Talk:149th Armored Regiment

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

GA-Class review

As the page has been moved as requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/149th Armor Regiment I am transcluding the GA review here.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:149th Armor Regiment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Lede is supposed to summarize the entire article so say which disasters, border, riots, etc. It's also too short so add some more details, enough for at least two paragraphs and preferably three.
• as a valid regiment in the United States Army Regimental System, albeit inactive replace "valid" with "inactive"
• Be sure to link town names on first use.
• Strictly speaking, the National Guard wasn't formed until 1903, so was Troop C a state militia unit?
• Explain why the unit was mobilized for border service in 1916 and why it was mobilized in 1917. Did it go overseas as part of the 40th Division?
• Where was the longshoremen's strike?
• Explain what a M2A2 was. Always tell what a particular piece of equipment is on first mention so he doesn't have to click through find out that it's an armored car or a heavy tank. Same kind of thing with Model-Ts.
• first U.S. armored units to serve overseas. Pretty sure that there were US tank units in France in WWI.
• Down to WWII, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I have begun to make a series of changes, but am not through yet, with the above requested changes.

On the question of Armor being deployed overseas; if memory serves me before the Great War the United States did not have any armor units. When the United States entered the war and went to France, Americans began to learn and be trained in armored warfare, and took up tanks already within France. Therefore, it did not deploy from the United States. I think this source would back me up on this. The source says that the first tanks at Camp Colt, Pennsylvania did not arrive until June 1918, and formed a separate Tank Corps than that which saw action as part of the American Expeditionary Force. I don't at this time see any sources which indicate that tanks that were sent to the United States for Tank Corps, National Army were deployed overseas. Ultimately, after the Great War the Tank Corps was disbanded, and was not reestablished until July 1940.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Great, lemme know whenever you're done with these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: here are the results of the work requested so far.

• Expansion of the lead section can be found in these diffs.
• Fixed sentence regarding USARS here.
• Made clarification about the national guard statement here.
• Modified regarding longshoreman strike.
• Added short equipment description.
• Modified content regarding the deployment question.

If there is anything else that needs to be done with these sections, please let me know.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Better, but there shouldn't be any cites in the lede as everything in it will be covered in better detail in the main body. I combined the first two para in the lede to cut out some of the redundancies and moved the deactivation to the last para. See if it suits.
• The second and third paragraphs use "it" too many times. Break up the monotony by using "the unit", "the company", "the battalion", etc.
• due to events surrounding the Pancho Villa Expedition While linking to the expedition, I'm pretty sure that it was deployed to Nogales to defend the border against further incursions and you should say something like that. Don't get too elaborate though, you'll be explaining it in more detail in the main body.
• activated due to World War I WWI was ongoing; it was activated because we declared war on the Central Powers that year. So give a little more detail here.
• What state is Fort Lewis in?
• in September 1941, it was deployed Try something like "and was then deployed to the Philippines in September. You don't need to restate the year all the time.
• We tend to think of it as World War II, but really its the Pacific War in that theater.
• Don't capitalize southern, prisoners of war, soldiers, attacks,
• Not sure what you mean by dispersed.
• When was the unit redesignated?
• I think that the transition to the USARS isn't important enough to make the lede, but should be covered in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I have made the modifications requested in this most recent round of edit request. Stylistically, in my past GAs I have kept citations in the lead section of the article. While I know that the content in the lead is only a summarization of the body of the article, it is still subject to BURDEN and anyone could delete the content without inline citation verifying it; therefore, for good measure I have kept the inline citations for the lead.

