User talk:Buckshot06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (August - October 2006)

Contents

[edit] Re: Requested article - TOS-1

Hi there,
Now I'm almost out of the net, but I'll try to find text in local magazines suitable for conversion into the article. --jno 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added some text to the article. --jno 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Russian Ground Forces

I was wondering if you were also this 'Buckshot'. To clarify my comments on the RGF article, my main concern is the tone of the writing, and not the content which I think is well chosen and very interesting. At present much of the article reads like something from Janes Defence Weekly and probably needs to be tweaked to make it clear that it's an objective overview of the RGF, and not just someones opinion. For instance, "The Russian Ground Forces' overall performance in the First Chechen War was appalling" could be changed to "The Russian Ground Forces' did not perform well during the First Chechen War" - same content, but with less emotive words.

By the way, I note that you're working on adding historical Iraq War orbats. I think that I can put together something on the Australian deployments (other than the rotations of the infantry company protecting the embassy in Baghdad). Should it go in the Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq entry? Regards, --Nick Dowling 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't mind JDW - it's a good magazine, but is written in an analytic rather than encyclopaedic style. I've edited the article to add a photo and requested a small number of citations for statements which while doubtlessly correct, require a direct citation - these all concern statements about the general decrepitude of the Army (for instance, that the Army's high command doesn't know how many soldiers are in the Army). I'd be more than happy to check back in a few days. --Nick Dowling 07:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations on the RGF article reaching FA status! --Nick Dowling 02:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Buckshot

Thanks for your message. There is also a page under construction about PRT's. Provincial reconstruction team. I saw that ISAF updated the "placemat" about the PRTs. You can find the map at: http://www.jfcbs.nato.int/ISAF/media/pdf/placemat_isaf.pdf?tsfsg=35d3e5568ff28b1b2f5479561dd4b5e9. Maybe the best thing to do is to bring information about the PRTs in a main article about PRT's, and who knows there will be an article about every PRT on itself? The Dutch PRT is called Task Force Uruzgan, their main base is called Kamp Holland. Their main base is at Tarin Kowt (1,000 - 1,200; sometimes they assisted their Canadian collegues at Kandahar province, or at base Martello (at the road between Uruzgan and Kandahar), and 200 at Deh Rahwod. 200 soldiers are at Kandahar HQ and airfield. Much regards from: Rob van Doorn 21:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC). And soon they will deploy their F-16s from Kabul to Kandahar.

At the discussion of the article about the war order of battle I added the contribution of the Czech Republic. Maybe there are things useful for the article? Cheers: Rob van Doorn 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • These lines I added to the article about ISAF after the NATO summit at Latvia: 28-29 November 2006: NATO summit at Riga (Latvia). Combat curbs have been the most contentious issue at the two-day summit in Latvia, following tension over the reluctance of France, Germany, Spain and Italy to send their troops to southern Afghanistan. The summit saw several countries offer additional troops and training teams, while France agreed to send more helicopters and aircraft. Nato commanders say they believe they can move an extra 2,500 troops around the country now some smaller members have relaxed their mission conditions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6195102.stm

So it looks forces from different countries can opperate with new mandates from their own government at Afghanistan.

[edit] Re: Hey Kirill

Yeah, that seems like a good approach. In many cases, the article just needs massive cleanup, but there are certainly some where it's not at all clear why the tag was added.

As far as the Red Army/Soviet Union issue, some thoughts:

  • Military of the Soviet Union is not the same thing as Military history of the Soviet Union. Most of the blow-by-blow detail, of actual operations should be trimmed in favor of material on organization, materiel, different branches, military bases, leadership, doctrine, etc.
  • The bulk of the material on the Red Army should be in the Red Army article, while the main Military article should be proportionately balanced among the various branches.
  • More information on nuclear armaments, early-warning systems, and other such Soviet capabilities during the Cold War would be good, I think; it's a major part of what's relevant to the military—and Soviet doctrine—generally, rather than being tied to a particular branch.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Overhere"

Thanks for the information Buckshot. I am not sure what you know about the disagreement between me and Mieciu, but I don't see how sources are the main problem. My statement, which I wanted to add, was basically bunch of other statements from the article put together. If that statement held new information, I can understand why he would be asking for sources, but it's been in the Kosovo war article for a long time. I just want to know how can Mieciu be asking for sources for my statement while letting the same information be scattered in the article with no sources.(If he deleted both claiming that they don't have sources -I would understand) But he is fighting to delete one while letting the other (which is practically the same info) just sit there.Overhere 01:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Greetings from Downunder

