Talk:Admiral of the Navy

January 1944 proposal

There's an article[1] on the Eisenhower Memorial Commission website with the following story:

In early January 1944 President Roosevelt startled Admiral Leahy by telling him he was going to be promoted to five stars with the title Admiral of the Fleet. Stunned, Leahy replied that if such a promotion was under consideration the rank ought to be given to each member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A few days later a Navy Captain informed the Army Chief of Personnel that the chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee would be introducing a bill in Congress, prepared by the Navy Department, to provide two new ranks; Admiral of the Navy (six-star rank) and Admiral of the Fleet (five stars). According to the Navy messenger, President Roosevelt had approved the plan and expected similar action to provide higher ranks for the Army with a six star General of the Armies and a five star General of the Army.

The article goes on to say that Stimson shot down the six-star ranks as silly one-up-manship on the British, but the five-star ranks got approved after Montgomery got promoted to field marshal. Seems like this account might be detailed enough that someone could identify its sources?

Also, I remember reading (an old biography of King in a used bookstore) that early in the war, Knox tried to entice King to move his CINCUSFLEET headquarters to Hawaii to take personal command as Admiral of the Navy. King declined the promotion, since it was a transparent ploy by a political rival to shift him out of the power center of Washington D.C. Anyone else ever hear this? Morinao 23:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

(It's been 14 years, I guess I can finally answer my own question.)

The first story paraphrases a volume of Forrest Pogue's biography of George C. Marshall.

President Roosevelt had startled Admiral Leahy one morning in early January by announcing that he was going to promote him to higher rank, suggesting the title "Admiral of the Fleet." Leahy replied that similar rank should be given to the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A few days later, on January 13, a Navy captain informed the Army Chief of Personnel that Representative Carl Vinson, chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee, would shortly introduce a bill prepared by the Navy Department to provide two new ranks, Admiral of the Navy (six-star rank) and Admiral of the Fleet (five-star). The plan was to give the higher rank to Leahy and King and the lower to Nimitz, Halsey, and Ingersoll. The President had approved the plan in part and had said that similar action to provide higher rank would be taken by the Army.

Pogue, Forrest C. (1973). George C. Marshall: Organizer of Victory 1943-1945. New York, New York: Penguin Books. p. 365.

The second story appears in the Albion and Connery biography of Forrestal (not King).

At the first Quebec Conference in August 1943...Knox suggested to King that he take personal command of the Fleet for the forthcoming Pacific offensive and leave Horne to be Chief of Naval Operations....

Forrestal directed Horne to draw up a recommendation for the step, which by mid-January was embodied in a proposed Executive Order canceling those of December 18, 1941 and March 12, 1942, that had given King his double top position. By this draft, he would keep his proposed five stars with a new title, "Admiral of the Navy and Commander, United States Fleet." Horne, with four stars would be in a post independent of King, as the "Chief of Naval Logistics and Material." Those specific titles were so worded for very particular reasons. There was Roosevelt's resentment of the use of "Commander-in-Chief" by anyone but himself, as Knox mentioned in writing King. "Chief of Naval Operations" was discarded because it had developed so many connotations over the past twenty-nine years that it seemed best to make a clean break with tradition and use more pertinent wording.

...Knox voiced his reactions in a long memorandum to King, which said in part:

After reading them all I am oppressed by the fact that evidently I cannot get across to anyone what I want and what the President and I have agreed should be done. First, this is not to be any reorganization of the Navy Department. It is, first of all, an elevation in rank for yourself and, second, a division of the duties of the Office of Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet and that of the Chief of Naval Operations. The change is designed to relieve you of that portion of your duties which relate to logistics and to confine your efforts to the actual conduct and operation of the fleet. It will enlarge the Office of the Chief of Naval Logistics so that he will assume entire responsibility for the supplying of the fleet after you, as Admiral of the Navy, have determined what, where and when the supplies consist of.

Albion, Robert Greenhalgh; Connery, Robert Howe (1962). Forrestal and the Navy. New York and London: Columbia University Press. pp. 125–127.

A third story appears in the Buell biography of King that explains why Admiral of the Navy is a six-star rank in the first story (where the rank was proposed by the House Naval Affairs Committee) but only five-star in the second (where the rank was proposed by the Navy).

Vinson wanted King and Marshall to have six-star ranks. "What I am seriously concerned about," wrote King to Marshall on 21 January 1944, "is that there are in prospect many promotions in Washington which will have serious repercussions in the Forces overseas unless provision is made for proportional promotion in the operating forces....Mr. Vinson has been advised of the foregoing views and appears to be agreeable to inclusion of a '5-star rank' but insistent on a '6-star rank.' I have got word to him that, personally, I have no desire whatever for the '6-star rank' unless and until a '5-star rank' is provided for--and further, that I think it advisable that any promotion in prospect in connection with Cominch-CNO should first be to '5-star rank.'"

