Talk:Military organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 200,000 +, is that all?

I can understand that there is a limit tpe on western theatres, but what about eastern theatres where millions of soldiers are in play. German invasion of 41' 3-4 million, broken up into three-four, groups, so 1 mill. It's seem likes a VERY large leap from 200, 000 to 1, 000, 000.

-G

Its not, really. Firstly, WW2 formations were very large, and were typically discussed as army groups and fronts. Officers that command those sized formations are Generals and Field Marshals. Whether an army group has 200000 or 1000000 troops isnt really important given that the role is exactly the same. Because of the heirachical structure, the numbers can be expanded quite quickly just by adding a few extra Corps or Armies to an existing formation. Further, the Million Man Armies of east asia or the subcontinent are still broken down into regional, functional or task-oriented groups, like the seven army commands of India which are based on geography. Only 15 countries have more than 1 million active, reserve and paramilitary forces in the world, and of these only 5 have more than 1 million active troops at any one time. Its not, therefore, unreasonable to consider the title of 200000+ as being the 'limit', scuh as it is. 58.7.206.131 (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

  • 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)
  • 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)

[edit] Hierarchy of air forces

The recent changes to the Hierarchy of air forces section are clearly an improvement both in terms of formatting and adding USAF information. However the RAF element, at least, is misleading. Given that the solution is not straightforward, I have not just gone and fixed it. The following points need some work:

  • Historical and Current. Do we want the list to reflect both historical and current conventions? Eg. Flying squadrons used to be commanded by squadron leaders; now they are commanded by wing commanders.
  • Flying Units and Ground Units. Do we want the list to give the conventions for flying units or ground units? Eg flying squadrons are (now) commanded by wing commanders, ground-based squadrons are commanded by squadron leaders.
  • Air Force. Currently the Chief of the Air Staff is an Air Chief Marshal not an MRAF. Other (former) air forces (eg RAF Far East Air Force) were commanded by air officers of lower rank.
  • Command. Not all commands have been or still are commanded by Air Chief Marshals. RAF Personnel and Training Command is commanded by an air marshal.
  • Group. Excluding the early years of the RAF, Groups have typically been commanded by an air officer.
  • RAF station. RAF stations are ordinarily subordinate to groups. Many, but not all, are commanded by group captains.
  • Wings. Administrative wings are commanded by wing commanders. Expeditionary Air Wings are commanded by group captains.
  • Squadrons. See above.
  • Flights. Most flying branch flight lieutenants do not command a flight; they fly an aircraft.
  • Sections. Flying officers might command adminstrative flights, just fly an aircraft or act as an adjutant etc. A SNCO would be in charge of a section.

Greenshed 01:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been wanting to fix the Hierarchy of air forces. Much of the USAF info is wrong, but I don't know the RAF part. It may be easier to separate it into two tables, since there don't seem to be direct equivalents at each level. Would you care to collaborate? Nathanm mn 20:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major

It says a major is in charge of a company. As I understand it, a major generally was given the rank in the headquarters section of battalion level, you know an executive officer, supply officer, administrative officer, etc. but not the commanding officer. Should that be changed? --SurfingMaui540 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Army Aviation and MedEvac (medical air ambulance) companies are usually commanded by Majors, so I would recommend that it stay. KC 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that in the U.S. Army, Majors at the battalion level are usually Executive Officers or S-3's (Operations Officers). Other primary staff officers (S-1, S-2, S-4, etc.) at the battalion level are usually Captains or Lieutenants. At the brigade level, it's basically the same thing except substitute Lieutenant Colonels and Majors. KC 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arms of Service (corps)

It seems to me that a major part of the general description of what is military is not covered - the Arms of Service/s. These are listed under Corps in the British Army, bu they generally apply to all armies by subdividing the forces according to their specialisation. This is not only applied to the land forces but also naval and air services.

To illustrate, below are the historical British Army Corps of the Army Service (from Regiments.org site). They do not include Infantry and Cavalry which are on the regimental system, but in other Commonwealth countries Infantry and Cavalry are a Corps in their own right.

