Talk:474th Tactical Fighter Wing

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/rso/rso_index.html
 * In Hamilton Air Force Base on 2011-03-22 19:58:15, 404 Not Found
 * In Hamilton Air Force Base on 2011-04-18 04:46:30, 404 Not Found
 * In 13th Bomb Squadron on 2011-05-23 02:58:17, 404 Not Found
 * In 17th Training Wing on 2011-05-25 02:00:51, 404 Not Found
 * In 1st Troop Carrier Group on 2011-05-25 06:54:14, 404 Not Found
 * In 13th Bomb Squadron on 2011-06-01 15:07:57, 404 Not Found
 * In 17th Training Wing on 2011-06-01 22:26:07, 404 Not Found
 * In 18th Operations Group on 2011-06-02 00:26:19, 404 Not Found
 * In 1st Troop Carrier Group on 2011-06-10 04:31:19, 404 Not Found
 * In 22d Air Refueling Wing on 2011-06-19 05:30:26, 404 Not Found
 * In 32d Air Operations Group on 2011-06-19 06:34:59, 404 Not Found
 * In 452d Air Mobility Wing on 2011-06-19 07:44:33, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 474th Tactical Fighter Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401033357/http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/rso/rso_index.html to http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/rso/rso_index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Upgraded Assessment
Upgraded from Start-Class to C-Class.Aardvarkrocket (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger?
there are two articles for the 474th Air Expeditionary Group and this page, the 474 TFW, that under my interpretation/knowledge of USAF lineage rules are the same unit. You may wish to consider a merger. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I can see how you might think so, given the way the articles are written.  I have downgraded this article to start based on its lack of accuracy (B2).  The 474th Wing and 474th Group are two separate units.  They have not been consolidated, and according to the principles USAF uses for consolidation, they will not be.  They have substantially different histories. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I carefully checked the existing lineage information at both pages. They both appeared to say that the group had been raised to wing status, and then downgraded again. My understanding of the rules you've been carefully applying all around the site means that under USAF lineage rules, they *are* the same unit. Is (a) my understanding wrong, or (b) was the Group upgraded to a Wing, and then a separate Operations Group established, which became the 474 AEG (which is what you may be implying by saying that the page is inaccurate). You've clearly said I'm wrong, but *why* is not clear at all.. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the lineages are just wrong. That's why I downgraded this article for lack of accuracy.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like most of the harm was done by  The article was pretty accurate the last time you edited it in 2018.  I have eliminated most of the inaccuracies from the group article.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am new at this but I am trying to learn. Can you please explain to me why units with the 474th designation and which contain the 428th, 429th, and 430th squadrons and which use the same insignia for the group or wing are not related? In addition, significant history of the 474th Fighter Group in WWII was eliminated when the information was transferred back to the 474th AEG. I put in a lot of work researching that history and it was well documented. What remains in the 474th AEG discussion about the 474th FG does not appear to capture the history or contributions of the 474th FG which I had added after making a significant effort researching it. Since the 474th FBW and 474th FBG both had the same heritage in the Korean War and at Clovis/Cannon, can you tell me the distinctions you make with regard to their heritage and histories? The earlier version of the 474th TFW, before I started working on it, had some substantive errors and omissions which I corrected. Can you document downgrading the article for "lack of accuracy" with specific references to the current inaccuracies. The answer to : "No, the lineages are just wrong" does not help me or others understand the lineage rules - can you explain and document those rules. How does the history of the 474th FG relate to the 474th AEG, other than they were both groups? One was a combat unit flying airplanes and the other is a maintenance organization with no direct combat mission, and they both had different insignia and the 474th AEG contains no squadrons. I would like to be consistent in my work and the comment "most of the harm was done by Aardvarkrocket" does not consider the value added by my contributions. Aardvarkrocket (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Briefly Aardvarkrocket the 474 FBG was not merged under formal lineage rules with the 474th Tactical Fighter Wing. It was inactivated, the squadrons were supervised directly by the wing, and that was the process for many years. Then the whole structure was reorganized and Ops Group, Maintenance Groups, Medical Groups etc reestablished. The Wing then supervised the 474th Ops Group, the heir to the 474th FBG lineage, alongside several other groups. The Wing was then inactivated and the 474 Ops Group later became the OEF 474 AEG.
 * You removed and mutilated the lineage description, and the references, yes, but, also, you added a fantastic amount of useful information to the F-111 history of the wing, and both Lineagegeek and I thank you for it. But please review USAF lineage rules before you alter lineage sections in future.
