User talk:RobDuch

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

39th Infantry Division[edit]

I noticed your edit to 39th Infantry Division (United States). "In July 1923 the division was re-designated as the 31st Infantry Division. The 39th Infantry Division was reactivated after World War II"

You did not provide a reference. I have seen this remark somewhere before, but I believe it is an error. I do not believe there is any official connection between the 31st and the 39th.

The 39th Division during WWI was composed of units from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas.

The 31st Division during WWI was composed of units Alabama, Florida and Georgia.

During WWII the 31st Division included units from Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Georgia

The designation "39th Division" was not utilized during WWII.

Post WWII, there is evidence in the Lineage and Honors certificates for the 167th Infantry Regiment and the 124th Infantry Regiment, that the 39th was briefly reactivated in the National Guard in 1921 with units from Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia, Florida. In 1923, these units were relived from their attachment to the 39th and reassigned to the 31st. I have never been able to run this down, but I think someone just screwed up post WWI and accidentally re-designated the old 31st Division, the 39th Division and it took them a couple of years to fix the error and change it back to the 31st.

Aleutian06 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I was copying information from the "Between the world wars" section to the intro para, unfortunately without copying the citation. It is a cryptic reference to some documents of the Louisiana AG in 1950, probably the AG's report for that year. The statement is that the National Guard requested the 31st Division redesignation due to the eastward shift of the division's units. For myself I'll put the citation in the intro para, but feel free to remove the information from both sections if you feel the reference is inadequate. RobDuch (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This stuff should be in appendix...C, I think, of the annual militia/Nat Guard bureau reports. Unfortunately, those are foldouts, and Google and Hathi did the usual dumbass trick of scanning the foldout without folding it out. Anmccaff (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

6"/53 caliber gun[edit]

I was in the navy for the duration of the Vietnam War; and it is nice to find another navy veteran editing Wikipedia. Thank you for edits on subject article. I am wondering, however, why you put four significant figures on the barrel length. Do you have a reference which stipulates the tolerance for barrel length within that level of accuracy? Thewellman (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I was just getting the conversion down to the last millimeter. "8 meters", the previous entry, didn't seem quite right for a gun built by the US, so that's what my calculator gave. Feel free to change it. RobDuch (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Fort Knox.[edit]

Fort Knox, Maine -thanks. I hadn't realized how much of it was still there, and have only seen it from a distance because of that.

On an unrelated topic, if the guy who co-wrote the book on Fort Adams is your brother, could you ask him what dealing with Arcadia was like? I've got a couple large articles/small books in the makings relating to influential Army NCOs (one CA related - and you can make a case his death hastened Corregidor's fall) that might fit in with them, if I can dredge up enough pictures. Anmccaff (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Fort Knox is, as I said, very well preserved and accessible. The Fort Adams guy is my brother, and I'll let him know about your concern. Fort George in Castine is next; the current article is OK for Rev War but doesn't mention 1812. RobDuch (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

added pic of gun in Newfoundland)[edit]

I can't help thinking "a little oil, some grease, some angle iron, we could get this thing working again...." Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm back in the saddle, mostly adding pics this time.RobDuch (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

7"/44 caliber gun[edit]

