User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Craig's spreadsheet[edit]

Hi Buckshot06, Please note that I decided not to use operation titles as used in Craig's spreadsheet. This is largely to the use of "Front" and the several inventions used to describe operations. Also note that in three places Volkhov is mis-spelled Bolkhov. I will be creating a large number of stub articles. All stubs will have the same initial structure that will provide general are of the operation, date of start and conclusion, participating Front/s, Armies and any smaller formations. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth or Empire?[edit]

I'm working on an article that is similar to DSU, but will be a divisional list for Great Britain and "British Empire" countries like Canada, India, S Africa, etc during WW2. I admit to being confused about terminology. The Commonwealth appears to have been formed before WW2, is the correct way to phrase this "Great Britain and the Commonwealth", or were some of the contributed divisions, such as the 1st Burma Division or the African Division still properly from the Empire? I guess I'm looking for a good title for this article, would appreciate suggestions. Thanks! Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked for such articles before I began research and somehow missed those. Although there is not a DSU-style summary history, the lists are already present in other articles. I think it best to leave them alone rather than force a new structure on existing material. Thanks for pointing out their existence. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Victor Madej books[edit]

I can't remember if I asked before, but do you have any of his books on the Eastern Front? Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this 58.168.196.184 you?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 09:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of German divisions in World War II & rollback[edit]

Hi, as those are actually the correct names per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME the correct response seems to be to create redirects or move the actual articles. I agree that changing all these links without moving the articles at the same time was irresponsible, but I think that reverting the edits wouldn't improve things now. That's just my opinion though - this might be a topic better raised at the article's talk page or on the main military history talk page. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Units[edit]

This should be helpful when you write all of the former names for the units. All of the motorized units became mechanized in 1992, at this time they most of them remained divisions, only a few were reduced to brigades. Divisions were reduced and restructured around 2004. Ceriy (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

DSU[edit]

Hello Buckshot06, splitting the rifle divisions off will make it smaller, but will the rifle divisions page still be in the top 50 size-wise? If it is still too large, then three pages could be made: 1) Regular rifle units, 2) Guards rifle units, and 3) the remainder. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed division of the page is logical. Do you want to title it "infantry divisions ..." or "rifle divisions ..." ? Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1st Czechoslovak Armoured Brigade[edit]

Hi Buckshot06, I've been touching up this article. A few years ago, I ran across a page on the internet about this unit that stated the reason the Czech brigade was used to mask the German garrison at Dunkirk is that there were internal political tensions in the unit and 21st Army Group thought it wiser to use the brigade in a static role versus being committed to a fluid combat situation. Have you ever heard this claim? It bears mentioning in the article, but I can't find any trace of of these comments now. Thanks--W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about your suggestion. I'm a bit reluctant to include that in the article without any source. A Czech editor thought the reason for the Dunkirk assignment was simply that the brigade had troubles recruiting enough Czechs and for that reason the brigade was given an assignment in which losses would not be too high. There were tensions in the unit caused by communists, but those men appear to have been separated from the brigade in 1941 and assigned to labor units. I wonder if the bit I saw on the internet was confused on the issue. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

An AfD which might interest you[edit]

Hi, you might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral of the Fleet of the Russian Federation. Several editors with no knowledge of the military have branded it a probable hoax or a mistake. Is this correct? - I imagine that there'd be few English-language references on a Russian military rank which only exists on the books and has never been filled. Cheers, --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Chateau Haut Koenigsbourg.JPG

Milhist Coordinator elections
Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject elections. I went into it expecting to just keep my seat and was astonished to end up with the lead role. I anticipate a rather busy six months :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Haut-Koeningsbourg castle, Alsace.

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support[edit]

Buckshot06/Archive 9: I wish to thank you for your support in my unsuccessful bid at becoming an Assistant Coordinator for the Military history WikiProject. Rest assured that I will still be around, probably even more than before, and I have the utmost confidence in the abilities of the current and new coordinators. I might also mention that I am already planning on running again in August. As always, if you need anything, just get in touch. -MBK004 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

re: JSTOR request[edit]

Yes, I can. How would you like me to transmit it to you? Carom (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Straw Poll[edit]

Hi, since you took part in the discussion about renaming this article, you may be interested in participating in a most evil poll to determine the public opinion on the naming issue. --Illythr (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

re: 5th Army (Soviet Union)[edit]

The only major comment I would make is that there should probably be more rigorous citation - for example, if you say "in so-and-so's words," there should really be a citation indicated where so-and-so said that. Less crucially, the lead is still a little lean, considering the length of the article. Carom (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Icarus/Independencia[edit]

