This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Armored and Mechanized units of the Italian Army 1984
U.S. light armored division diagram
Noclador, re: the U.S. light armored divisions. The combat commands did not have a fixed structure. In many cases, the "R" command had almost no units assigned to it and was not used in tactical operations (although some of the divisions did use the "R" command as a tactical headquarters). The combat commands were task organized for a given mission with any number of the division's battalions. I realize this kind of thing is hard to depict on a diagram, but a small note on the diagram might be in order. Also, the period name for the "armored battalions" was "tank battalion" (737th Tank Battalion, etc.) Common U.S. map depictions of the combat commands use an "X" for the unit size vice "III". Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
You're very fast! I have the tables of organization for the armored divisions (and the infantry divs as well). I'll get comments back to you. I also have material on the 1940 French divisions and may have something for Poland; the Polish information may be on Wikipedia already in a different format. Note for U.S. airborne divisions, there are also two varieties. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I am always fast :-) but for the next two days I am not gonna be online - happy new year to you! and lets work on the historic divisions OrBats in 2012 :-) cheers, noclador (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Enjoy your holiday! Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Two more points on this diagram. The signal unit is an "Armored Signal Company" vice battalion. The CCR has no headquarters company; it was a very small HQ with an authorized strength of 8 men. Happy New Year! W. B. Wilson (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
U.S. airborne division, Second World War
TO/E of 1942 (note the Glider Inf Regiments have only two battalions)
Division HQ and HQ Company
Parachute Infantry Regiment
HQ and HQ Company
Service Company
Parachute Infantry Battalion
Parachute Infantry Battalion
Parachute Infantry Battalion
Glider Infantry Regiment
HQ and HQ Company
Service Company
Glider Infantry Battalion
Glider Infantry Battalion
Glider Infantry Regiment
HQ and HQ Company
Service Company
Glider Infantry Battalion
Glider Infantry Battalion
Division Artillery
HQ and HQ Battery
75mm Howitzer (parachute) Battalion of three firing batteries
75mm Howitzer (glider) Battalion of two firing batteries
75mm Howitzer (glider) Battalion of two firing batteries
Anti-aircraft Battalion
Engineer Battalion
Military Police Platoon
Ordnance Company
Quartermaster Company
Signal Company
Medical Company
Parachute Maintenance Company
TO/E of 16 December 1944
Division HQ (includes attached medical, chaplain, and band troops)
Great! will do both tomorrow or Tuesday and also fix the Light Division graphic. cheers and thanks, noclador (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Graphics Control
Please check the two graphics for errors and omissions: (Parachute Artillery Btn. are shown with airborne modifier symbol as I assume they were not parachute dropped but glider landed.) thanks, noclador (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Support troops would be more accurately characterized as battalion-sized ( II )
Division is called "airborne division" vice "parachute division"
For the recon unit, suggest use of the gull wing symbol (^^) vice the parachute symbol. These look great BTW, thank you! W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Two issues, first I would change the parachute symbol in the maintenance company to a 'CSS' symbol, otherwise it risks being taken for an infantry unit. Secondly Mr Wilson would you mind please seeing if you can cite your source for these TO&Es? Best wishes to both of you, Buckshot06(talk) 12:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Source for the 1942 division is http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/M-F/chapter6.htm
Source for the 1944 division is The General Board, United States Forces, European Theater, Organization, Equipment, and Tactical Employment of the Airborne Division (prepared shortly after the Second World War) W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
done the update, noclador (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
U.S. infantry division, Second World War
T/O of 15 September 1942
Division HQ
HQ Company
Signal Company
Military Police Platoon
Cavalry Reconnaissance Troop (mechanized)
Quartermaster Company
Ordnance Light Maintenance Company
Medical Battalion
Engineer Battalion
Infantry Regiment (3 in division)
HQ and HQ Company
Cannon Company
Antitank Company
Service Company
Medical Detachment
Infantry Battalion
Infantry Battalion
Infantry Battalion
Division Artillery (treated as brigade HQ)
HQ and HQ Battery
Medical Detachment
155mm Howitzer Battalion
105mm Howitzer Battalion
105mm Howitzer Battalion
105mm Howitzer Battalion
Note: The division T/O was changed in September 1943, but the structure remained as shown for September 1942. The division of 1 October 1940 was similar, except the quartermaster unit was a battalion and the ordnance company function was performed by the quartermaster battalion, and so there was no ordnance company in the structure. Also, the infantry regiments did not yet have a cannon company. I can also provide a description of the old "square" division that was used prior to 1939 if you are interested. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thanks for the info! I can't do the graphics today but will do them tomorrow. As for "interested in" - I am interested to a graphic for each and every type of division that can or will be used on wikipedia. so - whatever info you have - send it to my talkpage and I will do graphics asap :-) noclador (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
PS: what is a "Cannon Company"? Is that a light artillery company?
