The equivalence table contains what may be a factual inaccuracy, in that it equates the army "sergeant major" with the navy and air-force warrant officer. However, in the US Army, there is a category of service distinct from the enlisted and commissioned ranks whose members are also classified as warrant officers. This is a separate category of service, and is neither enlisted nor commissioned; A Sergeant Major is a senior non-commissioned officer (i.e. enlisted), not a warrant officer.
Sub Lieutenent is not junior to 1st Lt in the Army
Dependant on seniority, a SLT is directly equivalent to a 2nd Lt or 1st Lt in the Army. A graduate joining the RN will do so as a SLT and will remain at that rank until being promoted to LT RN, which is directly equivalent to a Captain in the Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris brokensha (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the junior status of Sub Lieutenant, I think that was a historical difference which has gone away recently, perhaps in 1993 as the article sort of explains with Acting Sub Lieutenant? Kirk (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Master's Mate comments
Since it was controversial, I put a reference in for the 'further promotion' comment. I think what Walker meant while both Midshipmen and Master's Mates were warrant officers, Midshipmen were assumed to be Gentlemen and Master's Mates weren't. Master's Mates originally were ordinary seamen, so Midshipmen who decided to choose a lower social station to make more money were basically dropping out of the track for promotion to Lieutenant, although it still could happen. The Social History of the Royal Navy 1793-1815 has a similar story. Midshipmen and Master's Mates shared the same quarters, and could be very young or very old and overlapped until the Navy decided to formalize these roles into ranks in the 1840's.
Example given in Canada and Australia
I wonder if anyone has a reference that a SLT is addressed as "Sub Lieutenant" as opposed to "Acting Sub Lieutenant" (When spoken) in the Canadian Armed Forces..? I was always told to use the fully qualified rank when speaking to them...? Dphilp75 (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Able Seaman (rank) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Two articles on the same rank
Can anyone tell me why there is this article and then there is this article entitled Second Lieutenant? They appear to be the same rank and have same the NATO code. The only difference is this uses a British term and the latter, an American one.22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)