At this point, you can probably just submit it to WP:FAC and see what happens. Make sure you do it when you have a week free to respond to any complaints there, though. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Guards Divisions

Hello Buckshot - just picked up your message. Yes, I could do articles about the 4th Kantemirovskaya and 106th Tula Airborne reasonably quickly; other Guards divisions on which there's less (historical) source info available might take a bit longer. I might be able to work on the ORBAT for the Second Chechen War as well. Don't have a huge amount of time available to me at the moment, but will get round to the above tasks soon. Thanks. Benphillips (talk • contribs)

OK - here's a start on the Kantemirovskaya Division. Benphillips (talk • contribs)

I'll probably do the 106th Guards Airborne Division next; there's quite a lot of info out there on it, and the existing VDV article is quite good (I find). I'll get round to doing the sources for Kantemir soon - however, as I said in the edit summary, it would be good to try and sketch in the details of what the division was up to during the Cold War. I've found very, very little of any use through any of my usual sources on this; I suspect improvments here are down to, at the very least, someone who can read Russian more fluently than I.

I will, however, add the Cyrillic division name while I remember. Cheers Benphillips (talk • contribs)

Yeah, sorry - the phonelines, and thus the interwebs, where I live went down unexpectedly and remained so for 4 days, so I've only just got back online. I will push on with it when I get a chance, but may be quite busy over the next week. Will do what I can. Benphillips (talk • contribs)

Here's a start on the 106th - more info (history, sub-units, fighting strength, commanders, recent activity etc) will follow. Cheers Benphillips (talk • contribs)

I've pretty much done all I can do for the moment on the 106th, so I'm open to suggestions as to which division to look at next. Benphillips (talk • contribs)

The info is predominantly taken from http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=239&linkid=2241 but there are quite a few sources. I take the point about the Dnieper-Transbaikal thing - I'd never heard that before, and see your concern, but I have seen the divisional patch for the 106th and the name inscribed on it is 'Tulskaya', in the same way as Tamanskaya or Kantemirovskaya. (Unfortunately, Wikipedia's rules on uploads come into effect with this one, but you can see the patch at http://www.russianpatches.com/military_patche_moreinfo.php?gid=278)

I appreciate that doesn't actually state that Tulskaya is the honorific, but from what I know of Russian military naming conventions it seems pretty good evidence. Certainly, Google yields nothing for 'Dnieper-Transbaikal division', any spelling variant on that, or 'Zabaikalskaya division/diviziya'.

Anyhow, I'll see if I can round up the sources I used and add a list of them. Cheers Benphillips (talk • contribs)

OK - can I suggest that you add a small section or something to the article covering the Dnieper-Transbaikal thing? It's probably prudent to cover it, I guess, and I don't have the books you mentioned available to me. In the meantime, I'm going to have a crack at the 10th Guards Tank or 76th Airborne. Oh yes, one other thing - I only just noticed that I'm now a Hero of the Russian Federation! Very much appreciated! Cheers Benphillips (talk • contribs)

10th Guards Tank it is. After that, this order of articles might seem reasonable: 76th Airborne, 3rd Vislenskaya MRD, 98th Airborne, 27th MRD? I also think that, now that a basic article has been written, it might be an idea to look at expanding the Taman Guards article some more, given that it is probably the most famous of all these divisions. Benphillips (talk • contribs)

Hi Buckshot - sorry, I've been away doing exams and stuff recently, so haven't been able to do any work on the 10th Guards Tank as I'd intended. I've got some quite detailed stuff on the division's nomenclature and decorations in WWII, history in the late Cold War period and also some material on the early 1990s - did you source that 'open fields' quote? I'll try and write it up at some point in the next couple of days. Cheers Benphillips (talk • contribs)

[edit] Re: Axis Naval Activity in Australian waters

Thanks a lot for your encouragement and support. --Nick Dowling 09:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the suggestion

Thanks for the good suggestion. I will try to add information on books on Indian Navy. The first internet links were for people who did not wish to read books but would like to read it online. Chanakyathegreat 10:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unit

I was in 3/124th Inf., now 3/124th RSTA. We were a SECFOR unit in Iraq that attached to I MEF, 3ID, 1AD, 82nd, 101st, 5thSFG, 108th Airborne ADA, and a handful of other units. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Morale's not bad. I'm out of the guard now, medical injury but I was only a little under 2 years from my ETS date and I wasn't reenlisting. Anyway I'm pretty sure the unit is going back to Iraq soon. They just got their guys back from Afghanistan. Once they finish the RSTA transition they'll be going back to the sandbox. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: U.S. military Eastern Front maps

Sure thing.

This URL is a must have: here

Before uploading though check if a map is not already uploaded either here or on commons :)

Cheers, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Strategic Air Command wings

What a mess! That article ought to be a list, at most—although a category would probably suffice—and the actual content for each wing should probably be in its own article; precedent is that wing-level units are eligible for their own entries. Let me know if you run into any problems! Kirill Lokshin 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I know of no way to seperate the common history of a number assigned to a Bomb Wing, which later became an Strategic Missile Wing that was later designated as a Strategic Reconnaoissance Wing. user:R. E. Mixer 22:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buckshot06/Sandbox"

Just follow the same principles that are used for other units which change their name over time. The fact that multiple unrelated units had the same "number" is irrelevant so long as other characteristics distinguish them; for example, you'd have a single article covering the 5th Wing and its predecessors, as there's a continuous unit history, but separate articles for the 40th Bombardment Group versus the 40th Wing, because there are two different units involved. Kirill Lokshin 11:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The information that I submitted was an effort to show the history of SAC not to enhance each individual organizational history from beginning to end. It seems that by putting the information from SAC into each indivdual history and removing just that wings contribution to SAC you have "bastardized " the the whole subject. No need to respond or reply. I AM REALLY SORRY TO HAVE WASTED SO MUCH TIME AND ENERGY ON THIS PROJECT IN THE FIRST PLACE ONLY TO HAVE IT RUINED FROM ITS ORIGIONAL INTENT.R. E. Mixer 18:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to delete organizations from the history of SAC only to put them elsewhere and then never mention that the history you are presenting never mentions SAC. Make copies do not delete valid informatio. I am getting sick of this game. R. E. Mixer 13:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Ron, maybe it might be better to work along with others in the project and heed some advice. These are smart individuals offering some good advice. Work with them, compromise and I guarantee that the product on the back end will be much better because of it. Just my thoughts.--Looper5920 13:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The information that is on this page is great, but it also limits the individual wings to this "snapshot" time period. Yes, these units contributed to SAC and, because of these individual wings SAC became stronger and defended our country well. Yes, it should be noted that the history of SAC is really nothing without the history of each wing. Yes, it does (very slightly) take away from the unit contributions, but look at the "plusses":
  1. Without knowing ALL the history of the unit (including the lineage before and after SAC), any outstanding or exceptional contributions would seem commonplace.
  2. It is still possible (dare I say desireable) to annotate SAC units in a common list or category - those wings that were a part of the SAC legacy.
  3. The restrictions of Wikipedia do not necessarily limit the information to be made available - it just has to be split up into more readable and accessable format. Remember that Wikipedia is not limited to the amount of paper it takes up, so additional articles are not a problem!
  4. If each unit has its own article, it could be annotated in a unit history section (something like "Unit contributions to SAC"} for the unit's exceptional / noteworthy / historical contributions to SAC.
I believe these are the major points, and some possible solutions, so that way the "spirit" of SAC (and editors / authors) can continue, but the "spirit" of Wikipedia can be intact also. -Dan AKA NDCompuGeek 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {helpme}

what template do I use to indicate a page is too long??

