User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 4

Army (Soviet Army)

Hi Buckshot06, I removed the request for the cite. I should have just brought it up here, and I don't care for the way that asking for a cite places an article into the "unsourced statements" category, as if the article is asserting that unicorns have just taken power in Tanna Tuva. Sorry about that.

On the topic of the article, I think it is very valid. The comments on the talk page miss the mark because army and corps structure, in WWII at least, were considerably different among the combatants, and considerably so when one considers the military organization of the USSR. A comparison of various high field command organizations might be a good topic for Wiki.

On this topic, one idea I've had for a while now is that the often-used comparison of a Soviet army to a western (or German) corps is at best tenuous. There may be similarity in terms of manpower totals, but from what I can tell, the Soviet army seems to have the bulk of its troops in combat formations while a western corps has the bulk of its troops in the logistical "tail". I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

I was glad to see your article mention the return of the rifle corps as a command echelon, as many comment that the Red Army abandoned the use of rifle corps in 1941 and never re-instituted them. I have to dig into the Soviet OOB someday and see precisely when they re-emerge, and I also suspect the armies not engaged against the Germans kept their rifle corps HQ throughout the war.

Cheers, W. B. Wilson 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of rifle corps, I did some digging in the Soviet OOB (Boevoy Sostav) and extracted month-by-month the totals of rifle corps present in fronts that were engaged in combat operations (doesn't include the Stavka reserves or fronts in regions not fighting the Axis). There were 32 initially in combat with the Germans on 22 June 1941. This peaked at 43 by 1 July 1941 and then began to decline until only one (9th Rifle Corps) was active on 1 November 1941, that one in the Kavkazskiy Front. This grows to 3 on 1 February 1942, and is 21 by 1 December 1942. Note in 1942 some of the Rifle Corps are listed as being headquarters only with no divisions assigned (in training I'd guess). In April 1943, the numbers start to take off, such that there were 128 by 1 December 1943. One year later, there are 145 rifle corps, peaking at 159 in March 1945. IIRC, by this time there were some 174 rifle corps including those in the Stavka reserve. Also, it looks like the areas not in combat with Axis troops maintained their use of rifle corps as a command echelon throughout the war. Cheers, W. B. Wilson 15:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

CFE

I seemed to have looked in the edit history and then removed the whole part, including your edits (which seem to have been made between my edit history look and my edits). In other words, I didn't see your edits until now. I'm sorry. Go ahead :-) PS: While I think that the compliance section can be expanded, I don't like an expansion to the problems associated to the adapted CFE treaty as it belongs in a different section or article. Sijo Ripa 12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Hi Buckshot06,

The Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo changes look good. I made a couple of edits afterward to wordsmith a little bit. I'll bet your article is the most information on this military that can be found in one place on the internet. Cheers, W. B. Wilson 05:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made some comments and have taken the liberty of doing a copyedit as well. Please don't take the comments as criticisms, as I think that this is a good article, especially given the very limited information available. I'd agree completely with the above comment. --Nick Dowling 10:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to cite the statement that it's unknown whether the DRC Army's brigades are close to the size of 'proper' brigades? I don't think that the 'standard' size of brigades needs a citation - sorry for any confusion. --Nick Dowling 12:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you cite the bit on the strengths of the brigades that way someone will inevitably come along and try to claim that it's original research. Can you cite a few examples of sources in which the strengths of the units is unclear? I don't think that anyone will doubt that the DRC Army's 'brigades' don't look much like the brigades of a properly functioning army so a strong citation isn't really needed. --Nick Dowling 10:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot. I've photo-copied the section on the DRC military from the 2002 edition of Jane's Sentinal (which is the most recent copy available anywhere in Canberra). Is this likely to be too dated to use? I imagine that the material on the military's command structure and logistics (or lack thereof) will still be relevant, but the details on the Army's structure will be out of date. I hope that you don't mind me musceling in on this topic (of which I know almost nothing!), but I find it really interesting and feel that I should help out with adding the material I suggested in the review. --Nick Dowling 08:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there aren't any copies of Jane's World Armies availble for the general public to look at in Canberra. I read the JSENT article this morning, and the stuff on the Air Force and Navy is pretty much current (or at least is in accordance with the 2007 editions of Jane's AF and Ships) but the discussion of the Army probably isn't of much use except as recent historical background. It does contain a very good summary of the DRC's military history though. I agree that discussion of what should and shouldn't be included is better placed on the article's talk page where everyone can see it, so I'll make some additional comments there. --Nick Dowling 00:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it's ready for an A class review. It might be worth stressing the very limited and contridictory information which is availble on this topic in the nomination though to head off comments about it not being as comprehensive as, say, United States Marine Corps. By the way, if you've got access to a copy of a recent copy of 'The Military Balance' or equivalent, could you please check that Military of East Timor is up to date? I've photo-copied the Timor Leste section from the 2007 edition of Jane's Sentinel, but much of it seems to have not been updated since 2002! - which is pretty poor in my opinion considering that much of the F-FDTL collapsed last year. --Nick Dowling 11:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Red Army

