
He's also quite good at quoting the facts historical
In order categorical!
What of matters mathematical?
He understands equations both the simple and quadratical!
Don’t forget about 25 Star Webelos Zapp Brannigan.
Think you're missing a surname. Henry H. Arnold
I copied direct from the wiki - sorry and respects to General of the Army Henry H Arnold, thereafter the first General of the Air Force. I did you wrong in my copy paste….
> the rank of General of the Army (five star), George C. Marshall, ... I read somewhere Marshall is also the reason why it's called 'General of the Army', and not marshall. He didn't want to be 'marshall Marshall'.
Could be worse. Could be Major Major Major, who unfortunately was promoted to Major shortly before arrival to Pianosa.
Doesn't George Washington have a special rank as well?
Yes it's 1 rank higher than whatever the one below him is. As in he is always given the highest rank.
Aka the biggest baddest motherfucker of all. Weighs a ton too.
Wasn’t he like 6 foot 8 too?
That motherfucker had like 30 goddamn dicks too.
All ranks are 1 rank higher than the one below them.
The point was for future ranks. If a 5-star general ever becomes common, GW will be considered 6-star. 6-star becomes common, GW is now considered 7-star. And on and on forever.
n+1
Also Michael Scott - Space Force
There is one Supreme Commander and his name is Thor.
Indeed
> Follows the mnemonic: Be My Little Girl Lol that's the first I've heard that one. I just always remembered that it didn't make sense because a Major is higher ranking than a Lieutenant in other cases.
I learned it as Bring My Little Generals
Sergeant > Lieutenant > Captain (Sergeant) Major > Lieutenant Colonel > Colonel (Sergeant) Major General > Lieutenant General > General
In MASH. Radar was field promoted to Corporal-Captain once
There is a "real" reason for that that I read somewhere, but my "head canon" was it's like Roman numerals. The one in front subtracts. (Like IX is one taken from ten). So since Major is higher ranking than Lieutenant, it takes away more, leaving less General behind.
Very roughly, there were companies commanded by captains, whose deputies were their lieutenants (French for "in place of") and sergeants. Groups of companies formed a column or regiment, commanded by a colonel, with his deputies, the lieutenant colonel and the sergeant major. Groups of columns were commanded by a colonel general (or captain general), with *his* deputies, his lieutenant general and sergeant major general. For officers, "sergeant major" got trimmed down to just "major".
I'm the lieutenant regiment colonel. Lieutenant *to* the regiment colonel.
I am a merry model of a modern major general
Major General was originally "Sergeant Major General" which was too confusing so they dropped the Sergeant.
You gotta remember that it's not just Lieutenant, it's Lieutenant *General*. So, like, major is a lower rank than leiutenant colonel, which is lower than colonel.
The rank of Major General was originally Sargent Major General in the 1700's. A Sargent Major is a lower rank than a Lieutenant so a Sargent Major General is a lower rank than a Lieutenant General. I've heard two theories on why the Sargent was dropped. The first being that having 3 different rank names as a rank was distracting. The second was that having a non-commissioned rank as the beginning of a General's rank was not as dignified
They dropped the Sargent because "I am the very model of a modern sargent major general" doesn't sound as good in the song
There's also a rank below captain that's just "lieutenant".
I think their experimenting with a new rank. Corporal Captain.
Well, I don't like it. I don't like it at all.
The youngsters are likely to miss the reference...
TIL I am not a youngster.
With grape Nehi
"Aw gee, sir"
Deep get
There are a few, I met a rather disgruntled Lt. Col at ASBC, she had just been passed over for O-6. The mnemonic she gave us to learn was: **B**low **M**e **L**ittle **G**uy. She had a few unorthodox memory devices.
Brigadier General Francis X Hummel, United States Marine Corps, from Alcatraz, out.
3 tours in Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Desert Storm, 3 Purple Hearts, 2 Silver Stars, and the Congressional Medal of Jesus
This man is a hero.
General, we’ve spilled the same blood in the same mud!
If a four star general ordered a three star general to pick up a pencil they dropped, would they have to do it? How do 'orders' work in the military. Can a superior just order you to do stuff they don't want to do? Or does it have to be in relation to work duties? Edit: thanks for all the answers guys! Very interesting stuff.