Let me know if there are any other changes.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You're overthinking BURDEN. Since everything in the lede is supposed to be covered by cites in the main body (since it's a summary of the whole article), BURDEN doesn't apply. You are still required though to cite any superlative statements, like the first, last, biggest, etc., but that's it for cites. Check out any dozen or so Feature Articles and you'll see that there are very few cites in any of their lede's.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: requested change completed.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Apologies for taking so long to finish this, but I've been having a lot going on recently.
• Initially organized as Troop C of cavalry at Salinas on 5 August 1895, being the first national guard unit formed in the Central Coast region;[6] it was a unit of the National Guard of California, a state militia. This is a busy sentence with some redundancies. Your subject is buried deep in the middle of this, move it to the front. You mention twice that it was a national guard unit and these need to be combined. The fact that it was the first unit in the central coast is really different than the rest of what the sentence is about and should be moved to the end. So something like "The unit was initially organized... as part of the NG of CA, a state militia, and was the first militia unit formed..."
• In 1911 the troop was, was redesignated as being part of 1st Squadron of Cavalry. Aside from fixing the typo, I'd suggest saying that it was incorporated rather than redesignated.
• These tensions came to a head in March 1916, with the attack on Columbus, New Mexico by Mexicans under Pancho Villa, leading to a punitive expedition by the United States Army into Mexico, and activation of National Guard units in neighboring border states for federal service. Awkward, split this big sentence in half.
• Don't capitalize border and you don't need to specify United States.
• In June 1916, the unit was activated for federal service on the Mexican border near Nogales, Arizona;[6][7] it was deactivated that same year. Say instead that it was deactivated later that year after the crisis passed.
• Activated into federal service in August 1917 at Camp Kearny in San Diego, it was redesignated as Company B of the 145th Machine Gun Battalion, as an element of the 40th Division.[6][12] The reason for the During this period the battalion was past of the 80th Infantry Brigade of the 40th Division.[13] The reason for the activation was that the unit was to fight in France during World War I. Rework this entire para and move the reason why it was activated to the beginning
• Don't capitalize "Soldier" anywhere in this article except at the beginning of a sentence.
• Explain how Hopps and his compadres were already in France. Was he still assigned to Troop C or had he been transferred to another unit.
• departed to France "for" France
• Did the machine-gun battalion actually see combat? And why was it transferred to these places?
• 40th Division begins "the" 40th Division "began"
• The unit's heritage as an armor unit dates back to 1924 when it was reorganized as the 40th Tank Company for the 40th Division being equipped with eight French Renault light tanks. "The unit was reorganized as ... in 1924 and it was equipped..."
• Its first activation was due to the 1934 West Coast waterfront strike of longshoremen "The company was first activated in response..."
• In 1937 the company received the M2A2;[17] they were light tanks, and replaced the Renaults. You're a little too fond of semi-colons and this sentence is more complicated than it needs to be. Something like "M2A2 light tanks replaced the Renaults in 1937"
• Why are the other passengers aboard the Coolidge important and why is its escorting cruiser important. Don't put details in just because you've found them in your sources. They need to be relevant.
• You need to tell the reader what the 192nd is on first mention. You and I know what it is, but ordinary readers don't.
• Link high explosive and convert the metric measurement to English units using this template code: convert|37|mm|adj=on|sp=us which will output like 37-millimeter (1.5 in) once you enclose the code in double curly brackets
• More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I have made the changes requested above, see this diff here. Regarding Hopps, I have two sources (one which is utilized in the article), that contradict each other. The Hutson, 1920 says that the unit did not depart for France until August 1918. Albanese, 2015 claims that the Machine Gun Battalion was in France around late-May to Mid-June 2018. Thus, I don't have a clear answer regarding the Hoff situation at the moment.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• On 23 December 1941, General MacArthur initially having confidence in being able to defend the entire archipelago under war plan Rainbow Five, and with the advances of Japanese forces after landing at Lingayen Gulf dashing his confidence, he ordered a reversion to War Plan Orange and ordered USAFFE forces to withdraw to the Bataan Peninsula. Rework this sentence, possibly splitting it in half.
• Can you get a semi-detailed map of the area(s) where the company fought?
• Infantry Regiment premature 's after Regiment
• messenger of the Company "from" Company C
• immediately made contact with the unit, and Cut all this
• Deciding to go ahead and conduct reconnaissance, using a halftrack from Company C, he and the halftrack crew "He decided to conduct a reconnaissance himself, using a halftrack from Company C and they..."
• The first time you use a rank you need to give the abbreviation. BG, SSG, etc.
• however by the time action was taken on the recommendation (April 1946), the awarding was reduced "by the time action... the awards were downgraded"
• What unit was Rumbold with?
• Link Piis,
• this was little consultation as the lack of those supplies, that were either destroyed or left behind, led to immediate rationing which reduced the fighting ability of those on Bataan later on. This doesn't make sense because you've switched from talking about the supplies that the company moved from Manila to the supplies that were left behind.
• forces into Bataan south of town awkward
• was caught by the 194th in an open field. All the Japanese tanks were destroyed Combine these "was caught and destroyed..."
• Please give exact pages when citing all sources. It took me 5 minutes or more sometimes to hunt through some of your cites when validating them.
  • For example, you use Dooley 6 times, each with the same cite of pp 14-19. I sincerely doubt that each cite used information from each of those pages. So maybe the first cite used pp. 14 and 17, the second cite, p. 15, etc. Use the exact pages that refer to whatever you're talking about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• tankers detonated the bridge detonated isn't the proper word here.
• The first of those for Company C were due to it serving as an advance force of the main line, north of Guagua, there the held for three and a half hours. Awkward
• Without contact with Japanese forces, the defense line along the Gumain River was abandoned, and new defenses which involved the entirety of the 1st Provisional Tank Group was formed at Layac Junction, which was the last defensive line before Bataan, which was completed on the morning of 6 January 1942. Rework this to make it clearer
• Down to Bataan, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: thanks in advance for going through all this. I understand that this is a lot of content to go through. I have made the changes requested above, see this combined diff. Please let me know if I missed anything, or if there is anything for me to improve upon in this section.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• but later with support of elements of the 26th Cavalry, and a battalion of the Philippines' 72nd Infantry Regiment, the forces were able to reverse the gains of the Japanese Delete "but later" and add "were later able to reverse...
• By 26 January, the 194th was the last to withdraw, and began to be attacked by artillery and mortar fire; due to this significant pressure the 194th retreated, being harassed by air attacks along the way. This is like describing the same thing twice. They were withdrawing and then they were forced to retreat?
• Company C of the 194th, along with the 45th Infantry Regiment, were assigned to attack northward along Trail 29; commencing the attack on the 7 April, their advance would only be met with it being flanked to the south "was" assigned. And what does the last bit mean? That they were outflanked as they drove north, or were they cut off?
• Company C came into contact with elements of the Japanese 7th Tank Regiment, resulting in the destruction of two Japanese Type 89A tanks Simply this and simply say that it destroyed two tanks of that unit on that date.
• Do you have a map covering the actions just before the surrender?
• By 8 April, Company C was ordered to regroup to the south with the rest of the Provisional Tank Group, who were involved in attempting to provide defense against the Japanese attack along Trail 10; that evening all of the tank battalions were pulled off the line, and on the morning of 9 April, with the Company C tanks finally joining the rest of the group, received orders to destroy, "crash", their equipment. Break this sentence into pieces and simplify things. If "crash" means "destroy" don't use the term; you don't need both of them and crash is awfully jargony.
• it revealed that the tanks kept away an invasion across Manila Bay, and that the tanks were feared by the Japanese. What does "it" mean here and how did the tanks keep the Japanese away? Elaborate this a little.
• they began to loot the soldiers of anything of value, and began to march them in what became known as the Bataan Death March. Too many "began"s; change the second "began to" to "and then marched them Someplace in what became know etc.
• In the post-WW2 section you're using "In date, something happened" format too much; mix things up to keep the reader awake.
• Explain why the unit increased in size during the Clinton drawdown.
• Add links to the M-60A3 and the M-1IP and delete the bit about the higher costs.
• The regiment consisted of the 1st Battalion, with companies in Monterey, Camp Roberts, Santa Cruz, and Madera. This bit should be combined with the one about the size increasing or following it.
• All done; it's been a long, strange trip!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I have made the modifications requested in this most recent round. See this diff. I expanded the size of some parts for additional clarity. Please let me know if there is anything else I should do to continue to improve this article.

