Talk:Military organization

Definition of 'Corps'

I was under the impression a 'Corps' is not defined by a number, but as a Service Branch. Examples of Corps may be the Artillery Corps, the Medical Corps, the Infantry Corps etc. While they are all similar in size, the term 'Corps' is not (To my knowledge) attributed to a certain number. For example, in the Australian Army there is the Royal Australian Psychologists Corps or something to the same effect, and I cannot imagine that being quite as large as the Infantry Corps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.18.31 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A corps is either a large formation, or an administrative grouping of troops with a common function. In this article it is the former sense which applies. Greenshed (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

200,000 +, is that all?

I can understand that there is a limit tpe on western theatres, but what about eastern theatres where millions of soldiers are in play. German invasion of 41' 3-4 million, broken up into three-four, groups, so 1 mill. It's seem likes a VERY large leap from 200, 000 to 1, 000, 000.

-G

Its not, really. Firstly, WW2 formations were very large, and were typically discussed as army groups and fronts. Officers that command those sized formations are Generals and Field Marshals. Whether an army group has 200000 or 1000000 troops isnt really important given that the role is exactly the same. Because of the heirachical structure, the numbers can be expanded quite quickly just by adding a few extra Corps or Armies to an existing formation. Further, the Million Man Armies of east asia or the subcontinent are still broken down into regional, functional or task-oriented groups, like the seven army commands of India which are based on geography. Only 15 countries have more than 1 million active, reserve and paramilitary forces in the world, and of these only 5 have more than 1 million active troops at any one time. Its not, therefore, unreasonable to consider the title of 200000+ as being the 'limit', scuh as it is. 58.7.206.131 (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge Units, Formations and Commands into Military organization

• don'tmerge. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• no, don't, too useful 75.46.44.97

What is too usefull, this article or the three others which are described within this article? Units, Formations and Commands are all stubs. By merging them here there becomes one full article. MCG 20:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• My input is to not merge at this time. I think the article is a stub, and definitely needs more work over the coming months, but the concept of a military formation that comes together with different and diverse groups for a specific mission is worthy of a WP article. It is different than military organization in general. N2e 14:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Where are you comming from here? The term military formation does not mean something "that comes together with different and diverse groups for a specific mission" and no such meaning is suggested in the article (You may be thinking of the term "Task Force" as used by NATO). "Formation" refers to an organizational building block which is larger than a unit but smaller than a command. -- MCG 03:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hello. I saw the proposal to merge on military unit. Merging that article with military organization makes sense to me. A military unit makes sense as an element in an organization. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 04:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm very much against merging Military organization with Command (military formation). My principal reason against this is that commands are only one aspect of military organization which are easily significant enough to warrant their own article. If we were to merge, then people wanting to know specifically about commands would need to look through lots of other military organizational information to find what they were looking for. Furthermore, if we merge commands in here, then by extension we should merge Army group, Group (air force unit), Division (military), Battalion, Wing (air force unit), Battlegroup (army), etc - this would make the Military organization article very bloated. I would ask that those who disagree with my last point, make clear the criterion by which they would merge some examples of military organisation in this article and not others. Greenshed 18:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Greenshed, the items you've listed need not be merged into the organization article (though they are already mentioned). Units, Formations and Commands are the generic named building blocks of military organization. Battalions, Battle Groups, Squadrons (US Army), etc are specific typs of units. Divisions, Groups, Brigades, etc are specific types of formations. CENTCOM, SOCOM, LFC, etc are all examples of specific commands. -- MCG 15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was not that they should be merged in (I was using reductio ad absurdum), but I think I understand the criterion by which you are saying that Commands should be merged and not the rest, namely that you consider that a Command is one of three sub divisions of military organization.

Working on that basis, I would be helpful if you could cite sources - I've never heard of this point before. If you also be handy if you could show that this understanding of the term Military Organization is used by all militaries (not just either the US or UK). Furthermore, do you think that this point applies equally in both army and air force terminnology?