Buell, Thomas B. (1980). Master of Seapower: A Biography of Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King. Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company. p. 364.

Vinson's House Naval Affairs Committee actually reported out a bill on February 25, 1944, to reestablish the grade of Admiral of the Navy with the same pay and allowances as the General of the Armies, and authorizing two appointments (Leahy and King). But on June 22, 1944, the Senate passed a bill establishing the grade of Fleet Admiral of the United States Navy, with the pay of a rear admiral and larger allowances than an admiral, also authorizing two appointments. In a hearing the next day, the House Naval Affairs Committee adopted the Senate version, but made clear that both they and the Navy now viewed Admiral of the Navy as being one grade higher than fleet admiral.

Admiral JACOBS [Chief, Bureau of Naval Personnel]: Under the bill as previously reported out by this committee, the rank would be Admiral of the Navy, which is one grade higher than the rank proposed in this bill.

More excerpts

Admiral JACOBS: The total pay and allowances were $21,500, which is the present pay of the General of the Armies, General Pershing....This bill, as it has passed the Senate, proposes a personal money allowance for the fleet admiral of $5,000, which would mean an increase in the total compensation of an admiral advanced to the rank of fleet admiral of $2,800. The CHAIRMAN [Vinson]: What would be the total pay? Admiral JACOBS: $14,951. ... Mr. MAAS: You proposed "Admiral of the Navy" for "fleet admiral." Admiral JACOBS: That is correct. Mr. MAAS: Now, if we go to "Admiral of the Navy" that would be equal to "General of the Armies" and certainly he should be parallel with the General of the Armies. Admiral JACOBS: Yes, sir. Mr. COLE: By what authority do you say this rank of "fleet admiral" is junior to the rank of "Admiral of the Fleet"? Admiral JACOBS: I did not say that. Mr. COLE: You said it is one step lower. Admiral JACOBS: One step lower than "Admiral of the Navy." ... Admiral JACOBS: "Admiral of the Navy" was the rank previously established by Congress and only one officer ever had it, Admiral Dewey. That is the highest rank in the Navy that any officer ever had. Mr. BRADLEY: And that is nonexistent now. Admiral JACOBS: That is nonexistent. The bill reported to the House on the 25th of February proposed to reestablish that rank. That bill has not passed-- Mr. BRADLEY: And it is contended the rank created by this bill is junior to the highest rank previously held? Admiral JACOBS: That is correct. The CHAIRMAN: In the other bill, we jumped this rank? Admiral JACOBS: We jumped this rank in the other bill. ... Mr. IZAC: Did we not provide for a certain number of admirals of the fleet and then, above that, "Admiral of the Navy?" Admiral JACOBS: No, sir. Mr. IZAC: We certainly talked about it. Mr. MAAS: I sponsored a bill of that nature--a bill that would do exactly that. I still think we should do that. ... Mr. MAAS: How many fleet admirals should the Navy have? Admiral JACOBS: I am glad you asked that question, because I discussed this with Admiral King and his idea is there should be five. Mr. MAAS: Now if we are going to give the commander in chief of the Navy the rank he ought to have, we ought to give him what he needs in that rank. Admiral JACOBS: What he has asked for is five. The CHAIRMAN: May I say this: From what inquiries I have made, I think we had better take two right now and establish the grade. I thoroughly agree there ought to be five; but I do not think now is the time to make it five.

Hearings Before the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives on Sundry Legislation Affecting the Naval Establishment, 1943–1944, Seventy-eighth Congress, First–Second Session. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 1944. pp. 1339, 2357–2362.

- Morinao (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Morinao: @Garuda28: and @Skjoldbro:, it seems to me that this only mentions that Admiral of the Navy would have been the same pay grade as General of thee Armies, but it doesn't mention that it is equivalent in rank, which would be no different to a Marine master gunnery sergeant and a sergeant major. While they have the same paygrade of E-9, sergeant major outranks a master gunnery sergeant. Or how an Army specialist and a corporal are both E-4s, but a corporal outranks a specialist. So in this comparison, Admiral of the Navy and fleet admiral are considered both five-star ranks, but Admiral of the Navy is senior to fleet admiral due to having a higher pay grade, similar to how rear admirals, at the time, had two pay grades (lower half) and (upper half) but they are both two-star admirals. This comparison became a moot point because Admiral of the Navy ceased to exist, before the introduction of fleet admiral. This just enforces the fact that fleet admiral replaced the rank of Admiral of the Navy, even though it was paid less. Neovu79 (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

From the hearing transcript, it appears that the Chief of Naval Personnel thought that Admiral of the Navy had not been replaced at all, since the House Naval Affairs Committee had put the option on the table to reestablish the grade and instead the Senate created new grades of fleet admiral and general of the Army, that were junior to General of the Armies, which the Navy viewed as equivalent to Admiral of the Navy. So to the extent that you can't say that general of the Army replaced General of the Armies, you also can't say that fleet admiral replaced Admiral of the Navy.