Why has this GAR been strange?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review

As the link in the wikiproject header is incorrect I am transcending the review here.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

149th Armor Regiment

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): RightCowLeftCoast (talk)

149th Armor Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because, I began to work on this article in February 2012, after 7 years of on and off effort nominated the article for elevation, and with the help of Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) the article was promoted. Now, on the way to a future FA Nomination, I would like to nominate this article for A-class review. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the maps

• File:149thArmorReg.png and File:149thArmorDUI.png: source links will not load

• File:Manila_declared_open_city.jpg: source provided identifies this as a Japanese photograph, not one created by the US Army

• File:Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg: the stamp mentioned in the note under the image description page does not appear on this image. Is any further information available on provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: For the map size, would you suggest say 25% or 34% of page width for the map images?

I'd start with |upright=1.4 and see how that looks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The reason why the link would not open is that the Institute of Heraldry website has been down since July 2018

Is an archive link available? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I have made a modification of the author field at Commons.

Okay, but the licensing tag is still US Army. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I am unaware of the exact photographer of the image. Would this image be a better one?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The credited author of that image, the National Guard Education Foundation, is an independent non-profit, not a part of the US federal government. If the authorship is correct, the tag is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I have implemented the upright sizing for the maps.

I have added an archive link for the DUI image at commons.

What would be the correct license tag? The image is taken from a book published by the United States Army, and thus why it might be why Cave cattum (talk · contribs) utilized that tag. Another possible license could be this one.

What was the date of the first known publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nesnad (talk · contribs) uploaded the image File:Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg which appears to be from the Library of Congress. I have changed the license there.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, not seeing the stamp on that image that would identify it as being part of the set covered by the instrument of gift. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As for the alternate image of File:40th in Watts.jpg, it is utilized at this website. If the image does not have a specific author, and I am not seeing a specific license for the 501c3 that is the National Guard Education Foundation.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I don't know the first known publication of the image, but the book itself was initially published in 1953. If the image was taken during the Japanese occupation of Manila, it would have been taken in December 1941.

The File:Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg file is the same one as seen at this website, which for the rights being discussed on this website. It does not appear to be restricted.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the five potential categories on the latter site: given that there are no visible stamps on the image AFAICT, that rules out categories 1 and 3. Of the remaining categories, one would be free, one would be unclear, and one would be non-free. On what basis are we determining it is free? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I believe that the opinion above is in error regarding File:Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg. The image on Wikimedia commons is cropped from the original image. It is also listed as being in a collection that is nearly entirely in the public domain. Furthermore, even if it was a UPI photo, as stated in that most photos pre 1991 did not have their copyrights renewed. Therefore, we can AGF that the uploader of the image, Nesnad, believed that the image was up-loadable onto Wikimedia Commons and clear of copyright issues.

I'm quite willing to accept that the uploader honestly believed the image was clear of copyright issues; however, that doesn't mean the uploader was correct in that belief. The first link you provide confirms that this was a UPI image from 1965, and the second that "works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office". Nikkimaria (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

As no further comment was made about the Open City image, is Nikkimaria of the opinion that it has no copyright issues?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The current tagging of that image is incorrect, but based on the information provided above the Japanese tag should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed any image relating to the Watts Riots, to resolve that issue regarding the correct license tag.

I have placed the Japanese license tag on the Open City image.

Is there anything else that needs to be resolved?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

Interesting article. I have a few comments:

• generally, per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, military units are titled at the final name, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names. Not sure whether that applies here. In this case, with so many names and three names for the unit on active service, I would have thought 149th Armored Regiment was the obvious title. Not sure about preemptively disambiguating the title with (United States), as the spelling of armor seems to be peculiar to the US.
• state in the lead that the unit didn't see action in WWI.
• also in the lead, "the unit converted from a cavalry into armor"
• per WP:OTHERNAMES, significant alternative names should be bolded in the lead. To my eye, Company B of the 145th Machine Gun Battalion and Company C of the 194th Tank Battalion are obvious contenders, given they relate to active service
• how did Noble Eagle relate to Kosovo? I thought it was a domestic operation? The way the sentence is constructed indicates a link.
• in the infobox, suggest Mexican Border War rather than just Border War, which is far too vague
• link 40th Infantry Division (United States)

• link this at first mention in the body as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The link in lead is the first mention, in the sentence "The following year, Troop C was activated then reorganized and redesignated as Company B of the 145th Machine Gun Battalion upon the United States' entry into World War I; as part of the 40th Division, the battalion deployed to France in 1918, and returned to the United States in 1919." I have included the link again, outside of the lead here, at its first mention in the body of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Great, generally link once in the lead and again at first mention in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• the mention of the first soldier from Salinas to die seems overly detailed
• "where it would spendspent" and "the machine gun battalion would bewas sent"
• "mid-December 1918, the 40th Division"
• link mobilization for demobilized
• the "Renault light tanks" were almost certainly M1917 light tanks, which were a licence-built copy of the Renault FT
• the bolding of Company C, 194th Tank Battalion in the body is not MOS-compliant. If this is an alternative name, it should be bolded in the lead
• link Fort Lewis
• suggest "assembled as an entire battalion"→"assembled as an entire unit" to avoid repetition
• if Company B, 194th Tank Battalion went to Alaska, but Company C didn't, why does the infobox list the Aleutian Islands Campaign?
• state that Fort Stotsenburg was in Angeles City

• Doesn't appear to have been done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Change implemented.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• "armored-piercing"→"armor-piercing"
• "The beginning of World War II" - WWII started in September 1939.

