Talk:United States military seniority/Archive 1

Adding list of Colonel Generals

There should be a listing of colonial generals as the following:

George Yeardley, Captain General of Va

Francis West, Admiral of New England, Captain General (same rank as full general) of Va

Edward Tyng, Captain General of Massachussetts

/s/ CINCU Willy G 69.121.221.97 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Previously unsectioned comments

Reason moved: Style: U.S. not US …Guy M… L.V. ^(soapbox) 21:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

According to www.history.navy.mil/bios/dewey_george.htm George Dewey was commissioned Admiral of the Navy on 2 March 1899.

On July 25, 1866, the U.S. congress established the grade "General of the Army of the United States" for Ulysses S. Grant, and later appointed William T. Sherman (on 4 March 1869) and by Act of 1 June 1888 the same grade was conferred upon Philip H. Sheridan. The rank for Grant, Sherman and Sheridan is "General of the Army of the United States" not "General of the Army".

I removed Robert E. Lee from the main part of the list, but kept his mention at the bottom. While he certainly held a U.S. rank, "General-in-Chief" was not a Union, but a Confederate rank, and even if it was included as a rank of the United States, there is no way of knowing what rank/seniority to give it in relation to the others.

ACW

This is an odd list. It starts by saying that it is for 5-star officers, but 5 stars were not awarded until WWII. And if it is only 5+ stars, the article is misnamed.

Robert E. Lee was the equivalent of a modern 4-star "full" general [O-10] and his general-in-chief title in 1865 was not a promotion in terms of rank. In fact, Samuel Cooper continued to outrank him. (And Lee wore the 3-star insignia of a Confederate colonel!) If the title general-in-chief is noteworthy, recognize that two Union officers held it as well before Grant: George B. McClellan and Henry W. Halleck. Both were formally major generals [2-star, the highest rank at the time].

For my own sanity, I have limited myself to American Civil War articles, so don't intend to edit this one, but others may wish to correct the record. Hal Jespersen 02:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

True, 5-stars did not come into existence until WWII, but I think the point is that of listing 5 star equivalents, and also ensuring that this list does not become full with the listings of the literally hundreds (thousands?) of Americans who have been Generals in the last 200 years.

As for Robert E. Lee and General-in-Chief, he is not on the main list, but is merely a footnote, althought you might be correct in stating that General-in -chief is not a rank but a position - theere were Union Generals who held this position who were only Major Generals.

Lee is in the main table as it displays on my browser and then there is also a footnote. However, I'll point out another anomaly with the page: the first column, Order, is unexplained. Hal Jespersen 11:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed Lee - I thought he had allready been removed (see above discussions) - as for Order, the page says Listed by rank then seniority (date appointed to the rank) - Matthew238 01:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Lee

I removed Lee again. I think from the above discussions that he should not be here. I also removed the note about him at the bottom, as General in Chief was a position, not a rank (If we included the position we should also include the Union generals with this position - yet this is not a listing of positions) - Matthew238 22:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

cleanup

Well, despite my saying I'd keep my hands off, I decided to clean up the page anyway. It probably should be renamed to be List of U.S. military leaders, 5-star and higher, but I don't feel like changing all the links to it. Hal Jespersen 23:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• I changed a little

1. As is the custom, I only added a link the first time something is listed.
2. I changed some titles - for example "General of the Armies of the United States" was changed to "General of the Armies", which I believe is the correct title. Same for "Fleet Admiral" etc.
   1. General of the Army of the United States and General of the Army are the same rank - the first being the proper title of the Civil War era, the second the proper title used in WWII (see main article)
3. I left it without the ordering, yet this ordering might be usefull as it shows which ranks are equivalent (eg. Fleet Admiral = General of the Army), and which ranks are not (General of the Armies outranks General of the Army, and George Washington outranks them all - even though his rank is the same as John Pershing. - Matthew238 07:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That info on who ranked whom would be better expressed in a textual way, rather than a column that says Order and has numbers in different fonts without explanation. Hal Jespersen 17:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup of January 2007

Ok, taking comments/questions/gripes/complaints on the new layout. Based it off of List of United States Presidents by military rank. — MrDolomite | Talk 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Order of Rank?

Now that I reworked the table, I realized I'm not sure if Grant's 4 star rank/title General of the Armies is really equivalent to the modern 4 star Admiral (United States) or General (United States). Speak up if you know and can WP:REF it. Thx. — MrDolomite | Talk 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is equivalent and it is footnoted in the Grant bio article. Hal Jespersen 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The First 4 Stars?

