User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 2

Re: Requested article - TOS-1
Hi there,

Now I'm almost out of the net, but I'll try to find text in local magazines suitable for conversion into the article. --jno 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added some text to the article. --jno 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Russian Ground Forces
I was wondering if you were also this 'Buckshot'. To clarify my comments on the RGF article, my main concern is the tone of the writing, and not the content which I think is well chosen and very interesting. At present much of the article reads like something from Janes Defence Weekly and probably needs to be tweaked to make it clear that it's an objective overview of the RGF, and not just someones opinion. For instance, "The Russian Ground Forces' overall performance in the First Chechen War was appalling" could be changed to "The Russian Ground Forces' did not perform well during the First Chechen War" - same content, but with less emotive words.

By the way, I note that you're working on adding historical Iraq War orbats. I think that I can put together something on the Australian deployments (other than the rotations of the infantry company protecting the embassy in Baghdad). Should it go in the Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq entry? Regards, --Nick Dowling 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind JDW - it's a good magazine, but is written in an analytic rather than encyclopaedic style. I've edited the article to add a photo and requested a small number of citations for statements which while doubtlessly correct, require a direct citation - these all concern statements about the general decrepitude of the Army (for instance, that the Army's high command doesn't know how many soldiers are in the Army). I'd be more than happy to check back in a few days. --Nick Dowling 07:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the RGF article reaching FA status! --Nick Dowling 02:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot
Thanks for your message. There is also a page under construction about PRT's. Provincial reconstruction team. I saw that ISAF updated the "placemat" about the PRTs. You can find the map at: http://www.jfcbs.nato.int/ISAF/media/pdf/placemat_isaf.pdf?tsfsg=35d3e5568ff28b1b2f5479561dd4b5e9. Maybe the best thing to do is to bring information about the PRTs in a main article about PRT's, and who knows there will be an article about every PRT on itself? The Dutch PRT is called Task Force Uruzgan, their main base is called Kamp Holland. Their main base is at Tarin Kowt (1,000 - 1,200; sometimes they assisted their Canadian collegues at Kandahar province, or at base Martello (at the road between Uruzgan and Kandahar), and 200 at Deh Rahwod. 200 soldiers are at Kandahar HQ and airfield. Much regards from: Rob van Doorn 21:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC). And soon they will deploy their F-16s from Kabul to Kandahar.

At the discussion of the article about the war order of battle I added the contribution of the Czech Republic. Maybe there are things useful for the article? Cheers: Rob van Doorn 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * These lines I added to the article about ISAF after the NATO summit at Latvia: 28-29 November 2006: NATO summit at Riga (Latvia). Combat curbs have been the most contentious issue at the two-day summit in Latvia, following tension over the reluctance of France, Germany, Spain and Italy to send their troops to southern Afghanistan. The summit saw several countries offer additional troops and training teams, while France agreed to send more helicopters and aircraft. Nato commanders say they believe they can move an extra 2,500 troops around the country now some smaller members have relaxed their mission conditions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6195102.stm

So it looks forces from different countries can opperate with new mandates from their own government at Afghanistan.

Re: Hey Kirill
Yeah, that seems like a good approach. In many cases, the article just needs massive cleanup, but there are certainly some where it's not at all clear why the tag was added.

As far as the Red Army/Soviet Union issue, some thoughts:
 * Military of the Soviet Union is not the same thing as Military history of the Soviet Union. Most of the blow-by-blow detail, of actual operations should be trimmed in favor of material on organization, materiel, different branches, military bases, leadership, doctrine, etc.
 * The bulk of the material on the Red Army should be in the Red Army article, while the main Military article should be proportionately balanced among the various branches.
 * More information on nuclear armaments, early-warning systems, and other such Soviet capabilities during the Cold War would be good, I think; it's a major part of what's relevant to the military—and Soviet doctrine—generally, rather than being tied to a particular branch.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Overhere"
Thanks for the information Buckshot. I am not sure what you know about the disagreement between me and Mieciu, but I don't see how sources are the main problem. My statement, which I wanted to add, was basically bunch of other statements from the article put together. If that statement held new information, I can understand why he would be asking for sources, but it's been in the Kosovo war article for a long time. I just want to know how can Mieciu be asking for sources for my statement while letting the same information be scattered in the article with no sources.(If he deleted both claiming that they don't have sources -I would understand) But he is fighting to delete one while letting the other (which is practically the same info) just sit there.Overhere 01:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Greetings from Downunder
At this point, you can probably just submit it to WP:FAC and see what happens. Make sure you do it when you have a week free to respond to any complaints there, though. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian Guards Divisions
Hello Buckshot - just picked up your message. Yes, I could do articles about the 4th Kantemirovskaya and 106th Tula Airborne reasonably quickly; other Guards divisions on which there's less (historical) source info available might take a bit longer. I might be able to work on the ORBAT for the Second Chechen War as well. Don't have a huge amount of time available to me at the moment, but will get round to the above tasks soon. Thanks. OK - here's a start on the Kantemirovskaya Division.