Assuming that everyone dividies their military forces into Commands, Formations and Units, I have two further points. First, I would be favour of keeping separate articles on Units, Formations, Commands and Military Organization with appropriate links as I still maintain that Commands (as well as Units and Formations) are each only one aspect of military organization which are individually easily significant enough to warrant their own articles. Secondly, Although Formations and Units are blanket terms, Command is not. To give an example of this, it seems very odd, in an RAF context, to have articles on Flights, Squadrons, Wings, RAF Stations and Groups, but not Commands. Greenshed 21:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Add NATO, NZ[1], Canada[2], and Australia to your list of nations using this terminology. In fact, this use of "unit" and "formation" seems to have been generally accepted in most modern militaries for at least the last century (and you can find references applying the terms to Romans and in the US Civil War). I will give ground on "command" as it is technically a formation (though the highest level of formation) and its use is far less widespread. However, it only makes sense to bring “Units” and “Formations” into the organization article because they can only truly be understood in the context of each other (and they are only stubs on their own).

• Commonwealth formations: [3]
• Note the use in Article I, Para 16: [4]
• Canadian War museum uses terms "unit" and "formation" in this hiearchial fashion to describe air & army organizations. [5]
• Wikipedia definition of formation: [6]
• Google "units and formations" then count the number of national militaries that use this on thier official sites: [7]
• NATO Commands[8]
• UK:[9]& [10]

MCG 02:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

MCG - Thanks for the above references; it would good to use them to support the article. As Units and Formations are blanket terms covering a range of different military organizational structures I will give way and support their merging into Military organization. If the Military organization article gets large we can always split them out again. However I am not persuaded on the question of merging in Commands. Granted, it's a stub at the moment, but it's on the cusp of being de-stubbed and I think that there is definite potential for growth. Also, I still feel that the points I made above stand. In sum, Merge Units, Formations into Military organization but leave Commands alone. Greenshed 16:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Canadian forces, a formation is "an element of the Canadian Forces, other than a command, comprising two or more units designated as a formation by or on behalf of the Minister and grouped under a single commander"—so the CF is organized by units, formations, and commands. Unfortunately, the document cited above doesn't also define "command", but the Canadian commands are Land Force, Maritime Command, and Air Command, representing the three arms of service. —Michael Z. 2006-10-16 06:05 Z

• Merge formation and unit—put together, these stubs would constitute a good article on one subject. It should also include the basic info about commands, but the detailed information about national forces' commands can remain in the separate article. If this article grows large, then the sections can be spun off again into high-quality articles.

  A tactical formation is something else altogether, and ought to be split off from formation (military) immediately. —Michael Z. 2006-10-16 06:05 Z

  I just made the split. —Michael Z. 2006-10-16 06:13 Z

Formations & Units have been merged here. Commands remain a seperate article. MCG 03:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hierarchy of air forces

The recent changes to the Hierarchy of air forces section are clearly an improvement both in terms of formatting and adding USAF information. However the RAF element, at least, is misleading. Given that the solution is not straightforward, I have not just gone and fixed it. The following points need some work:

• Historical and Current. Do we want the list to reflect both historical and current conventions? Eg. Flying squadrons used to be commanded by squadron leaders; now they are commanded by wing commanders.
• Flying Units and Ground Units. Do we want the list to give the conventions for flying units or ground units? Eg flying squadrons are (now) commanded by wing commanders, ground-based squadrons are commanded by squadron leaders.
• Air Force. Currently the Chief of the Air Staff is an Air Chief Marshal not an MRAF. Other (former) air forces (eg RAF Far East Air Force) were commanded by air officers of lower rank.
• Command. Not all commands have been or still are commanded by Air Chief Marshals. RAF Personnel and Training Command is commanded by an air marshal.
• Group. Excluding the early years of the RAF, Groups have typically been commanded by an air officer.
• RAF station. RAF stations are ordinarily subordinate to groups. Many, but not all, are commanded by group captains.
• Wings. Administrative wings are commanded by wing commanders. Expeditionary Air Wings are commanded by group captains.
• Squadrons. See above.
• Flights. Most flying branch flight lieutenants do not command a flight; they fly an aircraft.
• Sections. Flying officers might command adminstrative flights, just fly an aircraft or act as an adjutant etc. A SNCO would be in charge of a section.

