Talk:53rd Troop Command

Military history: North America / United States / World War II

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Cleanup tag

Holy Crap. Words fail express how much this page need a cleanup... I guess its a way to avoid painting the roof... Will remove tag when I finish V. Joe 06:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expert Tag & stub tags

I added an {{expert}} tag since although I have successfully managed to remove all of the erroneous tags. (Most of which ought to have been put here, on the talk page). To help attract a competent expert, I am keeping the US Army stub and the US Military stub and am also planning to add a "New York City" and a New York state stub, appropriate to attract experts on the local history of these parts.

What else this article needs

Having attempted to make some sense of this article, before judging it, I suspect that the unit is approximately brigade sized, is a headquarters unit (and thus comprised of clerk-typists and staff officers ~~and other REMF-types~~ as opposed to a Armor, Infantry or other combat branch. So... a TOE would be in order, especially if it includes what other units it is attached to, or if it is an independent unit. The History section should be under this... for an example of a GOOD New York militia unit and present company of the U.S. Army, try this article U.S. 69th Infantry Regiment. V. Joe 06:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just established this page. Clean it up, sure, and expand it, but the tags I left in place are correct. This unit is the redesignation and reorganization of the NY STARC. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 06:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help if sent me the URL for the original source for the article. I can probably do a pretty decent job doing a rewrite. And what in heavens name is the NY STARC? My knowledge of military history, is mostly Napoleonic to WWI and as such, doesn't have a great knowledge of the cold war or random unit histories.

Copyright tag- Although you are ALLOWED to use the text from a public domain source, it doesn't mean it is recommended. It would be perfectly "kosher", from a COPYRIGHT standard, to use the entire text of the book of genesis or of Washington's Farewell Address, but it makes a damn ugly article.

Unit tags and explanation

As I understand it, the various National Guard units follow a curious and unique legal path to existence (to avoid the word "torturous") , but it is customary for each unit to have an official strength (historically from Army Group to Brigade, realistically Brigade and Regiment) and a legal path from POTUS (and/or the State Governor) to the most junior NCO. Now I don't suggest that you track the command path in detail from GWB to Captain Johnson, Lieutenant Smith, Sergeant Hulka and Corporal ~~Stitch~~ Jones, but the path from Division to Brigade would be helpful

Heritage

Tracing a unit's history and heritage is VERY interesting and important, BUT it is also difficult and the version currently used shows no explanation whatsoever. Remember that wikipedia is not just for the experts in the minutiae of the United States Army (or the U.S. services in general), but for everybody... so try and make articles that are easy for the layperson to follow. V. Joe 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Copyright tag

I've moved it here, to keep a clean flow to the article... and because I substantially rewrote the original cut/paste so that it flows more smoothly and for an eye towards the non-specialist... Still need a LOT of work, but I digress {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACMH}}. Cheers V. Joe 07:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC) [1][reply]

Head hurts

As a Limey, albeit an ex-military one, I thought I would give this article the once-over. (Fresh eyes; look at it from a different perspective, etc, etc.).
Its already been brought-up above, how confusing this mish-mash of an article is. Along with the gripes already noted, here's my tuppence-worth, (or should that be two cents?)

For instance:
In the 'Demobilization and inter-war years' section - "...106th Regiment and part takes from the 10th infantry."
Huh? What does it mean?

The article is littered with un-explained acronyms - e.g. :
RAOC = ? (It used to mean Royal Army Ordnance Corps in the British Army, but I don't think that is what was meant).
HHD = ?
EOD = ? (I know this one, I believe it means the same on both sides of the 'pond'), i.e. Explosive Ordnance Disposal.
HTC = ?
CAC = ?

The article also mentions a presence at the "Ypres offensive" and the "Somme offensive".
As far as I know, there were no American units at 'Wipers' or the Somme; (Ypres was too far north and the Battle of the Somme was a year before America's entry into the war).

I'm sure there are more nonsenses, but I'll stop now, I'm starting to get a headache.

RASAM (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ypres Offensive" should have linked to the 1918 battle, "Battle of the Sommes" should refer to the 1918 battles. Reference is the 27th Inf Div's battle history.Ryan.opel (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]