Check out this search. I'd say {{Verylong}}--Commander Keane 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: State-level National Guard units

Re your comment on state NG pages rather than state ARNG pages. I thought about that. But about half the state Air Guard units have their own page. See Air National Guard#Air National Guard by State. My interest is more on the Army side. With the Army transformationg going on, there is a lot happening with each state's Army units. Seemed like enough to make a full page. But I think we ought to consider changing the crude table I started on the United States National Guard page to include both Air Guard and Army Guard units. You could check with User:CORNELIUSSEON to see what he thinks. He kind of started this. I created a very crude Alabama ARNG page and he really fleshed that out to make it 95% of what it is now, and what I have been using as a template. I've improved it some. So Kansas Army National Guard is the latest version.) I will hold off for a while on creating any new state ARNG pages so you can talk it over with others if you would like. Mvialt 15:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: ANZAC task force

Oh, that's fine; it's just that it seems to work better if the discussion happens in one place rather than being split over several. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 05:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2d BW

I like what you added to the wing about the gulf war missions. I also want to thank you for your additions also! I do, however, have a question for you. It seems that the style is a little hard to read with the "Gulf War 1991" section being a first-level title. You added the information and I'm not going to mess with a GREAT edit, but could you think about maybe taking that section down a level, and of course taking the "Senior Surprise - Strategic Air Commands' Longest Combat Mission" down a level as well? Just my opinion - I'm not getting possessive about the page or anything....

Again, thanks for some great information added to the subject!

NDCompuGeek 16:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MORE SAC wing issues

Buckshot,

First of all, I want to apoligize for accusing you of reverting the "Strategic Air Force wings" page when it was "remixer" (approximate spelling of his name). There are some other issues going on here that I would like to discuss with you, but I don't think a public venue is appropriate. Is it permissible with you to communicate via E-mail? I think I have enabled that option on my userpage.... Thanks, NDCompuGeek 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military brat (U.S. subculture)

Hi Buckshot,

Thanks for your assistance on this article. Since I'm always looking for ways to improve it, I was wondering if there was anything else that you thought should be included in the article? What did you think of it? I'll watch your page for responses.Balloonman 21:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your FAC

I am specifically not commenting on FAC's while my FAC is active (with the exception of Gregory House, a page I watch, and is NOT an FA calibre article). But I did go ahead and read your article. It is pretty good, but I did have a few comments that I'll share here. Take them or leave them, they are just one persons perspective:

  • I would add when that was EG: "Russian officials trace their antecedants' history through the Imperial Russian era back to the time of Kievan Rus in the late 800's."
  • "in the near abroad" is there a better way to word that?
  • "Professionalisation is now slowly taking place, but there is little hope for a rapid rise in effectiveness" Sounds POV
  • Introduction are typically 3-4 paragraphs in length. This is a guideline, not a firm rule, but you have one paragraph and a long quote.
  • Bullet points aren't that popular in FAC's.
  • Non-military people may find the dispositions unwanted/unnecessary. It will be of interest to people with a military orientation, but not the general public.
  • "Their exact command status is now unknown." would like a citation for that.

Good luck with your FAC... hopefully they'll both pass.Balloonman 23:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women in the RGF

Does Miss Russian Army warrant a mention? The existance of such a competition (which recieves pride of place on the RGF's English language website) suggests that the Russian Army is rather unenlightened. I've added a little bit on this to the article - feel free to remove it! --Nick Dowling 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. A reference which places the existance of such an officially sanctioned competition in the context of the treatment of women soldiers would be good. I can't help but suspect that women are treated pretty poorly. --Nick Dowling 08:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't say that I believe the figure of 90,000 female soldiers I've added. It seems rather high. I suspect that the BBC may have added an extra 0. --Nick Dowling 09:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Guys. http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=29

Check that site out. It has some pictures of Russian Women in the Army. Try to get the rights to these images so that you can post them here. Mercenary2k 09:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EXI/is_2000_Fall-Winter/ai_73063469: figures for women in the forces as a whole range from 115-160,000. When Russians talk about the 'army', they mean the whole armed forces, and that may be the context that 90,000 quote is in. I'll add the ref to what should really be the main site for this discussion, Talk:Women in the Russian and Soviet military Cheers Buckshot06 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I found this site which has some info on the Russian Army. http://www.mongabay.com/reference/new_profiles/300.html Mercenary2k 17:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RGF

Please reinclude my edit you reverted, the way it is now that paragraph is sticking out like a saw thumb, especialy the way it is indented. Also it then has to be tagged with LEAD. FrummerThanThou 07:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

on he whole you'de done a great job with RGF, especialy considering you're not russian. My main points still stand, that quote doesn't look like one, is out of place. I dont think my rearangment orphaned details in the lead paragraph, perhaps I could have found somewhere else to put it, I'll leave that to you but in the meantime I will be retagging it. According to the WP:LEAD, the lead cant all inclusive. FrummerThanThou 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User FrummerThanThou and Leads