I don't like your correction. If you don't like mine - discuss them on the talk page rather than removing them. Now you maintain that the crimes took place only in Germany, they didn't. Xx236 14:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Military of the United States and 'armed forces'

A Google search turned up some results; the White House link on the second page seems to indicate that this is an official term. Octane ^{[improve me]} 25.07.07 1753 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting, but the link I mentioned is here. Sorry; should have linked to it in the first place. Octane ^{[improve me]} 25.07.07 2002 (UTC)

People's Liberation Army divisions

Hi. Currently, my convoluted way of thinking is as follows: Create stubs mainly for units Division size and higher, only creating regimental stubs as enough additional information warrants (which isn't very much). Then, as I progress (usually several times) through various references I come across, add whatever information I find about the unit or it's engagements. Finally, when I go back to review what I've found, I can always consolidate lower unit information back into the higher units history and delete the subordinate unit page. It's usually more difficult breaking stuff out from a higher unit to make up a subordinate unit's history if there's enough information available. There probably is a far better approach to doing this, but this is how my ADHD mind usually works, even after 49 years. :^) wbfergus 15:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, regarding the "regions", I'm not sure yet (or don't remember reading about it at least), which regions these units belonged to. I'll keep it in mind though, so if/when I do run across that information, I can add it in the appropriate category. Thanks for the suggestion. wbfergus 15:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

When you get a chance, check out 112th Division (People's Republic of China) and see how that looks. I checked the link you provided, and incorporated that information as well as the region information. wbfergus 15:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. While slowly progressing through the PLA units and trying to get all the pieces put together in (hopefully) the correct order, I ran across a couple of other references that may be of use in your Chinese Military Regions. I'd do the updates myself, but since this appears to be your own pet project, I figured I'd leave it up to you to decide how to progress on it, so I don't step on your toes. Specifically regarding the Beijing Military Region, I see some discrepencies in the number of units, from the source you have cited, hence my apprehension about editing something you've started. Your source has different figures from what I see, and I didn't want to make edits without you aware of differing numbers. Anyway, the first reference is [China Defense, Beijing Military Region] and the other is [GlobalSecurity.org, Beijing Military Region]. I believe they both have pages for each military region, though I haven't compared their numbers to what you have on wiki from the IISS. If you want me to go ahead, I can as I get time, just leave me a message. wbfergus 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Rifle Corps (Soviet)

Hi Buckshot06, you may wish to review this if you get a chance. It is basic, but at least establishes the topic. Cheers, W. B. Wilson 19:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet unit articles

I'm not a fluent reader of Russian, but I will have a quick look and see if I can translate some of the leftover words, or perhaps transliterate them into the Latin alphabet. Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-08-01 06:19 Z

I've made a preliminary translation of most of the Russian terms in 45th Rifle Division (Soviet Union). Sorry I don't have time to do a full copy-edit right now, but this should get you going.