According to the Pogue reference, if Vinson's original proposal to establish both five- and six-star ranks at the same time had actually gone through, Admiral of the Navy would have been the six-star rank and Admiral of the Fleet (or fleet admiral) would have been the five-star rank. That's why in that hearing they all treat Admiral of the Navy as being distinct and above fleet admiral. - Morinao (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

To this point, the argument between them was moot but the Navy never executed this in practice, because the rank ceased to exist after Dewey's death. Unless you can have a source, via regulation that can prove otherwise, then we can see about amending this. Neovu79 (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The 1951 Navy Regulations apparently did distinguish between Admiral of the Navy and fleet admiral, according to this All Hands letter:

...I believe that U.S. Navy Regulations, 1951, indicate that Admiral of the Navy was a grade equivalent to General of the Armies, which was held only by "Black Jack" Pershing, and that both of these ranks were higher than the present five-star ranks of Fleet Admiral and General of the Army.

My belief is based primarily on Article 2139 of Navy Regs, which prescribes a 19-gun salute and full dress uniforms for the arrival and departure of an Admiral of the Navy and a General of the Armies, while a Fleet Admiral or a General of the Army rates only a 17-gun salute.

"How Many Stars Does 'Admiral of the Navy' Rate?". All Hands. January 1955. p. 23.

Unfortunately it's hard to find a copy of Navy Regulations as they actually appeared in 1951, since the online copy has been updated with change sheets that apparently removed mention of both ranks in 1955, even though the title page still says 1948 (in the book, search for "Admiral of the Navy"). But it was probably very similar to the Table of Honors in Article 238 of the Navy Regulations (1941 revision), which shows "Admiral of the Navy or General of the Armies" with 19-gun salute and full dress uniform, and the next row is "Admiral or General" with 17-gun salute and dress uniform. From the All Hands letter, it sounds like "Fleet Admiral or General of the Army" just duplicated the "Admiral or General" row.- Morinao (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet

Capt. Roy C. Smith, testifying before the House Committee on Naval Affairs (16 May 1912):

Admiral Dewey is Admiral of the Navy, equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet, a rank which is higher than any we have ever had. Admiral Farragut and Admiral Porter were admirals in our Navy.

@Garuda28: and @Skjoldbro: so if you look above at Higher Rank discussion, it states that Admiral of the Navy is equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet, which is a five-star rank in the Royal Navy. I did check the source provided and the statement does indeed match. Was trying to gauge your opinion. While the above discussion does go into Admiral Dewey being the only person holding this grade, the comments from the Navy officer leads me to believe that this is not a six-star rank, but a once-in-a-lifetime-used five-star rank that the Navy no longer uses. None of the above sources makes any mention that Admiral of the Navy is of higher rank to fleet admiral. It is my opinion, that since this rank is equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet (five-star), it is also equivalent to fleet admiral and fleet admiral replaced it as the Navy's official five-star rank, much in the same way rear admiral (lower half) replaced commodore as the official one-star rank. Neovu79 (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that’s fair. It would make more sense, and I believe there’s been no official word on its status with Fleet Admiral. The six star stuff may be made up. Garuda28 (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Going off this, I pulled up Admiral Dewey's bio from the NHHC and it states that he was promoted from rear admiral to admiral on 8 March 1899. Through the Act of Congress passed on 2 March 1899, he was appointed to the rank of Admiral of the Navy. However, he was not officially promoted to Admiral of the Navy until 24 Mach 1903, with the retroactive date-of-rank of 2 March 1899. Now things are starting to make sense to me. Neovu79 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I cleared all of the misinformation about Admiral of the Navy. Feel free to make any additional corrections, if you guys come upon them. Neovu79 (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

When I chose the references in the "Higher Rank" section, I was only trying to refute someone who was claiming that Admiral of the Navy was the same grade as Farragut/Porter. So all they show is that Admiral of the Navy is higher than admiral, not how much higher. I would not declare Admiral of the Navy to be equivalent to fleet admiral just based on that one 1912 reference.