Rats; I sure would've liked to find out what happened to her. Kind of you to look her up for me. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's above and beyond, sir, thank you! And in return, I will offer a quick review on 5th Army. I'm largely ignorant on the subject, but if nothing else, I can offer copyedit and MOS help. Maralia (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Army in Manchuria 1945[edit]

Re your inquiry, the Japanese Army was Kwantung Army. That and a lot of other info is all listed there in Source documents listed on the Wikipaedia entry for Operation August Storm. The Glanz books cover the subject in lavish detail for both sides. Asiaticus (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tanna Tuva[edit]

Buckshot06, the page split looks fine to me. The split of the pages doesn't seem arbitrary. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists of divisions[edit]

I really thought that you were going to right the wrong and create a list for each Soviet Combat Army that spanned the period 1917 to 1993. I'm not sure what the 1957 cut-off achieves. I understand that there was a large scale of reorganisation in the Soviet Army beginning with 1956, but why break up the unit and formation history between two articles/categories?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I appreciate the renaming, but this was not as great a change as the reflagging of the vast majority of the Corps into divisions. "Motor Rifle" only reflected the change in scale of motorisation of the rifle troops. And what happens between 1957 and 1989? There was a vast difference between the 1957 Motor Rifle Division and a 1967 one, and the 1979 MDR was completely incomparable. This is what I have a problem with, the continuity. You had encountered this issue with the 40th Army due to its participation in Afghanistan, but why treat it as an exception. It seems to me there needs to be a single category of Soviet rifle divisions. What happened to these divisions during the years of existence of the Soviet Union need not be fractured into convenient chunks just as the history of the British 1st Division. Although the article lacks 200 years of history, there isn't a British 1st Division (1809-1937), and another British 1st Division (1901-1939).
The 101st was not a great amount of work; a single article. However, it made me realise how much is missing from the Wikipedia that would allow someone so interested to understand the Soviet rifle division of the Second World War. I'll do the 79th division next since it was the other major division of the 87th Corps in the theatre.
Why don't you just create a lot of stubs?
I also noticed the divisions are sorting in the category somewhat funny.
It also irritates me that the Soviet divisions and brigades are listed as Ukrainian. If an when I encounter this as part of GPW editing, I can assure you that I will want to move them. There is no connection between the Soviet and the Ukrainian units other then the names that the Ukrainians say belong top them. Its a bit like renaming the 2/2st Battalion NSWR into the Coldstream Guards...because it sounds better. I know I have said it before.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 09:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Breaking links[edit]

What do you want me to do when I move an article?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 02:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

re: JSTOR III[edit]

Yep, found it. Let me know if you need anything else! And good luck with 5th Army (Soviet Union). Carom (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New! BCAD drive from Milhist[edit]

Can I invite you to particpate in our new assessment drive? It's strictly for experienced wiki-gnomes and has a degree of friendly competition built-in. It involves re-evaluating around 3500 Milhist B-Class articles to ensure they match our new criteria. As ever, we're offering a range of awards as our way of expressing our thanks. The drive doesn't start until 18:00 (UTC) on March 10 but you can sign up in advance here. It would be great if you can spare the time, --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kenneth Tam[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kenneth Tam, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Tam. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

336th Separate Guards Belostock Orders of Suvorov and Aleksander Nevsky brigade of naval infantry[edit]

Just found this site http://belostokskaya.ru/history/ --Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation[edit]

Just so you don't think I am advocating this from sheer stubbornness, my position is that good article research should discriminate between good and bad original research, even when it is the source for the article. I don't think reference work editors should compromise on article quality in any way as a proof of our integrity expected by users--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Take some care and set the links up will you?[edit]

Please see my reply earlier which you never replied to. It seemms to be encouraged by Wikipedia. Lack of redlinks is how we know an article is close to G rating, right? Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 06:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: 292 Squadron RAAF[edit]

I don't really know what the RAAF used that designation. Several ground training squadrons with numbers in the high 200s have been formed though (eg, No. 278 Squadron RAAF and No. 285 Squadron RAAF). The RAAF is now re-using old designations for new units, and No. 87 Squadron RAAF was recently re-formed and No. 4 Squadron RAAF will be re-established next year. The Army is also renaming units with generic names so that they carry distinguished old names (eg, the Deployed Forces Support Unit is now the 39th Personnel Support Battalion in honour of the famous 39th Battalion which fought in Papua in 1942). --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian Fed military Who's who[edit]