Greenshed 01:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been wanting to fix the Hierarchy of air forces. Much of the USAF info is wrong, but I don't know the RAF part. It may be easier to separate it into two tables, since there don't seem to be direct equivalents at each level. Would you care to collaborate? Nathanm mn 20:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Major

It says a major is in charge of a company. As I understand it, a major generally was given the rank in the headquarters section of battalion level, you know an executive officer, supply officer, administrative officer, etc. but not the commanding officer. Should that be changed? --SurfingMaui540 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Army Aviation and MedEvac (medical air ambulance) companies are usually commanded by Majors, so I would recommend that it stay. KC 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that in the U.S. Army, Majors at the battalion level are usually Executive Officers or S-3's (Operations Officers). Other primary staff officers (S-1, S-2, S-4, etc.) at the battalion level are usually Captains or Lieutenants. At the brigade level, it's basically the same thing except substitute Lieutenant Colonels and Majors. KC 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

British companies are commanded by majors. American companies are commanded by captains. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Originally, British captains also commanded companies but this was changed in stages to majors during the 20th century. Greenshed (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Arms of Service (corps)

It seems to me that a major part of the general description of what is military is not covered - the Arms of Service/s. These are listed under Corps in the British Army, bu they generally apply to all armies by subdividing the forces according to their specialisation. This is not only applied to the land forces but also naval and air services.

To illustrate, below are the historical British Army Corps of the Army Service (from Regiments.org site). They do not include Infantry and Cavalry which are on the regimental system, but in other Commonwealth countries Infantry and Cavalry are a Corps in their own right.

• Adjutant General's Corps 1992-present
• Army Air Corps 1942-1949
• Army Air Corps 1957-present
• Army Apprentices College, Arborfield [REME]
• Army Apprentices College, Chepstow [RE] 1924-1994
• Army Apprentices College, Harrogate [RSigs]
• Army Cadet Force 1942-present
• Army Catering Corps 1941-1993
• Army Chaplains' Department 1796-1919
• Army Commandos 1940-1946
• Army Cyclist Corps 1914-1919
• Army Dental Corps 1921-1946
• Army Educational Corps 1920-1946
• Army Hospital Conveyance Corps 1854-1855
• Army Hospital Corps 1855-1884
• Army Legal Corps 1978-1992
• Army Medical Staff Corps 1884-1898
• Army Nursing Service 1881-1902
• Army Pay Department 1878-1920
• Army Pay Corps 1893-1920
• Army Physical Training Corps 1860-present
• Army Postal Corps 1882-1889
• Army School of Education
• Army Service Corps 1869-1918
• Army Works Corps 1855-1856?
• Camel Corps 1884-1885
• Camel Corps 1917-1919
• Commissariat Department
• Corps of Army Schoolmasters 1846-1920
• Corps of Military Accountants 1919-1925
• Corps of Army Music 1994-present
• Corps of Pioneers 1795-1800
• The Corps of Riflemen 1800-1802
• Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers 1942-present
• Corps of Royal Engineers 1716-present
• Corps of Royal Military Artificers 1788-1812
• Corps of Royal Military Police 1855-1992
• Corps of Royal Sappers and Miners 1812-1856
• Field Telegraph Corps 1882-1889
• Forage Corps 1915-1919?
• General Service Corps
• Gurkha Army Service Corps
• Imperial Camel Corps 1917-1919
• Imperial Yeomanry 1899-1902
• Intelligence Corps 1914-present
• Labour Corps 1915-1920
• Land Transport Corps 1855-1860
• The Light Infantry 1968-2007
• Machine Gun Corps 1915-1922
• Military Provost Staff Corps 1901-1992
• Mobile Defence Corps 1955-1959
• The Parachute Corps 1940-1942
• The Parachute Corps 1967-1968
• Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps 1949-present
• Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps 1917-1919
• Reconnaissance Corps 1940-1946
• Royal Armoured Corps 1939-present
• Royal Army Chaplains Department 1919-present
• Royal Army Dental Corps 1946-present
• Royal Army Educational Corps 1946-1992
• Royal Army Medical Corps 1898-present
• Royal Army Ordnance Corps 1918-1993
• Royal Army Pay Corps 1920-1992
• Royal Army Service Corps 1918-1965
• Royal Army Veterinary Corps 1796-present
• Royal Artillery 1716-present
• Royal Corps of Signals 1920-present
• Royal Corps of Transport 1965-1993
• Royal Defence Corps 1916-1936
• Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers 1942-present
• Royal Engineers 1716-present
• Royal Field Artillery 1899-1924
• Royal Flying Corps 1912-1918
• Royal Garrison Artillery 1899-1924
• Royal Horse Artillery 1793-present
• Royal Logistic Corps 1993-present
• Royal Marine Artillery 1804-1923
• Royal Marine Light Infantry 1855-1923
• Royal Marines 1664-present
• Royal Military Artificers 1787-1812
• Royal Military Police 1946-1992
• Royal Military School of Music
• Royal Observer Corps
• Royal Pioneer Corps 1939-1992
• Royal Regiment of Artillery 1716-present
• Royal Signals 1920-present
• Royal Staff Corps 1800-1837
• Royal Tank Corps 1923-1939
• Royal Waggon Train 1794-1833
• The Royal Yeomanry 1967-present
• Small Arms School Corps 1854-present
• Staff Corps of Cavalry 1810-1817
• The Tank Corps 1917-1923
• Women's Army Auxiliary Corps 1917-1919
• Women's Forage Corps 1915-?

