Talk:NATO Joint Military Symbology

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)?58.7.206.131 (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motorized and Mechanized 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Super APP-6a 

message: 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. 220.235.146.61 (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Information 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Napoleon's infantry? 

message: 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.  142.167.168.21 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infantry and Cavalry symbol etymologies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Damn Redirect! 

message: Doesn't the name of the commander of the unit appear under the unit symbol? LCpl (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. --noclador (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commander's Name

message: What is the NATO symbol for "unmanned ground vehicles"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.237.18 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment there isn't a symbol for UGVs. Nohomers48 (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unmanned Ground Vehicles

message: 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 206.166.192.221 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, it does make more sense, as you describe it, now. –  Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision of Unit Sizes Table

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018020047/http://armawiki.zumorc.de/files/NATO/APP-6(1986).pdf to http://armawiki.zumorc.de/files/NATO/APP-6(1986).pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018020008/http://armawiki.zumorc.de/files/NATO/APP-6(A).pdf to http://armawiki.zumorc.de/files/NATO/APP-6(A).pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150921231042/http://armawiki.zumorc.de/files/NATO/APP-6(C).pdf to http://armawiki.zumorc.de/files/NATO/APP-6(C).pdf
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) 16:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: To me it makes no sense that the explanatory sub-sections under the "Unit symbols" section is confusing, because it starts with a "Unit icon modifiers" sub-section, wich is essentially incomprehensible before the more fundamental "basic icons" are described in the following sub-section.
Unless anyone has reasonable counter-arguments, I propose to swap the order of these sections.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iolar~enwiki (talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Reordering of "unit icon modifier" and "unit basic icons" sub-sections to improve comprehensibility 

message: Why are the unit-size personnel numbers in this article so different than those in the military organization article?  The personnel numbers are either too small or too large compared with the other article, differing across all of the unit sizes. The numbers in the other article (military organization) seem to be closer to what the US Military uses (shown here Military Units: Army), not that the US Military is the single standard for this. Can someone supply a reference for the current numbers in this article? L.Smithfield (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit size in personnel numbers