• This is just factually wrong. WWII didn't begin in December 1941. I suggest something like "When the United States was drawn into World War II by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Company C was..." You can't place the beginning of WWII into a US context, it was a world war, and had already been going for two years. You also shouldn't WP:EASTEREGG a link like that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I remind the review of WP:CIVIL. This is the first time that the reviewer has made the suggestion for the specific working. I attempted to civilly explain the modification below, only to be met with intensity. If this was such a significant error in modification why is it that the re-write wasn't done by the reviewer? If I am making changes specifically as instructed how does this not make me a WP:MEATPUPPET in the context of this review/assessment?

I have implemented the changes as instructed.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I am being civil, but this was counter-factual, and you seemed to insist it was right, so I was pointing that out and being firm about the need to fix it. I believe that making changes yourself is a much better way of learning that having the reviewer do it. You are always free to ignore or reject a reviewer's comments, but this needs to be balanced against receiving support for the promotion of the article, depending on how important the point(s) raised might be. A Milhist A-Class review is a collective effort to improve the article as much as possible so it meets the A-Class criteria. Milhist A-Class is very close to Featured, so you can expect close questioning about any concerns raised. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• suggest "United States Far East Air Force"

• this hasn't been done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• to clarify, it needs to be made clear that this was a US formation, no need to change the link to that, just "United States Far East Air Force". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Modification implemented.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• when he's introduced, he should be General Douglas MacArthur, after that he should just be MacArthur, per MOS:SURNAME
• the sentence beginning "Assigned to the area east..." doesn't have a subject
• suggest "The commanding general of the South Luzon Force, Brigadier General Albert M. Jones, heard from a motorcycle messenger from Company C on Christmas Day that the 1st Infantry Regiment had prematurely moved westward away from their position at Sampaloc. He then instructed them to engage the Japanese who had landed at Mauban."
• suggest "He decided to conduct a reconnaissance himself using a halftrack from Company C, and they were engaged by a Japanese patrol north of the town of Piis. During the engagement the halftrack became immobilized in a ditch, however the crew was able to disperse the patrol allowing Jones and the crew to carry the halftrack's machine guns back to friendly lines." In general, once you have introduced someone, just use their surname after[[ that unless there are multiple people with the same surname.
• suggest "For their actions, Jones recommended the crew members receive the Distinguished Service Cross; but by April 1946, when the recommendation was finally processed, the awards were downgraded to Silver Stars and only one of the five crew, Sergeant Leon Elliot, was still alive."

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I have made most of the suggested changes above. See this group of diffs (which include a few edits by other users (AustralianRupert (talk · contribs), The Banner (talk · contribs), ). Due to the page move, some of the associated reviews of the article, including this one did not move over. therefore I have had to transclude it in the talk page.

Information about Martin Hopps was moved to the section "Popular media", as East of Eden is where the soldier is memorialized in literature.

The reason for the Aleutian Islands Campaign credit in the info box is due to a unit which was later amalgamated into the regiment which is the primary subject of the article, the national guard unit based out of Santa Cruz, California, had earned that streamer. This is explained by the national guard unit from Santa Cruz use to be Company F of the 159th Infantry (see this newspaper clipping), which participated in Battle of Attu (see page 1588, of this source.) In the 1990s that company was changed to the 149th.

Regarding the link to World War II, I modified to link to Pacific War. For the United States World War II began with the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and as such the sentence is appropriate in the context of this article. But to make it even more specific, I changed the link. As the Pacific War is part of World War II, the sentence is still correct.

United Sates Far East Air Force is a successor unit of the Far East Air Force and was not designated such until later on in the war (as stated in its article), and redirects to that article.

I will get to the suggestions below later. Apologies that I can't get to this sooner, but I am getting to it as time allows for more editing of Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, have checked down to here, but my eyes are spinning, so I'll come back later. More points at the bottom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• suggest either "The next day the 2nd Platoon" or "The next day the second platoon"
• "a Filipino Major Rumbold" but then he is described as an American?
• once Needham is introduced, he should just be Needham
• "which had been prepared in anticipation of exactly the type of American action that was taking place due to the firefight the night before" doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps "Due to the firefight the night before, a roadblock had been prepared by the Japanese, consisting of antitank guns, artillery, and several machine guns. The Americans advanced as a column, and the lead tank, commanded by Needham..." also link anti-tank warfare for anti-tank guns and also link artillery
• (SSG) is unneeded, as the only other mention of him is later, when it should just be "Morello"
• "before his tank was disabled itself"
• "thiswhich allowed Morello to gather the wounded"
• suggest "With the wounded"→"Having collected them" to avoid repeating "wounded"
• no comma after "Filipino guides"
• lower case h for hospital
• "they werehe was able to reach"
• "For this Morello was awarded the Silver Star (in 1983)"→"In 1983, Morello was awarded the Silver Star for his actions;"
• "part of a covering force coveringfor the division's withdrawal"
• "which would rejoined the rest of the South Luzon Force"

• This needs a tweak. rejoin→rejoined Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit made.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• "At Calumpit there was anwere important bridges"
• "ensuring the path to the units defending the bridges" what does this mean?
• "Compancy C"
• "While there, they observinged empty trucks"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: The changes requested in this section can be seen with this diff. I attempted to clarify the path statement. Please let me know if that is still not clear.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 20:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Other than the couple of things above, this section is good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• suggest converting 12,000 gallons
• "combat occurred for thate 194th"
• "destroyed the bridge over the San Fernando" do you mean the Pampanga?
• "they found themselvesthe 1st Provisional Tank Group conductinged"
• "There they the held"
• were the Philippine Constabulary officers killed?
• "which lead to significant Japanese losses in the Tanaka Detachment unit"
• "Tank Group weere formed"
• "That was the was the final defensive line"
• "which wereas worked on"