It's not too long, certainly; but the extended quote does look a bit out of place there. Perhaps it would be possible to move the bulk of the quote into the body of the article and leave a short phrase or two that could be inline with the second paragraph? Kirill Lokshin 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Front (military)
Vistula-Oder Offensive
Soviet Caucasian Front
Walther Wenck
Bredon
Bentheim-Bentheim
Markian Popov
Ukrainian Sea Guard
Soviet Fourth Army
People's Liberation Army Air Force
Dunkirk spirit
Battle of Lenino
Military organization
RPK-74
Diez
Battle of Smolensk (1941)
Soviet Third Army
Soviet Northern Front
Stary Oskol
Cleanup
Security Service of Ukraine
Iranian Imperial Guard
Richard Sorge
Merge
Home Guard
Finnish Waffen SS volunteers
Greco-Italian War
Add Sources
Mikhail Vasilyevich Vodopianov
Battle of Budapest
Terry Zwigoff
Wikify
MP40
Economy of Russia
Special Forces of India
Expand
Second Artillery Corps
Iraqi Special Republican Guard
C4ISTAR

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USMC as a template?

Hi. I've seen you refer to the United States Marine Corps article a few times as being a template for your articles. I'm currently trying to bring the Australian Defence Force article up to this standard and was wondering whether the USMC article is generally agreed to be the model for all articles on branches of a nation's armed forces? (I'm trying to head off the comments which will be made by peer-reviewers, etc). Thanks, --Nick Dowling 02:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Any comments you have on the ADF article would be great (feel free to hit me with lots of citation flags!). While the article isn't yet 'complete', I'm only going to be fleshing out the current structure (for example, by completing the history and procurement sections and expanding other sections as appropriate). It would probably be best if you left the comments on the article's talk page so they're very publicly visable. --Nick Dowling 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for those comments. --Nick Dowling 06:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Army National Guard: Transformation

Buckshot, I have put a question over on the Talk:Army National Guard discussion page relating to a rapidly growing section we have created to deal with Army National Guard Transformation. I would really appreciate your eyes on the question too. I think you could provide some good perspective on section organzation before we add too much more information to it. Mvialt 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Bombardment Groups, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

[edit] RFC (Request For Comments)

Buckshot - I have made a couple proposals at the US Military History task force site (USAF category tree proposal and US Air force and US Army portal proposal). I really value your opinion, and would like you to look them over and tell me what you think. Thanks, -Dan AKA NDCompuGeek 03:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Awarded for your efforts in improving military history articles on an wide range of topics. Nick Dowling 09:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!

(Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen]]

[edit] Category:Military units and formations of the People's Volunteer Army

Hi. I'm a bit confused about why you changed Category:Military units and formations of the People's Volunteer Army to be a category of Category:People's Liberation Army (which has no direct relation), instead of the orginal category of Category:People's Volunteer Army. I think you may have been caught up in getting things categorized, with the similarity of the names, but I think in this case you linked the wrong one. The PVA article itself says "Although most soldiers were previously members of the People's Liberation Army, the People's Volunteer Army was separately constituted in order to prevent an official war with the United States.", so there is a distinct difference between the Liberation Army vs. the Volunteer Army, which as far as I know, only existed for the Korean War. Thanks for any explanation you can provide in case I'm wrong. wbfergus 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That sounds plausible, as I was thinking that was probably how it "actually" worked, though they "politically" created the Volunteer Army, but I couldn't find anything that actually said that. Which brings up another point then I guess, I've created some stubs for various units of the People's Volunteer Army, so how should these units be organized? As units of the People's Volunteer Army or as units of the People's Liberation Army, with a notation in the history that since they fought in the Korean War, during that timeframe they were actually part of the People's Volunteer Army? Or is this getting confused enough to bring it up over on Military History and try to get some opinions from others? I know very little, other than what I've read while working on some Korean War stuff. Thanks. wbfergus 14:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll think things over a bit and then try to take a stab at getting it (the units listed under Category:Military units and formations of the People's Volunteer Army moved over to the correct hierarchy, with appropriate notations as neccessary. Since there's no existing articles on the Category:Military units and formations of the People's Liberation Army, and you can't move a category, any ideas on how best to migrate these? Just create new categories for the units, move the existing pages (so the article title is consistent), and then submit a CfD request for the People's Volunteer Army categories? Would the existing Category:Military units and formations of the Korean War suffice for delineating which units were part of the PVA, or should there be a new category to distinguish them? Thanks Buckshot06. wbfergus 20:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think I covered everything except creating a separate Korean War section under the History section for each unit. Can you take a look when you get a chance and see if I missed anything? I didn't create a Category:Divisions of China yet, as (to me at least), that is ambiguous, as there are also political divisions such as states/counties, and the title doesn't convey enough context. Thanks. wbfergus 13:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Thanks for pointing that out - can't believe I missed that! Glad you liked the boxes.

