Talk:Hellenic Army

Comments

The NATO grades for the Greek enlisted ranks should be as follows (courtesy of 'Uniforminsignia' Forum) at:

http://forum.uniforminsignia.net/viewtopic.php?p=10787#10787

OR-1 Hoplites (Private, basic training trainee, no insignia)

OR-2 Ephedros Ypopsephios Vathmophoros (Recruit NCO candidate)

OR-3 Ypodekaneas (3a) and Hoplites Vathmophoros (3b) (3a-Lance Corporal, 3b-Enlisted Private). (3a): In our tradition, Lance Corporal is not a rank but an honorary appointment, held only by draftees. (3b): Enlisted Professional Private. Finished basic training, special training in respect of his branch of service)

OR-4 Ephedros Dekaneas (4a), Dekaneas Hoplites Vathmophoros, Dekaneas Pentaetous Ypochreosis, Dekaneas Ethelontees Monimis Theteas (4b) (4a-Draftee Corporal, 4b-Enlisted Corporal, Enlisted for five years Corporal, Long-term Enlisted Corporal). Draftee Corporal serves as leader of the smallest Army unit, principally; team leader. Enlisted Corporals (under the revised Army Regulations) command an individual tank, or a gun's crew in artillery. Draftee Corporal is subordinate to the Enlisted one. Enlisted Corporal is equivalent to the Senior Corporal's rank in other armies.

OR-5 Ephedros Lochias (5a), Lochias Pentaetous Ypochresosis, Lochias Ethelontees Monimis Theteas (5b), Monimos Lochias (5c) (5a-Draftee Sergeant, 5b-Enlisted for five years Sergeant, Long-term enlisted Sergeant, 5c-Career Sergeant). Draftee Sergeant is the backbone of the Greek Army. Sergeants are responsible for the individual training, personal appearance and cleanliness of their soldiers. He is the Drill Instructor, Drill Sergeant, or Military Training Instructor of the Army. Enlisted Sgts (according to the law 2936) are entrusted with the tasks of logistic and administrative support. Career Sergeant is the Non Commissioned Officers School graduate of the Hellenic Army. [I'm quoting from the official web-page of the Hellenic Army-Non Commissioned Officers School:].."With their graduation from the School, students are called Regular Sergeants and continue their training in the Schools of Arms-Corps to which they have been appointed, where they get specialized knowledge on their specialty. After completing a year of service they have the right to take part in exams for entering the Military Academy as candidates of a special category which consists of the 20% on the total number of candidates. The subjects of the exams are those taken in the National Level Examinations chosen by the Military Academy. The Non Commissioned Officers, after graduating the School, undertake the obligation of serving the Army for 5 years. They are promoted to the rank of the Warrant Officer after serving for 9-12 years in the ranks of Sergeant - 1st Sergeant - Master Sergeant. With their promotion to Second Lieutenants they are in the Officers lists and they continue to gain advancement. A sufficient number of Non Commissioned Officers is chosen, trained and staffs the Special Forces as paratroopers, commandos, marines and frogmen. Moreover, they can serve with the Army Aviation as helicopter pilots and mechanics or in a Research-Computing Office after being trained as Computer Programmers. Since NCOS belongs the higher level of education, its graduates can enroll in a Technological Educational Institution or University either by taking exams or not. NCOS graduates who obtain a University Degree are given the chance, after having reached the rank of Second Lieutenant, to advance to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel or even Colonel according to the new law on promotions of Non Commissioned Officers".

OR-6 Monimos Epilochias (Career 1st Sergeant). 1st Sergeant assists the captain in the supervision of the company's operations and is responsible for the administrative work of the Company. He also holds the Quartermaster Sergeant's duties. Because the list of responsibilities make him the busiest man in the Army, it is in our tradition that in many cases, Draftee Sgts. keep the company descriptive book (this book listed the name, age, height, place of birth, and prior occupation of every enlisted man in the unit). When this is done, then the Draftee Sgt. is an "acting 1st. Sergeant".

OR-7 Monimos Archilochias (Career Master Sergeant). The master sergeant serves as the principal NCO in staff elements at battalion and higher levels.