• A typo has crept in here "which as worked on and completed" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit implemented.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• "which includinged the action which resultinged"
• LTG in full, and who was he? ie commander of...
• "to the Wwest"
• "Initially, tTwo tanks were damaged by anti-tank mines during the initial attack"
• "Yet after that initial setback" initial is being repeated and is unnecessary
• suggest "beginning their withdrawal"→"pulling out" to avoid repeating withdraw/withdrawal
• link mortar (weapon)
• "the attack on the 7th April" or April 7, in general, go through and choose one method of applying dates, I suggest US style, ie April 7
• "Major General Edward P. King" in general, use the first and surname when you introduce people
• link Bataan Death March
• I take it Zingheim was a Company C man?
• drop the comma from "the soldiers of Company C, were"
• the whole of the company were awarded the Bronze Star?
• were these awards for their conduct during the fighting or for conduct during internment? Or both?
• suggest combining the two sentences beginning "During a weekend drill..." as there is some repetition
• " yearly annual"
• say that Fort Ripley is in Minnesota
• "As a result ofIn response to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, Operation Garden Plot was initiated, leading to the regiment returning to riot control duties in Los Angeles"

• The reason I've suggested this formulation is the repetition of riots and riot, the use of riot control converts riot into an adjective and smooths the sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Change implemented.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• "3rd bBrigade"
• "this resulted in the regiment consisted"? Not sure what is meant here
• "transitioneding from the"
• "In following year in May 1998"
• link for Watsonville?

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I have made the changes requested above in this group of changes. The San Fernando River is separate from the Pampanga River (in some diffs I added potential references which could be used to create an article for it). The Constabulary Officers which were being utilized as human shields by the Japanese force behind them were killed. General Jonathan M, Wainwright IV was a Major General at the time when he is mentioned in this article, so I changed it to fit his rank (and command) at the time of mention. It is not stated why every soldier of Company C was awarded a Bronze Star Medal, but one can presume it was for actions during their combat experience and time in captivity; I also found another source stating that each solider of Company C also received a Purple Heart, I added the reference, and a quote stating exactly that.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

OK to here, but with a couple of tweaks above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• link Kosovo Force
• say what Operation Noble Eagle is and link
• how did the soldiers see action? as individual reinforcements to other armor units?
• In Awards, each award needs a citation
• all of the Lineage needs to be cited. If one or two sources do it, perhaps an introductory sentence with the citations should cover it
• " SSG Morello's tank" as he has been introduced
• "California National Guardsman who enjoys jazz" seems off-topic, as it doesn't seem to relate to this unit specifically
• both the See also's are already linked in the article, so are unneeded.

• 194th Tank Battalion is a redirect back to this article, so delete it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The see also link isn't for 194th Tank Battalion, which is a redirect to the article which is being reviewed here. It is a link to 194th Armor Regiment (United States). It is a successor unit of 34th Tank Company of the Minnesota National Guard, which became A Company of the 194th Tank Battalion. (see this website, or this book, or this news article). So it makes sense to keep a link to them.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, how confusing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That'll do for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Here is the diffs with the changes requested in this final part. I separated the linking of Operation Noble Eagle with the separate activation for the Kosovo Force, and explained the Operation Noble Eagle activity. In addition I modified the citation style for the award and lineage section. As for the character portrayed by Arnaz, while he says that he is with the 192nd, he also says that he is a California National Guardsman. At the time there were only two California Army National Guard units that were OCONUS; the 251st Coastal Artillery which was on Oahu during the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the other unit being Company C of 194th Tank Battalion. If it is the consensus of reviewers that it is not relevant to this article, it can be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67:Correction, Company C, 194th Tank Battalion was one of three California NG units that were OCONUS at the beginning of hostilities for the United States in World War II. I had previously mentioned the 251st, but I forgot to mention the 250th which was in Alaska; still Company C was the only California National Guard unit in the Philippines. Therefore the mention of the 192nd in the movie was surely a mistake, as the 192nd Tank Battalion was made up of units from Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and Kentucky. Thus, the character of PVT Ramirez, portrayed by Desi Arnaz is surely a California National Guardsman (as is stated in various sources), and thus a member of the 194th, a predecessor unit to the subject of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is close to OR, but at least a note to that effect is required. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note added.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm now going through all my points, and checking no others have cropped up.

• six-town M1917 tanksPeacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is the diff with the spelling correction.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, have now checked the lot, a few outstanding points. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Just let me know when you're done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: All requested modifications appear to have been conducted. If there are any additional changed needed please instruct me what those are.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm happy now. Just for future ACR noms, I suggest you request a WP:GUILD c/e before nominating, to eliminate the minor spelling/grammar/MOS issues, and you don't need to ping me in every edit summary. Well done on this, it is a great article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, RightCow, interesting article. Nice work. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• unit served along the Mexico-United States border: suggest adding an endash instead of hyphen here
• Following the September 11th attacks in 2001: suggest removing the ordinal suffix here for consistency with normal date format
• "Company B of the 145th Machine Gun Battalion": --> "Company B, 145th Machine Gun Battalion"?
• "Company C of the 194th Tank Battalion": --> "Company C, 194th Tank Battalion"?
• As prisoners of war, soldiers: --> suggest introducing the POW abbreviation here
• In 1946, the unit was inactivated, then redesignated as the 199th Tank Battalion; then in 1949, as the 149th Tank Battalion; then in 1959, as the 149th Armor Regiment: this seems a bit run-on. Is there a smoother way of saying this?
• period the battalion was past of... --> "part of"
• near ammo dumps at night: "ammo dumps" seems a bit informal, probably best to say "ammunition dumps"
• regarding their peacekeeping role with Kosovo Force: was this in a mounted or dismounted role? Do we have any details about where they operated and dates they were overseas? Any casualties?
• Manilla is overlinked in the Clark Field section; malaria is overlinked in the Surrender and occupation section; and Bataan Death March is ovelinked in the Legacy section
• the tank crew of the immobilized tank... --> "the crew of the immobilized tank"
• Technician fifth grade Eugene Zingheim --> "Technician Fifth Grade Eugene Zingheim" as it is a title in this case?
• After that they were was the last... --> "They were the last..."
• ...a part of the 65th Fires Brigade (United States): pipe the link here to display "65th Fires Brigade"
• in the citations sometimes you display authors with surnames first (for instance "Rovere, Richard") but other times you don't (for example "Gary S. Breschini) -- this should probably be consistent
• near Nogales, Arizona.[8][6]: suggest reordering the refs here so they are in numerical order
• note a should be attributed in the text of the note before the citation
• "340th Support Battalion" or "340th Brigade Support Battalion
• probably best to link guidon
• do we know what vehicles the unit operated in the immediate post war period? Currently, there seems to be a gap between the end of the war and 1989 with regards to the vehicle listing AustralianRupert (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: I have made the changes that I could, please let me know if there are any that I missed.