I'll probably do the 106th Guards Airborne Division next; there's quite a lot of info out there on it, and the existing VDV article is quite good (I find). I'll get round to doing the sources for Kantemir soon - however, as I said in the edit summary, it would be good to try and sketch in the details of what the division was up to during the Cold War. I've found very, very little of any use through any of my usual sources on this; I suspect improvments here are down to, at the very least, someone who can read Russian more fluently than I.

I will, however, add the Cyrillic division name while I remember. Cheers

Yeah, sorry - the phonelines, and thus the interwebs, where I live went down unexpectedly and remained so for 4 days, so I've only just got back online. I will push on with it when I get a chance, but may be quite busy over the next week. Will do what I can.

Here's a start on the 106th - more info (history, sub-units, fighting strength, commanders, recent activity etc) will follow. Cheers

I've pretty much done all I can do for the moment on the 106th, so I'm open to suggestions as to which division to look at next.

The info is predominantly taken from http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=239&linkid=2241 but there are quite a few sources. I take the point about the Dnieper-Transbaikal thing - I'd never heard that before, and see your concern, but I have seen the divisional patch for the 106th and the name inscribed on it is 'Tulskaya', in the same way as Tamanskaya or Kantemirovskaya. (Unfortunately, Wikipedia's rules on uploads come into effect with this one, but you can see the patch at http://www.russianpatches.com/military_patche_moreinfo.php?gid=278)

I appreciate that doesn't actually state that Tulskaya is the honorific, but from what I know of Russian military naming conventions it seems pretty good evidence. Certainly, Google yields nothing for 'Dnieper-Transbaikal division', any spelling variant on that, or 'Zabaikalskaya division/diviziya'.

Anyhow, I'll see if I can round up the sources I used and add a list of them. Cheers

OK - can I suggest that you add a small section or something to the article covering the Dnieper-Transbaikal thing? It's probably prudent to cover it, I guess, and I don't have the books you mentioned available to me. In the meantime, I'm going to have a crack at the 10th Guards Tank or 76th Airborne. Oh yes, one other thing - I only just noticed that I'm now a Hero of the Russian Federation! Very much appreciated! Cheers

10th Guards Tank it is. After that, this order of articles might seem reasonable: 76th Airborne, 3rd Vislenskaya MRD, 98th Airborne, 27th MRD? I also think that, now that a basic article has been written, it might be an idea to look at expanding the Taman Guards article some more, given that it is probably the most famous of all these divisions.

Hi Buckshot - sorry, I've been away doing exams and stuff recently, so haven't been able to do any work on the 10th Guards Tank as I'd intended. I've got some quite detailed stuff on the division's nomenclature and decorations in WWII, history in the late Cold War period and also some material on the early 1990s - did you source that 'open fields' quote? I'll try and write it up at some point in the next couple of days. Cheers

Re: Axis Naval Activity in Australian waters

 * Thanks for that comment. I'll self-nominate it this weekend. --Nick Dowling 09:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. If you'd like to vote or make a comment, the nomination page is: Featured article candidates/Axis naval activity in Australian waters‎ --Nick Dowling 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your encouragement and support. --Nick Dowling 09:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion
Thanks for the good suggestion. I will try to add information on books on Indian Navy. The first internet links were for people who did not wish to read books but would like to read it online. Chanakyathegreat 10:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

unit
I was in 3/124th Inf., now 3/124th RSTA. We were a SECFOR unit in Iraq that attached to I MEF, 3ID, 1AD, 82nd, 101st, 5thSFG, 108th Airborne ADA, and a handful of other units. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Morale's not bad. I'm out of the guard now, medical injury but I was only a little under 2 years from my ETS date and I wasn't reenlisting. Anyway I'm pretty sure the unit is going back to Iraq soon. They just got their guys back from Afghanistan. Once they finish the RSTA transition they'll be going back to the sandbox. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  07:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: U.S. military Eastern Front maps
Sure thing.

