User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[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)

I tried many times to enter vad777s website but it always says "Sorry, Daily limit exceeded", even if I try after midnight. I'm really confused and I don't know what to do with that inventory; some users are complaining that the numbers in the inventory are incorrect. A little help will be usefull, cheers. Eurocopter tigre 22:27, 20 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)

[edit] British Army

Hi Buckshot06

About the British Army: This morning I got back to work and after some hours I finished the 3rd (UK) Mechanised Division, only to than find out, that everything will change again! (see here)
This is maddening! Isn’t there an official document about the reorganisation? When I made the graphics of the Australian and German Army, I based them on the future organization of these Armies (“Hardened and Networked Army” & "Heer 2010") and if I could find a document, which will show, how the British Army will be structured after the “Army Plot” has been abolished, then I would do another attempt to finish the Graphic.
About the Russian Ground Forces- let’s do this :-) If you have the information, I will do the graphic. What I need to know before I can begin the work is which units compromise which Brigades/ Divisions, where they are base, what kind of units they are… and so on. Strike-through text I.e: i had a look at the Moscow Military District and the infos that are missing are:

  • 2nd Tamanskaya Div: Are the regiments multi- or single battalion units? Is the 147th Guards Artillery Rgt. a self proplled unit?
  • 34th Guards Artillery Div: Which are its units?
  • 27th Sevastopolskaya Guards Motor Rifle Brig. Which are its units?
  • 20th Army: Are there any units directly under the Army Command?
  • 4th Guards Kantemirovskaya Tank Division: Perfect- with info like this my work becomes pure fun :-)
  • 10th Guards Uralsko-Lvovskaya Tank Div: Where are its units based?
  • 22nd Army: same question as with the 20th Army
  • 3rd Vislenskaya Motor Rifle Div: Which are its units?
  • Operational Group of Russian Forces in Moldova (Tiraspol)(formerly Fourteenth Army)
  • 8th Motor Rifle Brigade Which are its units?
  • 16th Spetsnaz Brigade: Which are its units?
  • A division-sized weapons and equipment storage base at Yelnya, the former 144 Guards MRD: A Divison sized *unit? In regards to the amount of men under command or the equipment stored?
  • 16th Air Army
  • other formations and units: Which?


As you see there is a lot of work involved in getting all the information together. I did it for all the Armies until now and posted the info also on Wikipedia: i.e: Structure of the French Army, but when this information is here then I make the graphics in no time: i.e: 4th Guards Kantemirovskaya Tank Division noclador 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Russian Ground Forces: I believe, that with the information available at this point, the Russian Ground Forces are not yet a candidate for a structural graphic. As I said earlier I try to make the graphics at least down to the battalion levels and therefore I will do the Russian Ground Forces chart, when more information will be available and do some other armies in the meantime. As fort the British Army: If I base the chart on the following future regiment allocation: British_Army_Infantry#Reorganisation would that be ok with you? noclador 06:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

PLA? I tought about it, but i want to finish first the European Armies: Spain is 80% finished, for Finland, Sweden and Norway I have all the info now and a Slovak wikipedia user is in the process of sending me all the info about the Polish Land Forces. Two charts I can not fnish at this point for lack of reliable information are the UK and Belgian Armies- (whose official homepage does not state which units belong to which command...) And I would very much like to do the Armies of Greece, Romania and Bulgaria... but there is almost no information I found until now about these Armies. If you know anything or someone that might help- would be very happy to start/continue work on the above mentioned Armies :-) noclador 07:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06
As a graphic of the British Army is a continuous horror... I instead made a graphic of the British Infantry: UK Army Infantry noclador 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

I thought that you might like to know that British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, an article to which you have previously contributed, has been put forward as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your help. If you would like to comment on this article's nomination, please see here. Your opinions will be most welcome. Gaius Cornelius 12:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Army

Hi Buckshot, I'd like you to know that I nominated the Red Army article for GA. I think the article is really good per overall, but there are some referencing problems (entire paragraphs without a ref, and according to GA criteria it must have at least one ref per paragraph). Could you come up with some refs? Best, Eurocopter tigre 15:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind, I'll try to find some refs. However, are there any other users who majorly contributed to this article? Maybe they can help me. Cheers, Eurocopter tigre 17:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Australian Defence Force

How about an 'assessment of capabilities' or similar section? A dedicated 'criticisms and controversy' section would inevitably attract every scandal-of-the-week which involves the ADF and might not be too balanced. In my opinion significant criticisms and controversies should be included in the main body of the article where possible to ensure that they're placed in proper context. --Nick Dowling 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of any good sources which would provide an overall assessment of the ADF? Nothing at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute really does this and all my non-official sources on the history and capabilities of the ADF are getting a bit long in the tooth, especially given the events of the last few years. By the way, you might be interested in ASPI's recent assessment of the NZDF at [ http://www.aspi.org.au/htmlver/cutting_their_cloth/index.html] --Nick Dowling 05:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added an 'Assessment of capabilities' section to the Australian Defence Force entry. If you have time, could you please have a look at it and tell me what you think about it? I'm not comfortable with it currently being based on a single slightly dated publication, though the publication is fully consistent with the current consensus on the ADF's abilities. --Nick Dowling 08:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for consideration as a featured article. If you'd like to comment or vote please visit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australian Defence Force. --Nick Dowling 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote. I've deliberetly tried to keep discussion of the ADF's recruitment situation at a high level, and have only provided a few specific examples. Incidently, recent Australian media reports state the Army now has more suitable canditates for infantry positions than it can train (a second infantry training battalion is planned) and the RAAF says that it now has enough aircrew. The current shortages in the Army and Navy are for personnel with technical and language skills. The impact these shortages is having is still significant, and I'll strengthen the wording on the limitations this is imposing. --Nick Dowling 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The bit on the RAAF is already covered in the current reference in that para (eg, that the RAAF's personnel situation is 'sound'), and I'll add a sentance + ref on the infantry - as rasing two new infantry battalions is one of the main ways the ADF is being expanded this should be included as it suggests that the expansion is achievable. --Nick Dowling 00:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Air Force

Buckshot I didn't update the structure from that Geocities site or whatever you said. I updated it from an complete valid and up-to-date Air Forces Monthly article (July 2007 issue), written by Niels Quist, Alexander Goltz and Piotr Butowski. Why do you have to re-do my edits if I provided a perfect source? Who's actually that Vad777, can he be trusted as a valid source? I wonder: if Vad777 has the "most accurate" info about the RusAF structure and is so popular, why can't he make a better site - no offense, you can't say that a site which is working 4 minutes/day is a reliable source. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 17:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, in AFM July issue you will find the Special Purpose Command, and the 4th,37th and 61st Air armies, while in august issue you'll find the 5th,6th,11th and 14th Air Armies. I think if you'll hurry a bit, you can still catch the July issue (as the august issue comes out only in 14 July). Best, --Eurocopter tigre 11:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)

Since this is now a Ukrainian unit should there be a different page about it. Or should I just add my information to your article. I started working on a new page and then I found yours. I think that it would be best if I added my information here and not start a new article. What do you think?Ceriy 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)