gammyleg 0 Posted May 23, 2006 I was having a look through the NATO equivilents for rank structure, particularly US and UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_ins...Armies_Enlisted How do they figure that the equivilant of a PFC is a LCpl? My understanding is a PFC is a private soldier who isn't a numbnuts, and can be obtained between 6-12 months. LCpls generally require at least 3 years of service, and is a Non-Commissioned Officers, in charge of 5 man firegroups - roughly the equivilant to a Senior E4 Corporal or E5 Sergeant. Share this post Link to post
Nachmore 0 Posted May 23, 2006 Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Corporal and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-commissioned_officer (the UK parts)... Lance Corporals aren't that high up - they're Junior NCOs. I find it hard that you would have to be in the army for 3 years to get one of these. Also notice that it mentions that you can get one by being a specialist like: "clerks, drivers, signallers, machine-gunners, and mortarmen". Share this post Link to post
gammyleg 0 Posted May 23, 2006 Agreed they're Junior NCOs, but Junior Officers (2Lts and Lts) are still officers. The difference I am referring to is - with a LCpl, he has command authority over troops, he requires a Junior NCO (covers leadership etc) course, and is to be referred to by rank (Both Cpls and LCpls are to be called Corporal/Corp) - whereas a PFC has to be in for a small bit of time. 3 years in the army and promoted is actually reasonably quick. Certain trades like Clerks and Storemen get it quicker (that article is flawed when it suggests they get it straight away.), but thats at unit discretion. As far as combat trades go, 3 year mark is a point to aim for, a fact I have seen on a British rank explanation poster. its possible to get it as early as 2 years, and isnt uncommon to have 5 year privates. (i met a 19 year private equivilant in australia - at that point he had been in longer than i had lived) Share this post Link to post
Luk3us 63 Posted May 23, 2006 Its Wikipedia. Whilst its a useful source, its not always completly accurate. Share this post Link to post
Nachmore 0 Posted May 23, 2006 that's true - as I was going through these things I went in and fixed up a couple of things Share this post Link to post
gammyleg 0 Posted May 23, 2006 yeah, wikipedia certainly does have its downfalls. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16 but Nato rank equivelancy really does state PFC and LCpl are the same. *shrugs* madness Share this post Link to post
Sonic 296 Posted May 23, 2006 that's true - as I was going through these things I went in and fixed up a couple of things Well thats kind of the whole idea behind Wikipedia Share this post Link to post
Alphabear 11 Posted May 24, 2006 problem is anything that looks good is good enough for wiki Share this post Link to post
Nachmore 0 Posted May 24, 2006 the NYTimes actually tested Wikipedia against the brittanica and world book and found that wikipedia was more accurate in a lot of cases. I'll have to look for the link on slashdot - quite an interesting read. About the ranks - don't forget that although the names and ranks are somewhat equivalent on an international level the amount of responsibility that is given can vary (I was a corporal in charge of 30 soldiers after 6 months). Share this post Link to post
gammyleg 0 Posted May 24, 2006 the NYTimes actually tested Wikipedia against the brittanica and world book and found that wikipedia was more accurate in a lot of cases. I'll have to look for the link on slashdot - quite an interesting read. About the ranks - don't forget that although the names and ranks are somewhat equivalent on an international level the amount of responsibility that is given can vary (I was a corporal in charge of 30 soldiers after 6 months). Ha, thats really cool about Wiki vs. Brit. For the most part, Id use Wiki as the first port of call to learn about something, but if it matters, Id probably go ahead and get second opinion somewhere. Unfortunately Wiki has this mesmerising ability to suck you in and before you know it you've clicked a thousand links and start pondering irrelevant things. Freakin' sweet being a Cpl after 6 months, who was that with? Is that anything like the Netherlands (among others) where you can join as a Private, NCO or Officer, depending on grading? Share this post Link to post
Nachmore 0 Posted May 26, 2006 Ha, thats really cool about Wiki vs. Brit. For the most part, Id use Wiki as the first port of call to learn about something, but if it matters, Id probably go ahead and get second opinion somewhere. Unfortunately Wiki has this mesmerising ability to suck you in and before you know it you've clicked a thousand links and start pondering irrelevant things. LOL at least now I know I'm not alone! I find mysef starting off at one article about chess and ending up reading up the theory of evolution! Freakin' sweet being a Cpl after 6 months, who was that with? Is that anything like the Netherlands (among others) where you can join as a Private, NCO or Officer, depending on grading? Israel actually. Conscription is enforced (3 years for men, 2 for woman) and everyone joins the army as a private. Because of the relatively short army careers (most people will only do their 2/3 years) promotions come quite fast at the lower levels (before NCO and 2nd Lieutenant). Share this post Link to post