User talk:Lineagegeek

Welcome!
Hello, Lineagegeek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Pinkstrawberry02  ™ talk  13:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Inactivate versus deactivate
In a recent reversion of the terminology, the action was not without some deliberate thought and after research, delving into etymology, before making any reversions. If you are saying that "inactivate" is the proper military terminology, that is news to me as the process of deactivating a base or unit is to make it "inactive". See: Even the dictionary definitions of the terms do not support the use of "inactivate" as most style guides refer the author/reader to "deactivate" as the proper use. There are even writers that claim that the adjective: "inactive" is proper while the verb: "inactivate" is not. FWiW, no style guides support the use of "inactivate" as it is seen as an example of an affectation or even "made-up" word. Bzuk (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC).
 * I think WP:JARGON may apply. While 'inactivate' may well be the official terminology, 'deactivate' is what's commonly used. Since it isn't wrong, per se, using the term more people will recognise might be preferable. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "deactivate" (or the noun "deactivation") is more commonly used than "inactivate", although I would be happy to see support for this. (see below) I also disagree that the word "inactivate" is either jargon or more difficult to understand than "deactivate."  "Inactivate" (with respect to US Army and Air Force units) also has the benefit of distinguishing what was done from other terms like "disband" or "demobilize" that "deactivate" does not do.


 * I would also be surprised to see the distinction between the words made in style guides with regard to military units. I did a little Googling in response to the style guides issue and did find one flat assertion that "inactivate" should never be used.  As for actual usage (and response to whether "inactivate" is really a word), there is one response that the Corpus of Contemporary American English (not familiar to me) gives 88 examples of "inactivate" and 102 for "deactivate" (indicating actual usage is fairly even) while another response indicated 8,180,000 Google results for "deactivate" and 17,600,000 for "inactivate.  (speculating specifically that the results may be skewed by military (and scientific) usage).


 * I have refrained from changing the term with regard to bases, although I believe in that case the simple word "closed" is approprate in about 7/10ths of the cases. I also refrain from changing the term when it appears with non-USAF units. (Although it would be appropriate for US Army and inappropriate for US Navy units)  Finally, if I knew anything about your senses of humor, I would make a closing remark, but experience tells me that humor in emails, blogs, or whatever frequently is misunderstood and never in favor (or favour) of the one who believes he is being humorous.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Buschman (not an Aussie as far as I can tell, but an aficionado of the bang-'em-up sport), but my sense of humour is definitely (Note the Canadianism, I is Canajan, and sometimes classified for whatever purposes, as an official historian of the Royal Canadian Air Force, so that alone has to be accompanied by a sense of impropriety, at least) out-of-whack. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC).
 * Not sure what google results you have, but on my basic search of terms, "deactivate" is overwhelmingly the more common usage, by a factor of 7X or more. "Inactivate" is most often associated with a biological or medical term, and does not appear in the DOD Dictionary of Military Terms, although "inactive" does, as well as "deactivate." Just sayin', Bzuk (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was following the statement on the linked page concerning Google. Trying it myself got about what you did (to 15,200,000 to 2,630,000), although using the past tense of both verbs (because it would be more frequent in references to military units evens things out, even giving a slight edge to "inactivate" (1,640,000 to 1,800,000).  I seem to have stored my copy of the OED so well I can't find it despite searching for several days, but other dictionaries seem to add military use as well as the scientific use you cite in entries for inactivate.


 * The Free Online Dictionary
 * First meaning listed: Release from military service or remove from the active list of military service


 * Websters Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged)
 * Second meaning listed: to remove a military unit from the active list without disbanding.

Lineagegeek (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Inactivation
Please look at the two edits I made prior to this if you have time. I have two copies of The United States Air Force Dictionary. Deactivate is in it with this note: ""Deactivate" is not considered good usage in the AF.  See activate." Inactivate, inactivated and inactivation are listed as the preferred United States Air Force usage. Would you like a copy? Thank you for your service to our country. Welcome Home! GBU. Respectfully,  Tiyang (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on a couple of different sources. I have made the same change frequently, but confine myself to units (although I think facilities should usually be "closed" rather than "deactivated.")  I usually mark the changes as minor copyedits if I do nothing else to the article.  But at any rate a .pdf or .doc of the dictionary would be a useful reference.--Lineagegeek (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The two copies of The United States Air Force Dictionary I have are books, not files. Respectfully,   Tiyang (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Inactivated vs deactivate
My bad. Deactivate tends to be a NATO term and figured it was the same for the USAF. Gotta love the jargon. Just don't tell me you cal UAVs 'uninhabited aerial vehicles' because then we just can never be friends...at all. lol Superfly94 (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Pacific Air Force Regional Support Center
Would you mind working over the PACAF Regional Support Center, formerly the 611th Air Support Group? Complicated interrelationship between PAFRSC and 673d Air Base Wing, it appears, to support the remote radar sites. Not clear that wikipedia reflects the current situation. Cheers and best Buckshot06 (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum: most of the confusion was generated by the mention of the 766 Specialized Contracting Squadron, from it's number clearly not an 11th Air Force unit. Maybe you could take a look at these squadrons at the same time. I'm sure the Air Force Installation Contracting Agency page would benefit from your attention!! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

