Talk:Fleet admiral (United States)/Archive 1

Title
Discussion about the title of this article and its recent change can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms). Feel free to contribute. -- hike395 16:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge proposal
See the discussion on the Admiral of the Navy talk page. --RaiderAspect 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

SERIOUS ERROR ON THIS PAGE
The US Officer Commissioned Officer Ranks box is incorrect. All the ranks have been moved one grade UP, for example, OF 5 has become OF 6 etc. For the correct rank table please see the box at this address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_armies_officers where they are all correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christopherwood (talk • contribs).

Wartime Only
A number of wikipedia pages suggest that this rank and the other O-11 ranks are to be awarded only during times of war. This is what has happened in reality because they were only used in WWII (and Omar Bradley right before the Korean War), but is there any documentation that there is in fact a US government policy specifying that this rank is to be created only during major wars? According to the page about Henry H. Arnold, he was promoted to an O-11 in 1949, which seems to go against being wartime only. The box at the bottom of all the US military officer pages has a column for the O-11 ranks with the label "wartime only," but it seems inaccurate in light of this. 18.96.6.11 (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Checking, the clear counterexample is Halsey, who was promoted "in December 1945 largely through the efforts of an influential member of Congress, Representative Carl Vinson of Georgia.[citation needed]"
 * Bradley was promoted during the Korean War; I'd guess to make him equal in rank to MacArthur. Arnold was just given the same rank in the Air Force that he'd held in the Army, and that was just pro forma, since he retired before the Air Force became an separate service.
 * I don't know if there's any explicit policy, but the post-WWII armed forces simply haven't been large enough to need 5-stars, though it's been suggested for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
 * —wwoods (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So if Halsey was the only officer who was promoted to an O-11 grade completely outside of wartime, this is a clear counterexample as you said. All three pages about the US military O-11 ranks say that it is awarded only in wartime.  This is not completely true historically (in light of Halsey) and there is no reference to a standing policy that the ranks are only to be used in times of war.  Since Congress has to authorize the ranks, it seems doubtful that there is a "wartime only" provision.  We would have to identify an act of Congress that says this.  Moreover, the fact that the government was considering appointing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to a 5-star grade by merit of holding that office makes it seem like the "wartime only" provision doesn't exist.


 * Are we absolutely certain that someone didn't misinterpret the fact that most of the 5-star appointments were in wartime? They could have thought this was the rule and their false conclusions could have propagated into all the O-11 wikipedia pages. 18.96.6.11 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The page says that Fleet Admiral is the highest attainable rank in the US Navy. Yet we also have the rank of Admiral of the Navy, a rank held by Chester Dexey shortly after the Spanish-American War. Admiral of the Navy is consider to be senior to Fleet Admiral, especially since there was going to be a move to promote Chester Nimitz to Admiral of the Navy (along with Douglas MacArthur to General of the Armies) for the propsed invasion of Japan. So technically speaking, Fleet Admiral is only the SECOND-highest attainable rank in the US Navy, just like General of the Army is the second-highest attainable rank in the US Army. 71.185.227.7 (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's odd. We don't seem to have an article on Chester Dexey &#9786; You must have meant this guy: George Dewey JMOprof (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Halsey, Spruance, and Vinson
From the sci.military.naval FAQs:
 * Section C.6: Five Star Admirals


 * Section provided by Merlin Dorfman


 * [snip]


 * During 1944, Congress authorized the Army and the Navy to appoint four officers each to five-star rank. As of December 16, 1944, the Army appointed Marshall, Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Arnold, and the Navy appointed Leahy, King, and Nimitz. The authorization was never rescinded, and it did not make clear whether the eight could be replaced if they resigned or died--presumably each Service could appoint four today, though there are many political considerations, inculding the role of the Air Force, and if any appointments were made Congress would surely become involved. After Arnold's death in [January] 1950, the Army appointed Omar Bradley, a prominent World War II commander then serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to the vacant billet [in September 1950].


 * The Navy did not immediately fill its fourth billet because there was not a clear single choice. Of the four-star admirals, the leading candidates were Raymond A. Spruance and William F. Halsey, who alternated as commander of the striking force of the Pacific Fleet. The Secretary of the Navy, James Forrestal, left the choice to King. Both Halsey and Spruance had supporters in Congress; the most influential was Representative Carl Vinson of Georgia, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who strongly supported Halsey. After the war was over, in December 1945, the Navy promoted Halsey to five-star rank. Congress passed a special bill authorizing Spruance to be maintained on full pay upon his retirement. (Pay for three-, four-, and five-star ranks is the same; Spruance was the only officer of any service retired at full pay by act of Congress.) After vacancies occurred in the ranks of Fleet Admiral with the deaths of King in 1956 and Halsey in 1959, there were efforts in Congress to promote Spruance; Vinson thwarted them all. After Vinson's retirement the Navy did not want to reopen the issue, given Spruance's recognition by the special retirement status described above.


 * With the death of Bradley there are no five-star officers left, and it appears that there may never be any again.

—WWoods (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All of this is opinion and/or interpretation by one person on a private site, and not official policy. All of the nine most certainly did retire. Public Law 333 states quite clearly any appointments "may be placed on the retirement list". ALL officers of flag rank may be recalled to active duty off the retired list. There is no distinction between 5-star and any other admiral/general because of PL333. The law was passed to change provisions of the original law that made the appointments temporary, and granted only 75% of pay and allowances to those on the retired list.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fleet Admiral (United States) → Fleet Admiral &mdash; No need for the parentheses. Requested title redirects to the existing page. — Manti  core  01:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Object the undisambiguated form should redirect to Admiral of the Fleet which lists Fleet Admiral as a variant. Doing as suggested is US biased. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have restored the redirect to Admiral of the Fleet where it was until a few days ago, when it was redirected to the US biased term. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment several values for Fleet Admiral exist. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Object I agree with "70.29.208.129". --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on the rationale provided by 70.29.208.129. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revision removing information about rank insignia and relative seniority vis-a-vis General of the Army
Manticore - This revision removes a useful description of the rank insignia (useful especially for vision-impaired users who cannot see the image). It also removes useful knowledge of which Generals of the Army each of the Fleet Admirals ranked below and above.

The appointment of the Generals and Admirals was a unique, one-time situation which significantly benefits from the context of the appointments in the other service branch.

I understand and appreciate the urge to "tidy-up", but in this case I believe you're excising useful, relevant information. Infoman99 (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I take your point about the insignia and have re-added that information. I still don't think it's necessary to list the Generals of the Army as they are listed in that article, but if you think it is pertinent I won't remove that without discussing it further. — Manti  core  16:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it's useful. The point is not to have a list of the names but to show the way the services appointed their 5-stars in a coordinated order of seniority: (1st) Navy, (2nd) Army, (3rd) Navy, (4th) Army, (5th) Navy, (6th) Army, (7th) Air Force. Near-equivalence between the Navy and Army, plus the nascent Air Force bringing up the rear.
 * —WWoods (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fleet admiral (United States). 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/20120206041537/http://www.nightscribe.com/military/public_law_482.htm to http://www.nightscribe.com/military/public_law_482.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013212055/http://history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-6.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-6.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013212055/http://history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-6.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-6.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)