Talk:Military organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Military aviation task force Military science task force

[edit] Merge Units, Formations and Commands into Military organization

• don'tmerge. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• no, don't, too useful 75.46.44.97

What is too usefull, this article or the three others which are described within this article? Units, Formations and Commands are all stubs. By merging them here there becomes one full article. MCG 20:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• My input is to not merge at this time. I think the article is a stub, and definitely needs more work over the coming months, but the concept of a military formation that comes together with different and diverse groups for a specific mission is worthy of a WP article. It is different than military organization in general. N2e 14:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Where are you comming from here? The term military formation does not mean something "that comes together with different and diverse groups for a specific mission" and no such meaning is suggested in the article (You may be thinking of the term "Task Force" as used by NATO). "Formation" refers to an organizational building block which is larger than a unit but smaller than a command. -- MCG 03:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hello. I saw the proposal to merge on military unit. Merging that article with military organization makes sense to me. A military unit makes sense as an element in an organization. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 04:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm very much against merging Military organization with Command (military formation). My principal reason against this is that commands are only one aspect of military organization which are easily significant enough to warrant their own article. If we were to merge, then people wanting to know specifically about commands would need to look through lots of other military organizational information to find what they were looking for. Furthermore, if we merge commands in here, then by extension we should merge Army group, Group (air force unit), Division (military), Battalion, Wing (air force unit), Battlegroup (army), etc - this would make the Military organization article very bloated. I would ask that those who disagree with my last point, make clear the criterion by which they would merge some examples of military organisation in this article and not others. Greenshed 18:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Greenshed, the items you've listed need not be merged into the organization article (though they are already mentioned). Units, Formations and Commands are the generic named building blocks of military organization. Battalions, Battle Groups, Squadrons (US Army), etc are specific typs of units. Divisions, Groups, Brigades, etc are specific types of formations. CENTCOM, SOCOM, LFC, etc are all examples of specific commands. -- MCG 15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was not that they should be merged in (I was using reductio ad absurdum), but I think I understand the criterion by which you are saying that Commands should be merged and not the rest, namely that you consider that a Command is one of three sub divisions of military organization.

Working on that basis, I would be helpful if you could cite sources - I've never heard of this point before. If you also be handy if you could show that this understanding of the term Military Organization is used by all militaries (not just either the US or UK). Furthermore, do you think that this point applies equally in both army and air force terminnology?

Assuming that everyone dividies their military forces into Commands, Formations and Units, I have two further points. First, I would be favour of keeping separate articles on Units, Formations, Commands and Military Organization with appropriate links as I still maintain that Commands (as well as Units and Formations) are each only one aspect of military organization which are individually easily significant enough to warrant their own articles. Secondly, Although Formations and Units are blanket terms, Command is not. To give an example of this, it seems very odd, in an RAF context, to have articles on Flights, Squadrons, Wings, RAF Stations and Groups, but not Commands. Greenshed 21:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Add NATO, NZ[1], Canada[2], and Australia to your list of nations using this terminology. In fact, this use of "unit" and "formation" seems to have been generally accepted in most modern militaries for at least the last century (and you can find references applying the terms to Romans and in the US Civil War). I will give ground on "command" as it is technically a formation (though the highest level of formation) and its use is far less widespread. However, it only makes sense to bring “Units” and “Formations” into the organization article because they can only truly be understood in the context of each other (and they are only stubs on their own).

• Commonwealth formations: [3]
• Note the use in Article I, Para 16: [4]
• Canadian War museum uses terms "unit" and "formation" in this hiearchial fashion to describe air & army organizations. [5]
• Wikipedia definition of formation: [6]
• Google "units and formations" then count the number of national militaries that use this on thier official sites: [7]
• NATO Commands[8]
• UK:[9]& [10]

MCG 02:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

MCG - Thanks for the above references; it would good to use them to support the article. As Units and Formations are blanket terms covering a range of different military organizational structures I will give way and support their merging into Military organization. If the Military organization article gets large we can always split them out again. However I am not persuaded on the question of merging in Commands. Granted, it's a stub at the moment, but it's on the cusp of being de-stubbed and I think that there is definite potential for growth. Also, I still feel that the points I made above stand. In sum, Merge Units, Formations into Military organization but leave Commands alone. Greenshed 16:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Canadian forces, a formation is "an element of the Canadian Forces, other than a command, comprising two or more units designated as a formation by or on behalf of the Minister and grouped under a single commander"—so the CF is organized by units, formations, and commands. Unfortunately, the document cited above doesn't also define "command", but the Canadian commands are Land Force, Maritime Command, and Air Command, representing the three arms of service. —Michael Z. 2006-10-16 06:05 Z

• Merge formation and unit—put together, these stubs would constitute a good article on one subject. It should also include the basic info about commands, but the detailed information about national forces' commands can remain in the separate article. If this article grows large, then the sections can be spun off again into high-quality articles.

  A tactical formation is something else altogether, and ought to be split off from formation (military) immediately. —Michael Z. 2006-10-16 06:05 Z

  I just made the split. —Michael Z. 2006-10-16 06:13 Z

Formations & Units have been merged here. Commands remain a seperate article. MCG 03:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)