When translating, it would often be useful to see the text of the original document on the talk page, or a link to it. Found it.

You might find this glossary useful:

• ж.д. (Zh.D.) = железнодорожная (zheleznodorozhnaya), 'railway', 'railroad' (adj.)—seems to refer to railway stations or stops
• мсбр (MSBr) = 'motor rifle brigade'
• н.п. (n.p.) = Наблюдательный пункт (nablyudatelnyy punkt), 'observation post'
• н.п. (n.p.) = Населённый пункт (naselyonnyy punkt), 'inhabited point', 'settlement', 'village'
• оз (oz) = озеро (ozero), 'lake'
• пгт (pgt) = Посёлок городского типа (posyolok gorodskogo tipa), 'urban-type settlement'
• р. (r.) = река (reka), 'river'
• с.г. (s.g.) = this year? or the same year?
• сд (sd) = Sicherheitsdienst, the Nazi security service
• сд (sd) = Стрелковая дивизия (strelkovaya divisiya), 'rifle division'
• ск (sk) = Стрелковый корпус (strelkovyy korpus), 'rifle corps'
• сп (s.p.) = Стрелковый полк (strelkovyy polk), 'rifle regiment'
• СС (SS)

See also types of inhabited localities in Russia. —Michael Z. 2007-08-01 07:42 Z

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RoLF

Buckshot, my sources on that Cold War period are almost inexistent. It would be really great if you could help me. I have done my best and really have nothing else to add into the article, unless somebody provides me some sources. Thanks! --Eurocopter tigre 22:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Highest numbered rifle division

Hello Buckshot06,
The Boevoy Sostav shows the 417th as the highest numbered rifle division in Jan 1945 and Jan 1944. I'll have to check some other time periods, it is time-consuming because the listings are organized by front and army, not by division. Cheers, W. B. Wilson 03:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Have scanned a couple of months in 1942 that P&C mentioned, still nothing in the Boevoy Sostav. 417 is still the highest number I have seen in any of the OOB listings. Interestingly, P&C's notes on divisions with higher numbers than 417 indicate they were renumbered (as regular rifle divisions), merged with existing divisions, or were identified by German or U.S. sources which could of course be wrong. These divisions could be red herrings in the sense of some of the German Volksgrenadier divisions that were formed in the 500 series and then almost immediately renumbered to take on the numbers of divisions previously destroyed in battle. W. B. Wilson 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rus AF, AV-MF, RoLF

Hi Buckshot, I found the complete structures of 5th,6th,11th,14th air armies as well as Russian Naval Aviation updated by Piotr Butowski. I will update the air armies in the RusAF article. How about the AMF?? Best, --Eurocopter tigre 20:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I just received the AFM August issue. Yeah, I was talking about AV-MF, sorry - where should I update its structure? I even have a Russia map with all Air Force bases! --Eurocopter tigre 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, I updated the Air Armies, the northern and black sea fleet. Regarding the RoLF, it will be a quite hard job, especially if I'm doing it alone, as I'm quite busy these days. I will also creat articles with all the armies until next week. Buckshot, I noticed that last few days you edited quite a lot, are you finally back on Wiki? --Eurocopter tigre 22:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Check out the Russian Naval Aviation also!Best, --Eurocopter tigre 09:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I just finished all the Air Armies articles. You might wan't to have a look on them. I'm going to have a break now. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 10:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Military of the DRC

I'd say it's probably ready for a run there. You should definitely keep working to deal with any remaining issues from the peer review, though. :-) Kirill 01:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator

A Military history WikiProject coordinator? Why not? I appreciate your contributions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

PLA Air Force

'What about the PLA Air Force'? Are you serious? China's fighter jets are terrible quality compared to USA's/Russia's. China makes poor copies of Russian jets or buys Russian jets, and their own attempts at building advanced jets have been disasters.--Ilya1166 06:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Military of East Timor

