This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org
|
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Battalion is also an online turn-based strategy game. But when I tried to edit the page accordingly, it was rejected. Why?
I am not an expert but why does the symbol refer to the AUSTRIAN 14th battalion? I can see nothing to indicate its nationality. 82.212.19.84 15:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why is the picture in the top right corner of a platoon when the article is about a battalion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4901:8930:30F8:2AD4:91A5:8D47 (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Whoever wrote the sentence below needs to check their source. Old English alphabets DID have the letter Jj. It was originally the letter Ii with a swash attached to it. The letter's history goes back to ancient Rome. The reason there was no company J (back in the day) is because the letters I and J looked too similar to make any distinction with some handwriting. NOW, the omission of Co. J is by tradition.
"There was no J company or troop: the letter J was traditionally not used because in 18th and 19th centuries the old English alphabet did not have the letter "J" and was never added because of tradition."
If the author does not wish to make this correction, I will gladly do it. Best wishes. Jaaches (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)JAACHESReply
I changed it back to the way I posted it on 14 June 07, before it was erroneously changed on 3 Dec 14. Yes, the letter existed, but it was not commonly found in most printer's type face blocks, so as a matter of practicality, as 'J' was not commonly used in print, the custom was then (now having become tradition) to not use 'J' in either printed/typed or written form to designate a military unit.CobraDragoon (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think the US section needs a lot of work. It reads quite poorly with the parts for the Marine Corps inserted with parentheses after every point. I think we should make two sections, one for the Army, one for the Marines, describing the structure of a battalion in both. In the Army, at Battalion is commanded by a Major, sometimes at Lt. Col. A brigade is commanded by a Colonel.
Agreed, it very wordy and needs condensing perhaps using the British entry as an example? Also the tactical elements are similar if not essentially the same for both entries and should perhaps reflect that rather than as sub sections of a particular nation.Twobells (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I deleted the wholw 'tactical communications' section, it's not relevant here. If I have time I will give the whole US section a very heavy edit. 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.147.186 (talk)
It should probably be explicitly stated what the difference is between organic and separate battalions. Mad2Physicist (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think the material on tactical communications in the US Army is interesting, but misplaced. Pete Fenelon 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The lead paragraph is nothing but a definition. Most of the rest of the article is unrelated to Battalions, and is general background information on military organizations. The article doesn't cite a single source... what is encyclopedic about this topic?StreamingRadioGuide 06:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Interesting point, but does not battalion have meaning distinct from other orgs? MadZarkoff (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Does anyone know, in the British Army is the Commanding Officer of a Battalion also the Officer Commanding the Headquarters Company? Or does the HQ Company have its own commander (presumably a Major) as the other companies do? 86.158.11.109 (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
The Officer Commanding the HQ company (or Support Company as they are often now known) are indeed commanded by a Major. This is a separate appointment to Regimental 2ic also.--Mlongcake (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
HQ Company (HQ Coy.) and Support Company (Sp.Coy) are NOT different terms for the same company. They are separate entities each with their own Officer Commanding (OC).
I'm not comfortable making the change yet as a newbie, but battalion is also in common usage in the American fire service to denote a subdivision of a fire department. Inclusion might be considered 1) limited in scope and as such not a world view on the subject 2) jargon 3) too broad within the scope of the present article. Any thoughts on how to best work this additional definition into the article? Random memo (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Some fire departments, such as the FDNY use the term battalion in their organizational levels. Can someone put this in? Mazeau (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
-Actually, I'd say 99% of fire departments in the US use battalion in the organizational levels. I was surprised not to even find any mention of fire departments. I wouldn't be surprised if South America and Canada follow the battalion organizational leveling too. Usually it can be worded differently, like "district chief" instead of battalion chief, but they are still the same exact thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.39.28 (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Can anyone confirm that the RSO is actually an officer from the Royal Corps of Signals? I have never heard of this before!--Mlongcake (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I served in the Signal Platoon of a UK Infantry Battalion and the RSO was always from my cap badge.Demobbed (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Correct. The Royal Corps of Signals do not operate Battalion level.
What is "Theatre of War II" other than a game? Should this be "World War II"? I can't find any reference to "Theatre of War II" as a conflict in WikiPedia or Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwise1 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The term "battalion" appears in Manuals of Arms from the early 18th Century, but the battalion they refer to is not the modern battalion. The 1740 French Manual of Arms prescribes that except in the most unusual circumstances, His Majesty's infantry regiments will deploy and fight in a single battalion including all seventeen companies.
The British system was different, as the regiment did not deploy as such, but raised, equipped, and trained one or more battalions which did deploy to the theatre of operations. Many, if not most, regiments of the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars fielded a single battalion.Cybersharque (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure if this is the place, but I can't find anything about it anywhere. How do US unit designation numbers work these days? Why are the unit numbers so high? Is each battalion (or other sized unit) given it's own unique number, regardless of what unit it is part of? To make sure they never confuse one "13th Battalion" with another "13th Battalion"? I'd always assumed that a unit was numbered within it's parent unit, i.e. "5th Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment" and "5th Battalion, 7th Infantry", etc. But I see that the numbers go so high, up into the hundreds, even the thousands...there is no way one unit has that many battalions, or companies. So do they give them all a unique number, regardless of parent unit? Like, the 3rd Infantry doesn't have 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, it might have 403rd, 211th and 109th, while the 7th Infantry has the 312th, 573rd and 200th? Is that how it works these days? Because I don't see why else the numbers would go so high. 400 battalions is like the size of an army, about 300,000 men. So there is no division with 1st through 400th Battalions, is there? The other possibility I thought of is that units are given two, three or four digit numbers depending on what area they specialize in? That's how you get weird numbers like "6941st Guard Battalion" (although it's not from the US, I've seen similar ones here, I believe. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/6941st_Guard_Battalion AnnaGoFast (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
It is said in this page that battalions consists of 300-1000 men, does that mean the 300 Spartans led by King Leonidas is a battalion? RA9Markus (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Currently the article focuses on the term "battalion" as it is used in Western countries. As a result, the lead generalises specific uses of the term as universal fact. For example, the only parts of the article which state that a battalion usually consists of 300 to 1,000 soldiers are in the U.S. and Canada sections. There is no reliable source given that says this is universally true. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply