• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Why Acting Sub-Lieutenant, and Where are the Midshipmen & Ensigns (Merged thread)

J_dog said:
The A/Slt rank was created after unification(Feb-1968) to bring the Navy ranks in line with the Army-centric rank structure of unification.
Well, A/Slt did actually exists pre-unification and in much the same capacity as today (a rank awarded upon completion of a portion of training), but like all the acting-lacking ranks it was never spoken, just written. It is proper to refer to an A/Slt verbally as "Sub-Lieutenant So-and-so", although "Mr/Ms So-and-so" also simplifies things.

I'm told that the post-unification ranks were actually based on the air force model, which had something comparable to a MS/MCpl and the the rank of "Flying Officer" which became A/SLt.

Snakedoc said:
A question about the Naval-Cadet rank as well.  I seem to recall reading somewhere in the NDA that it lists the rank as being Midshipman rather than NCdt.  Anybody know how NCdt came into use rather than Midshipman?
If that's the case, it may be using the term "midshipmen" generically to refer to all officers under training. I've never seen it, though.
 
hamiltongs said:
I'm told that the post-unification ranks were actually based on the air force model, which had something comparable to a MS/MCpl and the the rank of "Flying Officer" which became A/SLt.

Pilot Officer is the equiv of A/SLt.  Flying Officer was the equiv of Lt (and still is in most Commonwealth countries)

...back to the regularly-scheduled thread...
 
hamiltongs said:
If that's the case, it may be using the term "midshipmen" generically to refer to all officers under training. I've never seen it, though.

I just did a quick check of the NDA and under the 'schedule' portion in relation to section 21 on ranks of officers and non-commissioned members, all the naval ranks are the same as they are today in column II except it says 'Midshipman Naval Cadet' for what we conventionally call Naval Cadet today.
 
Second Lieutenant isn't quite the mouthful that Acting Sub-Lieutenant is, but it's still pretty full and pretty annoying to have to spill out of the mouth.  Anyway, the punchline of my comment here is that 2Lts are frequently addressed sans the 'second'.
 
Similarly,
Acting Sub-Lieutenants and Sub-Lieutenants are more commonly referred to as Subs, or Subbies, but never as a replacement to their rank. i.e. You never say Subbie Jones, but SLt Jones is a subbie.  They sometimes are called by senior officers as Sub.
It is also common to call Lieutenant Commanders as Commander, although they are short a half-stripe.  Similarly, Lieutenant Colonels are still called Colonel in the army.
 
Rec Centre Toronto CO said:
It is also common to call Lieutenant Commanders as Commander, although they are short a half-stripe.  Similarly, Lieutenant Colonels are still called Colonel in the army.

I've never really heard this in the Canadian military before...perhaps I'm not hanging out with the right pay grade  ;D
However I always thought that this practice was only done in the American military and not Canadian?
 
I would say a better example of addressing an Acting Subbie as Sub Lieutenant is the equivalent to the case of POs. There are different real ranks with different insignia and pay rates, which, in verbal practice, go by the same name.

If an Acting Sub Lieutenant introduced him or herself as "Sub Lieutenant Bloggins", I wouldn't see him or her as trying to make him or herself more than he or she is. Similarly, if a PO introduced him or herself as "Petty Officer Bloggins" I wouldn't be all like "ah ah ah...you're Petty Officer Second Class Bloggins, you should say it in full".

The full written rank is indeed a mouthful, and sounds kind of silly. When I was a Naval Cadet, I liked to make fun of the rank system and say that I was an Almost-Acting-Sub-Lieutenant or A/A/SLt.
 
I just posted in another thread about a similar topic and it jogged my memory about this thread.  Feel free to see the annex I attached in the other thread as it clarifies a couple of the issues discussed in this thread (ie spoken short form for A/SLt rank is Sub-Lieutenant, Colonel is a spoken short form for LCol, but Commander is not a spoken short form for LCdr etc).  Hope it helps!

http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/812/post-995599.html#msg995599
 
Lets get a few things straight: Pre-unification, the ranks of Naval Cadet, Midshipman, Acting Sub-Lieutenant and Sub-Lieutenant were in use in the R.C.N.

The actual rank worn on the sleeve by A/SLt's and SLt's was the same and they were BOTH referred to as  Sub-Lieutenant, except in official correspondence.

The progression referred to their training level:

Officer candidates came in the service as Naval Cadet (indicated by  a "pin" on the coat lapel) and, upon graduating from the then equivalent of "Basic", became Midshipman (a "pin" over a square of broadcloth on the lapel) to do their true naval apprenticeship.

Once they graduated and commissioned, they went to their first ship as A/SLt's (one broad stripe with executive curl), a rank they retained until they were ready to stand their own watch. At that point they went before the board to obtain their watch keeping certificate AND, as a result of passing it, the substantive rank of SLt, which however was still denoted by a single broad stripe with curl .