Thanks for the railway and coastal gun info. I put the sentence back in about the gun being an ancestor to self-propelled artillery because its not claiming to be self-propelled, or the first, just part of the history, "ancestor". This comes from a US Navy article. Thanks.Pennsy22 (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw the article, and the author was clearly under the mistaken impression that the "tractor mount" was self-propelled. In any case, it's "an" ancestor, not "the" ancestor. RobDuch (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, I felt that since he wasn't claiming it to be the "Father" or "Predecessor" but "an Ancestor" it was okay. Again, thanks for your contributions, I know I'm discovering a lot about these early guns in my research.Pennsy22 (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed a pattern with most Army artillery in WWI (the Navy somehow worked it out better, but in very small quantities): Hundreds of weapons ordered some time in 1917, with only dozens delivered before the Armistice due to production probs. After the Armistice production actually ramps up and a reasonable number are produced. Some sources say that production probs were solved about that time. They then go into storage when production stops after the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919. This was the pattern with M1916 (US design) and M1897 (US version of French 75) 75 mm howitzers, along with most of the railway weapons. From what I can tell artillery, and esp railway artillery, had a low shipping priority due to the ready availability of finished weapons in theater and the massive space-weight cost to ship versus troops and ammo. So very few US-made weapons even arrived in France. Then there was the training, which seems to have been a couple of months. Something like 12 US heavy artillery regiments saw action (only one with US-made weapons), with another 12 or 13 described as "nearly ready" to engage when the Armistice hit. RobDuch (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Just want to thank you for your update to Fort Wadsworth. Really fantastic job! - Station1 (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. As you can see on my user page, I've been updating the US forts, their background information, and some USN pages over the last three years. RobDuch (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Shape of Fort Tompkins[edit]

Great work on Fort Tompkins! Just a quibble about this edit. I think the fort is technically a pentagon, not a trapezoid (Battery Weed is a trapezoid). As far as I can tell the two short sides (north and south) are parallel, or virtually parallel, and form 90-degree angles with the long seaward (east) side. The opposite landward side does bulge slightly, forming, as you say, a very shallow V. Think of a home plate compressed at its point. Just fyi. Station1 (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Me, I think of that as a "near-trapezoidal irregular pentagon." Anmccaff (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. RobDuch (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Fort Hancock posted[edit]

I’ve posted Fort Hancock, New Jersey , including the incomplete and mostly-demolished Third System fort. Battery Potter has its own article; a few years ago somebody mentioned merging it with Fort Hancock on the talk page and I might take steps towards that. RobDuch (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for your hard work improving so many military related articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much and happy holidays!!! RobDuch (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fort Independence (Hull)[edit]

One reason this shows up less than you'd expect is that it was largely known as "the French Fort", the late revolutionary war version having been designed and built by the French. (Some Bostonaise folklore insisted that Lafayette himself had designed it.) In a sense iy was more Fort Indépendance. Anmccaff (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point, maybe once I get away from Skyrim I'll put that in the article (well, the alternate name anyway). RobDuch (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Nahh, give the rest of us a chance; the output ratio is damned embarrassing. I was thinking mostly, though, that the site has little wikicoverage for 1812 and the Civil War, and I suspect that's because a lot of the primary sources will go by a different name. It's easy to find (online) "French Fort" in the later 19th century -King's Handbook uses it, for instance, but I frankly cant see the site being ignored in any of the wars and alarums before that.
Skyrim any good? My recent computer gaming is now pretty much an occasional burst of "Pig Survival", my personal version of "Angry Birds." Anmccaff (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Just wrote a reply about Skyrim and a keyboard fumble wiped it. Anyway, Skyrim is several years old, but is one of my all-time favorites. Highly recommended if you want a BIG RPG that lets you multiclass any type of character you want. It's the descendant of Morrowind and Oblivion. I play on PC, it's on console but can't remember which ones. A digital remaster came out on Steam a few months ago; free to PC owners of the original with DLC packs. Console users have to pay something. It's a stand-alone game, no multiplayer. As for Fort Revere, I see "no record of use in War of 1812", which is hard to believe. RobDuch (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Digging for some stuff about the fort on Signal/Telegraph hill//Fort Independence I//the French Fort//Fort Revere, I came across this. (The author has another piece on defenses of Boston, but it doesn't seem to be digitized anywhere.) Aside from that cool bit about crazy people using machinery to deliberately go underwater, there's a bunch of other neat stuff. Anmccaff (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Got any friends or relatives in striking distance of Boston? Edward Rowe Snow's "Two Forts Named Independence" appears to be in the Taxachusetts State Library. I think I saw that...Hell, I was in grammar school, so it's a while; I think it has some more stuff on the French Fort. Anmccaff (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

'38 aerial of Ft Winthrop[edit]

[Gotta hit 1938]. Anmccaff (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Fort Independence.[edit]