A 'Cannon Company' is indeed a light artillery company. THey weren't happy with calling it a battery in an infantry regiment, I think. Mr Wilson, please correct me if I'm wrong. Would you also be able to cite your sources for the TO&Es ? Be good to have them on the graphic if at all possible. Buckshot06(talk) 18:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Buckshot06 is correct. The cannon company weapons varied in the 1942/1943 versions of the division. The 1943 T/O had six M3 (short-barreled) 105mm howitzers. The source for the 1940 triangular division is Field Manual 101-10 dated June 15, 1941. The 1942 T/O is from Osprey's US Army Infantry Divisions 1942-43. The 1943 T/O is from Yves Bellanger's U.S. Army Infantry Divisions 1943-45. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
T/O of "square" division, as of 1 October 1940
Division HQ
Support Troops
Division HQ Company
MP Platoon
Ordnance Company
Signal Company
Engineer Regiment
HQ and Service Company
Engineer Battalion
Engineer Battalion
Medical Regiment
HQ and Service Company
Collection Battalion
Ambulance Battalion
Medical Clearing Battalion
Quartermaster Regiment
HQ and HQ Company
Service Company
Light Maintenance and Car Battalion
Truck Battalion
Infantry Brigade (2 in division)
HQ and HQ Company
Infantry Regiment (2 in brigade)
HQ and HQ Company
Service Company
Antitank Company
Infantry Battalion
Infantry Battalion
Infantry Battalion
Artillery Brigade
HQ and HQ Battery (note: prior to 1940, 75mm pieces would have been used vice 105mm howitzers)
105mm Howitzer Regiment (2 in brigade)
HQ and HQ Battery
105mm Howitzer Battalion
105mm Howitzer Battalion
155mm Howitzer Regiment (1 in brigade)
HQ and HQ Battery
155mm Howitzer Battalion
155mm Howitzer Battalion
Note the square and triangular infantry divisions co-existed for a period until all divisions went triangular. Source is FM 101-10 of June 1941. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Note as well that both the triangular and square divisions had tables of organization dated 1 October 1940. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Graphics Control
Please check the graphic for errors and omissions. thanks, noclador (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
WBW
Note: This division structure is valid for 1942 through 1945. (re: note on diagram) Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies -- I meant the note in the diagram's caption. The note on the diagram refers to the book title; should be 1942-1943, not 1942-1945. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
added that structure was valid until 1945, noclador (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
U.S. Mountain Division, Second World War
Organization of 4 November 1944
Division HQ
Division HQ Company
Signal Company
Military Police Platoon
Cavalry Reconnaissance Troop
Quartermaster Battalion
Ordnance Light Maintenance Company
Medical Battalion
Veterinary Company
Engineer Battalion
Antitank Battalion
Mountain Infantry Regiment (3 in division)
HQ and HQ Company
Service Company
Medical Detachment
Mountain Infantry Battalion
Mountain Infantry Battalion
Mountain Infantry Battalion
Division Artillery (treated as brigade HQ)
HQ and HQ Battery
Medical Detachment
75mm Howitzer Battalion
75mm Howitzer Battalion
75mm Howitzer Battalion
Source is George Forty's US Army Handbook 1939-1945 and this website. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Graphics Control
Please check the graphic for errors and omissions. thanks, noclador (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
WBW
Mountain Div. 1944
U. S. Infantry Division, 8 January 1940
Note: this is the triangular division of 8 January 1940
Division HQ
Division HQ and MP Company
Engineer Battalion
Medical Battalion
Quartermaster Battalion
Signal Company
Infantry Regiment (3 in division)
HQ and HQ Company
Service Company
Medical Detachment
Infantry Battalion
Infantry Battalion
Infantry Battalion
Artillery Regiment, 75-mm
HQ and HQ Battery
Medical Detachment
Artillery Battalion (75-mm gun)
Artillery Battalion (75-mm gun)
Artillery Battalion (75-mm gun)
Artillery Regiment, 155-mm
HQ and HQ Battery
Medical Detachment
Artillery Battalion (155-mm howitzer)
Artillery Battalion (155-mm howitzer)
Source: John B. Wilson, Maneuver and Firepower The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades, available here Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Graphics Control
Please check the graphic for errors and omissions. and thank you very much Wilson for your compliments about the graphics above :-) noclador (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
WBW
Infantry Div. 1940
U. S. Motorized Division, 1 August 1942
Note: everything motorized "o o" in this unit.