13th Air Expeditionary Wing
Appears to have no long lineage from anywhere, and established from new to supervise the 13th Air Expeditionary Group. Can you confirm? Certainly unlikely to trace it's lineage from the 13th Air Depot Wing.. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Earliest I have on it is January 2008, when it was activated for Exercise Cope Tiger 08. No conversion or constitution information at all, and its assignment to PACAF would have been at an unknown earlier date.  I would guess that a more likely predecessor would be 13th Strategic Missile Division (ex-Bombardment Wing).  --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How would we go about finding out the wing lineage & honors? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * With a little WP:OR ;-). The 13th Air Expeditionary Wing has no permanent predecessor, but has been strictly a provisional organization.  This means (like the old days) that each time PACAF activates a 13th Air Expeditionary Wing, it is a different organization with no connection to previous 13th Air Expeditionary Wings, much less to a permanent organization.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I would surmise therefore that the 13 AEW was the 13AF/CC's personal shotgun wing, was activated whenever he or his A3/A5 staff saw the need, was allocated by HQ AF because of the numerical lineup, and AFHRA may not have even been queried about properly tidying up the L&H. You'd agree?

10th Fighter Squadron, Commando

 * Next question - the 10th Fighter Squadron, Commando referenced in Bien Hoa Air Base, flying the combat-trial F-5s under 'Skoshi Tiger'. What is its lineage? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Surprised there's not an article about it. Simple, yet complicated.  I'll have to start something. But the article you mention will be a redirect.   I think the 10th Airborne Command and Control Squadron is where to put it.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, simple but complicated. Fairly complete now, with a ton of redirects created.  Possible additional material on the 10th Transport Squadron from the Admin History of ATC, probably a bit more on the ACCS.  I did not include possible additional material on the 4503d (details on missions from Da Nang and comments on success of the tests)  Since  I've linked the 4503d to the Skoshi Tiger section of the article, do you think it would be appropriate?  --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

800 series SAC wings in Desert Shield/Storm
Your note in the MAJCON wings article says 'During both the Viet Nam War and Desert Storm, SAC obtained permission to number some of its MAJCON provisional units with three digits'. Do you have any idea why 7 AD choose the 800-809 ish series for European units, while on the other hand the 4300 BW was activated at Diego Garcia? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No idea, but I suspect two things 1. Somebody's personal preference.  2. An association with Eighth Air Force.  Unfortunately, there is not been an equivalent to Craven & Cate's compilation of AAF in World War II series.  Futrell's work on the Korean War is a good match, but there are no equivalent works on wither Vet Nam or either operation in Southwest Asia.  I am not aware of any comparable non-official works either.  Starting with Desert Storm, the problem is made greater by the use of provisional or quasi provisional organizations (eg. the XX Tactical Fighter Wing (Forward)).  --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - you've confirmed my suspicions, given the creation of the 801st Bombardment Group (Provisional) for Operation Carpetbagger missions in the middle of the war. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

TFS, P, 4503rd, and 782d Training Group
Please do go ahead and insert the material on the Tactical Fighter Squadron, Provisional, 4503rd (do I have the naming right?)

Also, if you could take a look at the 782d and 982d Training Groups and their squadrons lists under the 82d Training Wing? Not 100% sure we have a current listing of squadrons for the 782d Training Group.. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

List of U.S. Department of Defense code names
Would you kindly please assist me with this article, by adding code names you come across, when it suits your editing patterns? Many thanks and happy new year!! Buckshot06 (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Couple of questions:
 * 1. Do you want to include only DoD level names or also service and command level?
 * 2. Do you want to categorize under generic names (Buy, Busy, Rivet, Pacer, Coronet, Cobra, etc.)?  I see you have one categorization under weapons system (Minuteman).
 * 3. Should Operations be listed separately?
 * 4. What about consistency in capitalization? (I believe there's a MOS guideline on this, but it's often ignored). --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Everything as long as it's clearly in the two-word scheme, from Dept of the AF to UCC to flight. 2. No, alphabetical (Minuteman listing simply haven't focused on moving them into the alphabetical listing). 3. No everything together - you'll see there's exercises, COBRA BALL (need to add Senior Trend), and DESERT STORM all in together. The idea is to be able to look up a two-word codename and find it. 4. For WP, since we aren't DOD, Cobra Ball rather than COBRA BALL. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What about first word assignments at the peak of the system? E.g.  Busy:  first word assigned to Strategic Air Command for exercises and projects, same for USAFE and Coronet, I believe Cobra was assigned to the NRO, Rivet to AFCC, but I haven't had the manual for about 40 years to look it up.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Arkin, I'm aware of that practice, and you'll find (some of) them listed alphabetically, sometimes with their subvariants - Constant, Senior, etc. Please add them to the list, using the Constant example for the layout. What was the manual in question? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't remember its name or number, but it listed the assigned first words by command. Not all were ever used, and some commands used their group of words for particular purposes.  There were probably about a half dozen for each command or agency.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Would be great to have the manual's name/designation, but, we do have this list in terms of the content. Plus Arkin 2005. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What about Fox Able. Fox Able 1 was particularly notable -- the first nonstop deployment of jet fighters across the Atlantic, supported by air refueling.  Two reasons for hesitation.  I don't know how high the series went and the name is simply derived from the US Military (pre-NATO) Alphabetic for FA (from Fighter Atlantic).  --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do stick in Fox Able, yes. You mean it went Fox Able, Fox Baker etc, or Fox Able 1,2,3? If the later, as a continuing exercise series just note that it continued.. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It Went Fox Able 1, Fox Able 2 . . . --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