Agree with your comments on the Force 2020 plan's lack of realism - the bit about space forces is astonishing, especially seeing as East Timor can't even sustain two light infantry battalions at present! If the oil wealth does start flowing it could be feasible though, even if it isn't a good idea - the Military of Brunei is a larger force for an even smaller petro-state. --Nick Dowling 08:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet 1st Rifle Division

I'll have to check the BSSA to see if I can distinguish two formations. There is something confusing in the formation histories going on, one seems to indicate an infantry trail; P&C claim a 1st Rifle Division was established in Jan 1921 from the First Army and place this unit with the Western Special MD with 1st RC, 10th Army in June 1941. By comparison, P&C claim the 1st Moscow Proletarian Motor Rifle Division was in RVGK reserve with the 7th Mech Corps at Tula in June 1941. The Motor Rifle Division seems to follow a "motor" trail, supposedly becoming the 1st Guards Motor Rifle Division and then the 1st Guards Mech Corps. I'll let you know if the BSSA reveals anything either way. Cheers, W. B. Wilson 17:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BSSA shows only the 1st Motor Rifle Division in Jun 1941. However, Sept 1941 is confusing; the 1st Motor Rifle Division is present, along with no less than two "1st Rifle Divisions NO" - any idea what the "NO" ("HO" in Russian) means - perhaps militia units of some kind? W. B. Wilson 17:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it, I forgot the BSSA identifies the abbreviations at the front of the document. "NO" = Narodnogo Opolcheniya, as best as I can translate, "People's Militia". The units seem to be regionally formed which is perhaps why they are showing up with duplicate unit numbers. Cheers, W. B. Wilson 18:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looks like the NO Cavalry Division is a militia unit, probably short-lived. The 1st Division mess should be straighter now, I confirmed in BSSA that the 1st Guards Rifle Div disappeared after the 1st Guards Mech Corps was formed, but the 1st Guards Motor Rifle Div hung on until it became the new 1st Guards Rifle Div. Cheers, W. B. Wilson 17:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces

Hi Buckshot, I will try to contribute more to improving the various Russian military articles but my time is limited so progress might be slow. With regards to the aircraft numbers, I don't understand how the Russian combat aircraft fleet has suddenly dropped to 1,600? But even so, judging from that source it appears that the number of Russian combat aircraft isn't that much lower than the PLA's, indeed not even double the number, and the superiority of the Russian aircraft should be more than enough to offset the smallish numerical superiority China has.--Ilya1166 05:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be very low:

Edit summary usage for Buckshot06: 15% for major edits and 12% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. My friendly request above was in reference to a couple of articles you edited that were also on my watchlist. With the amount of vandalism we see these days, I always double-check edits made without using an edit summary. As specified in WP:ES, the usage of summaries is optional, but your fellow editors would really appreciate it if you used them more often. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Egyptian Air Force

Hi Buckshot. Thanks for the heads up, I didn't realize it was copied! Yes, it is a pretty blatant violation. It would probably be best to delete the article for now. I'm going to speedy it for that. Bartleby 04:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1st Rifle Army, Far Eastern Front

Hi Buckshot, the 1st, 4th, and 5th are rifle brigades (as Niehorster depicts them). The only thing that seem wrong is that the fortified region should be the 105th (102nd is with the 15th Army). Cheers, W. B. Wilson 16:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic Americans in World War II (FAC)

You said:

"Comment: you need to sort out what the 200th and 515th National Guard units were. They're referred to as battalions, then Coastal Artillery regiments. Please find and insert the correct titles. Hey, rereading, noticed you used '...for her service to our country...' in reference to a nurse. Avoid this: the Net ain't American. Cheers Buckshot06"

• Great observation, I don't know what happened to me there, but I went and fixed it. I tought that I should notify you of the changes made. Cheers! Tony the Marine 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraq

Hi, thanks for pointing out the link to the New Iraqi Army structure. I began to work on the OrBat, but I have interrupted it for now, as very good and complete information about the Israeli Defence Forces came up. I just want to let you know, that as soon as I'm done with the Israeli OrBat, I will finish the Iraqi OrBat. --noclador 01:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Flayer is my source and he is a pretty good one. He confirmed almost all info I already had and gave me a clearer insight into the hierarchy of the IDF. Also he told me to make 4 units disappear... I complied. The only thing that I’m still wondering: With a active Ground Force strength of 125.000 Israel either has grossly overstrengthd battalions (around 800-1000 men per Btn.) or some 2-3 entire Brigades worth of Battalions, which are totally hidden from the public… --noclador 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the number 125,000 implicates the total number of soldiers, not considering IAF and navy. So it is not 125,000 just infantrymen, tankers, artillerymen and its comanders... But also tens of thousands of soldiers of the rear line - drivers, truck drivers, programers, cooks, administrators, clerks, postmen, builders, technicians, painters, guards, journalists, mechanics, musicians, warehousemaen, sweepers and many other kinds of workers, and their commanders. Flayer 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that as Israel's military is geared towards the defensive and therefore it would be like the Austrians- whose teeth to tail is 21.000 to 10.000. The Austrians got to this teeth/tail ratio by focusing on the pure defense with only minimal units ready for out of country combat- as Israels main concern seems to be the defense of itself I assumed that the teeth/tail ratio would be more or less the same... obviously it is different. Btw. the 125.000 are Ground forces only- 168.000 is the full strentgh of the IDF. --noclador 09:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

252nd Division (IDF)

Maj. Gen. Avraham (Albert) Mandler was the commander of 252nd Division when the war begun, but within a short time he got killed in action. Gen. Kalman Magen was promoted to Major General and was appointed to replace Mandler. He was the commander at the time when IDF crossed the canal. Flayer 13:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Military of the DRC

Hi Buckshot. I think that the article is looking excellent. The only ommission I see is that the military's structure and performance in the Congo Wars isn't covered in the history section. As I've said elsewhere, given the limited amount of information available this is a truely remarkable article. By the way, do you have any suggestions for Military of East Timor? --Nick Dowling 04:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a stab at adding a brief history of FARDC during the Second Congo War. However, I've only got one source to work from so I'm sure that it could to with more work. --Nick Dowling 08:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the successful FA nomination! --Nick Dowling 04:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: South African Army

Hi Buckshot. Apologies for the late reply, I've been unusually busy these past few weeks and have not had much time to devote to Wikipedia. I think it's fantastic that you're working to improve the South African Army article, as I no longer have the time for serious contributions and it was in need of some work. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the Vision 2020 planning document, nor am I entirely certain that it has been approved for public release. I will however see what I can do to possibly get hold of it as well as any other relevant information. Cheers, — Impi 20:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

EC FAC

Hi, you made some comments on the FAC of European Commission. I'd just like to know if the phrasing is now clearer? - J Logan ^t: 14:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Helpme - reference template

{{helpme}} - what code/template do I use to indicate that a given reference does not include the information that it claims?

Well, you can use {{fact}} for an individual statement. Template:refimprove & Template:Refimprovesect is generally use if the whole section or article need referencing. KTC 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

{{syn}} and {{or}} could also be also relevant. However, if the reference doesn't support the text then it could be worth removing either the text or the reference. --Nick Dowling 04:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've actually seen a specific refbox thing that says - ref does not include the information - but can't find it right now. Thanks for your help anyway. Buckshot06 08:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki

The process is to add a template here (appears to be Template:Copy to Wiktionary list, but I'm not that familiar with the pedia's complex procedures ;-)

It then gets exported, and imported on the en.wikt with its history as history, i.e. you can look at all the separate revisions, etc. Robert Ullmann 16:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

US Army Divisions

Thanks for your comments. I'm in the middle of a huge WWII project, so I'm really just posting information as it comes to me. While you're probably correct and many of my entries will remain stubs, I'm fairly certain that I will uncover more individual unit histories. That being said, I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia, and I'll probably combine several of the stub articles into larger single articles.