--Mrg3105 08:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably good to have this, but this isn't the place IMHO -- I recommend a separate article. Keep in the mind that these will vary from country to country, so it will get large quickly. 138.162.128.53 (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of detail at Structure of the British Army. Greenshed (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Numbers in Unit Names

Can someone explain the usage of numbers in unit names (e.g. 3rd Infantry, 82nd Airborne, etc)? Like, why are numbers assigned seem to be randomly chosen (101st Airborne implies there were 100 units before it)?

Also, how and why did this tradition of naming came about? (maybe add a section on the history of it) And explain rules for naming, e.g., I know Corps level units use roman numerals. Jigen III (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

82nd was original 82nd Infantry.--Conor Fallon (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Navy stops short

It's easiest to read my post if you click on the edit button; because, I can't figure out how to make Wikipedia format my charts correctly.

Perhaps this isn't in the mode of this article; but, it needs to be somewhere and it isn't anywhere. I don't have the information I'm seeking, I'm hoping someone can fill it in. What happens in the Navy beneath the Captain/Commander level? Surely Lieutenant Commanders, or some Lieutenants on smaller vessels, are in command of something; and, I believe that something is the Department. I believe this next bit would very from department to department (which raises the question: what departments are typical on what types of vessels?); but, how does the department then break down? Here's a theory I worked up trying to figure this out using the scant resources available (the (C) stands for Capital Ship, the (S) for smaller vessel):

Navy Rank/Duty- Captain- Captain (C)-Flotilla Admiral (S) Commander- Assistant Captain (C)-Captain (S) Lieutenant Commander- Department Head (C)-Assistant Captain (S) Lieutenant- Assistant Department Head (C)-Department Head (S) or None (Department Skilled Senior Commissioned Officer) (C) Ensign/Sub-Lieutenant/Lieutenant Junior Grade- Department Lead Supervisor(C)-Assistant Department Head (S) or Department Midshipman Trainer (C/S) or None (Department Skilled Junior Commissioned Officer) (C)-(Department Skilled Commissioned Officer) (S) Midshipman- None (Department Ensign/Sub-Lieutenant/Lieutenant Junior Grade Trainee) (C/S) Chief Warrant Officer- Assistant Department Head Supervising Warrant Officers and Department Lead Supervisor and Department Skilled Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (C/S) Warrant Officer- Department Supervisor and Department Skilled Junior Non-Commissioned Officer (C/S) Chief Petty Officer- Department Lead Supervisor (C/S) Petty Officer- Department Supervisor (C/S) or Department Seaman Second or Third Rate Trainer (C/S) Seaman First Rate- None (Department Crewman) Seaman Second or Third Rate- None (Seaman First Rate Trainee)

Of course, this is probably wrong, perhaps even gibberish; but, if the Army organizational chart goes all the way down to the command of a Corporal (Fire team), then why shouldn't the Navy organizational chart go all the way down to the command of a Petty Officer, whatever it is; and, I know from another article that Petty Officers do have supervisory responsibilities, and therefore something of a command. Finally, to really flesh it out with numbers, we'd really need to break it down by department, since each department would have a different number of crew operating in a different way depending on the function of the department and the size of the vessel. By way of example, here's a chart I drew up as I attempted to assign Naval ranks to commercial ship job titles (the articles on this are extremely informative, would there were comparable articles for their military counterparts!):