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112083820305;view=1up;seq=36 gives rebuild started in 1836; the congressional serials confirm this, all the earlier work was on minimal repair of the fort, but extensive [repair of the seawalls and ripraps]. Armed (or armable) by '45, substantially completed by '48. [sources] list '51 as the end end of major construction, but the last final stretch lasted into the Civil War. Much of the work is described as "repair" or "rebuilding"; one report of '39 lists expenses for "[preservation of Castle island and repairs of Fort Independence.]" Some brick sections were repaired into granite; some of this looks a little like grandpa's ax, with two heads and 3 helves replaced. Anmccaff (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I will get to this... sometime. RobDuch (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Fortwiki got this one slightly wrong, the old structure wasn't all torn down and then replaced, but sections worked on, and the construction/repair tailed off rather than having a fixed, definite end point. The punch list, so to speak, was never worked off until the Civil War. Because of the insistence that everything except the casemates was "repair", there wasn't a single unified project in the way there was at Ft. Warren. So I think the HD article and the Ft Independence article should reflect both the fuzzy-ended dates of construction, and the fact that there may be more of the old fort encased in the new than meets the eye. On one point, the FortWiki article is simply wrong - nothing substantial was done on the fort proper in '33, '34, or '35. There was extensive work on the seawalls, but nothing but the most desperately needed minor repairs on the fort itself, since it was obvious that anything done then might have to be redone shortly. No part of the fort was demolished or substantially altered then.
Serial Set Vol. No. 273, Session Vol. No.3 23rd Congress, 2nd Session H.Doc. 86 covers this, but I haven't got a single intact file of it yet. I'll upload it when I do.
PS: [| Appropriations by state (and Canal Zone) for Corps projects ] 1899-1914. Anmccaff (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
In the overview article I'll phrase it as "substantially complete, though work continued through 1861". Was it due to repair money being easier to get than construction money? See USS Constellation (1854) and Amphitrite-class monitor for the Navy's problems with this and the underhanded work-arounds. RobDuch (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that'll work. The point about the work not starting until...'37. IMS, and not involving full demolition at any point is important also. There is dirt and brick in Fort Independence that may have been there for two or even three major reconstructions.
Yeah, I think some of this was the "didn't we already pay for that?" mentality. You saw that a lot with ships in ordinary; supposedly they were being kept up, so it was hard to explain why they went from good to scrappable. I saw a real beaut of a case like this in Korea; after the fiasco where we drew down, turned over a substantial amount of almost new construction to the ROK, and then realized we would need it again, Congress insisted that some relocatable buildings be kept relocatable. Woulda been cheaper, much cheaper, to have replaced them with stick framing when they failed - which they did spectacularly. The program had switched from an expert single-source to open bid, and the successful bidder should have been disqualified. Anmccaff (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The HD Boston article is near completion except for the Present section. I redid Ft. Indep based on the COE history, and did a very brief mention of the AA gun and Nike sites, with a link to NorthAmericanForts.com so users can look them up. I also did some work on Eastern Defense Command and Western Defense Command. RobDuch (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Yupper, that'll do nicely. I realize your standards are higher than the Av-er-age Bear but I 'd say that's about ready for shipping. (Another reason the work was delayed was lack of supervisory engineers; Thayer had to choose between working on Warren, which would make defenses stronger almost from the get-go, and Independence, which would initially drop readiness, and he made the smart choice. I think that's too deep in the weeds for an overview, though.) Anmccaff (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

We're back....[edit]

Army back in ship-shooting... Anmccaff (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Very cool if it can be implemented in the next couple of years. RobDuch (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Butler[edit]

Whaddaya think on the Butler Guns of Boston Harbor? I've only seen through online freebies so far, but a lot of what I've seen looked good. Anmccaff (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Should be really good. I'm in touch with the author on Facebook, and as you can see he's published numerous works on the Boston defenses. He may be getting me something on a mobile reserve force that was at Fort Ruckman. I fudged the cite for the 155 field batteries, though. RobDuch (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In 1903 Battery Potter was named for Joseph H. Potter, a Civil War general[edit]