Regarding the role that the Soldiers of the subject took in Kosovo Force (6A). I could not find any reliable sources which state what they did there, what specific dates they deployed or returned, whether they experienced any casualties, and whether they were mounted or dismounted. That said, I provided what reliable sources I could find about its time there.

Both "340th Support Battalion" & "340th Brigade Support Battalion" are used in reliable sources and official publications. For instance the lineage document utilized "Support Battalion", however a more recent army news article utilized "Brigade Support Battalion". If google hits mean anything "Brigade Support Battalion" is more common than "Support Battalion".

As for vehicles during the Cold War, I have not been able to find any reliable sources which state what vehicles are utilized. Unfortunately that leads to gaps in information, which I would like to fill, but don't have reliable sources to fill at this time. The California State Military Museum maintains a photo collection (149th) (199th) of the unit, which depicts M4 Shermans, M41 Walker Bulldogs, M48 Pattons. & M60 Pattons; if these images (without metadata) are reliable sources, perhaps they can be utilized to fill in that knowledge gap.

Guidance how to proceed would be appreciated.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

G'day, your changes look good to me, so I've added my support. (I made a minor tweak, though, which I'd ask you to check you are happy with). Regarding using the images as references -- in this case, I'd probably say it wouldn't be sufficient. As the images don't have description pages, and are just links straight to the raw image, there is no real content to cite, just the page header and file names which don't really provide dates or other information to verify. Have you tried maybe searching newspapers via ProQuest or some other database? That might have some sort of local news story about vehicle change overs, or parades etc that might be useful? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 comments regarding external links

G'day RightCowLeftCoast, can you click on the External links thingo in the toolbox above and fix the issues? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: sorry for the delay, I was busy in real life, which including holding a Wikipedia meetup. What items are you wanting fixed specifically? The dead links that became rot in the +5 years since the article was initially started? Or are is a more extensive modification of references requested?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The broken link at a minimum, but there is a lot of blue on that report which will need fixing before this goes to FAC, which is where I assume it is going. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed one deadlink reference which was redundant. The other deadlink reference is to an old Army report from 1996-1997 timeframe. I am trying to find a replacement now, but even if there isn't an online version, that is not to say that there is not an offline version in an archive within the federal government somewhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies to Kges1901 (talk · contribs) & CPA-5 (talk · contribs) in advance. I am but one person, and trying to get to each item as they come up, in the order I have received them. I am busy in real life, but will attempt to resolve the issues raised as soon as I have the time, and after I have fixed the external link issues which Sturmvogel 66 have informed me of.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have sent an email to National Archives and Records Administration, and hope that Dominic (talk · contribs) might be able to assist in finding the deadlink reference being sought.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Good news, RightCowLeftCoast! The FY 1997 reductions list was preserved on Wayback Machine, and I've added the link to the ref in question. Kges1901 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Damn this one is really long not only the article but the time to get A-class too. We need one more reviewer so I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• battalion deployed to France in 1918 Unlink France because of common term.
• and returned to the United States in 1919 Same as above.
• the battalion fought against Japanese forces Link Japanese to the Empire of Japan's article.
• was deployed to the Philippines Link the Philippines with Commonwealth of the Philippines's article.
• using Golden Gate Park as its base of operations.[8][6] Reorder the ref in numerical order.
• In June 1916, the unit was activated for We do not need a "1916" here.
• Withdrawal in Southern Luzon, Philippines in December 1941 in the File:Withdrawal South Dec 1941.jpg add "the" before "Philippines".
• himself using a halftrack from Company C Halftrack needs a hyphen between half and track.
• During the engagement the halftrack became Same as above.
• the Mexican border, World War I was being fought Link World War I here.
• Beginning in mid-December 1918 No need to use 1918 here.
• crew to carry the halftrack's machine it is "half-track's".
• In the File:Manila declared open city.jpg image, "Picture taken of an open city sign in front" --> "Picture was taken of an open city sign in front".
• as an advance force of the main line Merge main line here.
• additional combat which lead to significant You mean leads?
• never shipped to the Philippines causing Link the Philippines with Commonwealth of the Philippines's article.
• deploy overseas, during World War II Link WWII and unlink the second one in the body.
• The page number in ref 33 should be "151–172".
• the rest of the battalion on 12 December 1941 Remove the unnecessary 1941.
• On 23 December 1941, with the advances Same as above.
• Most US related articles use the month/day/year instead of day/month/year system.
• into World War II by the Japanese Link Japanese to the Empire of Japan's article.
• unit fighting a delaying action.[c][85] Switch the note and the ref here.
• Don't forget that a pdf should have page numbers in the sources.
• Some ISBNs have hyphens other don't maybe we should standardise the ISBNs here.
• Standardise two-digit or four-digit numbers in the infobox. I think we can use two-digit because we have limited space here.
• Philippines --> Philippines campaign in the infobox.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: I have made most of the changes requested above. Where the pdf references have multiple enumerated pages, and which are not articles in journals, I have attempted to add specific pages. I am not changing the date format per WP:MILDATE & WP:MILFORMAT. I have changed the ISBN format as requested, as well as modified the infobox, while keeping the four year format.