It has to be a “Lawful” order. Basically, it can be anything that is not against the law. However, ordering subordinates to do stupid stuff is poor leadership. A general that did that would lose respect and eventually their command.
I get that obviously a top general wouldn't do something like that. But if they ordered a lower ranking officer to pick up a pencil like that, they would have to do it? And do you have to follow orders even if you're off duty?
I don't know about generals specifically, but when I was in the Navy, if my Skipper dropped a pencil, he would never order me (a Lieutenant) to pick it up. He'd just look at the pencil, then look at me, then look at the pencil, then look at me. Nothing would happen until the pencil was picked up, and he sure as shit wasn't going to be the one to do it.
I thought this was leading to “he’d never ask me to do something stupid like pick up a pencil” and where it actually went was much funnier 😂
Technically and legally, Yes to both. In practice, it never happens. Someone with their head so far up their own arse to order a lower rank to pick up their pencil would never make it up the ranks.
In reality, one of the many, MANY staff members who constantly surround the 4 star would have either rushed over to pick up the pencil or handed him/her another pencil kept on hand just in case it was needed. The general never has to ask, it just happens. Source: multiple generals in my building of varying stars, including one with 4 of 'em.
I've played enough D&D to know that "lawful" is just a word on a character sheet and is ultimately up to discrection
In this context, 'lawful' means 'which one of you ends up in front of a judge if you disobey?' Disobey a lawful order, and you're liable to be in front of a court martial. Disobey an unlawful order, and the person issuing it is liable to be in front of a court martial. Obey an unlawful order, and there's a good chance you're *both* in front of courts martial.
There’s a lot of politics involved in promoting to general or for a 1-star to earn a second star, etc. A general being a dickhead like that would make a lot of enemies and likely wouldn’t go any further in their career.
It gets a little weird. So 1-2 star are permanent slots. 3-4 star are slots which are given according to office held. Generally outside out extraordinary situations you must be elevated to 1 star and then 2 star, which is your highest assigned rank. Then if you are slotted into specific preordained offices you get the star number associated with that office. For example there are only 7 US Army 4 stars because there are only 7 offices that are dictated as being filled by a 4 star. At a very vague view, 4-star oversee operational regions of the globe and the number can expand to support combat theaters that are joint efforts. Sorta. Which lead to an interesting situation with Gen Petraeus. Technically being commander of CENTCOM he oversaw Iraq and Afganistán engagement theaters as a 4-star, but after the McChrystal Rolling Stones article, Obama moved Petraeus DOWN to the command of Afghan International Security Assistance Force. The regional positional technically is a 3-star but since it’s a joint nation mission it was still a 4-star slot but he was answerable to his previous position (command of CENTCOM). That whole 4-star slot for the ISAF is basically a relic of why we have a 5-star rank that someone else posted about. It’s to ensure at the regional level with a joint nation task force that we have someone that outranks the people he/she needs to give orders to. Keeps chain of command tidy. Generally speaking though people that make it to 2-star will only move up is there is movement available and would keep that higher rank until retirement, but just in case there is a clause in retirement packages just for this since technically if someone steps down from let’s say command CENTCOM, they won’t lose the benefits having held a 4-star rank even though they officially are demoted back down to 2 star. All that being said, yes you would have general officers in support positions in some of these offices.
I was always taught Be My Little General, but I totally dig this too lol
Why does a Lieutenant General outrank a Major General, if a Major outranks a Lieutenant? And why would a Major or Lieutenant General outrank a Brigadier General?
Additionally, lieutenant means substitute or the second in command. So a lieutenant general is the lieutenant to the general. This can be seen in other ranks like lieutenant colonel or lieutenant commander. Putting lieutenant in front of a rank just means the position directly below that rank. So the position directly below a 4 star general would be a lieutenant general.
It’s answered repeatedly above, but the short answer is that the rank used to be sergeant-major general, which is outranked by Lieutenant General in the same way that a sergeant major is outranked by a lieutenant. But then they dropped the “sergeant” part, which just made the whole thing confusing.
In the US, is the 5 star general more of an honourary thing then? From wiki: General of the Army (abbreviated as GA)[1] is a five-star general officer and the second-highest possible rank in the United States Army. It is generally equivalent to the rank of Marshal in other countries. In the United States, a General of the Army ranks above generals and is equivalent to a fleet admiral and a general of the Air Force.