Division HQ
Source: John B. Wilson, Maneuver and Firepower The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades, available here Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Graphics Control
Please check the graphic for errors and omissions. Note: I used the current NATO symbol for wheeled unit: , instead of the older Motorized unit modifier . The even older modifier of putting two little circles under the unit icons I would not like to use, as this has been out of use for decades now. If you prefer I can use the Motorized modifier for the infantry units and the wheeled only for some of the units (i.e. quartermaster, artillery, supply, etc.). please let me know what you think, thanks. noclador (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Quartermaster unit is battalion-sized; symbol is correct but accompanying text describes it as a company. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
WBW
Motorized Div. 1942
U. S. Marine Corps Division, Second World War
There were four versions: D, E, F, and G. The table's left column shows elements directly subordinate to the division. To the right, for each table of organization, is shown the major sub-units of the element directly subordinate to the division. "yes" means the element was present; "no" means the element was not present in that table of organization. A "service" unit in Marine Corps jargon means the ordnance and supply troops. The Pioneer Battalion was used for "ship-to-shore movement of supplies and matérial and (to) supplement engineer support." Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Organization: U.S. Marine Corps Divisions in the Second World War Source: Gordon Rottman, U.S. Marine Corps World War II Order of Battle
Subunit
D Series 1 July 1942
E Series 15 April 1943
F Series 5 May 1944
G Series 4 September 1945 (implemented early 1945)
Division HQ
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Special Troops
HQ Battalion Special Weapons Battalion (AA and AT) Parachute Battalion Light Tank Battalion
HQ Battalion Special Weapons Battalion (AA and AT) Light Tank Battalion
No
No
Headquarters Battalion
No
No
Yes
Yes
Service Troops
Service Battalion Medical Battalion Amphibian Tractor Battalion
Service Battalion Motor Transport Battalion Medical Battalion Amphibian Tractor Battalion
Service Battalion Motor Transport Battalion Medical Battalion
Service Battalion Motor Transport Battalion Medical Battalion
Engineer Regiment
HQ and Service Company Engineer Battalion Pioneer Battalion Naval Construction Battalion
HQ and Service Company Engineer Battalion Pioneer Battalion Naval Construction Battalion
No
No
Engineer Battalion
No
No
Yes
Yes
Pioneer Battalion
No
No
Yes
Yes
Tank Battalion
No
No
Yes
Yes
Artillery Regiment
HQ and Service Battery Special Weapons Battery 155-mm Howitzer Battalion 105-mm Howitzer Battalion 75-mm Howitzer Battalion 75-mm Howitzer Battalion 75-mm Howitzer Battalion
HQ and Service Battery 105-mm Howitzer Battalion 105-mm Howitzer Battalion 75-mm Howitzer Battalion 75-mm Howitzer Battalion 75-mm Howitzer Battalion
HQ and Service Battery 105-mm Howitzer Battalion 105-mm Howitzer Battalion 75-mm Howitzer Battalion 75-mm Howitzer Battalion
HQ and Service Battery 155-mm Howitzer Battalion 105-mm Howitzer Battalion 105-mm Howitzer Battalion 105-mm Howitzer Battalion
Marine Infantry Regiment (3 in division)
HQ and Service Company Weapons Company Marine Battalion Marine Battalion Marine Battalion
HQ and Service Company Weapons Company Marine Battalion Marine Battalion Marine Battalion
HQ and Service Company Weapons Company Marine Battalion Marine Battalion Marine Battalion
HQ and Service Company Weapons Company Marine Battalion Marine Battalion Marine Battalion
Graphics Control
Please check the graphic for errors and omissions.
WBW
D SeriesE SeriesF SeriesG Series
airborne unit symbols
Noclador, one question on the airborne division diagrams. I thought the symbol for airdropped units was the gull-wing and the symbol for glider units was a horizontal bar through the middle of rest of the symbol? I guess the symbols used in the diagrams are not too critical because there is descriptive text for the unit as well, but it seems a bit confusing to have gull-wing symbol used for glider units as well as airdropped units like the cavalry platoon. The parachute symbol you have seems well suited for the airdropped units, but you may wish to reconsider the symbol for glider units. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
actually the gull wing symbol can be used for air-transportable or airborne units...
a symbol for glider as you describe I haven't seen anywhere yet - probably because I use the NATO Handbooks on APP-6 and Glider aren't anymore in use since NATOs inception. By now the only other modifier symbol for air-assault units is the Airmobile Modifier - which is basically used for anything that is flown into combat with helicopters.
if you believe we should go for the older gilder modifier (horizontal bar) we can do that - although I guess it is by now more of a historic symbol than one that is used. cheers, noclador (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Since the text is there, the actual symbol used is not too significant, but it may be useful for the air-dropped units to have one symbol and the glider units another. I believe the only glider-delivered units are those of the glider infantry regiments and the glider artillery battalions. I checked one of the U.S. histories on D-Day and they use gull-wing for both kinds of units, so there may be no firm standard. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
U. S. 1st Cavalry Division, 1944-45
Note: This unit fought in the Pacific Theater dismounted as infantry. Unique organizational structure. Squadron = battalion; troop = company. Source is Gordon Rottman's World War II U.S. Cavalry Units: Pacific Theater and Shelby Stanton's World War II Order of Battle.
Division Headquarters Troop
8th Engineer Squadron
1st Medical Squadron
1st Signal Troop
27th Ordnance Medium Maintenance Company
16th Quartermaster Squadron
302nd Reconnaissance Troop, Mechanized
603rd Medium Tank Company
Military Police Platoon
Please check the graphic for errors and omissions. thanks, noclador (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the division artillery is a brigade HQ but I am not sure. It looks great, though. Bravo!
WBW
division diagrams
That pretty much covers the U.S. wartime division structures. Wikipedia has a bit on the Philippine Division but no detail on the infantry regiment structure. Which country would you like to work on next? Thank you again for the nice artwork. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
U.S. Cavalry Group, Mechanized, November 1944
Note: Not a division, but an independent combat element that served as the reconnaissance element for corps in the European Theater of Operations. Size indicated as regiment ( III ). The "assault guns" were typically used as self-propelled 75-mm artillery indirect fire support. Source is http://www.redhorse.nl/Organization_Charts.htm
Please check the graphic for errors and omissions. thanks, noclador (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Suggest changing the "M8 Scott" to "HMC M8" (U.S. nomenclature, the "Scott" was never used by U.S. forces to my knowledge) Looks super otherwise. Also may wish to give the squadron HQ units the "armored recon" symbol. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
WBW
British infantry division chart
Notes:
Valid for 1944-45. Earlier structures were a bit different.