In retrospect, you have to wonder who he'd annoyed. "It's slow, expensive and cumbersome, so we decided to name it..." Anmccaff (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Haha, yes. I think I've noticed that the batteries weren't named until starting in 1900, maybe even later. Probably some discussion took place as to whether to name them, along with what. If you're looking for something to do, Fort Banks Mortar Battery and Fort Banks (Massachusetts) are crying out for a merger. Of course the Fort Banks article also needs in-line citations. Or I might get around to it. There is also the (to me) difficult question of how to get around directly referring to an image in the same article, a problem with several of that user's articles. See Submarine mines in United States harbor defense for a bigger example. RobDuch (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge the whole "Mortar battery" straight into the battery section, and clean it from there? That could work. Dunno how popular it's gonna be with the previous editors. Anmccaff (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
And I've finally remembered I was going to put more info into Fort Independence (Massachusetts). Should be my project for tomorrow. RobDuch (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The Fort Banks articles' creator has not been active since 2012. He was a pioneer of fort articles on Wikipedia, though. RobDuch (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I redirected it; doesn't look like there is much worth moving, since the same areas are already covered, and the history remains in case. Noticed it was confusing projo weight with explosive payload. Anmccaff (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I'll put what's in Roberts into Fort Independence. I didn't see anything in there to delete, but Roberts documents several Colonial rebuilds of the fort that are worth mentioning. Plus the delay in starting the Third System fort. RobDuch (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, good. It was easy enough to document the false starts, but a secondary source covering them is better. Anmccaff (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Fort Independence is done. Only real difference was the other source (or Wiki author) said the Castle William name dated from the 1701 rebuild. Roberts dates it from a 1690s rebuild, which wasn't in there. So I put it in there, along with I think two others I added. RobDuch (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Found their source and skimmed it: Shurtleff Only major difference is no mention of the 1690s rebuild. It does mention most of the other items in Roberts. RobDuch (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Not bad...not bad at all, man. I don't think I've seen Shurtleff in 40 years. Anmccaff (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Mwahahaha.[edit]