  • Adjutant General's Corps 1992-present
  • Army Air Corps 1942-1949
  • Army Air Corps 1957-present
  • Army Apprentices College, Arborfield [REME]
  • Army Apprentices College, Chepstow [RE] 1924-1994
  • Army Apprentices College, Harrogate [RSigs]
  • Army Cadet Force 1942-present
  • Army Catering Corps 1941-1993
  • Army Chaplains' Department 1796-1919
  • Army Commandos 1940-1946
  • Army Cyclist Corps 1914-1919
  • Army Dental Corps 1921-1946
  • Army Educational Corps 1920-1946
  • Army Hospital Conveyance Corps 1854-1855
  • Army Hospital Corps 1855-1884
  • Army Legal Corps 1978-1992
  • Army Medical Staff Corps 1884-1898
  • Army Nursing Service 1881-1902
  • Army Pay Department 1878-1920
  • Army Pay Corps 1893-1920
  • Army Physical Training Corps 1860-present
  • Army Postal Corps 1882-1889
  • Army School of Education
  • Army Service Corps 1869-1918
  • Army Works Corps 1855-1856?
  • Camel Corps 1884-1885
  • Camel Corps 1917-1919
  • Commissariat Department
  • Corps of Army Schoolmasters 1846-1920
  • Corps of Military Accountants 1919-1925
  • Corps of Army Music 1994-present
  • Corps of Pioneers 1795-1800
  • The Corps of Riflemen 1800-1802
  • Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers 1942-present
  • Corps of Royal Engineers 1716-present
  • Corps of Royal Military Artificers 1788-1812
  • Corps of Royal Military Police 1855-1992
  • Corps of Royal Sappers and Miners 1812-1856
  • Field Telegraph Corps 1882-1889
  • Forage Corps 1915-1919?
  • General Service Corps
  • Gurkha Army Service Corps
  • Imperial Camel Corps 1917-1919
  • Imperial Yeomanry 1899-1902
  • Intelligence Corps 1914-present
  • Labour Corps 1915-1920
  • Land Transport Corps 1855-1860
  • The Light Infantry 1968-2007
  • Machine Gun Corps 1915-1922
  • Military Provost Staff Corps 1901-1992
  • Mobile Defence Corps 1955-1959
  • The Parachute Corps 1940-1942
  • The Parachute Corps 1967-1968
  • Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps 1949-present
  • Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps 1917-1919
  • Reconnaissance Corps 1940-1946
  • Royal Armoured Corps 1939-present
  • Royal Army Chaplains Department 1919-present
  • Royal Army Dental Corps 1946-present
  • Royal Army Educational Corps 1946-1992
  • Royal Army Medical Corps 1898-present
  • Royal Army Ordnance Corps 1918-1993
  • Royal Army Pay Corps 1920-1992
  • Royal Army Service Corps 1918-1965
  • Royal Army Veterinary Corps 1796-present
  • Royal Artillery 1716-present
  • Royal Corps of Signals 1920-present
  • Royal Corps of Transport 1965-1993
  • Royal Defence Corps 1916-1936
  • Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers 1942-present
  • Royal Engineers 1716-present
  • Royal Field Artillery 1899-1924
  • Royal Flying Corps 1912-1918
  • Royal Garrison Artillery 1899-1924
  • Royal Horse Artillery 1793-present
  • Royal Logistic Corps 1993-present
  • Royal Marine Artillery 1804-1923
  • Royal Marine Light Infantry 1855-1923
  • Royal Marines 1664-present
  • Royal Military Artificers 1787-1812
  • Royal Military Police 1946-1992
  • Royal Military School of Music
  • Royal Observer Corps
  • Royal Pioneer Corps 1939-1992
  • Royal Regiment of Artillery 1716-present
  • Royal Signals 1920-present
  • Royal Staff Corps 1800-1837
  • Royal Tank Corps 1923-1939
  • Royal Waggon Train 1794-1833
  • The Royal Yeomanry 1967-present
  • Small Arms School Corps 1854-present
  • Staff Corps of Cavalry 1810-1817
  • The Tank Corps 1917-1923
  • Women's Army Auxiliary Corps 1917-1919
  • Women's Forage Corps 1915-?

--Mrg3105 08:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)