OR-8 No equivalent

OR-9 Anthypaspistees (Warrant Officer).

'LONDON' 07/12/05

Freedom is Courage

"Ελεύ8ερον το Εύψυχον" means that the couraged people are free, not that the freedom is courage. That's because of the infinitive syntax, which in modern greeks, is not used.

Aptitude?

To the person that wrote this section: you are either misinformed, an idiot or a Turk. The Hellenic Army uses mainly state-of-the-art equipment nowadays. Tell me, in what way is Greece's Leopard 2A6 HEL "passed down equipment from the 1950s"? Furthermore, Greece's soldiers are well trained and participate in numerous NATO exercises. 210.49.157.84 11:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha - so why did you delete that paragraph from this article (understandable since unsourced and pov) and added the same exact passage to the Turkish Army article couple of minutes later [1]? :) Baristarim 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph will be deleted. I have no idea if it deserves to exist in other state's similar article, but here is at least laughable!! Citations shall be provided (if possible). Moreover, i do not think it is necessary to provide sources about the strength of the Greek army, Baris:). Greece, for well-known reasons, spends the most among the NATO members on defense. Re-adding an unsourced and pov paragraph cause it was previously inserted in another article, is something i prefer not to comment about. Hectorian 01:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. Hectorian, if you look at the history of the article, it was not me who added it - I only came across it following the contributions list of the user who edited the Turkish army article - now I have this article on my watchlist. Besides - I would like to point out a very subtle point you raised: "the comparision with the Uzbek Navy" - which betrays the fact that it was only added for trolling purposes in the first place :) Baristarim 01:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

U are right. I did not check the history. Good job in reverted the paragraph (i would had done this anyways:)...). Hectorian 02:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries... Baristarim 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ArmyGR.gif

Image:ArmyGR.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Geetha.png

Image:Geetha.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sse logo.gif

Image:Sse logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is an error...

In history section: "Gulf War". I think that isn't accurate: Only naval forces from Greece have used in this war. And perhaps some AWAC crews from airforce. Please confitm or correct this. --Vchorozopoulos (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I fixed it. Also I believe that War on Terrorism should be deleted. Sv1xv (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is a war that is missing: The Turkish invasion to Cyprus: ELDYK and a greek commando section took place in these battles.
• And there some greek peace forces in Bosnia and Kosovo. A few years ago there were also in FYROM and Albania (Tetovo crisis) and in Somalia...

--Vchorozopoulos (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hellenic Army/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 04:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

• I have taken a quick look at the article and feel that it is not yet at the standard expected of a GA. I have not completed a full review, though, as I feel that with some work it could be brought up to GA status. As such, I will list the most significant concerns below. If these can be addressed in the next seven days, I will then complete a full review. Please feel free to question anything you don't agree with:

