Task Organization Symbols vs. Unit Symbols

[joebayles]

Introduction

The US Army publication ADRP 1-02, Military Terms and Graphics, has an entry about Task Organization Composition symbols, as opposed to unit symbols:

These would actually do quite well as a pop-up for a higher echelon. The US Army will eventually send this requirement to the SSMCCB, but I imagine there will be required changes, as there are two major issues with the standard as written:

Combat Effectiveness

This table basically suggests that a unit could feasibly have six different pie charts, in a space designed for two pie charts. Ostensibly, this is because of the monochrome requirement.

Suggest this is redesigned using green, amber, red, and black for effectiveness in the selected status.

Subordinate unit icons

In the example (and the corresponding chart below) the subordinate units have no frames or echelon amplifiers.

This is an issue for two reasons:

1. There are other units that could be included in the Task Organization, so limiting users to that list is not advisable.
2. Without a frame, mechanized infantry units or armored reconnaissance units could be mistaken for damaged or destroyed.

Suggest this is redesigned using Standard Identify Frames and Echelon Amplifiers, and removing the table to allow any unit.

Conclusion

Esri should research how to implement this.

FYI

@ottenw, @Dbarnes1 @wmcgrane

[joebayles]

@Dbarnes1 @kerryrobinson @ralfgottschalk this is something we need to research. More later.