Missing battalion sized command for Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (maintenance troops)
Missing battalion sized command for Royal Army Ordnance Corps
For 1944-45, could use Jean Bouchery, The British Soldier Volume 2, as source for information
The reconnaissance unit for this division is titled "Armoured Car Regiment", not Recce Regiment (although, by late 1944, many of the AC Regiments had been detached for use as corps assets)(do not confuse with the "Armoured Recce Regiment" mentioned below -- two different units)
MMG Company -- spelling of "independent"
Missing battalion-sized REME command
Missing battalion-sized "Armoured Recce Regiment" -- despite name, this is a unit of tanks, not reconnaissance vehicles
Missing company-sized "Forward Delivery Squadron"; these guys shepherded replacement vehicles from depots to the fighting units
Bouchery can also serve as source for this information.
Interesting description of the delivery squadrons in 1944-45
The Armoured Delivery Regiment was so large as to hardly be a regiment. Its role was to take vehicles from the Armoured Refitting Unit or from RAOC Armoured Vehicle Parks and deliver them to the fighting units. Personnel were also held and delivered. They came from the Armoured Reinforcement Unit or from tank crews who had lost their vehicles.
Eventually the Armoured Delivery Regiment was responsible for twenty one Delivery Squadrons made up of
- one Army Delivery Squadron
- four Corps Delivery Squadrons
- sixteen forward delivery squadrons each delivering to an armoured brigade.
There were also delivery units delivering the specialised armour of the Assault Regiments Royal Engineers and Self Propelled Regiments Royal Artillery.
The basic system was intended to ensure that vehicles and personnel reinforcements reached the armoured divisions. However there were in 21 Army Group more independent armoured brigades than there were divisional brigades. This was partly because divisions had been reduced from two brigades to one. Also there were Tank Brigades and specialised brigades. As the campaign progresses mixed formations of infantry, armour and other arms became the norm and the task of reinforcement was therefore more complex and more flexible.
Vehicles were transported from Army Squadrons and Corps Squadrons to the Forward Squadrons by Tank Transporter Companies RASC. The Forward Squadrons were close enough to the front for the vehicles to be delivered/collected under their own power. Both the rear squadrons and the forward squadrons were equipped to maintain and service the vehicles, and to train the crews. Thus an armoured fighting vehicle ought to reach its user unit fully operational, fully equipped, fully crewed and probably fully fuelled and ammunitioned.
Both were there per my sources. RAOC handled storage and supply of ordnance and ammunition as well as vehicles. Also ran the mobile laundry and bath units. REME handled maintenance and repair of electrical and mechanical matérial. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
RAOC Ordnance Field Parks -- originally corps units in early 1944 before being assigned to divisions. Strength was 80 men, one field park per division. Separate from REME. Senior ordnance officer in the divisions was a lieutenant-colonel. REME in the divisions was much larger numbering in the hundreds of men and whose senior office was a colonel known as the "CREME". Let me know if you have further questions about this. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
But, for November 5, the corps was huge (again, per Tessin): The six listed above as well as 14th and 24th Panzer Divisions. The panzer divisions may have been attached for a short period and happened to be part of the corps on 5 November, or a reorganization could have been underway. It would take research into the German side of the battle to sort out why LI Corps was so large on this date.
I think your suggestions are sound. Show only those units involved in the battle. And yes, the German order of battle can be a real mess and sometimes the unit names don't reflect reality very well. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Great Britain Armoured Division of 1940 comments
Note: structure shown is that of 5 October 1940, not 14 April 1940. This is the UK variant as the division(s) in the Middle East did not yet have an armoured car regiment.
-Brigade RASC companies are part of the RASC battalion for the entire division
-Field regiment is part of Royal Horse Artillery (but lorried) vice Royal Artillery
-Suggest motorised infantry battalions be shown as lorried vice as armoured infantry
-Missing HQ RAOC for division
Notes are from Orders of Battle Second World War by H. F. Joslen
Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Great Britain Armoured Division of 1939 comments
-Brigade RASC companies are part of the RASC battalion for the entire division
-Field regiment is part of Royal Horse Artillery (but lorried) vice Royal Artillery
-Suggest motorised infantry battalions be shown as lorried vice as armoured infantry
-Missing HQ RAOC for division
Notes are from Orders of Battle Second World War by H. F. Joslen
Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Great Britain Armoured Division of 14 April 1940
Noclador, this structure can use the 1939 chart (with corrections I mentioned for that one) and the following changes:
Engineer Battalion is under division, not support troops
The two armoured brigades are called "armoured brigade", no "heavy" or "light" designation. Cheers and thanks, W. B. Wilson (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Note: the RAOC presence in the early divisions appears to be limited to a single division workshop, probably of large company strength. The 1944 workshops were run by a major. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Great Britain Airborne Division 1944/45
Division HQ (254 men including the defence platoon)
Parachute Brigade (2 in division)
Headquarters (95 men including defence platoon)
Parachute Battalion
Parachute Battalion
Parachute Battalion
Airlanding Brigade
Headquarters (121 men including defence platoon)
Airlanding Battalion
Airlanding Battalion
Airlanding Battalion
HQ Airborne Division RA (20 men)
Airlanding Light Regiment (75-mm howitzer)
Airlanding Antitank Regiment
Airlanding Light Anti-Aircraft Battery
HQ Airborne Division RE
2 each para squadrons
Field Company
Field Park Company
Airborne Division Signals
HQ Company
No 1 Company
No 2 Company
HQ Airborne Division RASC
HQ Airborne Division REME
Airborne Division Provost Company
Notes are from Orders of Battle Second World War by H. F. Joslen and http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/trux-21st-army-group/ Reconnaissance differed between the 1st and 6th Divisions. The former had the "1st Airlanding Reconnaissance Squadron" (jeeps, company-sized), while the 6th Division had an "airborne armoured reconnaissance regiment" (358 men) that had vehicles including tanks. The tanks were originally small vehicles that could be landed with gliders but later larger tanks were adopted that could not be air transported.
Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
re: delay
I understand. Do you what you need to do. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
V Corps
Sure, I can inform you in future Noclador. Be warned however - V Corps has been earmarked for disbandment and been rescued several times, so it may rise again. However I doubt that for the foreseeable future it will be anything but a task force HQ, supervising units only when deployed. Hope Kiev is warming up ! Cheers Buckshot06(talk) 04:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The whole army has been on a constant force-generation cycle for a decade plus, and Army HQ and FORSCOM have had to continually generate lists of units to deploy under whichever corps HQ has been doing the roster at Victory Base or (now) ISAF IJC. You're probably right, now and for the last few years. But historically, III was pretty tied to 2AD, 1 CD, 1 ID, I to 7ID, 9ID, etc, and the corps in Europe were going to war with what was right there - as you probably know better than I. Hope those lovely girls are keeping you busy.. Buckshot06(talk) 20:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Noclador, thank you for these two important historical articles. Would it be possible please to date them - this is critical, as these are c.1980s orders of battle -- and to provide sources, which is even more important. Please also link them to Force Command Heidelberg (the successor to CENTAG) and Northern Army Group itself. Cheers Buckshot06(talk) 02:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Noclador. Mate, you do brillant work, but -- I'm being honest here -- half of it is useless because you do not provide sources!! I'll phrase this in the form of a command. STOP ADDING ANY MORE NEW DATA, AND ADD ALL YOUR SOURCES ASAP !! Please, I'm really seriously asking you this, and I'd happily trade-in my next chanceica at any one of your Ukrainian girls IF YOU ADD THE SOURCES!! Apart from that, all best wishes from New Zealand, and we should figure out a way to meet in person ... Buckshot06(talk) 05:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Looking at your most recent edits, you do realise that the British cavalry regiments/RTR and infantry battalions were rotating, in accordance with the Arms Plot, every three-four years? You've got to install and look down a date ! Buckshot06(talk) 06:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
You do not appear to understand what I'm saying. ADD THE SOURCES TO THE ARTICLE(S) ! I personally am not much interested, but your work will be nigh-on useless if you do not add 'second half of 1989' and the sources to the articles, probably first the NORTHAG article. For a start, you could just literally copy what you put at my page under a sources heading. Please do this ASAP. Buckshot06(talk) 22:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Really Like these two Articles mind if I add article links to the American Units. Oh yeah by the way the designation at the battalion level on american unit go by Regiments you don't mind if i change that too also do you?--Corpusfury (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the 2 ATAF article - fills a needed gap. Please when you create new articles, add a category; 'Military units and formations of x' when X is the country. In this case, Category:Military units and formations of NATO. Also, great work for doing this in your second / third language, but one minor point: Belgian forces were not 'Royal', thus 'Belgian Army' not 'Royal Belgian Army', also note with the word endings - BelgIAN not BelgIUM. I know I'd be doing much worse if the world language was Italian and I was trying to write in it !! Cheers, thanks and best wishes Buckshot06(talk) 22:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
In accordance with this discussion, the decision has been that Bw Heer divisions will be Xth Pz/PG, not Xth Armoured / Xth Mech Inf, to match the way World War II Pz and PG divisions were referred to. It just hasn't been implemented because User:Bermicourt wanted to delay a little, and then never got back to me. Thus I am just about to revert your move of User:W. B. Wilson's creation of 12th Panzer Division (Bundeswehr). Cheers Buckshot06(talk) 07:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I saw your changes of the German divisions by (Wehrmacht) (German Empire) etc etc. Even did some cleanup after you with one Wehrmacht division. It was just the idiocy of having Panzer divisions in WW II and then Armoured Divisions in the Bundeswehr Heer that got me in the above discussion. I think we're clear and agreed - right? Buckshot06(talk) 09:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the disambigs between WW II and Bw panzer divisions - didn't think of the necessity. Thanks also for your answer re 1st LL Div. I have recommented regarding the First French Army at now Talk:CENTAG War Time Structure in 1989 - thought adding the year to the title was the best way to lock the exact date & situation we're discussing down. I believe we have to remove the French troops from the listing. I also have a listing of the Dutch Nike-Hercules squadrons of the 12th Guided Weapons Group via Isby and Kamps, can add them at some point. Cheers Buckshot06(talk) 09:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Kiev is 30°C :-) and sunny! I would think it best to keep the two things separate; the whole structure is just to massive! maybe just division level for the main article and then the detailed structure in its own article? noclador (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
We're in winter (shiver!) cold and rain. OK, (i) First French Army; I take your point regarding over-long articles, but we can go up to easily 60kB. I would advise either adding it to 1st Army Corps (France) etc, or to First Army (France) - your choice, as you wrote them. (ii) Would you mind if I fiddled around, doing some trials, with NORTHAG and a merge? (Northern Army Group with the British being more my special interest than CENTAG). I want to see how it looks, but I won't set it in stone without consulting you. Maybe we can go down to listing divisional brigade-level components, but battalion listings at the Category:Orders of battle article. (iii) 12 GWG - yes Isby and Kamps say it was disbanding. Buckshot06(talk) 09:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it will be best to do it like at the Italian Army. There the level is down to brigade, with a separate article going down to battalion level. I think I will move the French stuff to an own article like French Army 1989. We also could do that with the British Army in 1989 - there is still a lot of units in Great Britain that are not listed in the current structure articles (i.e. Headquarters, Northern Irelan; 56th (London) Infantry Brigade; 5th Airborne Brigade; 1st Infantry Brigade; etc.) noclador (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Order of battle of the French Army in 1989? That would be good, but do you have the data for the fr:Force d'action rapide, the 12th and 14th Light Armoured Divisions, and all the Reserve Military Divisions, including the 152nd Infantry Division, guarding the Plateau d'Albion? If so, go ahead. Isby and Kamps have data for all the military divisions, but only in 1984-85. If not, maybe best to leave what you've done so far in the corps articles for a while. Buckshot06(talk) 09:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Have all the data. down to the last regiment for 1989! no equipment though for French reserves. noclador (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry about the equipment. All you were listing (unfortunately) is TOE-only strengths anyway. Who knows what they were in reality. I should say, searching by 'brigade de zone' finds the listing of French reserve units quite handily. Signing off.. Buckshot06(talk) 09:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