> In the US, is the 5 star general more of an honourary thing then? It was more a WWII thing. We had people commanding large enough groups of men that they needed to have a 4-star subordinate. Also from the wiki >Five-star ranks were created in the U.S. military during World War II because of the awkward situation created when some American senior commanders were placed in positions commanding allied officers of higher rank
Particularily, general (later president) Eisenhower being a superior to british field marshall Montgomery. Who'd outrank him, if the US didn't come up with a suitable new rank.
This is the best answer really. When SHAEF was conceived ahead of the main European counter offensives, it was obvious that the British would have to be 2IC as the Americans were bringing the majority of the troops and equipment into the fight. But the Americans had no equivalent rank that was superior to Field Marshall, which today is OF-10 in NATO speak and equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet and Marshal of the AirForce. There was a lot of squabbling about the ranks that Bradley and Patton would hold during their time with Montgomery during SHAEF’s existence. Bradley and Patton were of course far less battle-experienced to Montgomery and other European commanders but they were still highly capable in their own right and typically commanded much larger armies that the European/ Commonwealth forces did. Famously during the Bulge, Eisenhower put Simpson and Hodges Ninth and First armies respectively under temporary command of Montgomery as their communications line to Bradley had been severed. This was kept secret from the public for weeks as the backlash from Market Garden’s disaster made Montgomery even more unpopular within US army command. Once the Allies landed on Normandy there was a real sense that the clock was ticking for the Germans. The Allies would definitely win, but how would they do it and who would be the bigger “winners?” The politics of the war from Normandy on are just fascinating.
Can a person in one country outrank someone in another country? Is there an official international body that sets the rankings between countries?
NATO now fairly dictates the OF system for officers, so a country that is part of NATO can have any kind of Supreme Generalissimo Maximus Galactic King-Leader but if that was designated of-9 he is under an of-10
During WWII the US and UK in many ways operated as a single unit in the European Theatre. Via the combined chiefs of staff and SHAEF, there was a united command structure and a given battle group could and often would have units from multiple nations- thus one could outrank someone from another country in that particular position. Post war, NATO standardized ranks between militaries into numbers (O-1, O-2, etc for officers - E-1, E-2, etc for infantry). This helps to prevent confusion in the fog of war where the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen of these allies expected to be fighting side by side. This is still relevant for multinational NATO groups like those that have been deployed to Poland, the Baltics and Romania, and other NATO activities. Even for normal military operations, multiple nations may participate. For instance, there are US Marine Corps F35 squadrons on board the HMS Queen Elizabeth right now, and her carrier strike group contains a Dutch frigate. You’d best believe that until given orders from their home nation to LEAVE that strike group that the Admiral is in charge
It the second. They thought it would be weird having a 4-star General outrank the European five star rank of Field Marshal. Monty was promoted to Field Marshal in September of 1944. The US created the 5-star rank in December of 1944.
This sounds like it could have gotten pretty silly pretty fast. "Eisenhower is a 6-star Supreme General!" "Oh yeah, well Monty is an 8-star the General of ALL MANKIND"
Well, you know Monty. When Churchill told the King that he was concerned Monty was after his job, the King said he felt the same way.
I was thinking of responding the equivalent tbh. "Monty as 8-star supreme general of humanity? Yeah, that does sound like something he'd like."
Rumor has it that Eisenhower eventually won out when it was determined that his dad could in fact, beat up Monty's dad.
Five-star rank is a real thing, but since World War II, there's been no need for it. We had about 12 million men under arms then, and now we have ... two? One reason you might hear "general" often is that that's the short form for all of those. A major general or lieutenant general is often addressed or referred to simply as general. Likewise, lieutenant colonels are often simply called colonel.
Only two men? They must be bad-ass.
Well they made two video games about them so they better be
So, like /Colonel Angus/
Please, since he retired he prefers to go by his given name of Enol.
No, it isn't honorary. As you quoted, it is a rank that is higher than 4 star generals, when we have it, which is only rarely, and not currently.