Captain/Ship's Master (Administration/Command)-Captain (C)-Commander (S) 1 Chief/First Officer/Mate (Assistant Captain/Safety/Watch)-Commander (C)-Lieutenant Commander (S) 1 Department Head (Department Manager)-Lieutenant Commander (C)-Lieutenant (S) Deck Department-Second Officer/Mate (Safety/Watch) 1 Engineering Department-Chief Engineer (Engine/Machine/Electrical Maintenance) Stewards Department- Purser (Invoicing/Requisitions) Additional Personnel by Department- Deck Department- Navigator (Navigation/Watch)-Lieutenant (C)-Ensign (S) 1 Third Officer/Mate (Safety/Watch)-Lieutenant (C)-Ensign (S) 1-2 Deck Cadet (Third Mate Trainee)- Midshipman (C/S) 0-2 Boatswain (Assistant Manager/Maintenance)- Chief Warrant Officer (C/S) 0-1 Carpenter (Carpentry)- Warrant Officer (C/S) 0-1 Able Seaman (Supervisor/Watch/Day Worker)- Chief Petty Officer or Petty Officer (C/S) 2-6 Ordinary Seaman (Day Worker)- Seaman First Rate (C/S) 0-2 Engineering Department- Second Engineer (Assistant Chief Engineer/Refrigeration/Main Engines/Day Shift Lead)- Lieutenant (C)-Ensign (S) Third Engineer (Auxiliary Engines/Fuel/Boilers)-Ensign (C/S) Fourth Engineer (Electrical/Lube/Sewage/Waste Water/Life Boats/Watch)- Ensign (C/S) Engineering Cadet (Fourth Engineer Trainee)- Midshipman (C/S) Qualified Member of the Engineering Department (Repair/Maintain Machines/Equipment)- Chief Warrant Officer or Warrant Officer (C/S) Pumpman (Liquid Cargo Operations)- Warrant Officer (C/S) Oiler (Lubrication/Assistant Fourth Engineer)- Chief Petty Officer or Petty Officer (C/S) Wiper (Cleaning/Gofer)- Seaman First Rate (C/S) Stewards Department- Chief Steward (Assistant Purser/Baker)- Lieutenant (C)-Ensign (S) Chief Cook (Galley Manager/Cook)- Ensign (C/S) Stewards Assistant (Clerk/Cook/Waitstaff/Housekeeper)- Seaman First Rate (C/S)

Again this may be gibberish. On a commercial ship the Deck Department Head is the First Mate, and the Second Mate is responsible for navigation; but, on Naval vessels I believe the First Mate is the XO, and therefore is too busy to be the Deck Department Head as well; so, I imagine that job would then fall to the Second Mate, making him too busy for all of his responsibilities; so, I took navigation from him and created the job Navigator. Even most commercial ships don't run with a Purser any more; I very much doubt Naval vessels would; and, in this case the Chief Steward takes his place. The numbers next to the Deck Department Personnel are the numbers of that job type that a commercial ship would expect to carry under normal circumstances. I'm sure on a Navy vessel these numbers would be quite different. I've even read about the Deck Departments of Aircraft Carriers being so large that they are broken down into Divisions, but that's all the information I could find on that. I have no numbers for Engineering or Stewards; because, the articles didn't provide any. I suppose it must vary from engine to engine or based on crew size, respectively; but, we should be able to work up estimates. What of other departments? Who handles artillery, boarding actions, security, flight decks, reactors, computers? How are these and other departments, such as medical, structured? I read that Deck Departments on Submarines are quite small, seeing as they don't have much of a deck; but then, is a different department in charge of navigation and safety?

Does anyone know any of the answers to any of these questions? Many of the answers I know have a place in this article; and, if there are any that don't, then a new article needs to be made to accommodate them; because, at present the whole of the 'Verse seems to be bone dry as to references for this material. I don't have any of this data, despite my efforts to discover it. I only have the questions.

At least, as I said, the Army chart makes it all the way down to Corporal; so, the Navy chart should go all the way down to Petty Officer. If anyone has this information, could you be persuaded to enlighten the masses?

Finnbjorn (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Air Force only 4% combat effective?