Also, I know that Alexander Vandegrift was the first USMC 4 star, in 1945. But I wasn't able to figure out who was the first Army 4 star. Be bold if you find it. — MrDolomite | Talk 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Washington, Dewey and Pershing

Pershing's title was "General of the Armies of the United States," not General of the Armies [1]. He held the same rank that Washington was eventually awarded. So I have put the three of them together in the same section. Richard75 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha, from here and his marker at Arlington it does confirm that Pershing had the GotAotUS "long title". Thanks for fixing that. But, by s:Public Law 94-479, Washington's GotAotUS is supposed to outrank all others. — MrDolomite | Talk 04:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I left Washington at the top of the list, but I am confused as well. It made sense when I thought his promotion was backdated to 1776 (according to some Wikipedia articles), but according to Wikisource and this website, as well as the page you found, it was only backdated to 4 July 1976. Maybe an Executive Order just overrides the normal rule of seniority by date of appointment. Meanwhile I am trying to find other sites with the text of the order, so I can straighten out the 1776/1976 problem. Richard75 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The resolution says "no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington," not that no one may hold the same rank. The grade, not the man, was given "rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army." All sources I can find, including the army's website, state that Pershing's and Washington's titles are the same. Therefore, I am combining them. Zoofroot 02:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Public Law 94 479 states the following... Making George Washington number one and Pershing Number 2.... http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_94-479 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.100.233 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Public law 94-479 states "Whereas it is considered fitting and proper that no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington on the Army list." This allows others to have the same rank as Washington. Pershing is listed before Washington on this article's list as we are using "Listed by rank then seniority (date appointed to the rank)" but both occupy position #1 and neither outranks the other per public law 94-479. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

I was researching different army ranks and this page has really confused me. My questions are:

• Why does the 4 star general table have "General of the Army/General" in the title? Isn't the 4 star "General" and the 5 star "General of the Army"? (http://www.goarmy.com/about/ranks_insignia_officer.jsp)
• Why are so few people listed in the 4 star table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.215.110 (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Click on the link General of the Army in the section title to read the explanation. 2. Read the second sentence of the article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert of Good Faith Edits

Just had to revert a fairly large expansion of the rank Admiral of the Navy and General of the Armies to Civil War era officers. This appeared to be original research, as neither of these ranks existed during or immediately after the Civil War. While the 1866 version of "Full Admiral" and Grant's rank of "General of the Army of the United States" possibly carried the same authority, they were not the same ranks nor was there any attmept to ever appoint Sheridan, Farragut, or Porter posthumously to these ranks. To state otherwise would be original research, thus removal of the material. -OberRanks (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have elaborated a detailed explanation for the revisions related to the grade Admiral of the Navy at Talk:Admiral of the Navy (United States). It is reproduced here:

In making my alterations, I was very careful to avoid inclusion of original research. Each of the statements I introduced was referenced from a reputable published source (all from the late 19th or early 20th Century). That the grade was held three times was stated in "Proceedings of the Vermont Historical Society for the Years 1915-1916" (1918); that it was held by David G. Farragut, David D. Porter, and George Dewey was asserted by Edward S. Ellis in "The Life Story of the Hero of Manila for Our Boys and Girls" (1899); that each officer ascended to the rank in the year given is also from Ellis; that Congress revived the rank on 2 March, 1903, and re-enacted it in identical terms the following day is taken nearly verbatim from the April 1, 1912 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Spencer S. Wood v. United States (The actual relevant text reads: "The office of Admiral of the Navy was re-established by the act of March 2, 1899, 30 Stat. at L. 995, chap. 378, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 981, re-enacted in identical terms by a portion of the naval appropriation act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat. at L. 1045, chap. 421."; I included this in the reference note).

Under United States law, a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States can only be overridden by a later decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. To date, the court has addressed the question of re-establishment only in Spencer S. Wood v. United States (though United States v. Steam Vessels of War Seaboard Texas Beaufort, Jan 15, 1883, includes the description "David D. Porter, now Admiral of the Navy"; his official reports were also entitled "Report of the Admiral of the Navy"). That decision supersedes all other declarations, including the several statements by senior Navy officials in the Congressional Record and elsewhere that Dewey's rank was superior.

I think this constitutes a very well-cited revision, and establishes clearly that the alterations to the article are not original research.

