Imperial Japanese Army regimental flags

80th infantry regiment flag
 

Regimental ceremony

Regimental flag being readied for burning. Probably post-war

Flag of the 321st Infantry Regiment. The only IJA unit flag that survived in complete form to this day

Damaged unit flags as a mark of honor

Every army of the world likes to see equipment clean, tidy and repaired if damaged. But there was one exception: unit flags. In some armies damaged, torn flag was a symbol of veteran battle-tested regiment. That’s why damaged flags were not replaced and sometimes even not repaired of battle damage.

 

State color and color-bearer of USA 8th Pennsylvania Reserves, 37th Regiment, circa 1865

 

 

Flag of the 114th French Infantry Regiment in Paris, 14 July 1917

 

Imperial Japanese Army went to the extreme of this practice. They forbade any repair of the unit flags no matter the reason. As a result, some flags turned into tatters despite all the care of them. Sometimes only fringes remained of the banner.

 

Regimental flag of IJA 13th Cavalry Regiment, 1933

1910s postcard, showing regimental flags of the Japanese Army 4th Division. Damaged flags are proudly shown on the top

You can read excellent research on Imperial Japanese Army and Navy flags here: https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/japanese-militaria/banner-golden-brocade-647336/

The best part from this research is below: “As we have seen, the flags may have become total rags, having seen hell but also better days, but the army nonetheless demanded that the bearer had to have fairytale-like qualities of purity to deserve bearing the banner or whatever remained of it. Regimental Standard bearers were generally selected from newly commissioned 2nd Lieutenants (rarely 1st Lt), who took turns 1 year at a time. They had to be from the top of the class, of upright character, good-looking and tall. An unwritten rule (perhaps not to embarrass the man selected for this honor) was that only men still without carnal knowledge of a woman could be allowed. As such, frequent patrons of army bordellos were absolutely out of the question as candidates.”

Unit tactical symbols of the world for orders of battle

Order of battle at Battle of Lützen, 1632 (drawn by MATTHÄUS MERIAN I (1593-1650)). 

Graphical orders of battle (OOBs) existed since the immemorial times, first as literally paintings/engravings, later as simpler tactical symbols to get a clear view on the OOB.

With the advent of mass armies and especially during WW I  huge amount of OOBs now required standardization. As a result, available tactical symbols were often used. 

A simple Order of battle of the British army in 1742 under the command of John Dalrymple, 2nd Earl of Stair (1673-1747). War of the Austrian Succession (1740-48). Note the units are shown as if they are lining up for battle, with infantry in the center and cavalry on both flanks.

Most people knows only NATO-style unit tactical symbols, often used in orders of battle, presentations on military matters, etc. Some people know about Soviet-style unit tactical symbols, used in USSR, current Russia and China. 

Yet there were other systems I'd like to show you.

Note, in all systems friendly troops are marked in blue and enemy in red. Probably from the fact most armies wore blue coats in 19th century. There were only two exceptions: British Empire (with its Redcoats ) and communist countries (with their red flags). Though some post-communist countries retained this system. For example, it took Russian invasion for Ukraine to change into blue for friendly troops in 2016, while Russia and China (PRC) use red for their troops still.

Classical tactical symbols, first used by all countries of the world, were pretty simple. On tactical maps troop column looked like column from above, battle line – like battle line, cannon – like cannon.  There were few kinds of units and equipment, so marking them required just few captions besides obvious numbers and names.

Classical symbols from British source, 1911.

Another kind of symbols existed in drill manuals to describe positions of individuals during the various drills, which were extremely complicated by modern standards. In order not to litter drill evolutions pictures with captions, special symbols were used to distinguish officer from sergeant and ordinary private from private-flag bearer. Some symbols from such drill manuals later migrated to OOBs to show unit commanders, specialists or equipment, as well as organization of small units (usually platoons and squads).

