Talk:Army Network Enterprise Technology Command

Military history: Technology / North America / United States / World War II C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Headquarters Name

I was curious if anyone knows why the name "Army Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM)/9th Army Signal Command" is used. It seems really long. It makes sense that it might be a reflection of the dual background of the command from the U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command and the 9th Service Company. I haven't found a reference for that yet. Anyone else? Rbcwa (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be interesting to add

http://www.techguard.com/a-gnosc.php With this company advising on CNO, could be a CYBERCOM Component. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting this article (again...)

I was thinking about splitting this article up, making use of the 972nd Signal Battalion (United States) article as a starting point for the split. A pair of related articles are already set up this way, U.S. Army Cyber Command and Second United States Army. I think this might better capture the long histories that numbered commands have, versus the important "here and now" of the functional command names. There is also the OPCON/ADCON split that may also be also reflected in the names. I'm an old Navy guy, so I'm probably missing some of the finer points of U.S. Army signal organization. Does anyone have strong feelings or suggestions about a split? If not I'll press ahead with it in a couple of weeks. Rbcwa (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did the split and a fair amount of post split editing. Let me know if there are any comments or questions. Rbcwa (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]