Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force/Archive 1

• Archive 1
• 2

Task force icon

For the time being, I've used as the icon for this task force in {{WPMILHIST}}. There are probably better images, though, so please feel free to come up with something more suitable if anyone doesn't like this one. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybee the coat of arms of the Soviet Union should be added. Dudtz 10/26/06 6:30 PM EST

Scope

Shouldn't the scope be somewhat more inclusive? I don't want to invite controversy, but why explicitly exclude the other post-Soviet states? Most or all of them were part of the Russian Empire, so they fall within the scope anyway, no? I think this project would work well under the current title without having to restrict the scope so explicitly. —Michael Z. 2006-10-21 05:33 Z

Mmm, I was thinking more of pre-Soviet than post-Soviet issues here, as that has a bunch of things that don't really fit (e.g. pre-Russian Empire Central Asia, etc.); but please feel free to fiddle with the scope as you see fit (so long as people don't start fighting over it too much, anyways). Kirill Lokshin 05:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've edited it to include CIS states. Feel free to improve details or wording. —Michael Z. 2006-10-21 07:24 Z

Congrats!

I don't know if my comments about the naming were taken as harsh or anything, but if so I just wanted to apologize for that. It's a complex subject, and I guess I'm just lucky that my chosen field of focus (Japan) is a country that at least pretends to have been a stable definable entity for the last 1500+ years.

So, congratulations on getting that all sorted out, and welcome to the world of task forces. If anything ever happens to come up regarding Russo-Japanese relations or the like, please feel free to ask. Good luck! LordAmeth 00:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I didn't find any of the discussion to be too harsh, and I hope no one else did either. It's good to shake out the possible drawbacks before making a début. —Michael Z. 2006-10-22 16:35 Z

A-Class review for Russian Ground Forces

There's a new request for A-Class status for Russian Ground Forces that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Translating Russian Old Calendar Dates into Modern Western Dates

For those of you studying Tsarist military history, you'll need a calculator that translates the old Russian (Julian Calendar) dates into the modern, Western dates (Gregorian Calendar). This calculator/chart has been great for me...try it out if you need it:

http://5ko.free.fr/en/jul.php?y=1812

Kenmore 02:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Women in the Soviet military during World War Two

I was thinking of doing an article on ‘Women in the Soviet military during World War Two’. Their roles, attitudes to, the famous (and not so famous) women snipers, pilots, partisans etc. Good idea? Chwyatt 10:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think so; there's definitely enough material for an overview article. The main thing is to avoid having the article devolve into just bulleted lists of women, though. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, and I agree, it should not just be a list. There are two differences worth discussing. Firstly the difference between the roles of women in the Soviet Union compared to other WW2 militaries, and how attitudes in the Soviet hierarchy changed as WW2 progressed. Chwyatt 18:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If you've found much information about women in the Soviet military post WW2, that would be good too. It could be added to Military of the Soviet Union, which I'm slowly converting following having split it from Red Army There is very little I can find. By the way Kirill saw that note on the Iraqi op. I second it - your time and effort are much appreciated!!

Buckshot06 00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for T-26

There's a new request for A-Class status for T-26 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

An article to look at

Hey folks, could you take a look at Transformations imposed by the Soviet Union in Romanian Education after the WW II? It's been put up in the AFD process, but a user feels that it might contain some merit so we're sending it your way such that your expert eyes can have a look. Is this artlcle salvageable? Is it of historical merit? Thanks much! --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Stalingrad GA status

Hi guys.

The Battle of Stalingrad has recently been delisted as a good article because of a total lack of referencing. It is classified by the Miltary History wikiproject as "TOP" priority, and falls under your task force. I have notified the Unreferenced GA wikiproject too.

The article itself is very informative, but its complete lack of referencing and verifiability is a bar to GA status.

Thanks. Chrisfow 17:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested articles

The requested articles departement gets reorganized. The requests get moved to the specific taskforce. In case of error move it to a concerning task force.

• Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23 (Nudelmann NR-23 23 mm (or NR-30 30 mm) cannon. This was a self-defence weapon used for defending the station against interception by American spacecraft. ... see autocannon www.astronautix.com/craft/opstks.htm)
• Standing Consultative Commission set up by the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or Strategic Arms Limitation Talks Treaty (SALT) as a means to adjudicate disputes between the US and the USSR during the cold war
• Dead Hand Soviet nuclear retailation system [www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1690756]
• Bronekater Soviet Armored Motorboat Soviet riverine vessel used during the second world war. See here
• TOS-1 Russian Army multiple rocket launcher with FAE warheads was used in the Second Chechen War. see here

Global Security article Wandalstouring 10:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Added to open task list. Kirill Lokshin 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Red Army

There's a new peer review request for Red Army that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Russian paramilitary uniform