This URL is a must have: here

Before uploading though check if a map is not already uploaded either here or on commons :)

Cheers, Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Strategic Air Command wings
What a mess! That article ought to be a list, at most—although a category would probably suffice—and the actual content for each wing should probably be in its own article; precedent is that wing-level units are eligible for their own entries. Let me know if you run into any problems! Kirill Lokshin 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I know of no way to seperate the common history of a number assigned to a Bomb Wing, which later became an Strategic Missile Wing that was later designated as a Strategic Reconnaoissance Wing. user:R. E. Mixer 22:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buckshot06/Sandbox"


 * Just follow the same principles that are used for other units which change their name over time. The fact that multiple unrelated units had the same "number" is irrelevant so long as other characteristics distinguish them; for example, you'd have a single article covering the 5th Wing and its predecessors, as there's a continuous unit history, but separate articles for the 40th Bombardment Group versus the 40th Wing, because there are two different units involved. Kirill Lokshin 11:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The information that I submitted was an effort to show the history of SAC not to enhance each individual organizational history from beginning to end. It seems that by putting the information from SAC into each indivdual history and removing just that wings contribution to SAC you have "bastardized " the the whole subject. No need to respond or reply. I AM REALLY SORRY TO HAVE WASTED SO MUCH TIME AND ENERGY ON THIS PROJECT IN THE FIRST PLACE ONLY TO HAVE IT RUINED FROM ITS ORIGIONAL INTENT.R. E. Mixer 18:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to delete organizations from the history of SAC only to put them elsewhere and then never mention that the history you are presenting never mentions SAC. Make copies do not delete valid informatio. I am getting sick of this game. R. E. Mixer 13:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ron, maybe it might be better to work along with others in the project and heed some advice. These are smart individuals offering some good advice.  Work with them, compromise and I guarantee that the product on the back end will be much better because of it.  Just my thoughts.--Looper5920 13:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The information that is on this page is great, but it also limits the individual wings to this "snapshot" time period. Yes, these units contributed to SAC and, because of these individual wings SAC became stronger and defended our country well.  Yes, it should be noted that the history of SAC is really nothing without the history of each wing.  Yes, it does (very slightly) take away from the unit contributions, but look at the "plusses":
 * Without knowing ALL the history of the unit (including the lineage before and after SAC), any outstanding or exceptional contributions would seem commonplace.
 * It is still possible (dare I say desireable) to annotate SAC units in a common list or category - those wings that were a part of the SAC legacy.
 * The restrictions of Wikipedia do not necessarily limit the information to be made available - it just has to be split up into more readable and accessable format. Remember that Wikipedia is not limited to the amount of paper it takes up, so additional articles are not a problem!
 * If each unit has its own article, it could be annotated in a unit history section (something like "Unit contributions to SAC"} for the unit's exceptional / noteworthy / historical contributions to SAC.
 * I believe these are the major points, and some possible solutions, so that way the "spirit" of SAC (and editors / authors) can continue, but the "spirit" of Wikipedia can be intact also. -Dan  AKA NDCompuGeek 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

{helpme}
what template do I use to indicate a page is too long??


 * Check out this search. I'd say Verylong--Commander Keane 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: State-level National Guard units
Re your comment on state NG pages rather than state ARNG pages. I thought about that. But about half the state Air Guard units have their own page. See Air National Guard. My interest is more on the Army side. With the Army transformationg going on, there is a lot happening with each state's Army units. Seemed like enough to make a full page. But I think we ought to consider changing the crude table I started on the United States National Guard page to include both Air Guard and Army Guard units. You could check with User:CORNELIUSSEON to see what he thinks. He kind of started this. I created a very crude Alabama ARNG page and he really fleshed that out to make it 95% of what it is now, and what I have been using as a template. I've improved it some. So Kansas Army National Guard is the latest version.) I will hold off for a while on creating any new state ARNG pages so you can talk it over with others if you would like. Mvialt 15:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: ANZAC task force
Oh, that's fine; it's just that it seems to work better if the discussion happens in one place rather than being split over several. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 05:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

2d BW
I like what you added to the wing about the gulf war missions. I also want to thank you for your additions also! I do, however, have a question for you. It seems that the style is a little hard to read with the "Gulf War 1991" section being a first-level title. You added the information and I'm not going to mess with a GREAT edit, but could you think about maybe taking that section down a level, and of course taking the "Senior Surprise - Strategic Air Commands' Longest Combat Mission" down a level as well? Just my opinion - I'm not getting possessive about the page or anything....