British and French Armies 1989
The forces in the UK were under UK Field Army, which itself was under HQ UK Land Forces (a mistake Version 8 made; Land Command did not come along until 1995). For the moment, since we've got a relatively up to date OB at Commander Land Forces, that is where it will go. You've no doubt realised I hate creating new pages unless there's a good reason - much better to add context to existing ones. Buckshot06(talk) 04:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Luftwaffe
Replied on Talk:Luftwaffe. That is a pretty hi profile page, so lots of consultation needs to take place. Please advise WT:MILHIST and WT:GERMANY, let people put their opinions in, and let's have the consultation the rules require. Buckshot06(talk) 22:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
On the German NAvy, we need to be careful not to censor history. There is a distinction between the history and antecendants of the German Navy - which is the name at the top of the page, not 'Marine (Bundeswehr)' - and the formal official lineage carefully devised in offices in Bonn in the 1950s. It's unquestionable that the Marine of today has feed ins from the Mine Sweeping Administration and thus the Kriegsmarine - it's still in the second paragraph. We can include both these threads without doing a disservice to the official lineage, and we are more truthful if we do so. Await your thoughts, but again, please avoid being hasty on this. It's all very well to say ASAP to each other on dry order of battle articles that 15 of 1000 will ever read, but it's a bit different when we're dealing with armed service root articles. Cheers and best wishes Buckshot06(talk) 22:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks yes I saw. You'll see the approach I've advocating for all three services is the same - mentioning both the actual historical services that existed, and noting the position of the current German authorities. Both are important. The proper approach also changes if we use 'German Air Force' instead of Luftwaffe, and given this is en:wiki, maybe the page ought to be at that title. Buckshot06(talk) 22:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
BALTAP
But you didn't appear to be aware we already had a BALTAP article at Allied Forces Baltic Approaches. In addition, we should not use obscure military jargon like 'COMAIRBALTAP' as the article title. How many people do you think will understand that? We're writing for generalists.
However, I'm sorry; I didn't know you were still working on it. But if we already have an article at an understandable name, it's better to expand that article, rather than fragment everything everywhere. All of this needs context. Best from NZ, Buckshot06(talk) 21:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
LANDJUT is notable independently as a corps-level command, but please consider adding your initial info straight to BALTAP (or, alternatively, simply creating LANDJUT as a redirect for now, and adding all the data to Multinational Corps Northeast). As for COMLANDZEALAND, it's about two Danish regiments, right? Please just add the data to BALTAP for now. Buckshot06(talk) 21:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
NorthAG map graphic
Hello Noclador -- the map graphic is what I had in mind when I started the "red/blue tank/ifv" icons. But something I did with the graphic size or positioning is not correct as the icon labels are offset to one side. Nice start on it, though. The data entry for those maps represent a lot of "hidden" work in Wikipedia. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
3rd Panzer in I (NL)
You can write whatever you like about 3rd Panzer in I NL, but WP works on WP:Verifiability. It was not in I NL in 1985 when Isby and Kamps were writing, and you have added no reference in support of your assertion. Even if you find a reference, you should also add the date it joined the corps. Nothing is 'outdated' - I get *really fucking frustrated* with you here - we're not writing for any military unit/formation at it's latest state, we're writing the *whole history*. Add the date the division joined, add a reference, and LEAVE THE OTHER REF IN for the 1985 state of affairs! Buckshot06(talk) 06:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
9th - of course I believe you; it makes sense. But that's not going to matter in 75 years when we're both dead ! Cite what you have in the article ! There is *no* point in bringing all your sources to my talkpage ! Who's going to read it there? Cite them in the articles !! Buckshot06(talk) 07:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Well thanks for telling me on my talkpage, but no need to trot out all the sources there. Place it all at NORTHAG with all the reference material you can find... Buckshot06(talk) 07:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I've rechecked the best instantly-available source on the KNL. See [1]. 3rd Pz is mentioned; July 85 is mentioned; but the role is only assuring that I NL can reach the battlefield; 3rd Pz is not assigned a sector of responsibility. We need to be precise as possible. Buckshot06(talk) 07:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
3. PzDiv. was to ensure that I NL can reach its sector, then fall back and be the reserve of I NL to make sure that the POMCUS sets of III US corps are safe. As for the 9th Infantry: this is the full quote by Gen. Lyng: "If the 9th Infantry Division is reduced or disbanded we will need other reinforcements," said Gen Lyng. "The Soviets would be able to concentrate a substantial number of divisions against the 6th Panzergrenadier Division and the Jutland Division and we would have no division behind them. The UKMF is very good but it only has 14 tanks, it is only a brigade and we need a division.” The problem is that the best info for this quote I can come up with is 1990 Complete Edition of Jane's Defence Weekly page 850... but I would prefer to name the specific issue and page in this issue... But would the ref I have be enough? also I would like to leave the 9th units listed, as they were utterly unsuited for a fight against armored opponents as they would have come in the LANDJUT area. noclador (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Put that in for now. I have access to Jane's for 1990 here if I can spare the time. You see, giving all the units implies that the arrangement was far more solid that it actually seems to have been - I don't think the POMCUS sites would have been there when III turned up; expanding mushroom clouds, Spetznaz, or persistent chemicals sounds much more likely as to what would have met the vehicle/equipment issue teams. For the moment, let's compromise: indicate the types of units and their number (three lt inf bns in 3rd Bde or whatever) but not the actual units.. says what you want to say without stretching our sources too much. Buckshot06(talk) 08:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