You can find much useful info and shoulder insignia here: http://civil-uniform.narod.ru --Planemo 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for PSS Silent Pistol

There's a new peer review request for PSS Silent Pistol that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Konotop

Battle of Konotop is listed as part of the Polish-Russian Wars in the Polish wiki. The article has stirred up some heated disputes. Perhaps some of you know a bit about the topic and can help. Wandalstouring 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Golymin

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Golymin that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Stub announce: 2S31 and Motovilikha

Folks, I've stubbed two related articles: 2S31 (self propelled gun) and Motovilikha (geo, military prod facility). I'm no expert in the field. Please, review. --jno 06:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for T-26

There's a new peer review request for T-26 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Sukhoi Su-30

There's a new peer review request for Sukhoi Su-30 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian Military Ranks

I think WP:MILHIST needs to have a discussion about comparisons between Russian Ground Forces and U.S. Army ranks, and then we should change the Army rank comparison page so that both versions are mentioned.

Some wiki-editors think the below is correct:

• Russian Marshal of the RF = (?)
• Russian General of the Army = U.S. General of the Armies (plural) (George Washington's rank)
• Russian General Colonel = U.S. General (full four star)
• Russian General Lieutenant = U.S. Lieutenant General
• Russian General Major = U.S. Major General
• (?) = U.S. Brigadier General
• Russian Colonel = U.S. colonel

This is where I don't understand the explanation. What would a Marshal of the RF equal in U.S. terms? Or a U.S. Brig Gen.? However, if we move the Russian ranks 'down' one slot according to the table above, it all fits - and Scott and Scott, in the 'Armed Forces of the USSR', say this is correct, with US Brig-Gen = Rus Gen. Major, US Major General = Rus General Lieutenant - and they wear the corresponding numbers of stars on their shoulderboards! Cheers Buckshot06 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The first scale given above is bizzarely wrong, deciding to omit the U.S. "General of the Army" rank for no apparent reason. Off the top of my head, I would think the usual officer-grade codes would make it:

• Russian Generalissimo (hypothetical?) = U.S. General of the Armies (plural)
• Russian Marshal of the RF = U.S. General of the Army (single)
• Russian General of the Army = U.S. General (full four star)
• Russian General Colonel = U.S. Lieutenant General
• Russian General Lieutenant = U.S. Major General
• Russian General Major = U.S. Brigadier General
• Russian Colonel = U.S. colonel

Kirill Lokshin 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, my mistake on missing General of the Army; I believe the scale you quote is correct; however others (eg Dima2K), do not agree, and insist on equating Russian General Lieutenants to US Lieutenant Generals and Russian General Majors to US Major Generals. Buckshot06 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you could come up with a slightly shifted scale, like so:

United States	Russia
General of the Armies	Generalissimo
General of the Army	Marshal of the RF
General	General of the Army
	General Colonel
Lt. Gen.	Gen. Lt.
Maj. Gen.	Gen. Maj.
Brg. Gen.
Colonel	Colonel

but I'm not convinced that it's more accurate.

It should be possible, incidentally, to get a real answer for this; presumably, the seniority issues have come up when members of the two militaries have met. I'm not sure who one might contact to find out what the official word on precedence would be, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for T-26

There's a new request for A-Class status for T-26 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Military history of the Soviet Union FAR

Military history of the Soviet Union has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Buckshot06 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review for T-34

T-34 is now on featured article review, with the main concern being a lack of citations; if anyone has some sources handy, please drop by and put in a few footnotes. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

There's a new peer review request for Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Soviet partisans

There's a new peer review request for Soviet partisans that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Russian-Circassian War

There's a new peer review request for Russian-Circassian War that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

There's a new request for A-Class status for Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Guidance

Some of the coordinators may be aware of the longrunning revert war going on on the Red Army page where various Ukrainain and Russian editors are fighting over the insertion of a 'Armies of Russia'/'Armies of Ukraine' template. Am very keen to stop this argument & stabilise the page but not sure how. Suggestions / guidance welcome. Buckshot06 11:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the dispute isn't about having the templates per se, but about their content (or, more precisely, how Kievan Rus' fits in), no? The easy answer would seem to be creating some sort of more complex "Armies of Rus' and Russia"-type template that lists all of the various permutations involved without limiting it to a single modern country. Kirill Lokshin 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. Wondered whether a compromise template might be an answer. Am no expert on formatting - how would one change the coding on the current template to start with Kievan Rus as a singleline at the top, then divide to list both Russian and Ukrainian sucessors under it? Buckshot06 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Kirill Lokshin 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be a bit more complex than that, actually; the Russian/Ukranian issue happens to be the current dispute, but I see no reason why, say, Belarus wouldn't present the same problem in the long term.