Thanks again.--JKGolden 03:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... as far as the suffixes are concerned, I'm just following the standard set by previous entries. Most of the existing entries are already "xxx Division (United States)" or "U.S. xxx Division." I'm not particularly a fan of that, so I'm definitely for some changing that. With the "xxx Division (prior to World War I)" I'm detailing division designations that have actually meant more than one division. For instance, including the 11th Airborne, "11" has been the designation of three completely different US Army divisions. Again, I'm not particularly of fan of that, so if you've got any ideas, shoot them my way. Thanks.--JKGolden 11:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Looks good. I'll do some quick editing this week and change what I can. Thanks again.--JKGolden 16:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, take a look at the 11th Division and 12th Division pages. I did some editing on both. Let me know if that's what you had in mind.--JKGolden 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that. For now I'll just transpose the "Divisions" section of the existing formations pages over to the new page, and add more in-depth information later.--JKGolden 13:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm still building the page, so let me get to the "finish point" I have in mind before I jump into too much other stuff. As far as collapsing the other pages, I'm okay with deleting the Mexican Revolution page. That being said, don't you think having smaller, narrower-in-scope lists is a good idea? For someone who might be doing research on such topics (as I was a while back), having a dedicated page/list to consult could be a lifesaver.

Concerning the Phantom Divisions and the Unorganized Divisions, I feel that keeping those pages is better than not, especially the Phantom Divisions. Much of the "Operation Fortitude" and "Operation Quicksilver" information I've read on Wikipedia is horrifically incomplete and many times quite inaccurate. I'd like to address both of those (at least partially) on the Phantom Divisions page (maybe make that a sub-page for the actual Phantom Army entries).

Other than that, yes, I will cite my footnotes. I'm not entirely happy with them yet, so let me address that first, as well. Keep sending me your thoughts.

By the way, how does one delete a page? I've "dead-linked" a few already, but I'd like to just get rid of them altogether.--JKGolden 03:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick note concerning the Mexican Revolution page: I added Department and Artillery District sections, so I suggest keeping that page, as well. That era really isn't my cup of tea, but I'm sure there were more types of formations in existence. Perhaps someone else can add material to the page? Thanks.--JKGolden 04:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Operation Passage to Freedom

Hi there Buckshot. I have tried to address your concerns where I feel that they are applicable. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Frédéric Bianchi

Leave it for five minutes. I've almost finished it. Getting edit conflicts. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 17:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Good luck. Do you want to do the clean-up stuff on the other one too? While it's interesting, it's not my period. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 17:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not, though Kiril will know. I'll raise it in the cordinators section later as a similiar thing has arisen with WP:Castles. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 18:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

T-34

Thanks a lot for the kind words about T-34, but I don't deserve all that much credit. I did a lot of work filling out the basic history in the article and finding some references, but then I mostly sat back and played editorial policeman while other editors added a hundred different things to it. It's a great example of collaboration, and I'm quite proud of it. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2007-09-15 14:09 Z

Only a hundred different things?! What, are they sleeping? There were over 3,000 modifications made to the design during the WWII alone ;o). No, actually I meant to thank someone for a great article so your editatorialship is appreciate. Thank you--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Joint task force

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Military Air Foce in WWII

G'day again Buckshot06. I know you didn't create the Soviet Air Force article, but you have been involved with it from beginning, so I'll chat to you first.
I have encountered a problem with my operations project because each Front had an Air Army, and there is no place to link that to, because not one is in Wikipedia. In fact Air Army points to Air Force, and Army has no mention of the Air Armies as a form of military organisation.
In the first instance, what I would like to do is to use the WWII section of the current Soviet Air Force article as the basis for the new Soviet Military Air Force in WW2 article. I know its wordy, but firstly it is the translation of VVS, and secondly there will also be (eventually) Soviet Civil Aviation in WW2. I will then start (slowly) to expand the article with organisational detail (of which I have a lot of). How does this proposal sound?--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)