Talk:Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation

podpraporschik rank

There is no such rank as podpraporschik in russian military, look here: Talk:Russian military ranks#Podpraporshchik/Bootsman. --DimaY2K 16:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Rank comparison problems

The US rank equivalents need to be fixed for both the Army and the Air Force. There are only three US junior or company grade officers, not four as in the Russian Army. This will result in one of the Russian officer ranks having no US equivalent, but I'm not sure which would be the best Russian rank to skip. Also, the rank insignia of two gold bars does not exist in the US military. The proper title and insignia for US company grade officers are:

Captain: 2 silver bars

First Lieutanant: 1 sliver bar

Second Lieutenant: 1 gold bar

Nicholas F 05:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I Agree with you. US Army dosen't have 2 gold bars insignia and dosen't have a rank of Lieutenant look here. Also russian rank of Major General should not be compared with US rank of Brigadier General. I have made the changes but they were reverted. --DimaY2K 07:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I know the changes with the ranks as "First Lieutenant, Lieutenant, and Second Lieutenant" are wrong, but I did not do that. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What are two gold bars doing here, THEY ARE NOT APART OF THE U.S. MILITARY!! IT IS A NON EXISTANT RANK, I DID NOT DO THIS!!!! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Similar issue. Based on the description of Russian praporashchiks elsewhere on Wiki, the comparison between a Russian WO and a US WO are incorrect. The comparison would probably be more accurate to relate the praporashchiks to US senior NCOs, i.e. E-8 and E-9, considering US warrant officers are completely merged into the total officer system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PushkinsBarber (talk • contribs) 08:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems

There seem to be two problems with the insignia that I believe was copied from http://www.uniforminsignia.net/index.php?p=state&id=123

First, the isnignia for a General of the Army actualy belongs to a militsiya officer, as the color of the shoulder board is grey. It's probably not much of a problem because officer insignia for MVD is very much similar to the army and Internal Troops one, but enlisted insignia differs substantially, not to mention that latter are technically the military while the militsiya is the police forces.

Then, the golden parade shoulder board of a Major has an all-forces emblem, which is not necessary at all (only used by medics and justice generals wear shoulder board insignia, because sleeve insignia has one same emblem for all generals). But the white shoulder board of a colonel has no emblem, which is not right because white/green shirts are missing sleeve insingia so the emblem moves to the shoulder boards. --DmitryKo 16:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please make the notes under the pictures more accurate. --Nixer 10:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? I tried to be as accurate as I could - if you think there are errors besides the above-mentioned ones, feel free to correct them... --DmitryKo 14:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is outdated. Это касалось пространственного расположения, но теперь всё выглядит нормально.--Nixer 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Rank comparison elimination

I think we should remove comperison between russian and american ranks since it is not the purpuse of this article, and if someone wants to do it they should create partucular article. --DimaY2K 10:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think so. Conscious 09:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree; see discussion at the WPMILHIST Russian and Soviet task force discussion page. Buckshot06 00:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to disagree. In fact I would suggest that the comparison is also expanded to the ranks of the UK/Commonwealth in order to give a broader base of comparison. Including the US and UK would pretty much cover the most significant military rank systems.

Xdamr^talk 23:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the idea of comparison, but is it fair to cite only an American opinion on how the ranks equate? Perhaps a better way to compare is to point out likely positions (such as Army Commander) for each rank? --Kazuaki Shimazaki —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Do the 'Praporshchik' (Master Non-Commissioned Officer) ranks officially correspond with US Chief Warrant Officers who are commissioned by the US President and are classed as Officers? --LONDON 13:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing the comparison, which by the way, is a manner of showing how stupid Americans are. Everything has to be translated to their awkward fashion, why is that? While the rest of the world uses things like the metric system we still have to bother writing stuffs in feet, pounds and gallons... Come on, people, is it really necessary to be so obsequent with the empire in the 21st century? Jack Pier 04:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.68.29 (talk)

"VS"

What does the "VS" stand for on the Other Ranks' insignia? 202.89.153.228 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"ВС" ("VS") stands for Vooruzhonniye Sily which means armed forcess in russian --DimaY2K 04:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian Major General equivalent