The rationale for the revisions related to the grade General of the Army of the United States has been discussed in detail at Talk:General of the Armies. In brief, the offices held by Pershing, Washington, Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan are legally the same. The Judge Advocate General of the Army records (in various editions of Military Laws of the United States published between the 1890s and 1940s):

The grade of "General of the Armies of the United States" was created by section 9 of the act of March 3, 1799 (1 Stat. 752). The office, though not expressly referred to in any of the acts for the reduction or disbandment of the forces raised in contemplation of war with France, ceased to exist in 1802, not having been mentioned in the act of March 16, 1802 (2 id., 132), which determined the military peace establishment. The grade was revived under the title of "General of the Army of the United States," by the act of July 25, 1866 (14 id., 223), and was conferred upon Lieutenant-General Grant ... The office ceased to exist, as a grade of military rank, at the death of Gen. W. T. Sherman on February 14, 1891.

The Comptroller General of the United States also ruled, in 1924, that the offices were legally one and the same:

It thus appears that the office of general was first created in 1799 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States;" that it was revived in 1866 as "General of the Army of the United States;" and that it was again revived in 1919 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States." That it is one and the same office, that of general, is unquestioned. Whether the plural was used in 1799 because of the prospects of war with armies operating in several theaters, the singular in 1866 after the close of the Civil War and with a view to a small Regular Army operating in time of peace in the continental limits of the United States, and the plural in 1919 because of the technical state of war, the expansion of the Regular Army, and the existence of units thereof at far distant stations beyond the limits of the United States, it would be fruitless to inquire.

The historian Frederick Bernays Wiener, a prominent lawyer and retired Army colonel, also arrived at this conclusion. (More detailed information on all three of these sources is available at Talk:General of the Armies.

Brief outlines are also given in the footnotes of the current version of the article. (These outlines were also available before this updated list was reverted several weeks ago.)

Again, this is a very clear violation of WP:OR. There are thousands of sources which clearly state that only two people in history have held the rank of General of Armies - mainly Washington and Pershing. There is no justification to publish a theory on Wikipedia that these ranks are now being applied to the Civil War era. -OberRanks (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Army and Navy ranks in the same table

I'm concerned that the tables show the relative ranks of Army and Navy people. The public laws that define ranks do so only within one service. For example, Public Law 78-482 defines "Fleet Admiral of the United States Navy" within the Navy and "General of the Army" within the Army. This public law never states that any Navy ranks are the same as, rank more than, or rank under any Army ranks. Public Law 94-479 is only for the Army list.

I believe the current mixed construction is WP:OR and that we should have one ranked list for the Navy and another for the Army. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Section 6 of Public Law 78-482, which you cite above, states, "The officers appointed under the provisions of this Act" — i.e. both Fleet Admirals and Generals of the Army — "shall take rank among themselves while on active duty according to dates of appointment." So Army five-stars do mix ranks with Navy five-stars, hence the careful arrangement of their dates of appointment to alternate between services.

More generally, a number of public laws define Army ranks relative to Navy ranks, or vice-versa. For example, 13 Stat. 420 authorizes "one vice-admiral...whose relative rank with officers of the army shall be that of lieutenant-general in the army." - Morinao (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I had missed section 6. That certainly made it easy to sort out the five-star list. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Senior Rank

Isn't George Washington's General of the Armies of the United States a lawfully higher grade than Pershing's, and so technically separate (and first)?

Hello. Owing to Congress' and the President's decision in 1976 to not only promote George Washington to General of the Armies of the United States but to also expressly stipulate that his unique and particular form of General of the Armies of the US was "to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present," wouldn't this in fact have Washington ranked in this page's listing not together with Pershing, but rather on his own, in a specially created version of the rank clearly intended and constructed to OUTRANK Pershing's grade? I think so, and I bet that was the intention of the lawmakers who did so. If it wasn't, then why did they feel the need to CREATE a rank that already existed? ("...the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established...") Clearly, the rank is not intended to be the same. And the Wikipedia page on General of the Armies seems to agree when it states, "The promotion was authorized by a congressional joint resolution on 19 January 1976, which recommended Washington's promotion and declared that no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington on the Army list."

To put Pershing first and George Washington second in any contemporary list of ranking US officers (simply because they share the same name of rank and Pershing was awarded the same named-rank first) ignores the explicit subordination of Pershing and "all other grades of the Army" to Washington by both houses of Congress and a sitting President. Thank you.122.25.224.73 (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It used to be that way, because that is the correct order, Washington first. I can tell by the rank # number in the table where Dewey starts at 3 that it was edited somewhere in the history. I'll never find it to roll it back exactly, so I'll just be WP:BOLD and force it back manually. Thanks for noticing! — MrDolomite • Talk 20:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