4th Infantry Division
I've been researching the 4th Aviation Regiment, and it's clear that your structure diagram is unfortunately wrong. The reference you're working off ([13]) is a Fort Carson station list, and the aviation brigade is still at Fort Hood - see eg the Facebook page. There are four battalions in the 4th Aviation Brigade; best present listing seems to be at [www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4id-avn.htm GS.org]. Cheers and thanks for all your hard work. Buckshot06(talk) 04:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't working off GS.org - I was working off the Fort Hood website, and specifically, the phone book. Would you mind please adding what you told me to the 4th Infantry Division article - that's important information - with any references you may have. Cheers Buckshot06(talk) 06:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, what were your sources ? Cheers Buckshot06(talk) 20:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Belgian Air Force squadron pages
Hello, you moved both 9 Squadron (Belgian Air Force) and 11 Squadron (Belgian Air Force) to 9 Squadron (Belgium) and 11 Squadron (Belgium). I fail to see the benefit in this, since a lot of other squadron (or wing) pages are disambiguated by stating the air force (RAF, SAAF, PAF, etc), not the country. I thought that such a move would have been discussed first on the talk page of the article.
Grtz Fox260 12:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
yes, I did so as there is no Belgian Air Force anymore (Belgian Air Component) and as all (!) the other squadrons of the Belgian Ari Component use the suffix Belgium (see: Category:Squadrons of Belgium). With 6 out of 8 squadrons using the same naming convention and the other 2 use a name that is not correct anymore, I was bold and moved the 2 squadrons. noclador (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not make large changes to article in an attempt to sway RM decision
Noclador, I reverted your massive content changes to History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) because of the ongoing RM. I have edit protected the article for 7 days to allow resolution of the Requested Move discussion with the article as it was at the onset of the requested move. Your position may very well carry the day, but please allow the larger community to provide input if they chose to. Massive changes to the article during the move discussion could be seen as a way to unfairly bias the RM decision. Thanks - Mike Cline (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I notice you moved this page today; did you check the talkpage at all? Or the edit history? The page was moved to this title in January after a RM discussion; I think if you feel that decision was wrong you should raise the matter there rather than peremptorily moving the page to what seems good to you.
You might notice there already was a discussion about the disambiguator, and one of the objections to the title you’ve used was the widespread confusion of the terms ie. people who think that Wehrmacht is just another name for the German army of the period. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Fires Brigades and US Army Divisions
I noticed you pulled the 214th Fires Brigade from the 4th ID. I was wondering why? If its because the Fires Bde is not organic to the Div. According to US Army FMI 3-0.1 p1-11 "The Division does not have organic units beyond the elements that make up the Headquarters." Shouldn't the BCTs and CAB be redone in the same way? Since, the BCTs and CAB are also attached and not organic to the division? http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fmi3-0-1.pdfShrike6 (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Noclador. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I've just made this edit. Please *do not* totally remove superceded information, but add a mention to the history section, because we need both the current data and to write the history. Kind regards from London, Buckshot06(talk) 08:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Michael Blakey
Hi, I replied to your message at BLP Talk, but I also moved the entire discussion to WP:BLPN. Doesn't belong on the BLP Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Syrian Army insignia
Do you know any other users that might be able to help further with Arab (or Israeli) military unit insignia, anytime post 1948? MrPenguin20 and I have already asked this query of User:Ynhockey. Would be good to make further progress on this. With MrPenguin20's permission, please keep the discussion centralised on his talkpage. Kind regards Buckshot06(talk) 20:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm,... you mean creating insignias like Shields, DUI, Shoulder Patches, Coat of Arms, etc? If so: there is one guy I can recommend 100% - he is one of the best svg creators I know: User:F l a n k e r. i.e. in June he created this Coat of Arms of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany: commons:File:Great coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.svg. I am short on time, ask him and if he has time he will do all you need fast, perfect and with joy :-) noclador (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, no. What we need is the actual data - pictures of the unit insignia. Do you know anyone who might have Arab army unit insignia? Secondly, you may be interested in this edit. Please feel free to ask me earlier in future for my help. Regards Buckshot06(talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
no idea, I don't know much about Arab armies. I am currently involved in this [2] (as the only civilian) and just today got my hands on the current military structure of the entire Ukrainian military down to platoon level. So that's my projects for now. As for the IP editor: thank you for giving him a timeout. I was still hoping he would come around and be more constructive. According to Geo Locate the guy sits in Fort Bragg... but what the IP says is contradicting Army policy, Army doctrine, the official field manuals and was also debunked by another user (who until recently was in Fort Bragg in a combat "group"). But as I have access to the entire US military structure data down to company level now (17,000 units in total) I know the IP was wrong. But... "Assume Good Faith" - and I did :-) Thanks and tell me - what projects need work these days? I have but little time, but am willing to use that for wikipedia :-) cheers, noclador (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Luftwaffe article
Follow the procedure outlined at WP:SPLIT or do nothing at all. You are violating our license terms by making an unattributed copy and I can block you if you continue to do so. In any case, I suggest that you work in a sandbox if this is such a big task. Franamax (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Look Noclador, I think maybe it is you who needs to take a breath. I have not deleted anything (if I had, you would not be able to view it in history) and I reverted to the redirect before you asked me for help. So let's just slow down a bit.
