Jump to content

Talk:Multiservice tactical brevity code

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yank ones??

[edit]

why on earth is this only the yank ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.76.135 (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yanks ones? It's NATO codes! Btw, pages don't write themselves, nor is there a single person somewhere decididng what goes on Wikipedia - many editors contribute, and anyone can add information, provided they follow Wikipedia policy. If you have reliable sources detailing the brevity codes of other nations, feel free to add them here, or perhaps discuss some new articles for theme, as this one is quite lengthy already. - BillCJ (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who put the "jargon" template on the article? Jargon is the topic itself. Silliness. O.M. Nash (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an unvarnished list of jargon, it's bound to be kind of.... jargonish. However, wikilinks to pages that explain the concepts behind the jargon may be a painless way to ease that a bit. (I just did that by making the word "semiactive" into a wikilink into Semi-active radar homing, to clear up a "clarify" tag.) Also, some of the explanations are in military argot; I bet a clever editor could come up with a concise plain-language replacement for some of those.--Gnoitall (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK (sorry for the jargon there), but I still agree w/Mr. Nash. The jargon template in this case is profoundly silly. Terry J. Carter (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If these are code words, why would anyone want to put them on the internet for all to see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.45.208 (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, because they are codes, not "code words". - BillCJ (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick remark to the effect that many of these codes are emphatically not of US origin. Example: "Buster", whose entry reads ′Buster - Directive call to fly at maximum continuous speed′ ... dates to the Battle of Britain. Specifically, this called on pilots to thrust the throttle lever past the usual maximum power, busting a cellophane seal, to what was described as "Full Military Power". 125.238.241.101 (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classified?

[edit]

Shouldn't this page be considered classified, since it refers to codewords in military operations and such? (In fact, a lot of things on the internet should be classified, such as satellite photos of military bases, the exact numbers of troops and jets at every base, etc.) Why do you need spies when you have wikipedia? I have a friend of mine stationed in Alaska and he says he can't tell me the exact number of jets and such at his base, because he says it's confidential, but yet I can go on wiki and find it quite easily. *sigh* This entire article along with the information of numbers and such should be deleted because if servicemen can't talk about them under penalty of discharge and prison, then they shouldn't be on the Internet for all to see. --68.207.156.253 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie[reply]

Where do you get the idea that these are classified? The references cited are "Approved for public release; distribution unlimited". Please don't be an alarmist without doing some research (or, as you would perhaps call it, "spying")Orbis 3 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah it's ok mate, as long as you wear a hat made out of tin-foil, the Russians wont be able to steal your thoughts, regards. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: First, any seemingly telling information that you can find on Wikipedia is already somewhere else on the internet. Control is impossible and pointless to pursue. Second, I don't care what the number for active jets in AK is; the true number sure as hell isn't on Wikipedia. What the military tells us and what is actually the case are very often two (or more) different things. For instance, do you really think they filled in all of those perfectly good nuclear silos in Italy? 137.229.183.144 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the current Multi-Service Brevity Codes doc (2010?) appears to be restricted. At least not available without an AKO/CAC/whatever login. Maybe someone with actual credentials could check the distribution statement and see if we can get proper citing here? Otherwise, might want to think about making a note for that ref. 76.175.235.210 (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@68.207.156.253 Negative. The MS Brevity Codes listed here are not restricted nor classified. Not in any way, shape or form. That's just simply not true. 2601:647:C802:F200:851A:CC6A:8077:3FEE (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Multiservice tactical brevity code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term not in the list - 2020-08-19

[edit]

In this article from The Drive, former F-15 pilot Cesar “Rico” Rodriguez mentions the term "Millertime:"

Meanwhile, the last striker called “Millertime,” meaning he was going to drop, so OCA was technically no longer required.

That term doesn't appear in this article or in the FM 1-02.1 OPERATIONAL TERMS document. The term may be specific to US Air Force operations, and/or may be an older term no longer used. Dafydd2277 (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if you can find multiple WP:RS then you could maybe start a discussion about inclusion. But I've never heard "MillerTime" as an official brevity code. EliteArcher88 (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"MILLER TIME" is listed in the NATO UNCLASSIFIED Standard APP-7 (Joint Brevity Words), as meaning "Completion of air-ground ordnance delivery". The FM 1-02 document refers to the US Air Force interpretation of the NATO Standard. 85.211.129.227 (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodhound Acronym

[edit]

Is the "ASW" in Bloodhound referring to anti-surface or anti-submarine warfare? Faith15 16:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"ASW" typically (in NATO usage) refers to anti-submarine, with "ASuW/ASUW" being anti-surface. This also applies here, with the term "Bloodhound" being listed as "MAR-ASW" (Maritime Operations Anti-Submarine Warfare) in its source document, the NATO Joint Brevity Words Publication. It should probably be clarified in the article for the casual reader. – Recoil (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts as well, @M16A3NoRecoilHax. Thanks. I'll link that term for any future readers. Faith15 13:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multiservice_tactical_brevity_code&oldid=1201762570"