Just curious: Does anyone know why the Air Force gets less than one bird in the sky for every twenty personnel? (Wing: 1,000-5,000 personnel, 48-100 aircraft= personnel to aircraft ratio 21-50:1) I'm sorry; but, with so few active airborne units, perhaps their name should be changed to the 95-98%-Of-Us-Sit-On-Our-Butts-While-Better-Men-Go-Do-The-Fighting Force. I'm gonna bring this up the next time I write my congressmen. I smell a whole lot 'o bacon!

Finnbjorn (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC

- Aircrew, engineers etc.

Who are you? Insufficient explanation. I keep running it over and over in my head; and, the worst I can come up with, being a force composed entirely of gun boats, is still three times better. The entire concept of an Air Force as being separate from the Army or Navy seems like a waste anyway; but then to get less than one bird in the air for every twenty personnel: I know we're not really discussing theory here; but it seems to me that some restructuring might be in order.

Finnbjorn (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The guy who responded to you is correct, you'd be surprised how many people it takes to keep an aircraft in working order; not to mention load bombs/missiles, fuel it, direct air traffic, provide base security, administrative tasks, Military Police... you name it. If someone had come up with a more manpower efficient means of running and air force someone would have done it by now. 67.188.225.212 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

By78, I warned you about this.

Look: Stop editing this page with out discussing it here first. To address your rhetorical question: while I can't speak to the Incan myths, the fictional stories "the Chronicles of Narnia" and "the Lord of the Rings" along with the mythical epic Ragnarok do not mention any battle formations. I told you before that you have to be careful about how you dismiss myths. There are still people in the world for whom the Mahabharata is a sacred text, just like the Bible. They are called Hindus. There are also still people in the world for whom the Eddas and the Sagas and Ragnarok are sacred texts, and I am one of them, and your suggestion that my holy books have the same value as history and literature as modern works of fiction is offensive, misguided and ignorant. I was merely fighting you until you would agree to build consensus on the talk page first. You are right in thinking that the Mahabharata doesn't really belong in this article; but, not for any "reason" you have suggested. Now, however, I am going to fight you because you are ignorant, dismissive and rude, you have offended me with your religious intolerance; and so, I have to tell you: the Mahabharata is here to stay!

Finnbjorn (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sherljim (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC) The entry about the Mahabharata Epic is mis-placed in this article which is essentially about current era military organization. This is not to say that the information is invalid - only misplaced. Similarly I would not expect to see information about Joshua's army encircling Jericho the bring the walls down. Whether the stories are true or not is not the point - their place in an article about modern day military organization is.

Agreed. It should go on its own page or on a page of mythological/historical military practices. It does not belong here.

Italian Armed Services

The Italian Republic has four "arme" (armed services): Army, Navy, Air Force and Military Police (Carabinieri). The financial police isn't an armed force. In fact, the "guardia di finanza" is under the control of the Ministry of the economy and finance, not under the Defence.--Francescov1988 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ad Hoc structures.

There is no such a thing as an Ad Hoc structure. NO military command has invented the wheel, NOR reinvented the wheel, all structures having definite biological and equipment reasons for being so, AND FALLING within those structrures.

What you call ad hoc, is the reverse of a damned UK regiment on horseback against machine gun installations, now THAT, is definitely ad HOGG, that regiment being mowed down in seconds. Apparently you want all and everyone to cater to that type and style of living standard and warfair.

Is that the new ´asperger centurions´ that has been talked about in the last three decades or so, USofA twitter and pedia´s made?

Have some logic, for crying out loud, your lack of high school graduation and a FULL D minus becomes quite clearly visible.

Link to IQ, and the form that IQ these days is a midmode of a LOWERED standard, there being quite a few more in that SD=1 then elsewhere.

PS: I still think the board of wiki pedia is full of themselves, ANY board or executives having to fully acknowledge that IF you do not get pissed now and then due foolishness, the whole of civilization would still be in the ICED age without a clue about Flint and definitely no clue about internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.36.69 (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is the Australian Defence Force on this wiki?

Is it missing, or do some of you not know that Australia has a military? I attempted to do a search on the wiki for "Australian Defence Force" and it is not there.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rek7 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It's article is over here, under the exact title "Australian Defence Force". — Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Naval Organization: Chart

Questions: Is there a source for that chart? I believe it represents modern naval fleets more accurately than historical naval fleets. (Reason: Looking to edit naval fleet page)Tesseractcubed (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)