Talk:Command and control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Stub-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Article status[edit]

As the disambiguation page so clearly demonstrates, this article is exceedingly weak considering the impressive detail of the articles on its implementation and subordinate concepts. AlexeiSeptimus 17:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A place to start might be explaining and differentiating the concepts of command and control. Mang (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Command post[edit]

Doesn't really explain "command post", even though the latter is redirected to here. —151.198.251.15 (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

I removed the article "Gold Silver Bronze command structure" from the disambiguation at the top of the page. I did some checking and it appears that "command and control" is not used as another term for "Gold Silver Bronze command structure". Instead, it appears that "command and control" is simply used when describing the "Gold Silver Bronze command structure". Therefore, it does not require disambiguation. -- Kjkolb (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Derivative terms[edit]

I deleted some of the superfluous alternative spellings or acronyms for C2, esp "ISTAR," which has not ever been a generally accepted term included in the acronym. Mostly its been C2, C3 or C4, with or without the "I" for intel and/or ISR to include surv. and recon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.112.109 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Command_and_control&diff=prev&oldid=597523218
just cleaned up the alternative C2 acronym list, including deleting that silly "ISTAR" thing. As someone who's worked in C2 a very long time (30+ yrs) I can safely tell you that was never used as a general C2 reference by the C2 community.

You seem to have mis-read / mis-understood what was written. These are derivative terms "which emphasise different aspects, uses and sub-domains of C2". They are not "terms which have been sometimes used instead".

  • including deleting that silly "ISTAR" thing. - There are many who would disagree with such a categorisation of ISTAR.
  • As someone who's worked in C2 a very long time (30+ yrs) I can safely tell you that was never used as a general C2 reference by the C2 community. - Pardon? Why would anyone use "ISTAR" as a general C2 reference? That makes no sense. No-one other than you is implying that.

Your comments suggest you are only speaking from the US doctrine perspective. Please note that the Romans were using C2 long before US doctrine was written, and that many other perspectives using other terms and terminology exist. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)