Why did you edit the article Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation to say that the Russian rank Major General was equivalent to the US rank Major General, rather than the US rank Brigadier General? The article said that the Russian rank of Major General was equivalent to the US rank of Brigadier General, and it gave a source of Harriet Fast Scott and William F. Scott, The Armed Forces of the USSR, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1979, Appendix B. - Shaheenjim 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is rather complicated. If you read through History of Russian military ranks, General ranks in the Russian Empire were actually fully equivalent to Western ranks up until 1798, with a Brigadier, a Major General, a Lieutenant General, a Full General (General-in-Chief) and a Field Marshal (a honorary rank). However, in 1798 the Brigadier rank was abolished and brigade-grade positions were filled by Colonels since then.

In the Red army, there were no personal ranks from 1917 to 1935, only positional ranks such as deputy platoon commander (abbreviated as pomkomvzvoda), platoon commander (komvzvoda or vzvodny), company commander (komroty or rotny), batallion commander (kombat), regimental commander (kompolka). This system DID have a brigade-grade positional rank, the brigade commander (kombrig), followed by division commander (komdiv or nachdiv), corps commander (komkor), army commander (komandarm), front commander (komfronta). In 1935 the top two were renamed komandarm 2nd rank and komandarm 1st rank and recreated as personal ranks; additionally, Marshal of the Soviet Union was created as the top rank. So by 1940, when Stalin decided to reintroduce General ranks, there were already no less than SIX general-grade ranks in the Red Army, at least one more than in most Western armies, all filled with officers on active duty. See http://www.uniforminsignia.net/index.php?p=state&id=134

Rather than cut some top officer rank, Stalin decided that brigade-grade officers would be examined for compliance and either promoted to division-grade rank or demoted to colonel. All other ranks were directly mapped to the new system: komdiv to Major General, komkor to Lieutenant General, komandarm 2nd rank to Colonel General (which is positioned where a Full General should be), komandarm 1st rank to General of the Army, and honorary Marshals of the Soviet Union were not renamed.

So in the end, the Soviet system had 5 general grades which miss a Brigade-grade rank, but does have both General of the Army and Marshal. Now if you please give me the reason why Russian division commander in the rank of Major General should equal to Western Brigadier/Brigadier General, and not to Western division commander in the rank of Major General (OTHER than the number of stars worn), I'd be very grateful. I'd rather have General of the Army and Marshal as the two top ranks, equivalent to Field Marshal. --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 20:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether the Russian rank of Major General is equivalent to the US rank of Brigadier General or the US rank of Major General. Harriet Fast Scott and William F. Scott, The Armed Forces of the USSR, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1979, Appendix B says it should be equivalent to the US rank of Brigadier General, but that might be wrong. It sounds like you have good reason to think it's equivalent to the US rank of Major General.

But I want to be sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that in Russia, some Colonels command Regiments, and other Colonels command Brigades? It seems kind of strange that they'd have one rank command two different sizes of units. But I've seen people do stranger things than that. If that is true, then we should probably add that as a note, so that people understand why we're saying that Russian Colonels are equivalent to both US Colonels and US Brigadier Generals. - Shaheenjim 22:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - and even more, some Colonels commanded divisions in WWII and were not promoted to Major Generals!

If you have the time to incorporate the necessary changes, I would only welcome that. I do have a desire to expand the History of Russian military ranks with a detailed section on 1917-1935 and WWII ranks, however all this User:Roitr thing just prevents me from doing anything productive in my spare time on Wikipedia... --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 22:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