  

US Cavalry Regiment HQ as shown in FM 2-5 "Cavalry Drill Regulations, Horse", 1944. First whole regimental organization is shown in US tactical symbols, than all HQ personnel and vehicles are shown in individual symbols. 

"Appointment Symbols" for the drill on foot from "The Canadian Forces Manual of Drill and Ceremonial", 2006. Officers are marked with circles, soldiers with squares. Details are little changed from WW I.

By the beginning of the WW I symbols begun to multiply. New types of units and equipment appeared which had to be marked. Logistic become very important part of the modern battle, so special symbols for depots, hospitals, etc. had to be created. Automobile troops, aviation and later armor required new symbols as well. WW I brought way more new units and equipment, as well as new symbols for them. Some symbols become very complicated, requiring some graphical talent to draw them by hand.

French and especially Italian systems of tactical symbols are fine examples of this. Especially the later, so complicated as if every Italian officer had to be a painter by default.

 

Classical French symbols for infantry, cavalry and artillery in 1914. Very simple.

 

    

 

French symbols for infantry, cavalry and artillery in 1940. Every class of gun or armor has its own unit marker. Compare it with 1914 set.

 

Italian unit symbols from WW II. How about you’ll quickly draw a symbol for the mixed AA and AT Bersaglieri Battalion (in the middle of the right column)? ;)

 

Fortunately for many staff officers, US military decided they need more consistent and simple system of unit tactical symbols. Under some French influence they've developed their own original system during WW I. 

From this was born currently the most known and most used system of the tactical symbols of the world – US/NATO-style tactical symbols. They were adopted by the US military in 1920s. Probably in 1924, as 1923 manual still showing WW I system, while 1925 manual already showing classical system.

 

US WW I tactical symbols,1923. Some French influence can be seen.

 

US system allowed to quickly and uniformly show unit type, size and number. And it was easy to draw by hand. It was based on rectangle, above which was unit size symbol, on the sides – sub-unit name (to the left) and unit name (on the right), below was for unit modifier like MG symbol for infantry MG company.  Unit types were based on some mnemonics like crossed lines = cross belts for the infantry and single dot = cannonball for the artillery.

 

  

US tactical symbols, 1940.

 

Many modifications followed, but the basic system remained unchanged till the very end of the 20th century. With the creation of NATO in 1949 tactical symbols of the largest military in the organization – US, become the NATO standard. Thus they began to spread not just to US allies, but also to the countries with strong British and French military influence. Being simple, easy to draw and consistent really helped. Thus large part of the world now using this system, albeit with local modifications.

The major change in US/NATO unit tactical symbols appeared in 1998, when new APP-6(A) “Military Symbols for Land Based Systems” (now “NATO Joint Military Symbology”) was adopted. It officially abandoned rectangle as the sole organization symbol, introducing various shapes depending on if the unit is friendly, enemy, neutral or undetermined and also if the unit is land, land piece of equipment, air, sea surface, subsurface. Instead of one shape we now have 11, instead of 2 colors we have 4 neutral is green and undetermined is yellow.

New version become also more complicated, adding more unit and equipment symbols as well as more details for the symbols itself. Just to understand the difference: 1986 version of APP-6 had 114 pages, 1998 version of APP-6 had 403 pagers, current 2017 version of APP-6 has 922 pages!

This became possible with the massive digitalization of staff work. 1986 version was based on mostly hand-drawn map work, sometimes with just one color of the available pen. Current APP-6 are based on digital map work, where color symbols just added from the symbol library or composed from available shapes with few mouse clicks.

 Curious shortcoming of the US/NATO of symbols was the lack of symbols to indicate individual soldiers, despite those were present in US drill manuals. So with this system you can draw a machine-gun, but not a machine-gunner.

Only in 2017 version of APP-6 "Dismounted Individual symbols" (as they were called) have finally appeared, so now you can use APP-6 to officially indicate individual soldiers with their specialty/weaponry and even rank/specialization.

Examples of 2017 NATO Joint Military Symbology, showing its complex looks.