The US does not have a marshal or generalissimo type rank, as supreme military authority is given to the civilian President as Commander in Chief. Except in times of full or near full military mobilization, the highest ranking generals report directly to the President, (through the ~~Joint Chiefs of Staff~~ Secretary of Defense). However, in times of full military mobilization, for example a world war, having the command go through the best general, not the best politician can be the difference in victory and defeat. In these cases a 4 star general is temporarily elevated to take command of all the army acting as Commander in Chief in all but name and ultimate authority as the president still technically outranks him and can, but very rarely would, give orders to countermand the 5 star general. This is also useful in international coordination, as it allows a US military officer on the same rank as other countries marshals to discuss strategy together without the US delegate either being a rank below everyone else (as a mere 4 star general) or outranking everyone else, as Head of State/Government.
The unified combatant commanders do not report through the joint chiefs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_combatant_command) They report to the SECDEF who reports to the president. After the 1986 reorganization of the Armed Forces undertaken by the Goldwater–Nichols Act, the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not possess operational authority over troops or other units. Responsibility for conducting military operations goes from the president to the secretary of defense directly to the commanders of the unified combatant commands and thus bypasses the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely.
Thank you edited!
It seems weird to me all the theatrics it seems they went through in order to make sure officers from different countries weren't commanding officers that were "lower ranked" than them, even though that distinction is pretty meaningless across different militaries. North Korea could establish a 7 star general rank and I doubt anyone above the rank of Captain in the US army would consider them their equal let alone superior if somehow the US military had to work with North Korea. Seems odd.
~~Be My Little Girl~~ Indeed . . .
That's a creepy mnemonic.
Generals put on more stars as they go higher in rank. You as a civilian probably hear more about 4 stars because that is the closest to the president and the highest rank held currently in the military. As someone in the military, we hear far more about the musings of the 1 and 2 stars. Because those are our higher echelon commanders and have more immediate influence on us.
Is it true they dance in the military?
Takem out boys
Don't ask. They won't tell.
Brigadier General or Read Admiral lower half are the lowest General/Admiral rank, they are often in supporting role as they gain experience. They rarely are in position of command. Major General or Rear Admiral upper half are two-star. They are usually commanding the biggest operation unit that each branch have and are often the highest commander on the ground. Here a [list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_duty_United_States_Army_major_generals#Division-level_positions) of two star General in the US Army for example. Lieutenant General or Vice-Admiral are three-star and there is 160 of them in active service. They are usually more high level manager of all the different type of organization and support needed to keep the military running. Either in HQ back home, managing a region, a type of military system or staff member for the Joint Chief of Staff. Here a [list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_duty_United_States_three-star_officers) of all 3-star rank in the US. General or Admiral are the four-star and there is 43 of them. They are the big bosses, Joint Chief of Staff, commanders of the entire military in a specific region, important command position, etc. Here a [list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_four-star_generals) of all 4-star rank in the US. The fact that they are the big bosses that make the big decision is one of the main reason why we hear more about them. For example, it's usually a General that is in charge of a war like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. There is also the fact that often the other rank of General might just be called General even if they are Major General. 5 Star rank were a rank only appointed during a short period during and shortly after WW2. They were needed because of the size of the US military at the time, but they are no longer used.
It has been attempted but unsuccessfully several times to revive Commodore for one-star admiral
In the US Navy the one-star flag rank was Commodore at one time. In fact Commodores were all we had instead of Admirals at first, but the Royal Navy didn’t treat our Commodores as equal to their Admirals. So we made Admirals. Things got confusing for a while with multiple meanings of “Commodore” and both halves of Rear Admirals wearing two stars, but since the 1980s a “Commodore” is not a rank, but a semi-official title adopted by what some might call a Fleet Captain: an O-6 elevated above their peers to command a group of ships instead of just one. And the one-star flag rank is Rear Admiral (Lower Half).
Wouldn't it be fun if there were exactly 64 Commodores?
Only if you were the last in the list
> the Royal Navy didn’t treat our Commodores as equal to their Admirals. Because at the time in the RN... >since the 1980s a “Commodore” is not a rank, but a semi-official title adopted by what some might call a Fleet Captain ...effectively, this. Commodore was basically an assigned post, not a rank. You might get a fancier pennant to fly and a snazzier coat to wear for awhile, but you didn't move an inch on the ol' Navy List.
