Talk:NATO Joint Military Symbology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Motorized and Mechanized[edit]

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)

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 -- 04:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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)? (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Super APP-6a[edit]

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)

Other Information[edit]

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. (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon's infantry?[edit]

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)

Infantry and Cavalry symbol etymologies[edit]

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. 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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 (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Damn Redirect![edit]

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)

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)
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)

Commander's Name[edit]

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

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

Unmanned Ground Vehicles[edit]

What is the NATO symbol for "unmanned ground vehicles"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Revision of Unit Sizes Table[edit]

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 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

OK then, it does make more sense, as you describe it, now. – Nohomers48 (talkcontribs) 01:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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