This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Could someone add .svg image for the "protection from naval bombardment" -sign?
I understand the sign (black/white triangle) is still in use today, but not in the article. --Eis (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
3 years is a long time to wait but maybe the Eis wanted to find this, [1] "11.9.3 The 1907 Hague Symbol. A protective symbol of special interest to naval officers is the sign established by the 1907 Hague Convention Concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (Hague IX). The 1907 Hague symbol is used to mark sacred edifices, hospitals, historic monuments, cultural buildings, and other structures protected from naval bombardment. The symbol consists of a rectangular panel divided diagonally into two triangles, the upper black, the lower white". Awg1010 (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Protective signs protect like stopsigns and red lights arrest vehicles: not at all. Lights and signs might alert driver/rider, then, hopefully, entice appropriate action; that's it.
When push comes to shove (war, front line, under fire) it's worse: white band with red cross becomes a shooting target for enemy snipers. You tell me it's illegal? You're absolutely right! And I (medic 1970ies) am bereft of life, dead as a doornail, a has-been (with posthumous medal, no doubt). But it's called "collateral damage" or a mishap... As for effect on remaining troops: not good, not positive at all, detrimental for spirit. So in real life: wear red cross on barracks and manoeuvres; but get rid of it, as soon as you exit the armoured vehicle Sintermerte (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
