Talk:Group (military unit)

How did this happen?

Can anybody find out how the organization of the Royal Air Force is the opposite of that of the French and American Air Forces? It must have started during the First World War (during which the Americans had no independent air force, and no warplanes of their own design). 4.154.232.161 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead manglement

In this edit, the bulleted "two forms" were separated by an intervening paragraph, such that it no longer makes sense. It might take on fixing it later in nobody else does. There's also a mass of over-capitalization of ranks in there, and the odd and unhelpful slashed alternatives. Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

False designation of German units

The table shows no equivalent to the British wing, but should be Geschwader. Also, squadron is not a Gruppe (battalion size, as you see when you follow the link to de), but Staffel - equivalent of the army's company. The table's Staffel is no flight, but a special formation (usually platoon sized) of an army company/ battery. If you check the link in the article, you see there's no equivalent in German Wikipedia, but the English equivalent of German air force Staffel in the chart below is Squadron (aviation).

This may ground on many false friends in military English & German. A comparison to hierarchy in German army (btw Heer, Armee rather is armed forces) may help:

Units in relation

NATO sign	Army [en]	Aviation RAF/ USN [en]	Army [de]	Air Force [de]
III	Regiment	Group	Regiment	Geschwader
II	Battaillon	Wing	Bataillon/ Abteilung	Gruppe
I	Company	Squadron	Kompanie/ Batterie	Staffel
•••	Platoon	Flight	Zug	Schwarm/ Kette
••	Section	Flight	Gruppe	Rotte/ GDR: Paar

The template is also wrong about this.

--91.35.165.36 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

English speaking militaries generally don't use the NATO size icons except for land forces. But, recognizing that some nations do use those signs and that they are more meaning full that "size groups" 3 to 8, I have updated the table to use these icons instead. I think you will find your concerns are alleviated. CdnMCG (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

sorry, but it was not about the nato signs. I just used them to have a "non-verbal"/ international way of naming the units. Military terms are complicated because every nation/ even branch of forces has it's own; even the definitions of what is a unit (independent, leader is "disciplinary superior"), formation or sub-unit are different (e.g. in germany lowest unit is company, everything above is formation resp. "super formation" ("Großverband")).

With translating flight (sub-unit of squadron) to Staffel you're confusing sub-unit and unit. This "Staffel" is a special, "cross platoon" sub-unit only used in land forces. Just look at the article squadron (aviation) and click on the interwiki-links to de, they have it right.

Wing (military unit) and Group (military unit) are a business of their own, because their use is mixed up even in english speaking militaries. But in german, "Geschwader" is the equivalent to an army regiment, "Gruppe" a consisting part, equivalent to battalion. So, the interwiki link in Wing is correct, but for the USAF-style, and the reason Group has none.

This stuff is like the billion/de:Billion thing, but the german unit terms should be like i listed above. --84.137.30.9 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

ok, now i got where all this confusion is rooted... it was the paragraph in the article "Staffel" about WW2

A Luftwaffe Staffel usually had nine to twelve aircraft. Three or four Staffeln comprised a Gruppe, while a single Staffel was divided into three Schwärme (singular: Schwarm) consisting of four to six aircraft.

Well, the Staffel mentioned there is this one, aviation counterpart to army company (check interwiki-link), while the Staffel described in the article (with the 4-dot NATO-sign) is the mentioned sub-unit in this paragraph.

--84.137.30.9 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)