This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
NATO Joint Military Symbology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
There is a difference between motorzied infantry and mechanized infantry. Do the two have different signs or are they the same? Ctifumdope 00:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, motorised is primarily trucks and other wheeled vehicles geared for transport rather than surviving combat; mechanised tends more towards tracked vehicles, especially armoured personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. An armoured infantry unit would be infantry riding on and/or accompanying tanks. But I'd like to know if I'm wrong: maxwellhousecoffee (*at*) hotmail d0t com -- 207.216.10.77 04:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are 2 different signs : if you check the British manual linked in the article, you'll find both symbols ; they are just combinations of the infantry symbol with either motorized or armored symbols. -- Glukx Ouglouk 20:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I found a souped up version of APP-6a on the web that the United States military uses. It is over 700 pages long and contains symbols for almost every type of unit imaginable. If somebody can establish a link to it, this page would be made much better. Ctifumdope 00:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
the first example symbol I think isn't a battailon!? i think its a batterie. greez breskeby
It was not only Napoleon's infantry who used bandoliers. I think they were pretty widespread. amended the article accordingly. Psidogretro 15:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I find both of those etymologies pretty dubious. Unless someone has a peer reviewed history source that seriously attributes military symbology to these sources, I think that sort of speculation is out of place.
And the example at the bottom of a "motorized anti-tank division?" I appreciate that it's just an example, but isn't that a bit bizarre? Why not a mechanized division or something? Also the anti-tank chevron appears to be a little off-kilter in the diamond. 142.167.168.21 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I was wondering if the "Anti-tank" symbol was a sylized caltrop. I'm also interested in the source for the etymologies -- the Armour symbol looks more like an overhead view of a tank than a tank tread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.6 ( talk) 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for info on wwi-era German unit symbols. Hint: they didn't use APP-6a. Cut the redirect; sooner or later somebody will want to add articles on non-NATO systems. Jacob Haller 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't the name of the commander of the unit appear under the unit symbol? LCpl ( talk) 16:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the NATO symbol for "unmanned ground vehicles"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.237.18 ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Nohomers48, you have reverted the corrections to the Unit Sizes Table. I'm not sure why as the version you have reverted to is unclear at best and incorrect at worst. I am a commonwealth army officer with experience working with NATO allies (including the US), so I know this system extremely well. The version you have reverted to confuses the issue by listing some RAF ranks and appointments as commonwealth ones. While the RAF does have a (very small) ground combat force, these ranks and organisations are the exception not the rule, as I have described. I intend to revert the article to the my version, I think you'll find that anybody familiar with military formations will agree that my version is more reflective of reality (at least in terms of commonwealth forces). None of my changes should be controversial in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.166.192.221 ( talk) 14:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on NATO Joint Military Symbology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
To me it makes no sense that the explanatory sub-sections under the "Unit symbols" section is confusing, because it starts with a "Unit icon modifiers" sub-section, wich is essentially incomprehensible before the more fundamental "basic icons" are described in the following sub-section. Unless anyone has reasonable counter-arguments, I propose to swap the order of these sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iolar~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Unit symbol list currently includes a unit symbol for an "ammunition" unit and an "ordnance" unit. They used to have the same wikilink, so I asked for the clarification of the difference. Clarification got added (that ammunition is a subset of ordnance that's fired from guns and cannons, which still leaves me confused about e.g. mortar rounds). However, the current text doesn't make it clear how "ordnance" and "supply" differ, because it claims that ordnance includes all the materiel (which seems to include everything up to fuel and food).
Is there a canonical reference for these meanings? We could then point at it with ref tags and IMO that would be sufficient.
Are some of these supply units simply more specialized variants of others? If so, it might be useful to mention that explicitly.