What you need to do is to just copy over the bits of the existing article in one edit, following all the procedures at WP:SPLIT, then start making your changes and additions, with the sources of all of them. For instance, when you make an interwiki translation, you need to clearly attribute that back to the original authors over at de:wiki. So can we roll back the Luftwaffe page and you just make the changes in clear steps? I'm not trying to delete anything, but I do insist that all original authors get credit for their work, per our licensing policies. Franamax (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have listed the steps perfectly over at my talk page, that is the way to go. I also looked up {{Interwiki copy}} which I think is what you will need, and possibly there is an attribution template for the interwiki copy to go into References in the article itself.
And I will apologize for being a bit aggressive in tone, it is due to you labelling my revert as vandalism, which it definitely wasn't - and as an admin I have to deal with that mislabelling of vandalism all the time. But that shouldn't affect you, I can understand that you were upset at seeing your work reverted! Franamax (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors.
Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. [3] is not vandalism. Do not attack other editors by describing it as such. Particularly not as your own edits here are "controversial" at least.Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German Air Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Absurd accusation of "sockpuppets"
I suggest a withdrawal of this absurd accusation as soon as possible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robert_Warren . I categorically declare that I have nothing to do with Robert Warren / WingManFA2 or DrJacPhD. Also, as I mentioned on the investigation page, I came here because I've just received an e-mail with the information of that "investigation" sent automatically by the system when an info appeared on my user page! Voyt13 (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not say that it is strange that you came back (I posted the note on your talkpage). I say it is strange that you came back within the same 20min as WingManFA2. Also: Robert Warren: " idiotic accusation", WingManFA2: "baseless accusation", you: "absurd accusation"... These might be mere coincidences, but that is why there is checkuser to investigate such coincidences. Therefore I will not withdraw anything. noclador (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, when I tried to edit the page there was an edit conflict because WingManFA2 or you or anyone were just editting at the same time, and so what!? I just came back from work in the evening, checked e-mail and find it out because it appeared today! And so it could happen within the same 20min. Voyt13 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Tenedos
Please check non-historical maps and reconsider your position on Tenedos. Chrisrus (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Already for a few days when I want to edit at the bottom of the edit window is a grey box instead of the wiki-markup!
What? Where is the wiki markup menu? when I click on edit, the markup menu actually appears for an instant, but then disappears!
and going through my preferences I can not find any way to change this; and as editing is a annoyingly difficult without the wiki markup tools at the ready, I would like to know what happened here??? thanks, noclador (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC) (YES even the ~ I have to type by hand now!! ?????)
Blame the WMF. They decided it was time for a better edit window. Complain here, like I did. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thanks, noclador (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Noclador. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Message added 18:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
As you have probably already noticed on your user page (if not, click here), you have been awarded the following
Human Rights Barnstar
"for making clear what Italianization really was and not what some Italians would still want others to believe it was - i.e. a mere cultural assimilation without violating the minority's right to use the minority language." DancingPhilosophermy talk 14:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thanks, but all I did was fixed a badly written, factually wrong, error-rich introduction... but thanks :-) noclador (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Love your OrBats, I can spend hours every day just reading them and I believe they add a great deal of understanding to otherwise flat lists of forces on the pages. How are you creating them? I am working on hypothetical OrBats but they just don't feel the same without the visualization. Shipwreck58 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thanks for the compliment. I just use photoshop to create... it does the job although other programs might be better suited for it. noclador (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
_Infantry_Division_1940_Structure.png)
, instead of the older Motorized unit modifier 
. The even older modifier of putting two little circles under the unit icons I would not like to use, as this has been out of use for decades now. If you prefer I can use the Motorized modifier for the infantry units and the wheeled only for some of the units (i.e. quartermaster, artillery, supply, etc.). please let me know what you think, thanks. noclador (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Airmobile Modifier - which is basically used for anything that is flown into combat with helicopters.
