User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 7

redlinks
I don't think I agree with you about redlinks. It is beyond anyone to finish the sort of project you or I are undertaking. Leaving redlinks is a hint to others who may be interested while looking at the page to contribute by removing the redlink. Only when no redlinks remain to be added is an article complete IMHO. The Russian Imperial Guard is a case in point. Because there are no redlinks, no one has bothered to add the regiments. Hence the Battle of Borodino doesn't have an OOB for the Russian Imperial Army! This applies equally to WWII, and to your period of interest--Mrg3105 (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

transliteration
Which standard should be used, this []?--  mrg3105  mrg3105   23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

3rd Guards Tank Army (Soviet Union)
Buckshot06, I've started a stub article on 3GTA. Request you review and contribute as you have the opportunity. Thanks much, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I've seen no mention of that command. It seems an odd grouping of forces considering the differing axes of advance of the fronts. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Rifle Corps
I have added the Airborne Corps to this page, but not sure if you may want to create a separate article for the Airborne Troops at a later stage. Also the last five Airborne Corps, although having dates of activation after start oft he war, were in fact reserve (zapasa) formations and were in existence before the war, so I put them there and not with the three corps created during the war.--  mrg3105  mrg3105   01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

permissions
Have you or anyone else to your knowledge requested permission to use/translate content from Veremeev's site http://army.armor.kiev.ua/autors.shtml for use on Wikipedia?--  mrg3105  mrg3105   01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you or anyone else to your knowledge requested permission to use/translate content from http://rodstvo.ru/forum/index.php?showforum=559 ? --  mrg3105  mrg3105   01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To do list
Just discovered this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:To-do_list but its unused --  mrg3105  mrg3105   04:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Please tell me where you will put the Air OOB, because I will have to work off it. Cheers --  mrg3105  mrg3105   22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed how poor the Soviet side of the Wikipedia coverage is. Yassy-Kishinev was actually renamed into Romanian! Most operations are depicted as "battles" where as they involved huge forces, usually of more then one Front. Most articles lack sources and sufficient references, and what is there is often from well known German sources with Glantz being a prominent exception (your work?). There is a LOT of work to to. I will be away most of the day today, but when I will return, I will write a 'rant' on the subject of battle. This will be version II since I wrote one to Kirill early last year, and he declined my suggestions. The question is really, when is a 'battle' a Battle, and is it a suitable historical term?

Admin status
Do you have admin status?--  mrg3105  mrg3105   10:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Transcaucasus Military District/4th Ukranian
Hi Buckshot06. I had a bit of a problem with this. I tried to split the post-WWII MD from the Front, but there was a redirect, and even after I removed that it keeps reditecting so I could not set up the new page for the MD. In any case, I have saved the removed content in my user page sandbox, so in case you want to fix it rather then explain to me how I can fix it, please do so. However I would rather you allow me to do it, though it may take a bit longer as I'll be out for much of the first part of the day on Monday.

I also stuffed up with the 4th Ukranian Front because of the extra i. Consequently I need an admin to move it. I hope to have all the Fronts pages revamped and setup by end of week, as well as the MDs (maybe by end of next weekend).

After that the big job setting up the operations can start, and I'll be more of a help with the Armies ;o) Cheers--  mrg3105  mrg3105   12:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Air Armies
I just placed in the resource page the site for organisation of Air Armies (WWII). The OOB is the most complete on the internet I know, and is down to squadron. In may cases it gives aircraft type and deals with pre-WWII MD assignments and their transformation into Air Armies. I will get to them eventually also, but in case you were interested...--  mrg3105  mrg3105   21:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are currently two categories

Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet Union in World War II

Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet and Russian Air Forces

Can I suggest that we use the first for units that were in operation only during the WWII, and the second category for units that persisted through the Cold War and Russian Federation?--  mrg3105  mrg3105   02:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Buckshot06. Was it formatting with the Soviet Air Defence Forces? It looked correct in preview. In any case, not that you have seen this, what I'd like to do is to do some cleaning up and adding in the Air Forces. I need this primarily for the Military Districts and Fronts, so I will not in general address the lower echelon units other then to just add basic OOBs. I will start with 1945 to help you out so you can tie the Cold War/RF changes to WWII. OK?--  mrg3105  mrg3105   03:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Structure of Soviet Air Forces during 1991/92 from open source materials in Russian is here http://airbase.ru/squad/russia/avpvo/ You will se a blank page, so need to scroll to the bottom of the page to see an unformatted table.--  mrg3105  mrg3105   04:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eastern Front in WWII is a rather huge task isn't it ;o) I just realised that many Wehrmacht formations are also missing. When I start putting in the operations and Fronts, from data perspective they will be hitting empty server space ;O) I shall have to contact someone to write the Wehrmacht units up.--  mrg3105  mrg3105   12:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you by any chance have an accepted English set of abbreviations for military units and formations?--  mrg3105  mrg3105   02:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06. I was unaware there was an administrators talk page and that there is an issue which (I'm assuming)is related to the OOB translation I did which you raised earlier. What is the issue?

I also saw Eurocopter's comment re use of modern international names retroactively applied to historical events. I'm surprised at this line of argument. Firstly if this was the case, then many events and places would have to be renamed. Secondly there is a standing convention in History that in historical discussions the contemporary usage is the one used. For example in discussion Roman occupation of britain we don't say that Italians occupied London which later became the capital of United Kingdom. We say that Legion X (or whatever number it was) occupied the Britanii settlementandafter significantly expanding it, called it Londonium. It is preferred to write the Latin name since the Ancient Romans would have been just as lost in Modern English as they were in the contemporary Celtic. So, that's a no for me to retroactively rename Soviet wartime operations into their Romanian names only because the cities happen to be Romanian. The objectives of the operatiosn were not the cities, but the destruction of the enemy forces that were positioned in the general area of these cities, with cities being major gographic points of reference. But of course you know that.--  mrg3105  mrg3105   01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are lots of admins talk pages, but that was the coordinators' talk page for the MilHist wikiproject. It's not to do with you at all, it's a separate issue on copyrights. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Air Forces Order of Battle 1 May 1945
I was wondering if you wanted me to break up and format it, but decided to see if you wanted to or not. Just a note that every time there is a comma, it means the non-Corps formations and units are 'independent', meaning they come under direct authority of the Army commander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Buckshot06, I'll finish formatting the OOB after I do your two modern divisions, ok?--  mrg3105  mrg3105   08:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

cute excerpt from memoir
I was reading something last night, and came up on this short piece which I thought you may like. It was a discussion between a new tank regiment commander and a tanker.

"So sergeant, why do you have a rabbit painted on the tank? The Germans have Tigers and Panthers, so shouldn't we have wolves and bears?"

"Sir, begging your pardon, but tigers and panthers fight for their dinner, but rabbits for their life" (said with a wry smile).

Cheers--  mrg3105  mrg3105   02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and Happy New Year
Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for all your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.





Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.

Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be good to have your feedback/comments on the drive at the Tag & Assess workshop

Thanks again for your help, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 10:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Incivility
I would say that such comments Iassy-Kishinev only got renamed because we have an active Romanian editor - user:Eurocopter tigre are quite discriminatory and even racist. As long as I have consensus for my actions, please do not use my personal details as arguments. For the sake of the work in which we colaborated, i'm sure we can solve any problem in a civil way. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy new year and all the same wishes to you. Regarding copyright discussion on the coordinators talk page, I preferred not to comment, as in my opinion my coleagues said all that needed to be said. Regarding the second issue, which historical sources actually use that convention? I will propose a convention on the MilHist project to use international names of towns/regions for such articles. I'm not completely back editing, as i'll be inactive during 4th and 5th January. All the best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Black Sea Fleet
Ok, I knew you were watching, so was wondering what you would do :O) There are of course other Black Sea Fleets aside from the Soviet one, so how do you get out of that when people start writing articles on the Turkish Black Sea Fleet, or the Romanian one, or of course the new Ukranian Black Sea Fleet?--  mrg3105  mrg3105   03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

