Category talk:Army Formations: Difference between revisions

From Army.ca Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
I don't have the ref infront of me to confirm, but I do not think that LFC, MARCOM, CEFCOM, etc are considered formations.  Though technically meeting the definition, they are instead reffered to as "commands"
I don't have the ref infront of me to confirm, but I do not think that LFC, MARCOM, CEFCOM, etc are considered formations.  Though technically meeting the definition, they are instead reffered to as "commands" [[User:McG]]
:I think I placed them there just to show the heirarchy, but it does look confusing doesn't it. I wanted to show Army formations reporting to the commands - ie LFC has various formations under command. If you or anyone else wants to edit it, please do - just threw this up as a start point.[[User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 13:45, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 13:45, 20 June 2006

I don't have the ref infront of me to confirm, but I do not think that LFC, MARCOM, CEFCOM, etc are considered formations. Though technically meeting the definition, they are instead reffered to as "commands" User:McG

I think I placed them there just to show the heirarchy, but it does look confusing doesn't it. I wanted to show Army formations reporting to the commands - ie LFC has various formations under command. If you or anyone else wants to edit it, please do - just threw this up as a start point.Michael Dorosh 13:45, 20 June 2006 (EDT)