(BTW - the first time I saw your username on a page, I immediately thought of this. :-) ) - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wings

Thanks for the explanation, but basically what you've said is that Wikipedia has, with this list, just failed in its mission. The problem is that the article doesn't say what you said. It simply says "Wings of the US Air Force, and like many other folks, I got there by following the link in the Air Force box that is simply listed as "Wings", and a reader who isn't informed but is simply looking for information is naturally going to do what I did...go to that list. Because we're supposed to we reader-centric in our product, not editor/enthusiast/expert-centric, one of two things really ought to happen: either the article, at the top, needs to provide a clear explanation of what the list does and doesn't cover, or, two (the better option, in my mind), it needs to provide the information our readers are seeking, and have a section that covers the MAJCOM wings. Akradecki 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's looking good, but I still don't understand why we can't have a section in this list for MAJCOM wings, so that our readers can get the informatio they need. Akradecki 19:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the averasge person looking for information on a specific wing would know a MAJCOM if they tripped over one. The intent of the "List of USAF --- assigned to Strategic Air Command' was to 1) Decre3ase the size of "Strategic Air Command Wing" and 2) Give some direction to the individual looking for information on a specific type wing be it Bomb, Air Refueling or what ever. R. E. Mixer 21:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Armenian Divisions

Hey Buck, I'm not quite sure about the ethnic make up of the 119th regiment, I'm not sure if it was Armenian. Its interesting that when I read its entry in the encyclopedia it wrote "S-D Division" but that tanks were part of a regiment in the division itself. Can you tell me which of Glantz's books you are looking at? The Soviet World War II divisions has at least three articles that were wholly or majority made up of Armenians, including the 89th, the 76th and the S-D. Other divisions, that I am aware of, included the 408th and 409th divisions and also high ranking Armenian generals most notably, Hamazasp Babadjanyan, Ivan Isakov and Hovhannes Bagramyan. Cheers.--MarshallBagramyan 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I translated much of it from Armenian which referred to the unit in the text as a "column" and the Armenian word for regiment, gund. Also, if you take note of the photograph, the crew members of the tanks (four men in the brown uniforms) are accompanied by mechanized infantry (tankodesantniki perhaps?) dressed in the winter suits with the PPSH shouldered machine guns, implying that the unit wasn't exclusively just made up of tanks per se. I'll reread it to see if I missed anything on it. EDIT: And yes polk in Russian means regiment.
Heh, they even made a model out of the the tanks: [1].--MarshallBagramyan 22:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds very cool, ask him about Bagramyan while you're at it ;) --MarshallBagramyan 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Buck I wonder how I failed to see that it was a separate tank regiment and that it had mine fielding clear equipment. I believe that the S-D was originally the 119th until Feb. 1944 where its name was formally change. Does Glantz have more info on that? Hope you don't mind the title change.--MarshallBagramyan 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hey Kirill

Thank you for your kind words! :-)

(And have a good trip! I'll look forward to your return to full editing.) Kirill Lokshin 19:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Strategic Air Command Wings

Apologies for the reversion Mr Buckshot, I didn't see that there was any rationale given for the blankings. I'll stay clear in the future. Although I must say as a Pom it was hard watching the Aussies beating you today;)! BigHairRef | Talk 01:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you'd have thought they'd get sick of stuffing the two of us every two years wouldn't you.BigHairRef | Talk 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fox Four