It appears the Navy viewed Admiral of the Navy/General of the Armies as equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet/Field Marshal all the way up to 1944, when Carl Vinson started talking about six-star ranks, and a new grade of fleet admiral was created whose compensation was intermediate between admiral and General of the Armies. At that point the Chief of Naval Personnel started talking as if the new five-star fleet admiral had been inserted between the existing four-star admiral and a not-yet-reestablished six-star Admiral of the Navy.

But Admiral of the Navy was never reestablished and the Army always refused to confirm that General of the Armies was now a six-star rank, so the six-star question remains unresolved. Nevertheless, it's a legitimate question, much discussed at the time and ever since, and not just made up.- Morinao (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, we never said it is a made-up rank and I do generally agree with most of your assessment. But without easily accessible sources and/or a definitive confirmation, we can't add it to Wiki because it will be easily WP:challenged by others as not being WP:Reliable. Because, as you just said, the Army and Navy has never officially confirmed where the ranks stand and it was never executed into practice, and they probably never will, because 1) one of the ranks not longer exist, 2) only two people in U.S. history has ever been given the rank of General of the Armies and 3) Congress would be very upset if the Army or the Navy were to waste taxpayer resources and time on something so minute and trivial, and does not have a real-world application, or justification to date. But my general assessment of your new post is that Admiral of the Navy and fleet admiral are equivalent in rank just not the same pay grade. Neovu79 (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the question can't be answered. Even the Navy gave up back in the 1950s. But that's also exactly why you also can't just declare Admiral of the Navy to be equivalent to five-star fleet admiral. There is sufficient controversy, sufficiently documented, that it can't be resolved one way or the other, until one or both of the ranks is reestablished, which is never going to happen. - Morinao (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the information that we have, the Navy does not have an established six-star rank. The Navy does have an established five-star rank. The Army, the Navy and Congress do not officially recognize Admiral of the Navy and General of the Armies to be equivalent ranks. I think for wording sake, the article should say that the Admiral of the Navy is at the least equivalent to five-star rank, as the Navy has established it to be higher than a four-star admiral, but they failed to get Congress to elevate it to be of higher rank. Therefore, we should created a section acknowledging the Navy's attempt to re-establish the rank, and it's attempt to elevate it to six-star, however since Congress refused to pass it's re-establishment, the Navy conceded it's attempt to elevate the rank to six-star. Neovu79 (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

So I think the general misconception with this whole thing is that while the Navy does in fact believe that Admiral of the Navy should be a six-star rank, ultimately they do not have the legal authority to create, re-establish, and/or set seniority of commissioned officer ranks. That power is vested through Congress, as they are the ones who not only fund the Navy, but they are their creators. So, in other words, the Navy does not have final say in this, and no matter how much smoke the Navy blows about the seniority of the rank of Admiral of the Navy, but without Congress's approval through law, it will never legally be a six-star rank. Neovu79 (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(break)

Hey guys I work at US forces Europe and used to serve for a time at the Institute of Heraldry. I get all the recent cleanup of these six star articles, they needed to happen. I did want to say that the insignia images are all real. IOH has a full file on them. I put them back in this article and General of the Armies. I would suggest anyone interested in further confirmation contact IOH directly. They will also be happy to confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4001:4460:91a5:9c1e:4bb2:7ef3 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Since that image was added via WP:ORIGINAL research, and since it is not easily accessible to WP:VERIFY via WP:THIRDPARTY, it cannot be added. Unpublished work is not considered WP:RELIABLE. We need to be able to add exact references to those images to properly WP:SOURCE them, in order for them to be added. Meaning, we need page number(s), file indexes, author(s), etc, anything that we as go directly to that source to verify it. An email verification from IOH is not a verifiable WP:THIRDPARTY source, for John and Jane user. Neovu79 (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

To our IP friend here from US Forces Europe and the IOH; please see reply to your identical post at Talk:General of the Armies. - wolf 23:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge

Discussion of possible merge that may affect this article, see Talk:General of the Armies#Merge. - wolf 09:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Higher rank review

So here we go a few months later and we're still fighting over this. We are once again debating the legitimacy of AN as a six-star rank from a source that mentions that it is considered equivalent general of the armies, but does not take into account the failed attempt by the Navy to elevate the rank, as mentioned above. Let us please establish, again, a consensus. Neovu79 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it necessarily needs to be a debate, (certainly not a contentious one), but I do think a discussion is needed, a wider one (than just "debating the legitimacy of AN as a six-star rank") that hopefully involves more than just two or three editors, and with that, it should probably be held on a different page than here, (like wt:milhist for example), because this affects more pages than just this one. I've been going through the talk pages at;

