Talk:Staff (military)

message: why is there a massive segment about how the modern US army uses a slightly "different" staff system than 'the rest of the world' 
right in the middle of the historical Prussian staff segment? the US segment is even larger than the Prussian segment.
Who thought that would fit in right there?
Besides that the US segment doesn't sound conform to wiki rules.
It basically praises the US system, makes claims that it is different and
makes falls statements about the Prussian system. 
That is the segment in question.
"An exception to this is the U.S. military. While the U.S. armed forces have adopted the staff organisational structure described below, the General Staff concept 
has been largely rejected. This is partly due to U.S. concern that the professional members of General Staffs have historically demonstrated a tendency to lose 
touch with the operational forces they direct    (says who??), 
and have occasionally come regard their judgements as equal to, if not superior to, the civilian governments they nominally serve (name one case where this is true!). 
The German General Staffs of both World Wars serve as examples of the down-side of the General Staff concept in implementation. (how? this is not true. in the 2.ww hitler overruled the staff frequently and made them carry out orders that the rejected but in some cases where forced to carry out. hitler also plotted against the general staff several time. ->Blomberg-Fritsch Affair, Erwin von Witzleben, Ludwig Beck and many other stories. during the 1.WW there was no really civilian government anyway) 
The National Security Act of 1947 instead created a Joint Staff populated 
by military service members who, rather than becoming career staff officers on the German General Staff model (not true for most german general staff officers), 
rotate into and back out of Joint Staff positions. (just like the german staff system except for the highest generals who are staff anyway) 
Following the major revision of Title 10 of the United States Code by the Goldwater–Nichols Act in 1986, the Joint Staff of today works directly for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff rather than the corporate Joint Chiefs of Staff, as they did from 1947 to 1986. Under this scheme, operational command and control of military forces are not the province of the Joint Staff, but that of Combatant Commanders, who report through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff unless otherwise directed, to the Secretary of Defense." (how is that relevant to this segment?)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.114.46 (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: US staff

message: My edit is based on Field Manuals and my experience (MOS 96D retired)in both assignment and interaction with Combined, Joint, Corps, Division, Brigade and Battalion staffs. A practitioner's input will only add a functional, empirical dimension to an open-sourced article. It also helps to remove irrelevant details. Radical man 7 18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I was in a staff section of the US military.  I don't understand the claim that the US military doesn't use this system.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.239.79 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the claim isn't that the US doesn't use the system as a whole, but rather it doesn't use the General Staff as nominally laid out.  (Deviating as specified).  It would probably be safe to conclude that the US does use the classification system for HHC at least, and that seems to be supported by wikipedia's other articles on US Army structure (which acknowledges S1-4 and S6 specifically in HHC structures).  It's impossible to make any conclusions from this article as to how the US's Joint Staff is organized, although one could read the article as saying the US only differs in how the Joint Staff is placed in the command heirarchy and otherwise the divisions apply as they would for a General Staff. --68.255.107.49 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States? 

message: The header is way too bloated. The content should probably go into the article body. I've moved the quotation that was there:
:
--Quadalpha (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  header 

message: I'm not very well informed about this subject, but I think this article should link to État-major in the French Wiki and Stato maggiore in the Italian Wiki. If you agree could you add the links to those articles in those languages and any others that seem to be missing, such as Spanish.Campolongo (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Staff (military). 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/20110610131830/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_01/iss_1/CAJ_vol1.1_08_e.pdf to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_01/iss_1/CAJ_vol1.1_08_e.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130307013746/https://transnet.act.nato.int/WISE/Multinatio/CurrentDoc/AlliedJoin/file/_WFS/ajp-4.pdf to https://transnet.act.nato.int/WISE/Multinatio/CurrentDoc/AlliedJoin/file/_WFS/ajp-4.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100206044850/http://www.jcs.mil/page.aspx?id=26 to http://www.jcs.mil/page.aspx?id=26
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515023133/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Staff to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Staff
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Section 3 on NATO and the Continental System continues to reference French origins, despite the material in section 2 that purports to put the lie to this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWhittaker (talk • contribs) 04:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 3 (continental) contradicts section 2 (history) 

message: "The traditional role of the general staff in control role has evolved from the simpler C2... to C6ISR"
This uncomfortably large paragraph seems like more of a flex of the ever-growing C6ISR acronym than it does an informative statement on the role of the staff in command and control.
The overall output of a headquarters has been the exercise of C2 enabled through the support of functional departments within. I don't see much basis behind suggesting that a headquarters once had a simpler job of just commanding and controlling and now is largely tasked with elements of C6ISR such as intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance, collaboration, interoperability, communication. Surely the art of communication, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance have been organic to warfare since it's inception.
C6ISR also places too great an emphasis on the intelligence function of a staff. A commander is able to command and control his/her forces by the product of collaboration between his/her staff sections- administration, intelligence, operations, logistics, planning, signal, etc. C6ISR instead is a list of responsibilities primary within the intelligence department. RightQuark (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  From C2 to C6ISR?