As for the term "second lieutenant", it would not work in the Navy, as it would be considered to refer to the Combat Officer. Why, you ask?

In the older days of the Navy, ships had a Captain and every other officer's position onboard, other than the masters, were referred to as lieutenants, with the First Lieutenant being the second in command to the captain, the Second Lieutenant being the next most senior, and so forth down to the very junior Sixth Lieutenant (Merchant ships still use a similar system, with  captain, first mate, second mate, etc.). So in the Navy, being Second Lieutenant means you are second in line to become captain, an elevated position, not that you are second to all lieutenants, a low position (which we keep for the army ;) ).

This is why, even to this day, the X.O. of  a ship is often referred to as the First Lieutenant, or Number One, or Jimmy the one.

And BTW, Lieutenant-Commanders used to be (a long time ago) considered part of the "lieutenants". They just happen to be lieutenants that were senior enough that, when the need arose, you could temporarily appoint them in command of a third rate or fourth rate ship of the line - until they could be properly promoted to commander or relieved by a commander/captain that became available for the job.  As a result, Lieutenant-Commanders were part of the "junior" officers and, usually referred to as Lieutenant by their seniors in command of the ship, as Lieutenant-Commanders by their peers and juniors under normal circumstances, and as Commanders by all while in a command of their own.

When I joined (many moons ago and perhaps a few eons), junior officers often addressed LCDR's as Commanders onboard the steamers, a practice that had disappeared by the time I myself reached that rank (Damit !) 
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Lets get a few things straight: Pre-unification, the ranks of Naval Cadet, Midshipman, Acting Sub-Lieutenant and Sub-Lieutenant were in use in the R.C.N.

Officer candidates came in the service as Naval Cadet (indicated by  a "pin" on the coat lapel) and, upon graduating from the then equivalent of "Basic", became Midshipman (a "pin" over a square of broadcloth on the lapel) to do their true naval apprenticeship.

As for the term "second lieutenant", it would not work in the Navy, as it would be considered to refer to the Combat Officer.

And BTW, Lieutenant-Commanders used to be (a long time ago) considered part of the "lieutenants". They just happen to be lieutenants that were senior enough that, when the need arose, you could temporarily appoint them in command of a third rate or fourth rate ship of the line - until they could be properly promoted to commander or relieved by a commander/captain that became available for the job.  As a result, Lieutenant-Commanders were part of the "junior" officers and, usually referred to as Lieutenant by their seniors in command of the ship, as Lieutenant-Commanders by their peers and juniors under normal circumstances, and as Commanders by all while in a command of their own.

When I joined (many moons ago and perhaps a few eons), junior officers often addressed LCDR's as Commanders onboard the steamers, a practice that had disappeared by the time I myself reached that rank (Damit !)

Yes, the RCN had Acting Sub-Lieutenants, but this was a true "acting" rank.  They were dressed and paid as sub-lieutenants.  Today's acting sub-lieutenant is a substantive rank, which makes the title somewhat silly in my mind.  I like the way the Kiwis have gotten around it.  In the RNZN, their midshipmen equate with our NCdt and wear a white patch with a button on the lapel of their jackets.  The next RNZN rank is the ensign (the only Commonwealth navy that uses this as a rank title) who is equivalent to our A/SLt and wears a half-stripe with executive curl.  this is followed by the sub-lieutenant who wears a full stripe with executive curl and who is equivalent to our SLt who wears one and half stripes (with executive curl now :))  The rest of the RNZN ranks are identical to ours.

Although naval cadets did exist in the RN, RAN, RNZN, etc, they seem to have disappeared.  I figure we have resurrected them in Canada because "naval cadet" seems to be a more obvious equivalent to "officer cadet."  It's also worth noting that when we wore green, they were often addressed as "officer cadets."  It is really only with the introduction of the DEU that "naval cadet" came back into use and even then, it took many years for it to become common.  We can't replace A/SLt with "midshipman" because that rank level is commissioned and it is universally held that midshipmen are not commissioned.

Acting sub-lieutenants are most definitely addressed orally as "sub-lieutenant," but I have never seen the use of "commander" for lieutenant-commanders in Canada.  That is very much an American custom.  To add to what Oldgateboatdriver has said, the two and a half stripe badge was originally to used to differentiate senior lieutenants from junior lieutenants and the half stripe was added automatically upon reaching eight years seniority as a lieutenant.  The rank title change to 'lieutenant-commander" came later and actually originated as a mashing of titles for officers who were "lieutenants and commanders."  Whereas the army used the word "lieutenant" to modify a higher rank to describe a lesser rank (i.e. a "lieutenant-colonel" is a lesser "colonel"), the navy used, "commander" to raise certain lieutenants over others.

On a final note, it was only in the early 1960s that LCdr stopped being an automatic promotion in the RCN.  In most western navies it still is automatic, which may explain why we treat it as a senior officer while other navies treat it as a junior officer (Canadian LCdrs wear oak leaves on their caps while, RN, RAN, RNZN, USN LCdrs do not).
 