• Six-star rank
• Five-star rank
• General of the Armies
• General of the Army (United States)
• Admiral of the Navy (United States)
• Fleet admiral (United States)
• John J. Pershing
• George Dewey
• Template:US officer ranks
• United States Army officer rank insignia
• United States Navy officer rank insignia

- looking for related discussions, and the most recent discussion/consensus that led to the most recent changes involving these pages. It's difficult, given all the b.s. that was added by OberRanks, as well as the limited sourcing. Still looking thru talk pages, but in the meantime, unless someone wants to suggest another location, I think milhist would be best place. (pinging @Morinao, Skjoldbro, and Garuda28:) Cheers - wolf 22:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I would suggest taking it to milhist, with special focus on Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

So, before any full RfC, I'd like to hear from Morinao. It seems most of the current content is based on changes from the discussion between he and Neovu79, who we've heard from here. The lead states "The rank is considered to be at least equivalent to that of five star...". But there are sources stating that the Navy considered it superior to that, in the discussion above and with in the recent edit I attempted. While there's more detailed content in the body, is the lead adequately summarizing that? And while sources need to be evaluated for context, I think we should be wary of any synth. - wolf 20:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Still waiting to see when Morinao will pop back up again. He hasn't edited in about 3 three months, but he's been here since 2004 and this doesn't seem unusual for him.

  Anyway, in the meantime, found this article the other day, don't know about the source, but it's used as a ref on some other WP pages and all the content in it is cited. I'm not attaching it to any new content right now or using it to support any changes.

  I'm just mentioning it because it has a lot of info, about all the ranks of the from BG & RDML, right up to to "six" and even "seven" star US ranks (lol! But only discussion about possible equivalents). I don't know if maybe some here might already be familiar with this article, or know some of sources cited, (or if there's some 'circular' going on), but I thought I'd mention it, see if anyone found it worth the read.

  I still think some changes may be needed to the way we present these ranks, how sources are being interpreted, what equivalencies are presented, and the hierarchies being drawn, but I don't see this as urgent, so it can wait to see what, if anything, develops. Cheers - wolf 19:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding sources, the HistoryNet article is not actually a reference for Admiral of the Navy being considered equivalent to a six-star rank. It very carefully and correctly says the following:

In 1903, Dewey was promoted to the unprecedented rank of “admiral of the Navy” (retroactive to March 2, 1899). He was the only officer to hold this highest-ever U.S. naval rank that is considered equivalent to John J. Pershing’s later (promoted 1919) “general of the armies” rank.

The bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute pages are basically Wikipedia articles: they are a great place to find reliable sources, but should not be referenced directly. For example, the six-star page includes the OberRanks fabrication about MacArthur being considered for six-star promotion during World War II, meaning it draws information directly from Wikipedia.

From the references in the General of the Armies article, the documentable equivalences are:

1) Admiral of the Navy (1899) > four-star grade (1915)

2) Admiral of the Navy (1899) = General of the Armies (1919)

3) General of the Armies (1919) > four-star grade (1929)

4) General of the Armies (1919) >= five-star grade (only rank is senior, so could be same grade)

This gets us to Admiral of the Navy >= five-star grade.

5) General of the Armies (1976) > General of the Armies (1919) (either higher rank in same grade, or new grade ranking higher than Pershing grade)

6) General of the Armies (1976) > five-star grade (grade is senior)

This gets us to Washington > five-star grade, but not Pershing/Dewey > five-star grade.

If the 1944 proposal had gone through, we would also have had:

7) Admiral of the Navy (1944) = six star grade

But it didn't, so we don't.

So I would suggest something like this:

Admiral of the Navy was the highest ranking grade in the United States Navy. It was only ever held by George Dewey, the victorious commander at the Battle of Manila Bay, who held the unique rank until his death in 1917, when it was abolished. Congress considered reestablishing Admiral of the Navy as a six-star grade when it created the five-star grade of fleet admiral in 1944, but the proposal was dropped. Admiral of the Navy is still sometimes said to be a six-star grade because it ranked equally with the grade of General of the Armies that was held by John J. Pershing, who is treated as senior in rank to the five-star officers appointed during World War II. However, neither Pershing nor Dewey ever wore more than four stars.

(In general, please don't gate any decisions on input from me, since I can only edit very intermittently.) - Morinao (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the information. Perhaps those other interested parties may want to consider some edits to this, and perhaps any related or listed articles, with input from your post. Obviously this isn't a pressing matter and there no urgent need to address it, if at all, depending on any prevailing consensus. Thank again & Cheers - wolf 00:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)