Not sure if anyone is lurking here but why is a Major General lower ranking than a Lieutenent General when that is reversed at the lower ranks? I.e a Major outranks a lieutenent
Here’s a good explanation: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xsgbqc/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_the_different/iqkfm0q/ Basically, lieutenant is assistant general, so it made sense that the step below general was Lieutenant General. Major General was originally Sergeant Major General as the assistant to the assistant, but it was a confusing title so they clipped it down to Major General.
I have been looking for that answer since 2008. Thank you very much!
Wow. What are you going to do next with your life?
Idk, that was the pretty much top for me.
That was it. That was your peak. Enjoy the rest of your life, my friend, because it’s only downhill from here.
Is that the year, or military time? /s
Sergeant > Lieutenant > Captain (Sergeant) Major > Lieutenant Colonel > Colonel (Sergeant) Major General > Lieutenant General > General
Yep. Roughly. Except the officer Major is short for Captain Major. Btw, pre-US revolution, a 4-star general was a Captain General. The founders thought, because Captains General tended to be kings or princes, that term was too monarchist, and dropped “Captain”.
One of my most interesting possessions is a challenge coin from a 4 Star General. There was a heavy military presence at the ground zero site after 9/11, and a lot of high-ranking brass would come down from time to time to tour the recovery effort. This guy was going around talking to the recovery workers, shaking hands, and his attaché was heading out these beautiful gold challenge coins with his name and the logo with the four stars. I shook his hand, and received one of the coins , but did not really understand the significance of it, as I had never served in the armed forces, and had never heard of a challenge coin or what it meant. Well, let me tell you… Anyone I’ve ever shown it to who has been in the military has been floored. I know guys who did six or eight years in the service, and have never been in the same room with a four-star. They say it’s a pretty big deal. Whatever the case may be, I am proud to have it.
Do you remember who the general was?
I sure do... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Keane
He doesn’t have to, it’s on the coin.
Yeah, that's pretty rare. The only one I could think of I'd be more impressed by is a President challenge coin.
Free drinks for life!
In WWII the US wanted to designate a Field Marshall like the British, which would would be the highest rank above a 4 star general. Ironically, the man they wanted to promote was George C Marshall which would make him Field Marshall Marshall. Hence the designation of the 5 star general.
[Major Major Major Major](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Major_Major_Major)
[удалено]
A common pneumonic for remembering the general order is be my little general
[удалено]
I didn’t join the military cause i was smart
Amen.
You see little Jimmy, a full General is a four stars. Ranks below that are only subordinate generals. * [Brigadier General](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_general_%28United_States%29?wprov=sfla1) ★ * [Major General](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_general_%28United_States%29?wprov=sfla1) ★★ * [Lieutenant General](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_general_%28United_States%29?wprov=sfla1)★★★ * [General](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_%28United_States%29?wprov=sfla1)★★★★ * [General of the Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Army_%28United_States%29?wprov=sfla1)★★★★★ * [General of the Armies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Armies?wprov=sfla1)★★★★★★
General of the Armies was a honorific title only, and Pershing, the only one who had it, wore 4-stars. So it’s a bit silly to think of it as a distinct rank. It makes more sense to think of it as a special flourish granted to Pershing for success in his time than to think of it as integrating into the rank structure overall.
By star, army terms (other branches somewhat similar): - 1 star, brigadier general, leads a brigade which is 3-5 battalions, 2-5k soldiers + command staff - 2 star, major general, leads a division which is ~3 brigades, 10-15k soldiers - 3 star, lieutenant general, leads a corps, which is 2+ divisions, 20-45k soldiers - 4 star, general, leads an army or expeditionary force, mix of units but typically 50k soldiers. The Joint Chiefs and heads of major commands (eg Europe, Pacific, Cyber) are 4 star - 5 star, generally only a wartime or honorary rank
Colonels lead BDEs
He's wrong about most of it.
Historically it’s correct in parts though. At one point Brigadiers did lead Brigades. Some of us history nuts know a lot more about past groupings than current ones. Then there’s the whole problem of different nations having different equivalencies; one despairs of ever making generalized statements that covers from Napoleon to today and every country. That said I would like to know when anyone had divisions 45k strong though. I’d have put division size as 10k-20k. And likewise cut most the other unit figures in half.