So I'd suggest a three-column layout, at least:

File:Spas KievanRus.jpg Kievan Rus' Druzhina (862-1400s)
	Medieval Ukraine Zaporozhian Host (1492—1775)	Muscovy Streltsy (1400s-1721)
Imperial Russia Imperial Russian Army (1721-1917)
	Ukrainian People's Republic Sich Riflemen (1917—1919) Ukrainian People's Army (1918—20) Ukrainian Galician Army (1918—19) Black Army (1918—1924)	White Guard (1917-1921)
Soviet Union Red Army (1918-1991)
Military of Belarus	Military of Ukraine (1991—Present)	Russian Ground Forces (1991-Present)

Is the general idea visible from the sketch above? Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking decent so far; I'll try to see if I can clean up the layout a bit. Kirill Lokshin 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Operation Wilno

There's a new peer review request for Operation Wilno that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Hugo Stoltzenberg

There's a new peer review request for Hugo Stoltzenberg that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Russian-Circassian War

There's a new request for A-Class status for Russian-Circassian War that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tupolev TB-3

There's a new request for A-Class status for Tupolev TB-3 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Zveno project

There's a new request for A-Class status for Zveno project that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Berlin

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Berlin that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1)

There's a new peer review request for 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spas KievanRus.jpg

Image:Spas KievanRus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Sukhoi Su-25

There's a new request for A-Class status for Sukhoi Su-25 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 16:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

A userbox for the Russian Soviet military history task force was made by The Dark Side. Do we need to vote on it or can I just put it up?
Please reply on my talk page.

Skunkmaster 01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is a member of WikiProject: Russian and Soviet military history task force

There's the box. Don't think we need to vote unless somebody violently objects. Good work- I'm putting it on my page.Buckshot06 09:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that userboxes are basically totally up to the editors using them, there's no real point in votes or other bureaucracy; anyone is free to create their own in any case.

This user is a member of the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.

(Here's one done in the standard color scheme, incidentally.) Kirill 09:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Was that already made? And can I put the black one on the actual page under members?

Skunkmaster 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, just made it; the newer task forces all have standard userboxes created when they're first established, but some of the older ones are missing them.

In any case, I've added links to both under the template section. Kirill 23:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I took out the category from your version, though, as the project as a whole has generally avoided using member categories; hopefully that won't be a problem? Kirill 00:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll cry myself to sleep everynight for a week but I'll live right? just kidding. Yeah. That's fine. How come the task forces don't do that?

Skunkmaster 04:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because we then wind up with two different lists—one via the normal member list and one via the category—leading to confusion all around. It tends to work better when there's only one place where peoples' names show up. ;-) Kirill 06:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Smolensk War now open

The A-Class review for Smolensk War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Army (Soviet Army)

There's a new peer review request for Army (Soviet Army) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 01:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How large was the Red Army during the Russian Civil War?

Over at Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War we are trying to establish two things.

First, is it credible that there were "tens of thousands" of Chinese troops in the Red Army during the Russian Civil War?.

Second, assuming that there were, in fact, "tens of thousands" of Chinese troops in the Red Army, did this constitute a "significant fraction of the Red Army"? According to Brian Murphy, they did not..

The best number that I have been able to find so far is in the Red Army article which states:

The Bolshevik authorities set up a special commission chaired by Lev Glezarov, and by mid August 1920 had drafted about 48,000 ex-officers, 10,300 administration staff, and 214,000 ex-NCOs.

But these numbers are officers, staff and NCOs. How about regular soldiers? If there were over a quarter million officers, staff and NCOs, is it reasonable to assume that the Red Army consituted over a million men in arms? If so, would it then be reasonable to conclude that "tens of thousands" is less than 10% of a million and therefore "not a significant fractgion of the Red Army"?

--Richard 07:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Krivosheev, in Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, p. 11, specifies the following "Personnel Strength[s] of the Fighting Troops" and "Personnel Strength[s] of the Armed Forces of the Soviet Republic" (both figures including naval infantry, internal security, etc.):

June/July 1918 - 225,000 and 374,551

June/July 1919 - 1,307,376 and 2,320,542

1st June 1920 - 1,539,667 and 4,424,317

On p. 15, he shows the strength of the fighting troops at 1,866,313, on 15th November 1920 - shortly before demobilization began. These figures don't seem to include the People's Revolutionary Army of the Far Eastern Republic. Jacob Haller 13:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Kharkov to Kharkiv (WWII)

Someone is currently trying to move the Second Battle of Kharkov page to the Ukrainian alternative 'Kharkiv, anyone who is interested take a look here. Regards, Bogdan 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Soviet occupation of Romania now open

The A-Class review for Soviet occupation of Romania is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Evacuation of East Prussia now open

The A-Class review for Evacuation of East Prussia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)