Again, thanks for some great information added to the subject!

NDCompuGeek 16:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

MORE SAC wing issues
Buckshot,

First of all, I want to apoligize for accusing you of reverting the "Strategic Air Force wings" page when it was "remixer" (approximate spelling of his name). There are some other issues going on here that I would like to discuss with you, but I don't think a public venue is appropriate. Is it permissible with you to communicate via E-mail? I think I have enabled that option on my userpage.... Thanks,   NDCompuGeek 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture)
Hi Buckshot,

Thanks for your assistance on this article. Since I'm always looking for ways to improve it, I was wondering if there was anything else that you thought should be included in the article? What did you think of it? I'll watch your page for responses.Balloonman 21:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your FAC
I am specifically not commenting on FAC's while my FAC is active (with the exception of Gregory House, a page I watch, and is NOT an FA calibre article). But I did go ahead and read your article. It is pretty good, but I did have a few comments that I'll share here. Take them or leave them, they are just one persons perspective: Good luck with your FAC... hopefully they'll both pass.Balloonman 23:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would add when that was EG: "Russian officials trace their antecedants' history through the Imperial Russian era back to the time of Kievan Rus in the late 800's."
 * "in the near abroad" is there a better way to word that?
 * "Professionalisation is now slowly taking place, but there is little hope for a rapid rise in effectiveness" Sounds POV
 * Introduction are typically 3-4 paragraphs in length. This is a guideline, not a firm rule, but you have one paragraph and a long quote.
 * Bullet points aren't that popular in FAC's.
 * Non-military people may find the dispositions unwanted/unnecessary. It will be of interest to people with a military orientation, but not the general public.
 * "Their exact command status is now unknown." would like a citation for that.

Women in the RGF
Does Miss Russian Army warrant a mention? The existance of such a competition (which recieves pride of place on the RGF's English language website) suggests that the Russian Army is rather unenlightened. I've added a little bit on this to the article - feel free to remove it! --Nick Dowling 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. A reference which places the existance of such an officially sanctioned competition in the context of the treatment of women soldiers would be good. I can't help but suspect that women are treated pretty poorly. --Nick Dowling 08:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't say that I believe the figure of 90,000 female soldiers I've added. It seems rather high. I suspect that the BBC may have added an extra 0. --Nick Dowling 09:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Guys. http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=29

Check that site out. It has some pictures of Russian Women in the Army. Try to get the rights to these images so that you can post them here. Mercenary2k 09:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EXI/is_2000_Fall-Winter/ai_73063469: figures for women in the forces as a whole range from 115-160,000. When Russians talk about the 'army', they mean the whole armed forces, and that may be the context that 90,000 quote is in. I'll add the ref to what should really be the main site for this discussion, Talk:Women in the Russian and Soviet military Cheers Buckshot06 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I found this site which has some info on the Russian Army. http://www.mongabay.com/reference/new_profiles/300.html Mercenary2k 17:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

RGF
Please reinclude my edit you reverted, the way it is now that paragraph is sticking out like a saw thumb, especialy the way it is indented. Also it then has to be tagged with LEAD. FrummerThanThou 07:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * on he whole you'de done a great job with RGF, especialy considering you're not russian. My main points still stand, that quote doesn't look like one, is out of place. I dont think my rearangment orphaned details in the lead paragraph, perhaps I could have found somewhere else to put it, I'll leave that to you but in the meantime I will be retagging it. According to the WP:LEAD, the lead cant all inclusive. FrummerThanThou 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: User FrummerThanThou and Leads
It's not too long, certainly; but the extended quote does look a bit out of place there. Perhaps it would be possible to move the bulk of the quote into the body of the article and leave a short phrase or two that could be inline with the second paragraph? Kirill Lokshin 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)