useful sites
As you probably know there are many useful sites in Russian that are not specific to OOB data. one example is the heroes site that documents awarding of the Hero of Soviet Union. Another I just discovered is a defunct, but still cached site 1945.rstlib.nsc.ru I discovered it by accident, and it seems to have dealt only with the final year, but has many interesting details though of course no sources. Most notably it has detail of mentions of outstanding performance of some soldiers with the full unit listing. How you get to It is by simply typing in the date e.g. 24 марта 1945, and looking at the site address of the links that will come up. Unfortunately I can't devote time right now to 'grabbing' this, but since it has the sort of information you would be interested in (divisional subunits), I thought this may be something you (or others helping you) may consider doing. Cheers --  mrg3105  mrg3105   01:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

33rd undid break
Why? --  mrg3105  mrg3105   04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But look at where the 79th division is. Its right after the colon. Seems to me it should be below. I'm just looking at how you do things, not for the sake of criticism or 'looking over your shoulder'.--  mrg3105  mrg3105   04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This

After the war the composition of the 87th Rifle Corps was: 79th Rifle Division (from 22 February 1968 Red Banner):
 * 157th Rifle Order decorated Regiment;
 * 165th Rifle Order decorated Regiment;
 * 179th Rifle Order decorated Regiment;
 * 284th Artillery Order decorated Regiment.

or this

After the war the composition of the 87th Rifle Corps was:

79th Rifle Division (from 22 February 1968 Red Banner):

--  mrg3105  mrg3105   04:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 157th Rifle Order decorated Regiment;
 * 165th Rifle Order decorated Regiment;
 * 179th Rifle Order decorated Regiment;
 * 284th Artillery Order decorated Regiment.


 * To be totally honest, I hate those br things. I use spaces to do what you use those things to do, and I think they're unnecessary. Also, please capitalise Division & Brigade in titles - no 6th Motor-Rifle division, but 6th Motor Rifle Division. Finally I don't think it's likely that the RD predecessors of the 59th GMRD and the 33rd MRD will get their own articles separately, so redlinking them is unnecessary. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

46th Army and Battle of Debrecen
Buckshot06, the Soviet OOB in the BoD article is taken from the BSSA. The German official history (volume 8, p. 872) notes that Tolbuhkin had to give up the 46th Army and the 7th artillery division to Malinovksy's 2nd UkF prior to the Debrecen Operation. In any event, 46th Army was on the far southern flank of the Debrecen Operation, and according to the maps of the Soviet official history, moved along the axis Szeged - Velencei Lake from October 12 until December 20. The German official history map shows the 37th GRC (of which 59th GRD was a part in November) about 40 kilometers SE of Budapest on 3.11.44. Certainly, the 59th GRD was not part of the battle for the city of Debrecen itself, but the Soviet official history describes the operations of the 46th Army during this period as part of the Debrecen Operation. As well, Poirier and Conner show the 59th GRD as having been part of the Debrecen Operation although it is not listed among the official battle honors they note for the division.

The Battle of Debrecen article itself is not really mine, I made major edits to it because the article's previous POV was so pro-German as to have implied the Soviets suffered a major defeat at Debrecen which was a curious interpretation of events. You can view my editor's notes for the article at Talk:Battle of Debrecen. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A fine New Year to you as well! --W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lenskii
A.G. Lenskii (А. Г. Ленский), Сухопутные силы РККА в предвоенные годы. Справочник. — Санкт-Петербург Б&К, 2000, p.151

Land forces of RKKA during pre-war years.

I tried to purchase a copy from a guy via eBay two years ago and he made the payment so difficult that I just gave up.--  mrg3105  mrg3105   11:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I found a copy online, so do you want one? Shall I email it, or add it somewhere in Wikipedia?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 08:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry then, I had lost that (or still not recovered) and I seem to be forgetting a lot lately. Maybe the consequences of doing too much.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 08:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)