From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Angular mil)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Measurement (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Measurement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Use of mils by the US Navy[edit]

The phrase:

armies use metric units for mapping and targetting, even the U.S. Army.

was changed to:

armies use metric units for mapping and targeting, even the U.S. Army, but the U.S. Navy does not.

The sentence is talking about army use, so I don't think navy use belongs in the same sentence. The mil is used within the US Navy at least as follows:

Bobblewik 12:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The point wasn't about the use of mils; it was about the use of yards. And, more specifically, the old claim was that English units in general are no longer ever used with mils. I claim that is false. Gene Nygaard 12:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
In other words, the problem dealt with the clausefor which what you have quoted above was an explanation and justification, namely:
No conversion to Imperial units is provided because [rest of sentence above in first quoted text, removed from second].
Gene Nygaard 13:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I just get it. Thanks. I had been misreading it as armies use mils rather than armies use metric units. Now I think that the whole sentence should be taken out. Bobblewik 13:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay by me. Gene Nygaard 13:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Note that if it were converted, "1 mil at 1 km is about 1 metre" it should be "1 mil at 1,000 yards is about 1 yard". Not really necessary, I don't think, and not needing an explanation why it isn't there. Gene Nygaard 13:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Copy edited as discussed. Bobblewik 13:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The four definitions of the angular mil[edit]

The chapter makes references to Soviet Union and NATO, however, obviously the concept of angular mil is older than WWII (and likely also older than Soviet Union), some historical perspective would be useful, i.e. when the different definitions in fact have emerged. --Sivullinen (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So much good information, yet the article is fundamentally flawed[edit]

Instead of clearly defining a mil, the article makes a reference to its section with the number of mils in a full circle in various parts of the world, e.g. 6400 within NATO.

While on the surface it makes sense, it is no good.

The problem is that the defining characteristic if the angular mil lies in its name (meaning thousand), i.e. it is the angle one looks into when observing an object with a size 1000 times smaller than its distance.

If the mil was actually defined so 6400 mils equals a full circle, the relation between size S [m], distance D [km] and observed angle of view V [mil] would not be the familiar

D = S / V, but rather something that with an accuracy of 7 digits would spuriously be

D = S / V * (2000 / 6400) (in the case of NATO). (7 digits because 1e-8 < (2 * Arcsin(0.5/1000)-1e-3)/1e-3 < 1e-7).

I posit that this spurious correction (of 1.86% for NATO, 6400/(2000) - 1) is _not_ part of the angular mil definition (at least not in NATO nor in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) and that therefore the whole article is fundamentally flawed.

To fix this we just need a WP:RS with an actual definition (which I suspect will base itself on the D = S / V property, but what I suspect does not really matter).

Would there not be a Wikipedian out there with a field manual that we can quote?

Lklundin (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Which one is NATO mils?[edit]

I assume NATO uses circle/6400, but it isn't specified -- it just suddenly says that Sweden switched to NATO mils, without ever having specified what NATO mils is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

common way[edit]

1 arc = π/3 rad, so 1 rad = 3/π arc = 0.955 arc = 955 milli-arc: ma. arc is being used in [arc]deg, arcmin and arcsec shown as: 1(a)°, 1a′ and 1a″. [= arc/60^(superscript+1) ]
Tabascofernandez (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please excuse me, but your comment honestly seems gibberish to me. This is the talk page about milliradian, not minute of arc. Please explan how this is relevant, or I will remove this entry. Thanks. Sauer202 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)