Found this http://www.whoiswho.ru/ros_war/indexf.htm by accident. Not sure how current, but as biographies of many higher ranking officers since 1993--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

British Indian Army disbandonemnt[edit]

Buckshot06, you do not want to start an edit war with me. If there is anything I do not appreciate, it is being told that I wrote something based on my opinion, which is what POV stands for, because that is another way to say I lied. If you disagree with me, then I expect you will provide proof to the contrary, right? If you don't, then your revert of my edit will be your POV. I hope there is an NZ recipe for humble pie.

http://www.armymuseums.org.uk/bothb.htm Indian Army

Records of the officers and other ranks of the Honourable East India Company's (HEIC) armies and of the Indian Army, 1861-1947 are to be found in the India Office Library and Records collection of the British Library.

There are no records for British units serving in India after 1947. What happened? Read here [1]

"Large-scale departure of British officers coupled with the departure of some other categories of officers also caused a great deal of disruption. Most of the cantonments being located in Pakistan led to acute shortage of accommodation. Indian officers had picked up two or three ranks and lacked experience for their new appointments."

How is it then that an 'Indian' division passed into Pakistani service?

Here is another titbit "The 13th of Foot thus became known as the 1st Somersetshire Regiment...the Regiment was to be the last British unit to leave India after its Independence in February 1948."[2]

And from here [3]

The original agreement called for the armed forces and other assets to be divided to the ration of 64% for India and 36% for Pakistan, but Pakistan was later forced to accept an 1/3 share of assets. Of the total 46 training establishments; only nine were located in Pakistan; all of the 17 Ordnance Depots were located in India, as were most of the Ordnance Depots and Engineer Store Depots. In addition to Pakistan receiving far less stores than originally stipulated, most of the stores received were of general nature, perishable, unwanted and obsolete. The move of 150,000 Pakistani personnel as well 508 units and sub units of various sizes was to be carried out by rail through Indian Punjab and Sikh Princely States.

Against an estimated requirement for about 4,000 officers, Pakistan had initially only about 2,300 - the gap being filled up on Quaid-e-Azam's appeal, to some extent, by 484 experienced and qualified British officers, who volunteered to stay and help Pakistan and the Pakistan Army in difficult times. Many Polish and Hungarian officers also volunteered for the medical corps. Prior to August 1947, the most senior Pakistani (and Indian) officers were in ranks of brigadiers; after independence, the command of Army units had to be given to officers in their early 30s with eighteen years service, many of whom had combat experience and had won battlefield awards in Word War II. Similarly, brigade commanders had 13-15 years service and division commanders 19-20 years. Out of the Northern Command HQ nucleus, the GHQ was organised at its present location. LtGen Messervy, the then GOC-in-C Northern Command, was promoted and appointed Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C) Pakistan Army. The GHQ started functioning on 15 August 1947 without adequate staff or records, these held back in New Delhi.

By August 1947, the 7th Division (located in Rawalpindi with two brigades) was the Pakistan Army's only division. There also were static HQ designated "Areas" and "Sub-areas", having brigades and battalions at more than 50% below strength. In the following months, as Pakistani personnel kept arriving from all over India, Middle East and South East Asia by rail and sea, the 8th Division was organised out of the Sind-Balochistan Area, and the 9th (F) Division was created out of brigades of the Peshawar and Wazirstan Areas. Similarly, the Lahore Area was re-organised as 10th Division, and the 12th Division was raised in November 1948. The forces in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) were designated as East Pakistan Army, then a Sub-area and finally in December 1948 as HQ 14th Division, initially with only two battalions that eventually were built up to brigade strength. By October 1947, guarding 5,000 miles of West and East Pakistan's frontiers were about ten infantry brigades at less then 50% strength, and an armoured brigade with only 13 running Stuart tanks. The Army has ammunition reserves for less than one week.

Note that neither the 7th nor consecutive divisions are named "Indian". Situation for both countries seems rather similar to Ukraine and other post-Soviet states. The 7th division was a purely Pakistani invention based probably on nothing more then inherited insignia on the clothing and vehicles.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

You put back the very sentence that caused the RfD in the first place?! The deceptive, unsourced, misinformed sentence....so, while the "discussion" goes on, others can point to it and say, "but look, there is says"! My mind is absolutely numbed --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 04:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Info source[edit]

Usually the information comes from books, history sources and life experience. It is difficult that you will find the information published in internet (although there might be pages in web) and part of it is in Albanian language. You have many articles related to the communist Albania.. and basically there is a general agreement on main events. But due to country's new democracy, the level of transparence is still low, that means it might be difficult to find detalied studies on the net. Anyway, being 36, having lived in both systems, being graduated in a Western country and having a long experience in these reality I have based my work not only upon individual skills but mainly on history books and articles from the albanian most serious magazines and newspapers. Please inform me what you think. Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.241.70 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Taur Matan Ruak[edit]