Please let me know what else I can do to improve the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Looks good in my opinion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Kges1901

• The article should mention that the 149th Armor/149th Armored was a parent regiment under the Combat Arms Regimental System from 1959 and the United States Army Regimental System from 1989, to avoid giving the impression that it was a traditional regiment. As a parent regiment, it didn't have a traditional 3-battalion structure, with regimental headquarters being set at zero strength. According to the 340th Spt Bn's lineage, cited in the article, only the 1st Bn of the 149th was active from 1968; this needs to be clarified to avoid giving the impression that it was a traditional regiment to readers not familiar with the CARS and USARS systems.

194th Tank Battalion

• Is there any information pertaining to the summer training of the 40th Tank Co during the interwar period in your sources? The 40th Tank Co period would work better under a separate 'Between the wars' section instead of the 194th section
• Since only Company C of the 149th is part of the lineage of the 194th, and since Company A of the 192nd is continued by the 194th Armor of the Minnesota ARNG, the 194th should probably have a separate article. Overall though, you've done a good job focusing only on Co C, 194th instead of the entire unit.

Post-World War II

• Both in the infobox and in this section you should mention what tanks the unit was equipped with postwar. For example, in 1962 they had M48 Pattons.
• Annual training locations should be mentioned in this section
• I recommend that you delve into the California Adjutant General's Reports from this period so that more detail can be found, such as home stations of units other than the 1st Battalion (whose HQ was at Salinas until 1996, I presume?)
• and then elevated to a parent regiment within the Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS) in 1959 - Clarify the impact of CARS on the 149th Tank Bn - that it was consolidated with the 170th AAA Battalion and that both the 1st Medium Tank Bn and 2nd Reconnaissance Squadron existed
• The National Guard restructuring of the 1960s and its impact on the 149th should be mentioned, specifically the 1963 and 1968 reorganizations and the brief existence of 4th Battalion
• detached from the 49th - Article should mention that Robert McNamara's elimination of several National Guard divisions resulted in the 49th being inactivated, and thus the 1-149th becoming a nondivisional unit. In addition, the fate of the 1st and 4th Battalions as a result of the 1968 reorganization should be clarified.
• After 1968, when the article says 'the regiment', what is really meant is the 1st Battalion as the 1st Battalion was the only active unit assigned to the 149th
• one of these sent the regiment's third battalion to Camp Ripley, Minnesota, for winter training in 1982 - The 149th Armor had only 1st Bn active from 1968 according to the lineage.
• Did anything noteworthy happen during the deployment in response to the 1992 LA riots?
• regiment saw an increase in its size - 'regiment' should be changed to 'battalion' and increase in size needs to be more specific - was it an expansion from three to four lettered companies?
• M60A3 to the M1IP - M1IP should be 'M1IP Abrams'
• providing security at potential targets and airports in the United States, in 2003 Presumably airports and potential targets in CA?
• Is there more information available on what exactly it did during the KFOR deployment? Was this a deployment of the entire battalion, as ref 67 claims that 80 soldiers went to Iraq?
• On the redesignation to the 340th BSB, it should be noted that the 149th's lineage consolidated with the 340th Support Battalion's and thus the current 340th BSB perpetuates the 149th.
• regiment being disbanded, and redesignated Disbanded has a technical lineage meaning that did not happen in this case.

Source review

• Sources are reliable for the subject. However, many of the page ranges in the rp format are too long to be easily verifiable; one should not have to go through an entire chapter to verify references. This concern applies at least to refs 8, 20, 33, 54 and 57.

Kges1901 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kges1901: I have attempted to make the changes requested above.

I have made use of the notes more to provide documentation of most of the unit reorganizations, as well as the note about the reasoning behind the 1960s reorganizations.

I do not have any specific event information regarding the 1992 riot response, or the unit's actions in Kosovo.

Where is the information about 80 going to Iraq as part of the unit stated; I did not find it in the references, and to the best of my knowledge ( at this time) most of the unit's Soldiers saw combat in Iraq and Afghanistan through them previously being in other units, but not the unit itself.

As for where the unit served during its activation during Noble Eagle, I have not found any references to give exact sites where security was provided.

I still need to go through the Hathi Trust documents to see if I can expand the article any further with what is there.

I have attempted to reduce down some of the citation page lengths in the rp templates. If there are others which can be further reduced, please let me know and I will endeavor to find more specific page numbers; except for "[55]:432–437" because the events from 4-7 April on Trail 29 are interspersed with mentions of events happening for other units during this time period, thus the reason for the longer page range.

--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding. The changes are enough to Support now. The Iraq reference is in [1], but it might be a result of reporter confusion of different units. Kges1901 (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• OK, I see it

  The 149th has about 250 active soldiers, about 80 of whom returned from Iraq on Feb. 10, said Master Sgt. Leonard Formosa. Another 100 soldiers are stationed in Kosovo on a peace-keeping mission with NATO.