User:Ancheta Wis User:CdnMCG User:Gecko G: y'all have participated in the edits
Robryk ( talk) 02:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Why are the unit-size personnel numbers in this article so different than those in the military organization article? The personnel numbers are either too small or too large compared with the other article, differing across all of the unit sizes. The numbers in the other article ( military organization) seem to be closer to what the US Military uses (shown here Military Units: Army), not that the US Military is the single standard for this. Can someone supply a reference for the current numbers in this article? L.Smithfield ( talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
NATO Joint Military Symbology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
There is a difference between motorzied infantry and mechanized infantry. Do the two have different signs or are they the same? Ctifumdope 00:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, motorised is primarily trucks and other wheeled vehicles geared for transport rather than surviving combat; mechanised tends more towards tracked vehicles, especially armoured personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. An armoured infantry unit would be infantry riding on and/or accompanying tanks. But I'd like to know if I'm wrong: maxwellhousecoffee (*at*) hotmail d0t com -- 207.216.10.77 04:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are 2 different signs : if you check the British manual linked in the article, you'll find both symbols ; they are just combinations of the infantry symbol with either motorized or armored symbols. -- Glukx Ouglouk 20:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I found a souped up version of APP-6a on the web that the United States military uses. It is over 700 pages long and contains symbols for almost every type of unit imaginable. If somebody can establish a link to it, this page would be made much better. Ctifumdope 00:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
the first example symbol I think isn't a battailon!? i think its a batterie. greez breskeby
It was not only Napoleon's infantry who used bandoliers. I think they were pretty widespread. amended the article accordingly. Psidogretro 15:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I find both of those etymologies pretty dubious. Unless someone has a peer reviewed history source that seriously attributes military symbology to these sources, I think that sort of speculation is out of place.
And the example at the bottom of a "motorized anti-tank division?" I appreciate that it's just an example, but isn't that a bit bizarre? Why not a mechanized division or something? Also the anti-tank chevron appears to be a little off-kilter in the diamond. 142.167.168.21 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I was wondering if the "Anti-tank" symbol was a sylized caltrop. I'm also interested in the source for the etymologies -- the Armour symbol looks more like an overhead view of a tank than a tank tread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.6 ( talk) 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for info on wwi-era German unit symbols. Hint: they didn't use APP-6a. Cut the redirect; sooner or later somebody will want to add articles on non-NATO systems. Jacob Haller 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't the name of the commander of the unit appear under the unit symbol? LCpl ( talk) 16:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the NATO symbol for "unmanned ground vehicles"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.237.18 ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Nohomers48, you have reverted the corrections to the Unit Sizes Table. I'm not sure why as the version you have reverted to is unclear at best and incorrect at worst. I am a commonwealth army officer with experience working with NATO allies (including the US), so I know this system extremely well. The version you have reverted to confuses the issue by listing some RAF ranks and appointments as commonwealth ones. While the RAF does have a (very small) ground combat force, these ranks and organisations are the exception not the rule, as I have described. I intend to revert the article to the my version, I think you'll find that anybody familiar with military formations will agree that my version is more reflective of reality (at least in terms of commonwealth forces). None of my changes should be controversial in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.166.192.221 ( talk) 14:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on NATO Joint Military Symbology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
To me it makes no sense that the explanatory sub-sections under the "Unit symbols" section is confusing, because it starts with a "Unit icon modifiers" sub-section, wich is essentially incomprehensible before the more fundamental "basic icons" are described in the following sub-section. Unless anyone has reasonable counter-arguments, I propose to swap the order of these sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iolar~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Unit symbol list currently includes a unit symbol for an "ammunition" unit and an "ordnance" unit. They used to have the same wikilink, so I asked for the clarification of the difference. Clarification got added (that ammunition is a subset of ordnance that's fired from guns and cannons, which still leaves me confused about e.g. mortar rounds). However, the current text doesn't make it clear how "ordnance" and "supply" differ, because it claims that ordnance includes all the materiel (which seems to include everything up to fuel and food).
Is there a canonical reference for these meanings? We could then point at it with ref tags and IMO that would be sufficient.
Are some of these supply units simply more specialized variants of others? If so, it might be useful to mention that explicitly.
User:Ancheta Wis User:CdnMCG User:Gecko G: y'all have participated in the edits
Robryk ( talk) 02:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Why are the unit-size personnel numbers in this article so different than those in the military organization article? The personnel numbers are either too small or too large compared with the other article, differing across all of the unit sizes. The numbers in the other article ( military organization) seem to be closer to what the US Military uses (shown here Military Units: Army), not that the US Military is the single standard for this. Can someone supply a reference for the current numbers in this article? L.Smithfield ( talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)