Template talk:NATO command structure

This template is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles

Military history: National / Cold War / Post-Cold War

This template 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
	Post-Cold War task force

JFC Norfolk and shift the JFCs together

JFC Norfolk needs to be added and shift the three JFCs together.

Not sure, please help.

BlueD954 (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should JSEC be added?

Should Joint Support and Enabling Command (JSEC) be added? It is under SACEUR. ACO. If so, please add; I'm not certain how to add.

BlueD954 (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Coat of Arms https://shape.nato.int/resources/1/bttns/jsec.png BlueD954 (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JFC Norfolk Coat of Arms

https://shape.nato.int/resources/1/bttns/norfolk.png

BlueD954 (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-design of the organization chart

The chart uses the template Tree chart. This is not an ideal mechanism for the depiction of a balanced set of organization blocks in a straight hierarchy, and it requires a bit of trial and error to get an acceptable result. On top of that, over the years other obscure elements have been added to the design, making it all a bit uneven and unclear.

I propose to limit the command to ACT and the three J's (JWC, JFTC and JALLC), plus ACO with its major commands: the three regional commands in Brunssum, Naples and Norfolk, JSEC and the three commands for the air, land and maritime domain. Everything else is either not a command of either one of these two Strategic Commands, or at a subordinate level.

Keep it small, keep it simple.

The top layers for political and strategic commands is not correct in a sense that SECGEN is not the commander of the MC; the MC responds to the NAC, and SECGEN is a facilitator for the NAC.

SECGEN is supported by IS and MC by IMS. You may argue that it is not exactly that way, and there are some special relations and functions, including the NATO Digital Staff that operates in both the IS and the IMS, but for the sake of simplicity, this is good enough.

Hence, I will upload a new design following these principles. Please provide feedback. Woudsma (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your ideas here Woudsma. The latest official command structure chart that I have been able to identify is at https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210603-nato-command-structure.pdf

I would kindly suggest we reproduce that chart, exactly as it is. This would have the benefit of making the data official for the date of that chart June 2021.

Text accompanying the chart can explain the SG - IS - MC & IMS hierarchy sitting over the two strategic commands, without adding additional Original Research.

Following the unprovoked aggression of Russia against Ukraine, NATO has refrained from updating and uploading further updates to its military command structure. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]