Jump to content

Talk:NATO Joint Military Symbology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Motorized and Mechanized

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's a bit weird - as it implies that all units designated light infantry (ie, a box with an X in it) would only be leg infantry, and would have to walk everywhere - or be relatively static infantry battalions/regiments etc. That doesnt seem to be really consistent with today's technology, does it? Wouldnt a better description be that all infantry can be moved by trucks that arent designed for combat, motorised infantry be using wheeled vehicles like the ASLAV or Stryker, and mechanised infantry be using the heavier tracked APCs like M113 or Bradleys - or anything else that is meant to keep up with tanks (incl over rough terrain)?58.7.206.131 (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Super APP-6a

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)[reply]

Other Information

the first example symbol I think isn't a battailon!? i think its a batterie. greez breskeby

So, for example, the symbol for the A company of the (friendly) 42nd armoured infantry battalion would look like this: - It is saying that the single company (A Company) owned by the 42nd Armoured Infantry Battalion would look like the symbol pictured (note the A to the bottom left, and the 42 to the bottom right, with the single bar above designating 'company'). As far as i understand, anyway. 220.235.146.61 (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon's infantry?

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)[reply]

Infantry and Cavalry symbol etymologies

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment
  • Cavalry & Infantry symbols are correct but I dont have a source other then what I was taught in HM Forces in the 1970-80's the Cavalry Symbol is for Recce Troops (not Armour / Tanks ) it represents the Cavalry crossbelt still worn by the modern day Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment [see image] , and other ex Cavalry Regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps as part of No 2 Dress and above. The Infantry symbol represents the crossed belts of Napoleonic era Infantry troops as can be seen in many period drawings. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn Redirect!

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)[reply]

I second that. I got here via a redirect from the "military symbology" page, which is way too general to redirect to the NATO APP-6A standard. I noticed that "NATO code" also redirects here, which is also probably inappropriate (perhaps "NATO symbology") would be more appropriate. I would delete the redirect but I'm afraid that there might be a lot of wikilinks to "military symbology" that would get severed. Ketone16 (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, NATO code is how gamers/internet forumites usually refer to APP-6A, so the redirect (while a tad general) is not a bad idea. Besides, unless we have more NATO codes to disambiguate from, there's no worry. //Halibutt 14:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commander's Name

Doesn't the name of the commander of the unit appear under the unit symbol? LCpl (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. --noclador (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unmanned Ground Vehicles

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)[reply]

At the moment there isn't a symbol for UGVs. Nohomers48 (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of Unit Sizes Table

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)[reply]

OK then, it does make more sense, as you describe it, now. – Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)[reply]

Proposal: Reordering of "unit icon modifier" and "unit basic icons" sub-sections to improve comprehensibility

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)[reply]

Ammunition vs ordnance

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)[reply]

There is overlap between them and also with "Class V supply". After your ping I went to look up the official definition, and unfortunately it looks like I lost a few of my sources when I transferred computers last year. I think I recall different countries and even different military branches define it differently, and different branches and even countries use different subsets or combinations in different eras (ie I would be quite surprised to find any armed force in any country that used all three at the same point in time). Glancing through some of the sources I do still have access to, I don't see a definition anywhere, but- In the US DoD doctrine "Ordnance", "Ammunition", and "Class V supply" all seem to have a lot of overlap but all fall under the category of "Sustainment" but yet in NATO doctrine "Ordnance" falls under the category of Maintenance. (Even after saying that "Sustainment" has a "Maintenance" component, so still overlapping). IIRC, In other countries Ordnance is just for Artillery, or more narrowly just Artillery shells or more broadly just for Ammunition as a whole. Air Force units obviously use Ordnance for Bombs, Missiles, Rockets, etc., So even if we find a definition, that definition might not be how it's used in other countries and cases.
I'd actually suggest that it's probably best to just have it be a link to the Ordnance disambiguation page for ordnance, and not have it be the only symbol on this section with an explanation, especially if that explanation is specific to one country or branch of military. Gecko G (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are nuanced differences to "ordnance" between English speaking armed forces. The disambiguation page is the best landing page for that map symbol on Wikipedia, and the Wiktionary definition is even less helpful. CdnMCG (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can potentially even vary between branches of the same countries armed forces. For example the precise definition as used by say the USMC might include different specifics than the precise definition used by the United States Army and both might have a slightly different definition that that used by the American DoD which in turn would likely be different than the RCAF and different still than when used by the British MoD and so on. It would take a custom Venn diagram to show the specifics in an internationalized context like this, and even if we had such a diagram, it's place would be on the page about ordnance, not on the page about the military symbols. But there's enough similarity that if you saw the symbol being used for another unit, you could work out the meaning from context and any specific differences are unlikely to be relevant in any situation where the symbol is being used. Thus it works as part of the symbol set. Gecko G (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unit size in personnel numbers

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:NATO_Joint_Military_Symbology&oldid=1240197383"