I’m not an expert on the Navy rank structure, but I believe that an Rear Admiral (Lower Half) wears one star and is an O-7. The old O-7 rank of Commodore is obsolete, although I have read that the rank still exists and is used under certain circumstances.
In any event, Navy officers have far more “helf” than their Army counterparts. Commanders - 0-5, the equivlent of an Army Lt Colonel - exercise in their capacity as ship captains far more independence than battalions commanders exercise. Its inconceivable that any Army officer below the rank of Lt General would have the freedom possessed by captains of nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers.
This sort of authority breeds in naval officers a capacity for creativity and independent thought that few Army officers ever develop. Such differences are a shame, perhaps, but seem inescapable given the demands of the respective services.
As a retired navy O6 I have a lot of respect for my Army colleagues who have had to deal with all sorts of housing, personnel, doctrinal and personnel issues that we submariners never had to deal with. A typical Naval officer has his ship handed to him in more or less working order, a set of weapons and instruction manuals, etc., and not nearly the kinds of problems that an army officer has to deal with.
I know of no naval officer who has ever even had to figure out where and how to dig a latrine or deal run a motor pool or any of the other bread and butter things required to keep an army in the field.
I see I was mistaken, although it does seem true that a navy Captain has more authority than an Army colonel. That wasn’t true in, say, 1940, when a “bull colonel” was a force to be reckoned with. Interesting that in Iraq, the war has been fought mainly by battalion commanders out of necessity when there is no battle line. It would be interesting to see if any guys who started this war as O-5s are on the promotion lists to O-7.