They held the same rank, but Washington is senior on the Army rolls. Washington does NOT hold a separate rank from Pershing - this was discussed extensively at General of the Armies where there currently is a warning in place not to add that information due to the nasty edit wars and multiple article protections that the "seven star general" insistence eventually caused. -OberRanks (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

MrDolomite - I'm the one that had made Pershing and then Washington the same box with both one and then skipping to #3 for Dewy. My logic is this. 1) Pershing and Washington hold the same rank. 2) Public Law 94-479 states "that no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington" and "such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present." The first part allows someone else (Pershing) to have the same rank as Washington and the second part establishes the two of them rank over and above every one else on the Army list. 3) The Wikipedia table is Listed by rank then seniority (date appointed to the rank). As the two have the same rank I put Pershing first (appointed in 1919) followed by Washington (appointed in 1976). Finally, I did the business of skipping from 1 to 3 as that's common in sports. For example a golf tournaments may have someone at #1, someone at #2, three people tied at #3, and then someone at #6. I undid MrDolomite's edit that put Washington as #1.

As it is, I do not believe Dewy should be at #3. There is no law that compares General of the Armies vs. Admiral of the Navy. It's like apples and oranges - one rank is on the Army list and the other is on the Navy list. The 5 star generals, which includes people from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, though do have a specific order amongst themselves defined in Public Law 78-482 section 6. It so happens section 6 is the same ordering we use on the Wikipedia table meaning no cause for astonishment there. However, that does not resolve the issue of Dewy being at #3. One solution is to put Dewy in the #1 box and as he was appointed in 1899 he would go above Pershing and Washington. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OberRanks, I'm puzzled by why you wrote "Washington is senior on the Army rolls." I had thought seniority was based on date of appointment to an office or grade. I believe some appointments will have back-dating. As far as I know, this did not happen with Washington. Neither Public Law 94-479 nor Orders 31-3 mentions seniority or back-dating. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Date of appointment is the general rule for seniority within grade, but there are exceptions. For example, a service chief of staff outranks all other four-star officers of that service regardless of date of rank as a four-star, and the JCS chairman and vice chairman outrank all other officers of the Armed Forces (see 6.2.2 in [2], or the relevant statutes for JCS/service chiefs).

In this case, Congress specified that "no officer of the United States Army" -- including Pershing -- "should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington," so Washington is the senior officer in the grade of General of the Armies regardless of dates appointed. (Remember that although grade and rank are often used interchangeably in casual conversation, rank technically refers to seniority within a grade, not the grade itself.) - Morinao (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm not really interested in refighting this battle, but I think the IP is absolutely right: Washington's General of the Armies grade is distinct and senior to Pershing's grade by the plain reading of the 1976 law. Also, I think Pershing is junior to Dewey, either because both their grades have been retconned to be one step senior to five-star grades and Dewey was appointed Admiral of the Navy first; or because Pershing's General of the Armies grade was revived from the Grant/Sherman/Sheridan General of the Army grade (it had the same pay and allowances and everything), which was equivalent to the Farragut/Porter Admiral of the Navy grade, which was junior to the Dewey Admiral of the Navy grade. So I would order it 1) Washington 2) Dewey 3) Pershing. - Morinao (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a different version of the rank, but not a different rank (this is exaplined in the main article). This was the entire point of the administrative notice cautioning users not to introduce material that Washington held a different rank. Every 2-3 years, like clockwork, a new or inexperienced editor would typically come along and begin to change the article to reflect that Pershing held a 6 star rank, and Washington a different 7 star rank. This caused numerous edit wars and page protections and very lenghty talk page debates. This is exactly why the warning notice stands there today - to avoid repeating this again and again. -OberRanks (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - The Rank and Seniority of Commissioned Officers that you referenced is useful. I'd agree, that puts Washington at #1. It's nearly 3am here and I can't do the thinking needed to process the rest of your reply tonight. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Washington's effective promotion date

Just a mention that someone had edited Washington's effective promotion date to 1775, ignoring the included comment right after it as well as the 2 linked 2 references. I have returned the date. if someone sees this, do note that both Pershing and Dewey have the #2 rank order. --70.60.194.2 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In the list of historical seniority it shows Washington’s effective date of promotion to General of the Armies as 4 July 1776. That is not correct. His date of promotion is 4 July 1976 with the proviso that he is the highest ranking officer of all time. Solri89 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Protection Request

Due to the repetitive changing of Washington's date of rank, I've asked for semi-protection here. -OberRanks (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2015

the date for george washington becoming marshal should be 4 july 1776 not 4 july 1976. thank you Ghoubrir (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: As stated in the footnotes, that rank was assigned posthumously. Stickee (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2015

