Talk:49th Armored Division (United States)

Assignment of battalions to 1st Brigade in 1989
By this edit I've just stripped out a Texas Military Forces museum webpage link and a general officer bio because they do not support what the editor who inserted them say they did: the assignment of 6th Battalion, 112th Armor, to the 1st Brigade in 1989, and specific text saying that particular battalions of the 141st Infantry Regiment (United States) were assigned to the 1st Bde in 1989. It remains unclear what the original source actually was. As with my previous practice, I will post this note to the ongoing discussion at the main WT:MILHIST talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Assignment of battalions to 2nd Brigade "in 1989"
With this edit I have stripped out a weblink that gave details of 1981 summer training for HQ 2nd Brigade and a bunch of other units of the 49th Armored Division in 1981, which cannot be used to claim anything about the composition of the 2nd Brigade eight years later because (a) things might have changed in eight years; and (b) because the source did not specifically say which brigade each unit mentioned was affiliated to. I will post a note on the main talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The source should be rewritten as a discussion of summer training for elements of the division in 1981. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, in 1981 the 49th trained by brigades, not as an entire division, and thanks to contemporary news reports we also know the exact training schedule so local reports of when units departed or finished summer training show which brigade they were assigned to in the case of maneuver units. But this is not the strongest source on brigade assignments: the news report also lines up exactly with the brigade composition listing in the 1975-1976 Texas Adjutant General, dated November 1976, pp 6-7 report on the composition of 2nd Brigade (the AG report, IMO, is the only way to be 100% certain about organization). You say things might have changed, but changes are hypothetical unless they actually occurred, and none of the involved battalions changed their stationing (I painstakingly went through every single unit of the 49th AD in local newspapers to verify that, and the brigade affiliations). Hypothetical changes cannot be assumed to show that something is incorrect as you are ignoring the fact that National Guard organization was often static until the early 1990s. As can be seen from the map, the brigade assignments of maneuver battalions were geographical in nature - 1st Brigade was South Texas, 2nd Brigade in the Fort Worth and Panhandle region, and 3rd Brigade in Dallas/Northeast Texas region. So brigade assignments would not change because common sense (and budget constraints) dictate that maneuver units located closer to each other should train together. In fact, if there were a change in brigade organization it would be quite newsworthy since CMH lineage confirms that none of the brigades changed their HQ locations between 1973 and 1992 (lineage mentions every change of station for brigade HHCs, so can be taken as definitive), and if battalions shifted brigades such an action would result in the assignment of a unit to a brigade HQ in a different region of Texas, increasing travel time and inconveniencing all concerned (distance between 1st Brigade HHC and 2-142 Infantry in Amarillo, for example). Kges1901 (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your continuing involvement in this sometimes-bitter dispute Kges1901. I have quickly skimmed your post; generally, I disagree with your premise about whether data from earlier than 1988-89 can *prove* to the standard necessary for WP:V that the brigades had such-and-such battalions in 1989. But it's very late here and I am done for the day: I urge you and Noclador's favorable consideration of my proposed solution, which is in both your e-mail in-boxes.
 * One learns a new thing every day: thank you, I did not know that if you get an up to date CMH brigade L&H, you can be sure this month where the X State's Army National Guard has most recently moved the Brigade HQ!! Truly, if tracking movements of battalions, and this cursed battalion/brigade affiliation, which is the very devil to source properly, brigade HQs must come a close second!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've again considered this in the light of day. It doesn't stack up for the purposes of this website. If you were, for example, writing an order of battle for the U.S. Army in 1989 to be semi-professionally published, it would work, because you would cite it in your bibliographic essay, giving your reasons, and its credibility would hang on your name and reputation. But WP:V demands that any statement - any few words - requires a citation if challenged, so you cannot lay out an argument at one part of the article, and then use that to support something somewhere else in the article.
 * Trying to bend over backwards to be fair, I will not remove this right now. If you want this reasoning to stay, you need to make the argument you make above, with proper referencing, including WP:PAGENUMbers, in the *text of the article* - on the talkpage is not sufficient. I'll give you seven days to do that, and then get someone like to read the whole thing and give his evaluation. Sounds fair? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also and THANK YOU SO MUCH for digging up the EXCELLENT Texas AG's report dated November 1976!! Already used it to improve Texas Army National Guard. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I'd be much help here I'm afraid, as I don't know a great deal about the structure of Cold War-era US Army units, or have sources on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, . If and when Kges1901 'takes up my gauge' and argues his case on the article page, instead of the article talk page, all you have to do is read through it and see if you think it meets WP:V. I want your WP:THIRDOPINION as a uninvolved editor to do a sanity, WP:V, check, *because* you're not an expert. Just like Australian civil service papers for ministers - does the argument make sense, and is it in-line with the conventions of the genre (in this case, WP referencing rules)? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've thought about this some more and delved into more newspaper clippings, and found that HHC, 6th Battalion, 112th Armor did change its station in 1985, likely because of the reorganization to a heavy division. I also found a 1988 news report in which the 3rd Brigade commander stated a different number of battalions in his unit than I had thought, so I assumed too much without considering the 1985 reorganization. So it is possible that Andy Johnson was working from a better source than I have and is correct...but at least the pre-1985 brigade assignments have been established. For now I intend to change the brigade assignments to follow Johnson, whose only inaccuracy in his document is describing the 549th MI Battalion as a Guard unit when it was actually a Reserve unit. IMO the only way to be 100% sure about brigade assignments would be the Texas AG report for FY1989 or FY1988, but I have not been able to find any trace of such a report on worldcat, though it must exist since the Texas Military Department has continued biennial reports to the present day. Kges1901 (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Further congratulations on your excellent research Kges1901. This is insufficient for wikipedia on WP:V rules, but would be great to assist verification and sourcing of a separate paper mounted elsewhere. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)