 

The polar opposite of the US/NATO unit tactical symbols are Soviet-style unit tactical symbols, which don’t have special unit symbols. They also have relatively few symbols at all. Even modern symbol manual of the Russian armed forces (which still use Soviet system) has some 110 pages at all, while all map symbols in 1990 Soviet manual for company/battalion commanders will fit on 10 A4 pages. For the unavailable symbols improvisation is norm, not exception. Most symbols are enhanced/explained by captions.

The Soviet-style system is way less rigid, than US/NATO system. On the other hand, it requires a lot of handwriting and improvisation – not a big problem for individual paper maps, but making it less suitable in the digital maps era.

 

Examples of the Soviet tactical symbols.

 

Limited number of Soviet tactical symbols still allows user to make complicated maps (company defense sector from Soviet 1990 field manual).

 

Chinese military (PRC) combining Soviet tactical symbols with original unit designators (top to bottom: front to platoon).

 

The most aesthetically pleasing system of unit tactical symbols (at least in my opinion) was the German system. It was developed from the classical system during the WW I and by WW II become a very complex thing, combining various symbols of units and their weaponry into the whole.

Its peculiarity was, that unit symbol was made not just from several basic symbols – it had to be made especially for current unit. For example, symbols for 3-company and 4-combany battalions were different, so does of two 4-company battalions with different amount of weapons, as the later were usually painted inside the unit symbol. So this system required a lot of different drawing to make an OOB.

On the other hand, German system allowed at a glance detailed understanding of unit structure and armament, which neither US/NATO nor Soviet systems allow. With the help of colored pencils Germans added the capability to see the condition of the unit – the trick NATO system started to do only in 1980s.

 

 

  

German WW II unit symbols by arm and service and sample OOB of the 1st Panzer Division in 1939 (drawn by Dr. Leo Niehorster).

 

Several other independent systems of unit tactical symbols worth mentioning.

Austro-Hungarian system, which developed before during WW I, stands something in between French and German systems, though is simple then either of them. After the dissolution of this country it was used by several countries like Poland and Hungary (with local modifications, of course).

 

 

 

Hungarian unit symbols from WW II derived from the WW I symbols of the Austro-Hungarian military (drawn by Dr. Leo Niehorster).

 

 During WW II British Empire used pretty simple unit system of tactical symbols. Among other features unit size was determined by the kind of the flag, while unit type was determined by the special marking above flag (not unlike German system).

 

Examples of the British system: unit size and unit type indicators.

 

Japanese tactical symbols were developed from the classical system, and mostly retained original simplicity. Without doubt, their authors knew that not any officer is a born painter. For the nation, that uses hieroglyphs on the daily basis, they are pretty simple.

 

Japanese tactical symbols. 

 

In 1933 peculiar system of tactical symbols was adopted by Spain. It was way less fancy that of the French neighbors. Its feature was ability to draw simple symbol first and then enhance it when necessary.

 

 

Spanish tactical symbols. Second picture showing development of the symbol of artillery battalion: from just the battalion symbol on the upper left to the medical aid station of the 2nd Battalion of the 5th Artillery Regiment, armed with 75-mm guns.

 

Any additions /corrections are more than welcome. Especially if somebody knows system tactical symbols I don’t know. My email is: pinak77@yahoo.com

On 13 December 1917, the birthday of Ukrainian military aviation

 

105 years ago, on 13 December 1917, the Ukrainian Central Council created the Air Fleet of the Ukrainian People's Republic. The history of Ukrainian military aviation begun on this day.

No, he is not a kamikaze

Today I've learned, that one of the most iconic photo of kamikaze pilots shows no kamikaze :) This is 2nd class Petty Officer OISHI Hideo, assigned to the IJN 12th Kokutai (air group). The photo was taken sometime around August 1940 so he is not a kamikaze pilot. He is probably a fighter pilot - behind him is a tail of A6M fighter. Another incorrect caption of the Japanese photo :( Thank you, Tony Feredo, for the correct photo caption.