Talk:59th Medical Wing

Term is "reconstituted"?
, once an organization is disbanded, but then brought back into existence, the term is "reconstituted," correct? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, kinda. There is a technical distinction, that you will not find in lineages in either Maurer's or Ravenstein's books, but the more recent staff at AFHRA pretty consistently makes this distinction.  The 59th Medical Wing, for example, is an establishment.  It consists of Headquarters, 59th Medical Wing and whatever groups and squadrons are assigned to it.  Headquarters, 59th Medical Wing is a unit.  Units are "disbanded" and brought back into existence by being "reconstituted."  Establishments are "established" (by the constitution of their headquarters element) and brought back into existence by being "reestablished" (by the reconstitution of their headquarters element).  Both are "disbanded", "activated" or "inactivated."  Ravenstein discusses this in Appendix I to the Combat Wings book.
 * Having said that, there have been some groups and wings that did not have subordinate units, and therefore did not have headquarters elements. An example is the 5th Combat Communications Group.  Wikipedia is closer to being accurate in this case than the published AFHRA lineage.  The 5th Mobile Communications Group was constituted in 1964 (not Headquarters, 5th Mobile Communications Group, so not established).  It did not become an establishment until (probably) 15 July 1988, when the 5th Combat Communications Group would have been redesignated Headquarters, 5th Combat Communications Group and subordinate units assigned for the first time. Apparently, the current folks at Maxwell are unaware of this earlier distinction and assume all wings and groups have always been establishments.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)