Talk:United States Army enlisted rank insignia of World War II

Changed Grade to Class
some had altered the Technician Class to Grade, i have corrected this 89.207.208.25 10:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Every source I've encountered lists these as Grades, not Classes. Given the dubious nature of other edits to military rank articles from the 89.207.208.X set of IP's unless you can provide a verifiable source, I will be reverting back your change if you do so again. Caerwine Caer’s whines  17:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I myself have encoutered Sources only listing them as Grades i have searched since the original IP adress added this discussion and none of the encoutered relibable sources list them as Class Feeblezak 12:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Article layout
Ok, clearly not everyone will agree with some of the edits I've made, with the new tables and section changes. Speak up and help improve things. Thx. &mdash; MrDolomite • Talk 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification Question
What was the difference between MSG and SFC in World War II? Given the Army that I served in, if there's a distinction in insignia, there's a corresponding difference in jobs/MOS. What was the case here? Drieux 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The rank of SFC did not exist in WWII, the equivalent rank was called Technical Sergeant. In combat units, Master Sergeants would have been the senior NCOs at regimental/combat command (for armor units) and higher level headquarters (viz., division, corps, etc.) filling essentially the same positions as current-day Master Sergeants and Sergeants Major; Technical Sergeants would have served as senior NCOs in battalion/squadron (for cavalry units) headquarters as the NCOIC of a staff section or perhaps as a senior platoon sergeant (platoon sergeants usually being Staff Sergeants) or "field first sergeant" (for those companies that had them). CobraDragoon (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WWIISGDBCPL.jpg
Image:WWIISGDBCPL.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Insignia colours for 1920 rank insignia
I've just vector-ified all the 1942 style images where the colour scheme is correct (khaki on blue), and also set the article to use these same images for the 1920 insignia shown. However, according to http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Rank_page/History_of_Enlisted_Ranks.htm these should be 'olive drab' insignia on dark blue. It'd be nice if someone could take my SVGs and create olive drab ones so this would be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktims (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Technical Sergeant?
Despite explaining something regarding the rank structure...what this article does not explain is what this rank actually did? What were these sergeants technical at? Was this a rank regarding military expertise/combat or was it to do with administration? It does note they were not often addressed by their T/Sgt rank but by an equivalent ordinary rank. Could someone explain this in more detail as to what this independent rank system was for, ie its purpose. Was it to reward specialists ie demolition/explosive handlers, language translator, radio operators. What exactly?86.182.54.68 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you are confusing Technical Sergeant (a Grade 2 rank) and the several Technician ranks (Grades 3, 4, and 5). A Technical Sergeant was a senior NCO, roughly equivalent to a modern-day SFC or MSG, who supervised "technicians" (i.e., primarily non-combat arms MOS soldiers) or served as a NCOIC as discussed above. Secondly, yes the Technician grades were for "specialists" (primarily combat support and combat service support troops) and were similar to the 1950s through 1980s Specialist ranks. CobraDragoon (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"Gdhdhgh" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gdhdhgh. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 06:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)