  — Stahl, 2005

That said I am not seeing any corroborating reliable sources, and the unit was not given credit for the deployment. I can include a note about it, and the deployment likely would have occurred in the 2004 time frame given that they returned in February 2005.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It might be possible that these 80 were attached to 81st Armored Brigade (which included 1/185th AR during the deployment (another CANG unit)), which deployed as part of OIF II (sources: FAS, HSDL.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kges1901: OK found a non-reliable source which verifies the speculation, but insufficiently for the purposes of Wikipedia. This forum post, which drew from a now deadlink source from the California National Guard website, indicates that Company A (from Madera) did attach to 1/185th during its deployment to OIF II.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)]]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page move

G'day Kirill Lokshin or AustralianRupert. This page has been moved during the ACR and now the links to it and the GAN are broken. I know I should know what we do in this situation, but my mind has gone blank. Something to do with redirects? Help. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

G'day, PM, I've implemented the Article history template, which should fix the link to the GAN. The ACR page could be redirected to the new name, but I'd suggest just page moving the ACR to the new name without leaving a redirect as it is probably a more tidy approach. But that might make Milhistbot misunderstand when it comes time to close. @Hawkeye7: Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

First combat

• Hunnicutt's book - Stuart: A History of the American Light Tank, Voume 1 and Pg. 395 clearly mentions that the 192nd Tank Battalion became the first American troops to engage in tank to tank combat. The 192nd and 194th Tank battalions were combined with the 17th Ordnance Company to form the Provisional Tank Group (149th), but, it was specifically 5 M3 tanks of the B-company of the 192nd Battalion, which, engaged with the 4th Tank Regiment of Japanese. ∯WBG^converse 10:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  This happened on 22 December 1941.

  In contrast, the five Japanese Type 89A tanks were destroyed on 1 January 1942. ∯WBG^converse 10:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  I have temporarily restored the content. I am not seeing on google books a clearly readable version of this book mentioned above.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 11:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  You can safely assume that I am not making up stuff and that I'm literate enough. If you need a copy of the scanned page, wikimail me. ∯WBG^converse 11:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Hunnicutt writes:-

  After the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent Japanese landings on Luzon, the Provisional Tank Group moved north to support the United States and Philippine troops and to cover their retreat to the Bataan peninsula. On 21 December. Major (later Lieutenant Colonel) Theodore F. Wickord, commanding the 192nd Tank Battalion, received orders to move the battalion north and to send B Company on ahead for a special mission. During the movement, Captain Donald Hanes, commanding B Company, expected to refuel his tanks at Gerona and again at Bauang. However, fuel was not provided at Gerona and the enemy was rapidly approaching Bauang. The 26th Cavalry (Philippine Scouts) was operating in the area and they had already been under attack by enemy aircraft.

  When reports reached General Wainwright that an enemy motorized force was approaching Damortis, he directed Captain Hanes to engage them. Since the company was almost out of gasoline. the available fuel supply was combined to provide enough to fill up a single five tank platoon. Once again, the short cruising range of the light tank M3 was a major disadvantage. Led by Lieutenant Ben R. Morin, the fivetanks moved north out of Damonis toward Agoo. Here they ran into elements of the Japanese 4th Tank Regiment becoming the first American troops to engage in tank versus tank action in World War II. The lead M3 left the road to maneuver. but it was hit and set on fire. Lieutenant Morin was wounded and captured along with his crew. The remaining four tanks also were hit by 47mm fire. but they were able to withdrew. Later they were destroyed by enemy aircraft. Despite this tragic start, the 192nd fought skillfully during the remainder of the Withdrawal toward Bataan.

  The Provisional Tank Group headquarters and the 194th Tank Battalion, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Ernest B. Miller, had moved north on Christmas Day. The 194th operated to the west of highway 3 with the 192nd to the east. Both battalions fought a series of rearguard actions and were the last troops into the Bataan peninsula. The 192nd crossed the bridge over the Culis river into Bataan during the night of 6-7 January 1942 as the last unit before the bridge was blown.

  O'Donnell, Maureen (2016-06-24). "Rev. Benjamin 'Ben' R. Morin, soldier who survived Japanese POW camps, dead at 94". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2019-06-20. writes:-

  Rev. Morin, the first U.S. tank commander to engage enemy forces in World War II ....Lt. Morin was leading five tanks through the jungle to attack the Japanese .... With that, he made history. Morin led “the first U.S. tank engagement of World War II,” said Lt. Col. Brad Leighton, a spokesman for the Illinois National Guard

  You might further wish to read:-

  Salecker, Gene Eric (2008-04-16). Rolling Thunder Against the Rising Sun: The Combat History of U.S. Army Tank Battalions in the Pacific in World War II. Stackpole Books. p. 9-14. ISBN 9780811743624.

  Woolfe, Raymond G., Jr., author. The doomed horse soldiers of Bataan : the incredible stand of the 26th Cavalry. ISBN 9781442245341. OCLC 921236058. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (I too need to read this).∯WBG^converse 12:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Surely, the soldiers of both units want to make the claims of being the first of this, or the the last of that. For instance the claim of the 192nd being the last to go across the bridge contradicts claims by other reliable sources which states it was parts of the 194th that were the last to cross.

The 192nd can continue its claim, and the differing claims can be acknowledged.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 12:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The sources used by you are all less reliable than my ones. Please learn to assess quality of military scholarship. There is not an iota of doubt that your claims (and the hook) were factually incorrect. ∯WBG^converse 12:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That's an entirely subjective argument. As the source removed is to Armor, and a reprint of an article from that journal. Therefore, if there is doubt, it's because a reliable source was relied on for its accuracy. And as historians don't always agree, there is a reason why there is contradiction from the sources utilized by WBG and at Tanks of the United States. Again the sources at Tanks of the United States are not clearly accessible for verification and thus one must WP:AGF. Thus the argument made at User talk:The Rambling Man#Main page redux is subject to scrutiny; whereas sources removed are clearly readable to all who would want to access them.

Additionally the reversion of a reversion of the content removal contradicts WP:BRD, and is movement towards WP:EW. Moreover, please see WP:AVOIDYOU, as it can be construed that WBG is not discussing a difference of what reliable sources state, but about myself. WBG can say there is "not one iota an iota of doubt", but when different reliable sources state different things, then there is doubt. Thus why we are having this discussion.

I acknowledge that there are claims that the 192nd are what they are. But in removing the content WBG removed what is verified to reliable source. And it's OK for different reliable sources to state different things.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)