Mmm. I vaguely recall seeing it mentioned in AirForces Monthly - I'd think it's a "legitimate" bit of fighter pilot slang as opposed to a product of the yellow press. Nothing "official" though, of course. ;-) - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 02:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Provisional Wings in SAC

Provisional wings were created as "paper" oeranizations overseas to provide air support to what ever project was going on at the time. Real wings in the states would supply aircraft and indivisuals to the provisional wing on a tdy basis, the aircraft and personnel returned to thier home unit after the tdy was over. R. E. Mixer 18:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Provisional Wing Info

When the Viet Nam situation occurred SAC would send over a complete Bomb Wing, Bomb Squadrons, Air Refueling Squadrons and thier personnel. The mission was considererd so important that the wing on Guam at the time had to be manned 110% aircraft and personnel. Since no stateside wing was ever manned 100% they went to other stateside wings to send thier personnel to augment the wing on Guam. When the primaey wing on Guam came home another wing was sent and because they were not at 100% you might be tapped to augment that wing for another 179 days TDY. The 179 days was critical because any stay on excess of 179 days was considered a permanent change of station.R. E. Mixer 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Provisional Wings Stuff

I took this off the internet:

"By early 1965, SAC began to augment the squadron-size unit of B-52s at Andersen. A formidable force was assembled at the Guam base by 18 June 1965, and 30 of the bombers lifted off that day to initiate a new phase in the Vietnam War known as the Arc Light missions. This use of B-52s in a conventional bomber role lasted for the next 8 years with a pause from August 1970 to early 1972. Activity at Andersen AFB increased greatly during this Arc Light era. The base felt the pressures from more personnel and aircraft in various ways, but nothing compared to the impact of renewed bombing efforts in 1972.

From early 1972, Andersen AFB was the site of one of the most massive buildups of air power in history. The influx of bombers, crews, and support personnel pushed Andersen's military population past 15,000. Over 150 B-52's lined all available space on the flight line. Combined with other SAC bombers stationed at U-Tapao Field, Thailand, about 50 percent of SAC's total bomber force and 75 percent of all combat ready crews -- equivalent to at least 13 stateside bomber wings -- were at the two bases. Billeting at Andersen was saturated, and terms like "Tin City" and "Tent City" became commonplace with improvised quarters set up in the open fields across from the flight line. The bombing in the first half of 1972 only set the stage for SAC's most imposing and carefully planned operations in its history -- the 11-day campaign from 18 to 29 December 1972, known as Linebacker II.

On 18 December 1972, during a one hour and 43 minute period, 87 B-52s departed Andersen AFB for targets in Hanoi. These aircraft were joined by approximately 40 bombers from U-Tapao. On 29 December, the last B-52 to participate in this climatic operation landed at Andersen. A total of 729 B-52 sorties were flown in that 11day period. The effectiveness of Linebacker II missions ultimately resulted in a truce in Vietnam. A bombing halt ensued in Vietnam, but Andersen B-52s continued missions over Cambodia and Laos until 15 August 1973, when all bombing missions ceased. In the meantime, the base inaugurated the largest in-house flight-training program ever conducted from a single base. The end of bombing in Southeast Asia consequently saw the beginning of redeployments by the end of September 1973 and within a month, more than 100 B-52s, both D and G models, left Andersen AFB. A return to normalcy slowly prevailed at the base by early 1974.

During the period of Arc Light, the surge in base activity saw a host of reorganizations in Andersen's command structure. On 1 February 1966, SAC activated the 4133d Bombardment Wing (Provisional) at Andersen with host-base unit responsibilities still assumed by the 3960th Strategic Wing, originally activated in 1955 as the 3960th ABW. On 1 April 1970, HQ Eighth Air Force replaced 3d Air Division and the reactivated 43d Strategic Wing replaced the 3960th, also on that date. The 43d assumed the mission of the 4133d on 1 July 1970. This arrangement remained intact until June 1972.

The resurgence of bombing efforts in early 1972 were carried out under a new operation called Bullet Shot. The tremendous influx of aircraft, personnel, and equipment to Andersen resulted in activation of the 57th Air Division (Provisional) and 72d Strategic Wing (Provisional) on 1 June 1972. A month later, the 303d Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Wing (Provisional) was activated. These provisional units remained at Andersen until 15 November 1973.

