If America is at war why aren't there any 5 star generals or anyone in the armed services ranked "5 star"?
Because it only goes to four stars?
There have been no officers appointed to the rank of General of the Army since Omar Bradley. The rank of General of the Army is still maintained as a rank of the U.S. military, and could again be bestowed, during a time of war, pending approval of the United States Congress. Current U.S. military policy is that General of the Army, General of the Air Force, and Fleet Admiral are ranks only to be used when a commander of U.S. forces must be equal to or of higher rank than commanders of armies from another nation.
it wasn't a trick question. 5 star ranks a reserved for war time.
yeah, i read that on wiki or somewhere. explains the prerequisites but not why here is not one nowTheAussieReaper wrote:
There have been no officers appointed to the rank of General of the Army since Omar Bradley. The rank of General of the Army is still maintained as a rank of the U.S. military, and could again be bestowed, during a time of war, pending approval of the United States Congress. Current U.S. military policy is that General of the Army, General of the Air Force, and Fleet Admiral are ranks only to be used when a commander of U.S. forces must be equal to or of higher rank than commanders of armies from another nation.
Since the rank is only used to make an American outrank another country's military personnel, there is no reason to have anyone with that rank.BN wrote:
yeah, i read that on wiki or somewhere. explains the prerequisites but not why here is not one nowTheAussieReaper wrote:
There have been no officers appointed to the rank of General of the Army since Omar Bradley. The rank of General of the Army is still maintained as a rank of the U.S. military, and could again be bestowed, during a time of war, pending approval of the United States Congress. Current U.S. military policy is that General of the Army, General of the Air Force, and Fleet Admiral are ranks only to be used when a commander of U.S. forces must be equal to or of higher rank than commanders of armies from another nation.
would the coalition of the willing require it?
I guess not as it a "joint action"??
I guess not as it a "joint action"??
Does the US command the other country's troops directly? I don't know enough about the coalition of the willing's command structure to say.BN wrote:
would the coalition of the willing require it?
I guess not as it a "joint action"??
dont be a doucheBN wrote:
would the coalition of the willing require it?
how does get fucked sound?usmarine wrote:
dont be a doucheBN wrote:
would the coalition of the willing require it?
sounds great 8-)BN wrote:
how does get fucked sound?usmarine wrote:
dont be a doucheBN wrote:
would the coalition of the willing require it?
As far as I can tell pretty much all Western countries only control their own national Army. Apart from the British Army controlling the Nepalese Gurkha's. Not even an officer of the Gurkha's can command a Private of any other British regiment or corps.SenorToenails wrote:
Does the US command the other country's troops directly? I don't know enough about the coalition of the willing's command structure to say.BN wrote:
would the coalition of the willing require it?
I guess not as it a "joint action"??
We are not officially at war. We have not been since WWII. Frankly, we don't need any 5 stars, so why make them?
5 star was very useful in WW2. When a war of such a magnitude, or something along those lines will occur a 5 star will probably be promoted again.RAIMIUS wrote:
We are not officially at war. We have not been since WWII. Frankly, we don't need any 5 stars, so why make them?
Last edited by dayarath (2008-04-10 10:56:39)
inane little opines
once again wiki is crazy:
After World War II, which saw the introduction of U.S. "5-star" officers who outranked Washington, both Congress and the President revisited the issue of Washington's rank. To maintain George Washington's proper position as the first Commanding General of the United States Army, he was appointed, posthumously, to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States by congressional joint resolution Public Law 94-479 January 19, 1976, approved by President Gerald R. Ford on October 11, 1976. The law established the grade as having "rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present,"clearly making it superior to General of the Army. The Department of the Army Order 31-3, issued on March 13, 1978 had an effective appointment date of July 4, 1976.[5] The rank ensures that no United States military officer outranks George Washington. [6][7][4]
washington has serious rank hax
After World War II, which saw the introduction of U.S. "5-star" officers who outranked Washington, both Congress and the President revisited the issue of Washington's rank. To maintain George Washington's proper position as the first Commanding General of the United States Army, he was appointed, posthumously, to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States by congressional joint resolution Public Law 94-479 January 19, 1976, approved by President Gerald R. Ford on October 11, 1976. The law established the grade as having "rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present,"clearly making it superior to General of the Army. The Department of the Army Order 31-3, issued on March 13, 1978 had an effective appointment date of July 4, 1976.[5] The rank ensures that no United States military officer outranks George Washington. [6][7][4]
washington has serious rank hax
Last edited by steelie34 (2008-04-10 11:03:07)