Pusser said:
Yes, the RCN had Acting Sub-Lieutenants, but this was a true "acting" rank.  They were dressed and paid as sub-lieutenants.  Today's acting sub-lieutenant is a substantive rank, which makes the title somewhat silly in my mind.  I like the way the Kiwis have gotten around it.  In the RNZN, their midshipmen equate with our NCdt and wear a white patch with a button on the lapel of their jackets.  The next RNZN rank is the ensign (the only Commonwealth navy that uses this as a rank title) who is equivalent to our A/SLt and wears a half-stripe with executive curl.  this is followed by the sub-lieutenant who wears a full stripe with executive curl and who is equivalent to our SLt who wears one and half stripes (with executive curl now :))  The rest of the RNZN ranks are identical to ours.
I think I've seen this idea proposed for our navy somewhere here.
 
I would have no problem with  the A/SLt's becoming Ensigns. That would actually bring the rank in line with its French denomination in the CF regulations: A/Slt's are "enseigne de vaisseau - second class" and the actual Subs are "enseigne de vaisseau - first class" (Both adressed as "enseigne de vaisseau").

But please MCG: no Seargeants at sea - and why on earth would we want to introduce yet another level of "seaman" rank when we already have too many???

People may not realize this (I don't know how mny people are left in the service from those days) but one of the effects on the Navy of the introduction of the appointments of Master Seaman to "get in line" with the CF structure was a cheapening of the respect that leading hands had always garnered prior to that.
 
As was described to me when I first joined, today's master seaman is yesterday's leading seaman (in terms of leadership responsibility).
 
Pusser said:
As was described to me when I first joined, today's master seaman is yesterday's leading seaman (in terms of leadership responsibility).


It was a complete bugger's muddle in 1966. Despite whatever else he was trying to achieve, one of Mr. Hellyer's goals was to get us a pay raise. We were underpaid; there had been a series of panels and commissions that had, one after the other, recommended fairly large pay raises; successive Tory (Diefenbaker) and Liberal (Pearson) governments kept their wallets closed. Mr. Hellyer's solution (fashioned we joked, darkly, after the Congolese Army circa 1962)* was to promote almost everyone! Thus "Hellyer corporals" and "instant captains."

Trust me, we were grateful for the pay raises - except for the few of us who made captain before 1967 and wondered (aloud) why others didn't have to jump through all our hoops, too. But we all recognized that we were all much better off when our junior ranks were adequately paid.


----------
* The Congolese Army was rioting and turning to banditry so the local government's solution was to promote everyone. Every single private was promoted to corporal and every corporal to sergeant and so on. It bought peace ... for a few days, until even the Congolese soldiers realized that as there was no money for the old pay, there was even less for the newly promoted.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Trust me, we were grateful for the pay raises - except for the few of us who made captain before 1967 and wondered (aloud) why others didn't have to jump through all our hoops, too. But we all recognized that we were all much better off when our junior ranks were adequately paid.

Couldn't agree more, but there is a difference between granting adequate pay, which can be done at any rank, and rank inflation to achieve same "sneakily". If we accept the later as an acceptable method, we can hardly complain today that we are "overstaffed" with senior ranks and are "top heavy".

I know there are career "pyramids" to supposedly maintain lest the whole apparatus falls apart, but if proper incentive for time in are made available, there is nothing wrong IMHO with career Able Seaman and Lieutenants that we allow to stay in and provide with a decent living wage.
 
Thats where pay level incentives could be changed, to allow for those that do not have leadership qualities or WANT the leadership responsibilities but enjoy their job/trade and are good at it.

Or they could think of doing something along the lines of other militaries where they have members of equal pay grade but different rank, where one is command/leadership minded, vs the other is specialty/trade minded. So you could still go up in pay grade and live well but also progress so to speak.

I think this or something like it would be good for us, because some people who have great technical know how but ZERO leadership skills/qualities/ambition, get promoted or forced to take promotions and end up being crap leaders or changing trades so as to be busted back down to CPL
 
Biggoals2bdone said:
Or they could think of doing something along the lines of other militaries where they have members of equal pay grade but different rank, where one is command/leadership minded, vs the other is specialty/trade minded.

I'm curious if you can give same examples of militaries that have this type of system (and where it has been successfully implemented)?
 
Snakedoc said:
I'm curious if you can give same examples of militaries that have this type of system (and where it has been successfully implemented)?

The United States Army. Take a look at its non-commissioned ranks, in perticular the ranks of Specialist and Corporal (both E-4) and Master Sergeant and First sergeant ( both E-8).

http://www.army.mil/symbols/enlisteddescriptions.html
 
Interesting, however I had the impression that Biggoals2bdone was speaking about it on a much larger scale?
 
Back
Top