At least in the Novel they were slightly older than Hawkeye etc. . . and had more medical experience, that alone might account for them having been offered a higher rank on entry.
Okay, here's my problems with M*A*S*H...
- Thread starter stang
- Start date
If I remember correctly, Frank Burns in the novel is a captain. There is also a major in the novel who has some of the characterisitics we associate with that character (one of them was very religious).
I'm pretty sure the two were combined to create one character of Maj. Frank Burns for the movie.
Brigadier is currently a British and Commonwealth military rank.
Interesting comment about the author. The movie was far less politically correct and far more abrasive and sophomoric than the series. It was sort of a Lenny Bruce take on military comedy. The series was a hobby horse for pinko liberal Alan Alda.
Yes, however, before 1922 the rank, like it still is in the U.S. was Brigadier General (the most junior of the General Officer Ranks).
At present in the Commonwealth as one can see from British or Australian rank boards, Brigadier is a rather hybrid rank not really Field Grade but definitely no longer a General Officer
In the CF army and air forces, the lowest level of general rank is brigadier-general, followed by major-general, lieutenant-general and finally general. For the floaty-folks the equivalents are commodore, rear-admiral, vice-admiral and finally admiral.
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds stupid. Whoever came up with that idea should not have been promoted...
The Yanks do it that way so they can keep new blood coming in to their forces. They recruit heavily and move a lot of people through the system; by getting the lower-performing personnel out, they make room for younger and fresher personnel to move up. They also happily employ soldiers for shorter stints than we do in the Commonwealth systems, letting a kid do 2 or 3 years then leave. We try hard to keep a guy for at least 20 years. In the US system, there is therefore a greater number of civilians who have served in uniform, which is a benefit to their forces, whereas in Canada and friends, the ex-military community is proportionally smaller due to the lower flow-through. People stay in longer so they don't have the opportunity to flourish in second careers. Yes there are exceptions but an example of the impact of this is that there are currently zero ex-military in Canadian Parliament.
The key is that the Yanks recruit like hell, and push a lot of people through. They can therefore afford to weed out the weaker performers via the up-or-out system, and have proportionally more short-timers (serving only 2 or 3 years). They have the flow-through to pull it off. We don't, so we keep Sergeants and Captains until they're 55 (actually up to 60 now!) That's great in terms of retaining expertise and skillsets, but it also means lower performers tie up jobs and positions, since the old guys hang around for so long.
Which system is better? Flip a coin. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The key difference is the size of the US forces and their ability to move proportionally greater numbers of people through the system. This gives them the luxury of up-or-out.
No, it's still a general officer rank. The officer commands a brigade, hence the term "brigadier". Perhaps the confusion is that this might be a colonel's command in the US Army, as a Commonwealth brigade = a US regiment.
Canadian brigades have been commanded by Colonels for about 12 years now. Aussie brigades too. Not sure about our British friends.
A regiment is no longer normally deployed as a fighting formation in its own right, they way it might have been in the Civil War. It is more typically an administrative affiliation of similar units. Battalion-sized armoured (armored) and other cavalry units are referred to as Regiments, but in Commonwealth nomenclature the infantry corps is divided into regiments normally comprising 3 battalions (ie. 1st Battalion PPCLI, 2nd Battalion PPCLI, etc) But those battalions don't fight as a Regiment - when they come together to fight they fight as part of a brigade, which in larger armies will deploy as part of a division.
The norm is for brigades to actually fight as brigade groups (the US calls them brigade combat teams), the difference being that a brigade group has integral armour, artillery, engineer, and combat service support units while a brigade comprises a unique arm (ie. an infantry brigade, armoured brigade, artillery, CSS) which requires divisional support in order to obtain the services of its sister arms.
Typically, however, most nations other than the US and Russia deploy only beefed-up battalions on their missions, usually called battle groups since they have additional assets attached to them (tanks, CSS, etc at company strength). The UK deployed a brigade to Iraq and it almost crippled the British Army to maintain so large a force overseas.
The Soviet system employed regiments as a fighting formation, though. I think the Chinese as well. Confusing enough? lol.
The Canadian army and air force both continue to use the rank of Brigadier-General.
True, and I really should have spelled out that the Canadian Army went back to that rank when the amalgamation into the CAF occurred.
However it is my observation that there is a lot of mental hold-over still in Canada with the term Brigadier
I should have been much more specific, indeed in Canada since 1968 that is again true as it was before 1922.
However, it is not true in the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand.
Interesting conversation. I wonder how many know that in the U.S. promotions to full-bird Colonel and above require Congressional approval?
And given that it was war-time, up or out did not apply, especially in a high-need area like surgeons.
And given that it was war-time, up or out did not apply, especially in a high-need area like surgeons.
Hollywood probably cared somewhat to get certain things correct, but the main goal was to get viewers and make money.
Captains, Majors, Colonels, private/shared tent, showers, offices, etc were just props for the theme of the show. We watched, laughed and tuned in next week, so they(producers, writers) did something right for years.
Captains, Majors, Colonels, private/shared tent, showers, offices, etc were just props for the theme of the show. We watched, laughed and tuned in next week, so they(producers, writers) did something right for years.
Klinger: his own tent before he became company clerk. Meanwhile, two Captains and a Major are sharing one. I think it's safe to say that this was not true to real life.