 * please feel free to also comment/advise - he's the real expert here.. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A Guide to USAF Lineage and Honors Buckshot06 (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at their entries in Maurer and Ravenstein, you will see that despite the fact that they have the same number and have had some of the same units assigned at different times, the 474th Group and 474th Wing are two different units. Otherwise, how could the group have been assigned to the wing from 1952 to 1954 (as it was)?  Some of your questions can be answered by looking at Air Force Instruction 84-105, Organizational, Lineage, Honors and Heraldry).  Among other things, it directs that groups assigned to like numbered wings do not use separate emblems, but use the wing emblem with the group designation on the scroll, to answer one of your questions.  In general, wings in the Air Force do not date earlier than 1947, when the wing, rather than the group, became the basic force element.  (The 24th Special Operations Wing and 301st Fighter Wing are exceptions to this rule.)
 * In 1985, the Air Force consolidated wings and groups having the same number, but only in those cases in which the wing and group had never existed at the same time (not true in the case of the 474th, where both existed from 1952 to 1954). Because the 474th Wing was inactivated in 1989, before the implementation of the Objective Wing Organization, Buckshot's reference to the 474th Operations Group is hypothetical and never happened.  The issue is not whether the group and wing are "related."  It is that they are not the same unit.  Their decorations differ (the group has a Distinguished Unit Citation and a Belgian Fouragere, the wing has Air Force Outstanding Unit Awards and RVN Gallantry Cross), for example, as do their histories.  The group was in existence from 1943-1945 and 1952-1957 (and as a provisional unit).  The wing from 1952-1954 and 1957-1989.  What was inaccurate was all the material that said they were the same unit.
 * By the way, the Air Expeditionary Group does have squadrons assigned, including at least the 474th Expeditionary Operations Support Squadron and the 474th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron. Also, there have been other "474th groups" assigned to the 474th Wing. The 474th Air Base Group (later 474th Combat Support Group) 1952-1954, 1968-1970; 474th Medical Group (later 474th Tactical Hospital), 1952-1954, 1968-1970 and 474th Maintenance & Supply Group, 1952-1954.  A squadron of the 474th Maintenance & Supply Group, like those of the 474th Fighter-Bomber Group was also assigned directly to the 474th Wing (474th Maintenance Squadron – later 474th Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, 474th Field Maintenance Squadron, 474th Equipment Maintenance Squadron [consolidated unit].
 * The Wikipedia article Hobson Plan reviews some of the Air Force's major organizational changes, and discusses how flying squadrons were assigned to groups under the Hobson Plan and the Objective Wing models, but directly to the wing under the Dual Deputy and Tri-Deputy models.
 * Keep up the good work on the "Switch Blade Edsel" period. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for taking the time to set me straight. I have some reading to do. As an aside, I work closely with surviving members of the 474th TFW Roadrunners in Las Vegas and we meet on a monthly basis. They hold pride in their heritage and the contributions and sacrifices of the members of the 428th, 429th, and 430th squadrons in WWII, Korea, VietNam, and the Cold War. For them, the distinctions between Group and Wing serve only to confuse. I will take it as a task to explain to them the distinctions and I apologize for my lack of knowledge of those distinctions (and my massacre of the previous discussion and references). I will attempt to attack both the 474th Air Expeditionary Group and the 474th Tactical Fighter Wing articles to help that type of reader to better move from one to the other and to understand why they are distinct discussions - and follow the lineage disciplines you have identified. Four of the group have passed since I started working with them and I hope to capture more relevant information from the remaining guys before they are all gone. Units are only as good as the people in the unit and I view it as critically important to capture the contributions of these people to the unit's success - they deserve that. As part of my plan, I will also be addressing 428th TFS, 429th TFS, and 430th TFS, so I will probably need some of your help there also. Cheers Aardvarkrocket (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't even *TRY* to think about explaining these technicalities to surviving members of the Group/Wing. There's little to no point; you'll just get people agitated about what is flesh and blood to them.
 * You're the only one who has to understand.
 * Just make sure, when you add and amend further material that you carefully check the dates that you're dealing with, and add the data to either the Group or the Wing article as appropriate. Any further data you collect however on the 474 AEG, through all your personal connections, however, would be welcome; the AEW/AEG articles are often a bit sparse. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 's advice not to try to explain. Particularly because of USAF's concept of "bestowed honors". The current version of this is contained in AFI 84-105, but suffice it to say that during the time with wing was active (1957-1989) it was entitled to the honors of the group. Fine points about the bestowal tend to get overlooked: First, the bestowal was "temporary" (even though it wound up lasting the entire time the wing was active); second, the bestowal included honors and historical elements, but expressly did not include the lineage of the group. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Group material
I moved two large pieces on the World War II group to the article on the group (concerning the emblem and the memorial in France). Most of the rest looked to be much the same content in both articles, although I made some minor changes as well. If I inadvertently omitted anything, go ahead and put in into the other article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. I will review it and add in anything that got missed. Aardvarkrocket (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)