If you have any extra time, could you wikify Taur Matan Ruak? Cheers and happy editing :) Kingturtle (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Infobox National Military[edit]

Fixed. Cheers! :-) Kirill 12:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Added as flying_hours=; please let me know how it turns out. Kirill 23:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, added there too. Kirill 12:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It's gone quite well so far, except for the fact that my internet access isn't hooked up yet. ;-) Kirill 23:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pages in category "Russian Air Force bases"[edit]

What is a consistent way of titling articles in this category in your opinion?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 12:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Iraq Orbat[edit]

Hey, thanks for the quick rewrite of my rewrite of the Special Operations Task Forces in Iraq. The way you did it was much better.--Dsw (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Irkutsk Military District[edit]

Hi, Buckshot! Someone suggested me this link as a source to use for writing about Irkutsk Military District, but since I don't normally write about military topics and seeing that the subject of Russian military districts interests you a great deal, I thought you may find it more useful than I do. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but this is a large source, and the reason I was trying to interest others is because it needs a Russian speaker to condense it to an article. There is currently no article that details how military districts were used in administration of forces in the Imperial Russia, and this provides a good online source. Alas, I have no time due to doing a course, so it will have to wait.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 22:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not aware that you don't know Russian (I guess I did not expect that from a person so interested in such a specific thing as Russian military districts!).
As for the administrative divisions, you are welcome. I'm glad someone finds that work useful :) Incidentally, if you ever stumble upon an ambigous name you can't resolve, you are very welcome to drop me a message, as the material I have so far added to Wikipedia accounts for only about 1% of what I have available. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-direct for Military of England[edit]

Hello. I see you've recently re-directed Military of England to a group of cricket supporters. Can you explain why you did this? --Tocino 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's no big deal. In my book established users get a free pass on little things like this and it's nice to use WP in a humorous way every once in a while because this place is always so formal. --Tocino 01:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Final state of Red Army 1945[edit]

Are you interested in the table for this? This is totals of formations and units, not OOB.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 04:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Source citation[edit]

I mentioned to you before that you are incorrectly citing the Craig Crofoot, Armies of the Bear. It had two authors, and a sub-title. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Rifle division article[edit]

My point is - there isn't one! A Red Army rifle division was not only different to every other country's infantry division, but changed during the war. There is no article that explains how it was different from other similar divisions, or how and why it changed.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever seen this Всю послевоенную историю стрелковых (мотострелковых) войск Советской армии можно условно разделить на 4 периода, отображающие знаковые перемены их истории:

1 период (июнь 1945 г . – май 1957 г .) – сокращение формирований стрелковых войск с одновременным качественным улучшением их организационно-штатной структуры и оснащенности с учетом реалий начавшейся «холодной войны»;
2 период (июнь 1957 г . – декабрь 1964 г .) – переход фактически всех формирований пехоты в ранг моторизованных, кратковременное значительное увеличение их числа с последующим сокращением в угоду политическим амбициям;
3 период (январь 1965 г . – декабрь 1985 г .) – восстановление и дальнейшее увеличение числа формирований мотострелковых войск с относительно четкими приоритетами в их дальнейшем развитии, способах применения, использовании их возможностей и т.д.;
4 период (январь 1986 г . – декабрь 1991 г .) – попытка реализации всех догм 3-го периода с последующим проведением политики «нового мышления» и вытекающим из этого огульным сокращением формирований мотострелковых войск с одновременным понижением их качественных параметров.

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

!!!![edit]

How are Arms and Service better in a Formations article?! The former are administrative organs and the later are combat organisations. I'm going to move them back, and please spare me the discussion--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 09:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Images[edit]

I know you didn't like the red banners, but would you oppose using the images of the Orders peresented to the units and formations in the articles? I'll add the one for the 80th so you can see what it looks like--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 13:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Improve English?[edit]

Really? Is "covers three linked operations" better then informs about three operations that were not linked, other then by this article? The German operation was something set forth due to unexpected successes at Kiev. The Soviets call the defensive operation the rather inglorious retreat through southern Ukraine, and the last of them was a less then successful Soviet offensive that misjudged German strength, resulting in the recapture of Rostov (another article). I would say that informing is a far better way of referring to a reference article then 'covers', don't you? Why do you feel compelled to correct almost everything I contribute?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 05:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)