The inactivation of the provisional units subsequently allowed the 43d to resume the pre-Vietnam mission of strategic deterrence, but the wing still sent crews to U-Tapao as SAC maintained a visible presence in Southeast Asia. As a tribute to those killed during the Arc Light missions, the base dedicated the Arc Light Memorial on 12 February 1974.

As operations diminished in Southeast Asia, HQ Eighth Air Force moved to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, and the 3d Air Division was reactivated at Andersen on 1 January 1975. The base, however, remained in the forefront of the Vietnam conflict. The Communist forces overran South Vietnam and the situation was hopeless for the Saigon government by April 1975. As a result, emergency airlifts from Vietnam flooded Andersen with people once again. This time, the U.S. began Operation New Life, which provided emergency relief and shelter for thousands of Vietnamese evacuees fleeing the Communists. After the fall of Saigon, Andersen received almost 40,000 refugees and processed another 109,000 for onward transportation to the United States.

In 1976, operational commitments took SAC crews to Australia. In addition, the base and the island again experienced devastation wrought by the weather. Super Typhoon Pamela struck the island on 21 May 1976, extensively damaging the base. Estimates to restore destroyed and damaged facilities were placed at approximately $80 million. Restoration of the base began immediately, but it was several years before the effects were overcome. The post-Vietnam period at Andersen AFB brought a relative return to routine operations, but changes in the 43d's mission also saw the base remain a vital overseas base in carrying out SAC's global deterrence mission. The importance of Andersen AFB with its key location took 43d crews and aircraft as far south as Australia and as far north as Alaska. New taskings also required recurring missions to Korea and support for the U.S. Navy in sea surveillance operations. " R. E. Mixer 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

I would appreciate it if you could tell me who deleted "List off USAF Air Refueling Training Wings assigned Strategic Air Command" and who is creating MAJCOM section also.R. E. Mixer 18:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Air Force

Hi, my sources of informations about the Russian Air Force are usually sites like http://www.warfare.ru, http://www.scramble.nl - check the database. I also take some very good infos from the Ria Novosti news articles. This article about the Su-34 it's quite nice: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070306/61627961.html

Delivered  by User:Eurocopter tigre 21:22, 14 March 2007 (EET)

[edit] Help

Hi, ill be very happy if u could help me with something. I thing somebody is using my username to vandalise some articles. Is it that posible? If yes, how can I stop him? Should I change my username??

I would really like to update the Russian Ground Forces article by making a better equipment summary. Can you tell me some good sources where I can find informations about the number of T-90 tanks(for example) or other informations of this kind. Cheers, User:Eurocopter tigre

Delivered by User:Eurocopter tigre 15:00, 15 March 2007 (EET)

[edit] re:Russian Air Force

Hi,I made an edit about the Kaliningrad Special Region(military) on the Rus AF article but someone deleted it because he said that the Kalinigrad Special Region is a part of the Baltic Fleet naval aviation. I dont really agree with that because as far as I know the russian naval aviation was merged into the Air Force. I would like to hear your opinnion if I should put the edit back in the article??

here's the edit:

Kaliningrad Special Region

  • 689th Fighter Aviation Regiment, Chkalovsk (Su-27)
  • 125th Separate Helicopter Squadrons, Chkalovsk (Mi-8 & Mi-24)
  • 150th Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment, Chkalovsk (Tu-22M)


cheers,Eurocopter Tigre 18:28, 16 March 2007 (EET)

[edit] PLA Air Force

Please have a look at the last 10-12 edits made in the People's Liberation Army Air Force. There are lots of modifications in the aircraft inventory and I suspect vandalism, but im not really sure,so maybe you'll have a look and decide what to do. Cheers. Eurocopter Tigre 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rus AF aircraft inventory

Hi Buckshot, I would like to update the aircraft inventory section of the Russian Air Force page (especially Su-24s and Su-25s, which I think only half of them are operational). Can you provide me some good sources to find newer informations about the current aircraft inventory (except warfare.ru)? Best regards,Eurocopter tigre 17:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 193rd Rifle Division

I don't really understand what this article is actually about, 193rd Rifle Division or 193rd Tank Division?? In the future, when you create new articles please do not forget to use boldface for the first appearance of the title in the text - (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article_titles). Regards, Eurocopter tigre 14:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/c/User_talk%7EBuckshot06_8451.html"