Talk:Strategic Air Command

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Contents 1 Too long! 2 The Bibliography 3 Organisational chart from 1947 4 Cleanup Organizational Order of Battle ? 5 SAC aircraft 6 org charts 7 Murder and war as a hobby

[edit] Too long!

This page has just become way too long! I don't personally think that a vast list of every division is suited to Wikipedia at all, and the page is now over 300KB. Please can we put such vast lists in Wikisource, or at least on a different page to this main one? -- Mithent 01:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The above reasons are why I added the cleanup tag. Those long lists need to be aggressively trimmed and summarized or perhaps removed entirely. -- D.M. ^(talk) 04:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest this page needs to be split into several. Rich Farmbrough. 21:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I split one section into its own article, and even without it, it is still 279KB. Georgia guy 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bibliography

An article has been created called The Bibliography with content belonging in this article, I've moved the content back into this article and proposed The Bibliography for deletion. --Xyzzyplugh 02:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The bibliography is the actual source of the information that has been added to the Strategic Air Command article and is the source that can be used to validate the information. This is a vast subject covering 46 years and needs a source of validateds.Ron Mixer 19:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is of course fine having it in this article, it just doesn't belong in a seperate article. Source material for an article would always belong in the article. --Xyzzyplugh 14:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organisational chart from 1947

The article 1947 Organizational Chart contains an image of an organisation chart for SAC from 1947. That article is currently being considered for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1947 Organizational Chart). I thought I'd draw it to the attention of people looking at this article in case you want to use it here as it currently looks like the page will be deleted (but the images will remain as an orphan). Kcordina 09:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Organizational Order of Battle ?

I just tagged this article for cleanup - it appears to link back here - does anyone care to take a look at cleaning it up ? Megapixie 00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the origionator of this article. I would appreciate any constructive suggestions on what needs to be cleanws up. R. E. Mixer 22:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SAC aircraft

It looks like to me all types of SAC aircraft are listed in the article. So it seems the Strategic Air Command Aircraft link should be in the See Also section. -Fnlayson 01:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that the F-102 or F-86 were ever in SAC service. F-102s, F-86Ds, and even F-104s were based at some SAC "owned" facilities to defend them, but they remained under the command of the Air Defense Command (or the United States Air Forces Europe in the case of F-104s stationed at Torrejon Air Base in Spain). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.117.155 (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] org charts

the org charts being full size in the middle of the page were really messing things up.

i thumb'd them down, and set them over to the right side. since this made the sections too long (the embelem + chart would go past the text), I moved the emblems to the left side when necessary.

– Fʀɪɺøʟɛ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 01:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Damned fine idea, now no one can read them. ThaNKS. 71.51.90.0 19:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to read them, all you have to do is click on them. I doubt that most people who read this article are concerned with the organization of the SAC in 1947 anyway. – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 05:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murder and war as a hobby

These statements seem possible, but not probable. SAC aircrews knew if ever called to actually fly the mission they were trained for millions of people would die. Thinking of oneself as a murderer tends to make people feel guilty, if SAC referred to itself as a group of mass murderers morale might suffer a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anynobody (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

It was more of a joke than anything, not seriously added. I remember many guys talking about it when my dad was in SAC, so it was there. References will be added accordingly.

Please sign your posts. BQZip01 05:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the jokes of a few officers belong next to official slogans though. There were probably lots of self styled follow ups to "Peace is our Profession". As a statement to mock by bored officers, it's wide open. Unless every person was in on the jokes your father talks about, it's only saying that several men thought up some jokes. I don't mean to denigrate your father, my father served in the USAF too, but as you probably know the opinions of most officers, NCOs, and all Airmen aren't really important to the AF as a whole.

I do usually sign my posts, but thank you for the reminder. Anynobody 06:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that saying you will reference something and actually referencing it are two different things, <!--better reference to follow--> does not count. These are not what I'd call references, ^[1][2][3] The first reference: Is a guy's post on a www.military.com board the second is another post on the same board by the same person the third is a dreambook for the B-52 Stratofortress Association. These links, are not proof that SAC ever had the jokes your referring to. Anynobody 06:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)