Right under the table of contents, it states that George Washington served as General of the Armies of the United States at July 4th 1976. It's safe to say that 1976 needs to be changed to 1776.Garryrice30 (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Garryrice30 (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - as explained in the post above, 1976 is correct - please read note 2 for the explanation - he was only a lieutenant general in his lifetime. - Arjayay (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that Washington's General of the Armies of the United States was not the same as Pershing's

Hi. I'd like to ask why if this page considers Washington and Pershing to have equal rank, that the legislation in 1976 needed to "establish" Washington's rank (and not "reactivate" or "re-establish" a pre-existing one?) Unless, of course, the legislation intended, as it clearly did, that no one, not even Pershing, and not even another General of the Armies of the United States, should outrank Washington's General of the Armies of the United States.

I'd also like to point out that Washington's promotion took into consideration the fact that he, unlike Pershing, "acted as a military commander-in-chief not answerable to either the Continental Congress or its President." Surely this would also contribute to Washington's General of the Armies of the United States as being seen as separate, and unique, from Pershing's previous and more restrained tenure?

One more: if the preamble of the law wanted, as it did, to guarantee that no one would ever outrank Washington, as stated in this quote:

"Whereas it is considered fitting and proper that no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington on the Army list,"

Why didn't they simply state that Washington's Lieutenant General rank outranked all other ranks? Instead, they raised him to a special version of General of the Armies of the United States, whereby NO ONE would outrank Washington (even if they held the same position.)

"Now, therefore, be it

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That

   (a) for purposes of subsection (b) of this section only, the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is ESTABLISHED, such grade to have rank and PRECEDENCE over ALL other grades of the Army, PAST or present. (emphasis mine) (...)

Public Law 94-479"

Washington is First in terms of precedence. Pershing's Second. Same name of rank, but not the same ranking. Thanks!153.229.105.43 (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

See General of the Armies. it explains it pretty thoroughly. All edits to state that Washington was a different rank to Pershing are typically reverted. There is in fact a permanent Wikipedia administration notice on the General of the Armies article to this point. -O.R.^Comms 15:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving Article

In a few months, when I have some time, I was thinking of moving this article to "United States military seniority" and expanding it to discuss the concept of dates of rank and military seniority concepts within the U.S. armed forces. Right now, this is a list which will never be expanded further and its a constant vandal problem with this 1776 vs 1976 Washington promotion date. Unless there are major objections, I'll make the move in a few weeks. -O.R.^Comms 18:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@OberRanks: That seems like a good idea. I've been working on the {Highest Military Ranks} template and it's hard to figure out exactly what out-ranks what.*Treker (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Permanent notice

With the page move complete, I would like to see added a permanent template to dissuade the 1976-1776 vandalism which commonly occurs. There is a good template at Template:Editnotices/Page/General of the Armies. Something similar could be posted here, such as:

-O.R.^Comms 16:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Editnotice created. Ping me or make an edit request if something needs to be changed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You might want to fix the article, this sentence contradicts what the edit notice says: "Washington was posthumously appointed General of the Armies of the United States under s:Public Law 94-479. Under s:Order 31-3, the effective promotion date was on 4 July 1776" 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 13:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Changing Modern Day Seniority example.

In the Modern Day Seniority section it states, "Seniority extends across services, as for instance a captain in the Navy is senior to a major in the Air Force." Since Captain is a rank also in the Air Force, which is lower than Major, one would need prior knowledge that the highest rank for Commissioned Officers in the Navy is actually Captain. I'm changing this article to state something along the lines of "A colonel in the army is senior to a captain in the Air Force". This just removes the need to intricately know seniority ranks across branches. They're both technically correct, one is just easier to understand from someone with little knowledge of the subject. Semmendinger (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Exception to command structure

this statement that the CNO can command a commander of a combatant command has no citation, which is required, as it goes again all US military command regulations on the role of operational and staff officers (who have no operational control after the Goldwater nickson act). Per: Wikipedia:Verifiability65.152.162.3 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

http://www.jcs.mil/About/ the JCS website specifically summarized and backs this view65.152.162.3 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Peyton C. March

Peyton C. March, Army Chief of Staff and so as Tasker H. Bliss temporary general with 4-stars are not in this list. Everyone know why? --Roland Kutzki (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The list came out of a reference source for the top 25 military leaders of all time. Bliss was #2 after Pershing which is probably why he was on it and March was not. To avoid WP:OR, the list in the article had to be connected to a previously published list. -O.R.^Comms 14:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you OberRanks, but the difference is not really clear.--Roland Kutzki (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)