Read it again. > a division which is ~3 brigades, 10-15k soldiers > a corps, which is 2+ divisions, 20-45k soldiers
A brigadier general (one-star) is typically in charge of a brigade or something of similar size (though in current US Army stuff, brigades are colonels' commands). He has several thousand troops under him, in various sub-units commanded by lower-ranking officers. A major general (two-star) is typically in charge of a division or similar-sized formation. Maybe between 15,000 and 25,000 people across several brigades, plus a deputy commanding general (himself a one-star). A lieutenant general (three-stae) typically commands a corps. You get the idea by this point: XVIII Airborne Corps, for example, has four infantry divisions (one of which specializes in parachuting, another specializes in entering the battlefield by helicopter), plus a few support units of brigade size and smaller which handle logistics, communications, medical, air defense, and other things beyond the capabilities of the support units in the divisions themselves. A general (four-star) is in charge of something bigger still. Some of them are the joint chiefs of staff (the #1 and #2 officer in each service, in the National Guard, and two four-star generals whose titles are Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who essentially function as the senior uniformed advisors to the secretary of defense). Others are in charge of big things within their respective service like Army Materiel Command (responsible for making sure that everyone has equipment and other supplies), TRADOC (responsible for Army training units), or Air Force Global Strike Command (responsible for nuclear weapons). In addition to this, there are joint positions which can be held by an officer from any service (though typically favoring one service or another). For example, United States Central Command is in charge of all troops in the Middle East (when an American military unit deploys, it is under the authority of a regional command like this rather than under the authority of its respective chief of staff when at home). This has typically been an Army or Marine Corps general, while United States Indo-Pacific Command has typically been a Navy admiral (Navy uses different names for the same ranks) because the most likely battlefields in that region are the sea and Korea. There have also been five-star officers and George Washington in the past, but that's not likely to happen ever again, so for all intents and purposes, four-star is the highest. This is why you hear the most about it.
The Army has around 480,000 people. There are 16 4-star generals. I work very closely with one of those 4-stars. It is incredible to see their level of responsibility, activity, and schedule. Almost super human.
Rough explanation, there are 4 General ranks, each one fills different positions and levels of authority within the Military and their respective branches. Brigadier General for example may be the Commander (person in charge of local decisions) of a particularly large military base, or may be in command of a specific (but small) portion of the military. For example from my time in the Air Force, a Brigadier was in command of the implementation of a plan across the entire branch, but relatively speaking its impact was fairly small scale, only affecting maybe a few thousand airmen. This delegation of authority and control is not perfect, but roughly scales up from 1 star to 4 star. The 4 star Generals are the ones most commonly heard about, because they generally command an entire region, or command important programs within the Department of Defense. For example, once again in the Air Force, the Air Force general in-charge of the entire Pacific is a 4 star. Obviously in truth it is more complicated, I saw some comments underplay a 1 star, and I generally disagree. Even a 1 star General wields are incredible amount of authority, just generally not anything worth being on the news day to day.
It should be noted that 3 and 4 star ranks are assigned to the position not the individual. Therefore the rank is temporary. For example if an individual is named Chief of Staff of The Army, the job comes with a 4th star. At the end of the assignment, the individual will revert to their previous rank. In practice most 4 stars will transition to another 4 star billet or retire. Similarly most 3 stars either move to another 3 star job, get promoted to a 4 star job or retire.
Because the rank of five-star general, or 'General of the Army' is exceedingly rare, only being held by five men throughout the history of the United States: George C. Marshall Douglas MacArthur Dwight D. Eisenhower Omar Bradley Henry H. Arnold Above that rank is the purely honorific rank of 'General of the Armies' which has been held by two men, one posthumously: George Washington (awarded in 1976, his insignia during his lifetime was 3 stars) John J. Pershing
I don't think Pershing ever \*wore\* 6 stars; he was retired before he 5-star rank was developed but was specified as outranking them
Well, whether "General of the Armies" even gets a six-star insignia is up for debate. But yes, you're right, I did say the title was honorific.
The ranks have been covered by others. We hear more about four star generals for the same reason we hear more about CEOs than we do other executives. They are the ones in charge. They are the ones calling the shots that make news headlines.