Talk:2nd Bomb Wing

"2nd" vs. "2d"
Is it typical to truncate "2nd" to "2d" in military use? Sure, the Barksdale site does it, but practically everywhere else does not. -- A l e x W C o v i n g t o n  (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is usually customary in the USAF to write 2d as 2nd. Not sure why all the -2nds are identified the way they are here. ELH50 09:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. The changes are recent and will probably become standard, but it has not been customary.--Reedmalloy (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the official Barksdale website lists it as 2nd, not 2d. There's been at least one user renaming articles from 2nd→2d and 3rd→3d, although that's not what the official unit designations say. See here for more info. Nathanm mn 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The official Barksdale website uses both on just about every page. http://www.barksdale.af.mil/units/ says "the 2nd Bomb Wing participated in" and then right below it is "Read the 2d Bomb Wing's mission statement here." Recent news articles such as and  use 2d. This one uses it for the squadron level: 2d Logistics Readiness Squadron. --Pmsyyz 02:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, it is used rather inconsistently. There's more discussion on the talk page of the person who's been systematically changing article names from 2nd→2d and 3rd→3d. I don't think it's helpful in any way, and my own research has been inconclusive. But it's clear that in general usage, 2nd is the most common ordinal form of the number 2. Nathanm mn 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the 2d Bomb Wing Writing Guide the offical title for all 2BW units is 2d for all EPR's, OPR's and Decorations. JDBlues 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If both 2d and 2nd are used, then that needs to be stated. I've rewritten the first sentence accordingly. I haven't mentioned "official" as I don't have any source, and have other things to do than this trivial point! Maybe the "official" name is "Second", and 2d and 2nd are both customary usages? Maybe one or the other is preferred "officially"? Maybe there is no single formal official version of the name? A link to the "2d Bomb Wing Writing Guide" cited above would help; Google has no hits for "Bomb Wing Writing Guide". Pol098 (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Pol098, unfortunately, what you have done is the only thing that is absolutely wrong. The spelled out "Second" is reserved by the Air Force for Numbered Air Forces.  (Air Force Policy Directive 38-5, Unit Designations).  I appreciate your efforts, but I'm going to undo your work.  Now, as for the "official" name, the usage on the Barksdale site or news articles is not the correct source.  That would be the order that designated the wing or the Organizational Letter that directed the designation of the wing.  I think you will find that these letters consistently use "2d" and "3d", rather than "2nd" or "3rd".  (the most recent I found is DAF/A1M Letter 559t which directed activation of the "582d Helicopter Group".  In some of the older letters, you will find the ordinal is abbreviated even further, to something like "2 Bomb Wing".  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the correction. I think this should be mentioned briefly in the article, as usage is confusing (perhaps not so confusing as to encourage "the 2d bomb group attacks on the plain, while the 3d is used for mountainous regions with significant non-flat areas").Pol098 (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a footnote? --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Senior Surprise" encyclopedic?
The section about Senior Surprise violates at least 2 Wikipedia policies. Information "provided directly to a wikipedia editor" is original research by anyone's definition, and not verifiable. Besides, does a detailed sortie list by tail number and crew name belong in an encyclopedia? Neither the Doolittle Raid nor the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki list every individual crew member, and they're surely more significant historical events than Senior Surprise. Nathanm mn 06:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the article's gotten even worse (less encyclopedic) since I posted the above. The dates of every little transition and the list of every assignment and commander is extraneous. Why copy the entire lineage page from the Air Force Historical Research Agency? It's already linked from the article, there's no need for so much duplication. It makes the article look rather sophomoric. Nathanm mn 18:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

History
This is entirely quixotic a comment, but any history listed before 1947 is incorrect. The honors of the 2nd BG have been bestowed on the wing, but not its history. The wing and the group are two separate entities, always have been, always will be. The history of the 2nd BW began 15 Oct 1947. Similarly, the statement that it descends from the group is a mistake too. The two existed at the same time, with the group subordinate to the wing. The Air Force recognizes this, even if others refuse to. Why escapes me, it does nothing to make the attachment. Lots of groups went inactive after WW2. Why some want to perpetuate a myth/error is baffling.--Reedmalloy (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)