Hathitrust is starting to break loose more of the public domain stuff. check this one out. Fully downloadable as a pdf. (scroll up, not down, that's the end of the article.) Anmccaff (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool! I saw Sheridan's horse at the American History Museum a while back. They had two other items my gggrandpa most likely saw: one of Sheridan's swords (my gggrandpa was personally cussed out by Sheridan at Third Winchester) and the flag of the 84th USCT aka 12th Corps d'Afrique, which was attached to the 19th Corps in Louisiana on the Red River Campaign (another adventure of my gggrandpa). RobDuch (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I finally figured out how to use the upload wizard for official US Gov't photos. I've started with the 16-inch disappearing gun at Fort Michie. I may get serious with this soon. RobDuch (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
That, as a friend of mine would say, possesses excellent excellence. It's hard to get across to some readers that this thing wasn't twice as big as an eight incher, it was about 8 times the size. That captures the scale perfectly. To the informed reader, it also gives a sense of how difficult it was to get high elevation with this sort of mount. Nice. Anmccaff (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
On another note, I'm thinking of moving most of the pix at Disappearing gun to a gallery. I finally got a pic of the 3-inch gun M1898 on masking parapet mount and put it at 3-inch gun M1903. I'd like to put it in the article, but there are so darn many photos already, mostly of Kiwistan as you pointed out. Sorry for inadvertently starting a firestorm with my remarks about why the list of US emplacements was so short about 18 months ago. My intent was to describe (apologize?) why the list was short, not to establish a rule for further entries. RobDuch (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Damned if I can remember any firestorms; I just thought that the article had to leave some stuff out until it got bigger, otherwise it was highlighting minor points above major ones. Even now, the thing ignores a lot of French, German, Japanese, Chinese, &cet; before it used to read kinda like "brilliant Kiwis learn of DC problems, wrong-headed Yanks blindly continue;" now it's more like "All roads lead to Buffington-Crozier".
Some other stuff deserves a bigger place in a longer article. The King mounting, for instance, would probably have been successful if the US didn't have literally thousands of muzzle-loaders and hundreds of installations fitted for them. Some of the gun-counterbalanced designs -the counterweight was another cannon- also might have seen limited service in other circumstances.
Take a look at this, btw: both Sill and DTIC are getting a lot more of the CA Journal readily findable online. I dunno whether to feel grateful that it's here now, or angry about time wasted well spent looking for it in the recent past. When I was younger, dumber, and a' servin o' the Raygun {"but I repeat myself", I worked for about a year in walking distance of a post library that had almost all of them, and a lot of engineer stuff, some of which I have never seen since. An awful lot of what I've done on these subjects went back to 35 year-old memory. I've been looking, for example, for an article on shipping cradles, or lifting trusses for them, on some of Higgin's boats that were re-purposed to make aircraft hanger trusses. Haven't seen it for 35 years. Anmccaff (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The account of the Army-Navy exercise in Long Island Sound is cool, and is just as I'm contemplating the article on that HD. I published Harbor Defenses of Narragansett Bay yesterday, my longest article yet, as it's my "old stomping grounds" and my brother has lived there since 1976. So I put in lots of lore. I realize it's not much on your scale of verbal conflagrations, but that guy who was PO'd at my note about the US emplacements sure lit up the talk page in my view. BTW, I dislike the idea of putting a whole giant list of emplacements in the article; if somebody wants to they should make a separate list article. I also don't believe in dumping entire tech manuals or textbooks into an article; see 3-inch gun M1903 and GPS for examples of these. A couple of FA Journals and two pics on Commons gave me info on the self-propelled "Crime of 1916"; not surprising it was used to test how deeply a fording vehicle could operate. I thought most Higgins boats were wood, making re-use difficult, but it certainly conserves strategic materials. RobDuch (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The Higgins doohickey was a either a shipping cradle, or a truss used for lifting one, looked something like what you see in the third photo down here, although I recall it being a little less robust. The WWII Higgins stuff, Eurekas and PT boats both, were generally wood,or developed ply, not the unimolded stuff of some of the postwar "pt juniors" and so forth, or the airdrop rescue boats.
Yeah, I agree: you add too much detail to overview articles, and you wind up not being able to see the forest for the trees. I've long thought that some articles ought to have rotating example pictures, but there is no way to enforce that in a volunteer project. The streetcar article gets invaded fairly regularly by people who feel their town/city/nation, or from the looka some of them, planet is getting a raw deal, so they add or replace a bunch of pics in excessive numbers, which then get reverted, added again, reverted again &cet. Anmccaff (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Third photo down is an LCM or "Mike-boat"; although built by Higgins, not part of the Higgins boat design lineage (which is LCP, LCPR, LCVP, and Higgins PT boat). LCMs were originated by the Brits and were (and still are) steel-hull. They were produced in an enlarged version postwar as the LCM-8. Oh wait, I see you mean the cradle. I guess it could be formed from LCVP sides. Higgins' other designs had pretty curvy hulls, though. I would guess with the streetcars that you've found out San Fran has imported them from all over the US and Europe and they run regularly. RobDuch (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know the beasts, another battalion in my old brigade was an S&T outfit that included a stevedore platoon (or detachment), and I was one of the people who managed to get Ft Cowbell its very own bargeport, which my old battalion later used on a couple occasions to remotely rattle sabres (well, D-7s) at Mr. Ortega..well, come to think of it, no, the first time was out of JAX. Lot of commercial use of LCMs in some places I've lived, too. I'm also a Higgins fan; been tracking a couple of T-boats, and made a semi-serious run at what turns out maybe to have been Higgins' own PT Junior, give or take. (Someone else bought it, sank it. Same thing happened with Donald Roebling's boat. I must use this power only for good.) Higgins is an interesting example of how something can go from almost universal to almost unknown; there's only a few hundred left of their pleasure boats, and less of their campers. I've known a couple cases where people treated them a little too casually, 'cause "Higgins" means Sears, right? No big deal." They cranked out some of the best production boats of their day, in considerable numbers, and now they are a rarity, and one a surprising number of people don't really remember. Anmccaff (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I found a site on French forts 1870-1914 with decent profiles of every type of French artillery of the period. Sere de Rivieres Forts In French, but each page has a multilingual auto-translate function. Having visited Fort Douaumont and Fort Vaux, and made a web page about them that's still on some Geocities archive sites, I'm a fan of the forts of General Sere de Rivieres. I found this while pursuing my hobby of attempting to identify stuff in Media related to Unidentified artillery at Wikimedia Commons. Couldn't find the disappearing 120 mounts, though. RobDuch (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oh, that's evil. Hundreds of pictures that look just like...oh, wait, it isn't. A lot of that goes back to both the Basil Zaharovs of the world, and to the stupider form of nationalist. One made sure each of his customers stuff was a little different, so he could get them both convinced they needed to upgrade; the other was convinced that he hadda put the stamp of Ruratania on it, couldn't leave well enough alone. That was one thing Crozier was quite good at; we adopted furrin stuff with little change, if it worked well. IMO, of course, and worth every penny paid. Yeah, there's another French site on another "systeme" that I found and lost again; had a bunch of stuff on decauville mobile cannon. On another note check this 'un. Anmccaff (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I've re-oriented my life from Skyrim to World of Warcraft this week, may get back to Wiki next week. I think the biggest obstacles for photo ID are as follows: very little info on the Net about non-British and non-ACW weapons 1850-1900, correspondingly few identified reference photos on the Net of same, and (as you pointed out) small-but-wealthy countries that practice mercantilism (I'm looking at YOU, Sweden, Switzerland, and Holland). There's also a general lack of reference photos of the 1-pdr/3-pdr/6-pdr families circa 1900, except select Hotchkiss designs. RobDuch (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