• lead: currently the lead does not summarise the whole article. Per WP:LEAD, it should be able to stand alone, so as it stands it should be expanded;
• referencing: currently there are a number of paragraphs or sentences that appear to be uncited. For instance, in the Mission section, the peacetime objectives need a reference. In the History section, the last part of the first paragraph needs a reference.The Structure section doesn't appear to be referenced; neither are the Personnel, Equipment and Uniforms and Ranks sections. A good rule of thumb is one citation at the end of each paragaph (but more is better, if multiple sources were used for the information contained in the paragraph);
• referencing: what references that are currently used appear to be largely Greek language. While there is no issue (at least in my opinion) with some Greek sources being used, for a successful GA rating, I feel that these need to be balanced with English language sources also;
• coverage: the history section should be expanded to summarise that Army's involvement in the conflicts that are listed. While I understand that there are main articles to these linked, a GA such as this should use an appropriate summary style to deliver a broad overview of the topic, rather than use list format as this one currently does in a number of its sections;
• coverage: the Structure section needs some sort of introduction/overview prose;
• coverage: the Personnel section mentions conscripts, but doesn't mention how long they are engaged for, or what sort of training they receive, etc. Also are women allowed to fill the same roles as men, or are there roles that they are excluded from? What age can personnel start serving and when are they retired, etc?;
• coverage: the equipment section should be expanded to give a broad overview of what type of equipment the Hellenic Army uses. For a good example, please take a look at Australian Defence Force, which is a Featured Article (I didn't have anything to do with writing it);
• English variation: be careful to use only one English variation. I found some US and some British (for example "armor" v. "armour" and "defense" v "defence"). Either is fine, but consistency is the key;
• image gallery: I'm not sure about the use of the image gallery, per the guidance at WP:IG it should probably be removed and the images worked in individually (if the content was expanded as per my above suggestion, this would give more scope to add the images in throughout the article). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• "which occurred in the last decade" - this should be made clearer. As time progresses, this will need to be updated if it remains in its current form, so it might be better to say a specific date;
• there is inconsistent capitalisation throughout the article. Only words that are proper nouns or titles, or words that appear at the start of sentences need capital letters;
• this is a very awkward sentence: "After a major reorganization which occurred in the last decade, which included..."
• the prose is a little choppy in places and I feel that, once the article is expanded (per my comments below), that it would need a copy edit;
• I'm not sure that the flag icons in the Army formations are really necessary. Do they serve a purpose?
• the web citations should have publisher and accessdate information added to them. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• as mentioned above, the article does not meet GA referencing requirements. At a bare minimum, each paragraph should end with a citation, even if it is a duplicate link;
• the majority of the references used in the article are not in English, which makes it difficult to determine whether they are reliable. While I'm prepared to accept good faith on some, for GA they should be balanced with English-language sources also;

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• as mentioned above, some expansion is required. For instance, the History section stops at 1829 and then employs list formate. The items in the list should be mentioned in prose using an appropriate summary style;
• there is information in the lead, that is not covered in the body (e.g. the information about HELBROC). That should be covered in the body of the article;
• the lead should be expanded to summarise the whole article, albeit in a very broad brush stroke;
• you might consider adding a current operations section;
• the additions to the Personnel section are good, but I really think the role of women should be covered given the global trend in Western militiaries towards more female involvement. If women can't serve, or are exempt from conscription, then simply just say so;
• the Structure section should have some prose. For instance see the Australian Army section in the Australian Defence Force article (which is currently a Featured Article);
• the equipment section also needs expansion;
• the Uniform and ranks section doesn't seem to mention uniforms at all and only mentions the highest rank. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• The article needs expansion before this can be determined. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues, that I can see. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

• As above, I have concerns about the use of the Gallery, per the guidance at WP:IG. The images should be worked into the article individually (if the content was expanded as per my above suggestion, this would give more scope to add the images in throughout the article
• "File:The sortie of Messologhi by Theodore Vryzakis.jpg", might need a US licence added to it, given that the current licence that is used on it says "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". It would, I think, just need a US-PD tag added;
• "File:Greek Army uniforms, 1833-1851.png", probably needs an English translation of its source, and a US licence;
• "File:AlexanderYpsilantisPruth.jpg", probably needs a US licence per the advice in the current licence on the description page (as above);
• "File:Nikolaos Plastiras.jpg" - needs date information and English translations of author, source and permission fields on the description page;
• "File:Greek Parade Paris 1919.jpg": probably needs a US licence as well as that which is currently there. It also probably needs a date of death for the author to be added to the description page to make certain that it is PD. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Please address my initial comments (listed above). I will then complete a full review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• This review has been on hold for seven days. While some improvements have been made, I do not feel that they are sufficient to result in it being promoted to GA at this time. If more significant work was being undertaken, I would be inclined to leave the review open to allow editors more time to bring the article up to scratch, however, I do not feel that this is likely at this stage. If anyone disagrees with my assessment, please feel free to list it at WP:GAR. Conversely, once you feel that you have addressed the concerns listed, please feel free to relist at GAN. Regards and good luck with taking the article further, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

New source

You can find some regiment emblems here:source Catlemur (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hellenic Police which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Conscripts or reserves?

The statement "During a mobilization the amount of conscripts may exceed 180,000" is ambiguous. Is this a reference to the number of reserves (which the number suggests, but the name does not), or the number of conscripts in service at any one time?Royalcourtier (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hellenic Army. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305034654/http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/media/dogma.166.pdf to http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/media/dogma.166.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)