Talk:List of established military terms

Simpler name

Shouldn't this just be Glossary of military terms, or Military glossary? —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 22:26 Z

Yes it should be! Besides that it needs structure like

Organisational
Administrative
Doctrinal
Technological
Land
Naval
Air
Space
--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I put this list together because many of the terms used here are not relevant to modern military usage, but crop up in books and primary sources, because in their day they were as common as modern acronyms -- or example Ravelin -- and I find this list useful when I am writing articles. I deliberately wrote 50 years ago because I did not want the list to be overwhelmed with modern acronyms and parlance and as there were plenty of such lists like the now renamed List of modern AFV and artillery related terms and acronyms --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your disagreement noted, but this is a list of military terms, not a list of medieval or 17th century military terms. Deleting the space section will not remove the issue of militarisation of space, or abolish the USAF Space Command. Besides that I had not added any terms that would be otherwise located in other lists, but merely made provision for terms that may come into usage as did the terms when wooden warships first appeared. The Space section was simply organised consistently with other sections.--mrg3105mrg3105 10:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I think I understand where your reaction cames from. When I agreed it should be a Glossary of terms, I meant just that, and not Acronyms or Abbreviations. These came into being because of the increased complexity of military language with the Second World War, and a penchant for Germanisation of conceptual and technological identification of concepts.--mrg3105mrg3105 10:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the space section because putting sections into articles with no text is depreciated. However now that you mention it there was little to no military use of space 50 years ago as sputnik did not orbit until 51 years ago. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Surrender Dorothy

I'm no expert on military law, but since it is not always possible to accept surrender, & since troops will at times refuse of their own initiative, is calling it a war crime appropriate? Trekphiler (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is calling what a crime? I actually had to look "Surrender, Dorothy" up, so it is obviously an American concept. According to the Third Geneva Convention the surrender always must be accepted. If troops are not surrendering, the opponent can take whatever measures required to force them to do so. Suspicion that the surrender is a ruse may be used to shoot prisoners, and this was used by the Red Army against Waffen-SS during the Second World War because some would use grenades as suicide bombers. Similar experiences were encountered by the Allied troops fighting the Japanese in the Pacific Theatre. For this reason it is a standard practice for Israeli Army only to take prisoners that have been stripped to their underwear. I believe a similar practice was in use by the US Army during the Gulf War--mrg3105mrg3105 08:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Under international law it is especially forbidden to order that no quarter be given and to kill a man who has surrender at discretion: See Article 23 of the 1907 IV Hague Convention The Laws and Customs of War on Land: "To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion ... [and] to declare that no quarter will be given" and is part of the customary laws of war (See the Nuremberg War Trial judgment on The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity held that "The rules of land warfare expressed in the [Hague Convention of 1907] undoubtedly represented an advance over existing international law at the time of their adoption. But the Convention expressly stated that it was an attempt " to revise the general laws and customs of war," which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war..."). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I'm guilty of a lack of clarity... I'm thinking, specifically, of a situation I heard about in France 1944, where U.S. forces, of their own initiative, refused to accept surrender, effectively compelling German troops to fight to the death. Not "murder" or "killing POWs". So, to return to my question, is the refusal itself a crime under all circumstances? Trekphiler (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC) (BTW, Philip, those quotes just demonstrate to me lawyers' ability to turn the clear into the impenetrable.)

Interestingly enough there are not a lot of lawyers serving in combat units that I know of, and troops tend to worry about personal safety first, and quote law later. Refusal to surrender is the willingness to continue participating in combat. It is not a war crime to continue to subdue resistance in war, assuming that war is not considered a crime to start with, and most are. Until a POW is secured and identified as no longer presenting a threat, he/she is considered to be a threat, and is treated accordingly. --mrg3105mrg3105 10:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"not a lot of lawyers serving in combat units"? "Refusal to surrender"? Would you take the trouble to read what I wrote? Trekphiler (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A more interesting example is Eisenhower's threat on May 7 1945 that unless the German high command agreed to surrender to the Soviets at the same time as surrendering to the Western Allies that Eisenhower would close their fronts to any German troops trying to surrender to them and not the Soviets. His threat worked and the Germans surrendered to all the Allies. The Hague Conventions makes it clear that if an enemy soldier has laid down his arms and attempts to surrender without conditions attached then the other side must either accept his surrender or let him pass; they can not lawfully kill him. In the good old days if you were on the winning side, then at your discretion you could accept a prisoners parole, with or without conditions, or refuse it and kill him. But, the Hague conventions expressly denies the right to kill a soldier who attempts to surrender unconditionally. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think prisoner's parole would be a good general term to add to the article.--mrg3105mrg3105 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Philip, it's much clearer now. And I vote with mrg3105, put in parole. Trekphiler (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Tasty

I like this article's use of the word "tasty." Please, no one change itBalonkey (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Arms and services"

The three sections bearing this heading begin with this.... sentence:

Describe terms used for combat arms and supporting services of armed forces used in naval warfare.

What does that mean? It's not a sentence at all unless it's telling the reader to "describe terms used for..." etc., in which case it doesn't seem appropriate. Is it telling us that something (what??) "describes terms"? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see—it's merely a childishly clumsy way of attempting to write a sentence. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Change the article title?

What does the word "established" in the title of this article mean? Would anything be lost by moving the article to list of military terms? If there were an article titled "list of theological terms" or "list of mathematical terms", would anyone think some of the listed terms were intended to be "non-established" terms (whatever that might mean) because the word "established" is omitted from the title? Does the word have some special meaning in military science? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"this is a list of established military terms which have been in use for at least 50 years." The reason for this is that the military has a tendency to generate new terms all the time. Some of them are because the technology changes, some of them are just new term s for older ones (particularly the WWII+ fad for initial). When I created this list I did it because, when writing articles about English Civil War and Napoleonic War articles, I needed to look up a specific term, and this grew out of that need. There are a huge number of terms that were used up to the end of World War II that are no longer used. It seemed to me sane to keep this a list which did not include lots of modern acronyms as there are enough redundant/established terms like Tenaille and defile to fill this list without the huge number of terms that have come into use since World War II. Personally I would have been happy to cut it off at 1900, but a rolling 50 years seems to work OK when I constructed the list. -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What about the communicate jargon?

Such as "copy" or "copy that" (etc.)

Does that belong in this page or perhaps a less formal one? 𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)