HD NYC[edit]

I've got back into Wiki and have published Harbor Defenses of Long Island Sound. I'm starting to delve into the defenses of New York City (NEW YORK CITY?!). I'm going to combine Eastern/Southern/Sandy Hook commands into one article, as they were merged at some point in WW2 (references are elusive as to the timing of this). Despite my work on the Third System forts, I have a lot to learn. Info seems scarce prior to the First System, at least in Roberts. Fortunately, American Forts Network has a robust list of forts and locations. I may spend the time to merge Fort Jay/Fort Columbus, which somebody already remarked on. RobDuch (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(NEW YORK CITY?!)
Be careful to Pace yourself. Anmccaff (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Has this one surfaced on Wiki yet?[edit]

https://books.google.com/books/download/Occasional_Papers_Engineer_School_United.pdf?id=LZoYAQAAIAAJ&hl

Anmccaff (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Haven't heard of this before, posting a link on FB for my other fort friends. RobDuch (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
How do I archive stuff on my talk page? Where do I put it, a text file on my hard drive? RobDuch (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The official wikisolution is to make a subpage called User-talk:UserName/archive_1, serial numbered, or by date, and just move it over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Automated_archival shows how to set up the two common automatic archiving bots, dunno if I'm gonna bother. Anmccaff (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! RobDuch (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Completed merger of Fort Columbus into Fort Jay. I'll be heading out on a week's vacation soon, so I wanted to get it done. I know I won't have time for much with HD New York before then. RobDuch (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Mega WWI US Army OB online[edit]

The US Army's four-volume official OB for WWI is online here. Look for "Zone of the Interior" for units that stayed in the US. RobDuch (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

16" disappearing carriage pic.[edit]

Man, I hope you are wrong on that one, I think that was a real improvement to the article. Anmccaff (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately I'm not wrong. I copied it off of a Facebook post, and the poster noticed. It was from a print that he'd paid money for, so it's his. RobDuch (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that; you aren't too big on "wrong." Pity Wiki doesn't have a slush fund for minor hush-money in cases like this. Anmccaff (talk)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)