General rank comparisons

I think that rank comparisons ought to be avoided altogether. It is almost impossible to achieve perfect grade-for-grade equivalency at the best of times, let alone a comparison between systems that are so different. A better alternative is to show the ranks with their commensurate command appointments, but it's sufficient to just categorise rank groupings (Marshals & Generals, Field Officers, Company Officers, etc.) It is also questionable to use American ranks for comparison, because in this case the American way of doing something - as usual - is the exception, not the rule. The rank comparison article that is cited is WRONG. Rank comparisons must be determined according to function, rather than superficial nonsense like the number of stars, or how many grades there are between certain ranks. There is no Russian equivalent of Brig-Gen, and such a rank is unnecessary anyway. Japan, for example, does without it too. Brigade-size formations are commanded by colonels in both the Russian and American armies, and division-size formations are commanded by major-generals in both the Russian and American armies (there is no formation between brigade and division). Ergo, Russian and American major-generals are basically equivalent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.223.81 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Either have no comparison with anything, or if there must absolutely be a comparison, use a NATO--Russia comparison, or even provide a link to some old Warsaw Pact--NATO conversion thing (just put a NATO rank code on each row). That said, I still think a comparison is not needed here, and is to placate pro-US or US-centred sentiment among some editors. 118.90.23.59 (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Any attempts to use the "Command Appointment" strategy is a bad idea with the Russian armed forces due to the high importance of the post in comparison to the rank. For example, a Lieutenant Colonel commands a battalion in both the Russian and the American forces. But in Russia, so can a Major, or even a Captain. Comparisons fall a bit flat after that. --Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't think there would be any problem -- I believe that idea is workable, and it was used in at least one major work on the topic in Russia. The only catch is that US uses rigid system of rank-position correspondence, whilr in USSR and Russia it is flexible. That is, when American officer is gven the Captain's billet, he is promoted (or, if he lacks seniority, brevetted) to Captain's rank, and vice versa. In Russia, if an officer lacks seniority for promotion he is simply not promoted, and serves in his current rank until he accumulates it, after which he would be promoted automatically. Informally it is called "walking up the rank" (выхаживать звание). The reverse also happens: when officer is due to promotion, he is usually given the corresponding position. If the such position isn't available, or the higher-ups decide that the officer is unfit for promotion despite his seniority, he is simply not promoted -- this is called "overwalking the rank" (перехаживать звание). Nevertheless, the correspondence between the rank and the position remains, there's just some flexibility in it. --Khathi (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem, IMO, is that thanks to that "some flexibility", we have to make some hard choices if we are to use positional comparison and present an accurate picture in the attempt. For example, take again the post of Battalion Commander (which is AFAIK the most problematic). In America, he's a Lieutenant Colonel. Now the Russian side. We can certainly use the shtat rank, which AFAIK calls for a Lt. Col. But unless the Russian Army has changed sharply since the end of the Cold War, this will AFAIK ignore the reality that many o most Battalion Commanders are Majors, and there are apparently more Captains serving than Lieutenant Colonels (Dick C.J., for example estimated in 1985 that 60% of the Soviet MRB commanders were Captains). So, should we compare using the [i]shtat[/i] limit, or try and aim for the "center of reality", or draw out the entire likely range, and if we take that last option do we have to provide some indication of the "spread"? Or maybe this is less of a problem in the Russian Army - say most of the current battalion commanders are Lieutenant Colonels with only a sprinkling of Majors, but that in itself would IMO be worthy of mention in the text. I don't object to this idea, but we have to get a consensus if we are going to do this, and I am not even getting into Verifiability, accusations of Original Research, and the like... --Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a good question and it warrants some careful consideration. I'll try to figure how to get around it and look for some literature on the matter. --Khathi (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Gefreiter or Efreitor

Gefreiter is the German rank, I think Efreitor is a more correct latinized version of Russian "Ефрейтор" (translit: "Yefreytor"). 95.69.152.59 (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC) UeArtemis

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123192515/http://wbase.duma.gov.ru/ntc/vdoc.asp?kl=4488 to http://wbase.duma.gov.ru/ntc/vdoc.asp?kl=4488
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317183721/http://document.kremlin.ru/doc.asp?ID=27589&PSC=10&PT=3&Page=1 to http://document.kremlin.ru/doc.asp?ID=27589&PSC=10&PT=3&Page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation → Army ranks and insignia of Russia – Per WP:CONCISE. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)—Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 02:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly only refers to modern ranks and insignia. There is also Ranks and insignia of the Russian armed forces until 1917. Proposed title is overly vague._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.