103d Attack Squadron, PA ANG
I have a date now found for the 103 FS -> 103 ATKS designation change, but the lineage looks non-standard. Would you please take a look? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Change to nickname. the Group was never called Helton's Hellcats
Hello

I am sorry you feel so strongly about the name Helton's Hellcats being used for the 493rd BG I have been researching the 493rd BG for over 10 years now using the original paperwork of the Group and i can confirm the name was definitely not used by the 493rd Bombardment Group (Heavy) as the Group nickname.

Helton's Hellcats was the name that Martin Bowman used for his book, published in the 90's and the name was argued by numerous veterans of the 493rd BG at the time.

Numerous Veterans have stated they never heard the name whilst in service with the 493rd. this can be conformed as the football team only came into existence in November 1944. Have a look at Lt Gordon Weir's memoirs on http://www.arizonahandbook.com/8thAF.htm  and specifically  http://www.arizonahandbook.com/8thAF_18.htm   where Lt Weir states...

"The 493rd's nickname is said to be "Helton's Hellcats", a name I never heard overseas. Most likely the name was first applied to the Group's baseball or football team. No disrespect is meant to our first commanding officer, Colonel (later Major General) Elbert Helton, but I'd not describe myself as one of his "hellcats". Bombing from B-17s and B-24s seldom called for the hellcat type of airman."

if you look at the official historical records of the Group you will see the name was declared by Lt Col Elbert Helton as "the Fighting 493rd"  dated 5th December 1943. I can send you a copy if you wish.

Looking at a book supposedly written by a popular author does not necessarily mean it is correct. (the details in the HH book were researched by Truett Woodall a local researcher without having access to the material that we hold today.) there are numerous other errors in the book, all of which can be confirmed.

if you would like to contact me at the 493rd BG Museum, Debach England I will be more than happy to send you copies of the documents.

and yes the website is labelled Heltons Hellcats as the museum owners also used the same book written by Martin Bowman long before i started the research.

also look for the 493rd BG Association, concidentally named "The fighting 493rd BG Association"   The association Historian will be able to confirm the details.

best regards

Darren Jelley 493rd BG Archivist http://www.493bgdebach.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.88.60 (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that you have not read my comments on the talk page for the article on the 493d.
 * First, the usage of the name Helton's Hellcats is not based on Bowman's 1998 book, but is footnoted to a book published in 1970 by Roger Freeman, a respected historian of Eighth Air Force.
 * Second, I also assume that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia and its conventions. Freeman is what is referred to as a reliable source.  Although he also uses the term, Watkins is not cited (although he is generally reliable in this area, he may well have relied on Freeman or Bowman).  On the other hand, the primary sources you rely on are original research, which contravenes Wikipedia's guidelines.  You can click on the links to see how these are used on Wikipedia.
 * What could be done is to add the second nickname, if a reliable source can be cited; or an explanatory note indicating that the use of the name is disputed. On the other hand "I never heard overseas" is a long way from "it was never used." --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Change to nickname. the Group was never called Helton's Hellcats
Many thanks for your explanation

you have now explained to me how Wikipedia works. If i can find a book written about it I can say that is a reliable source, but if i can find original documents written at the time they are totally invalid because they have not been published. Many thanks, i used to use the site a lot but i am afraid i can no longer use it as a reliable source of information using the knowledge that you had supplied to me.

I was just trying to correct a known error about the 493rd Bomb Group about which I and others, have spent a lot of time an money researching, and obtaining the original paperwork of the Group.

Never mind I will carry on knowing the real answer

regards

Darren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.88.60 (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

30th Bombardment Squadron and 15th Wing
From the look of the referencing of these two pages, you may have carefully gone through them and attributed everything correctly after Bwmoll3's mass copyvio. Can you either:
 * (a) Confirm you have removed / cited all potentially copyvio material, and therefore make a or  note at Contributor_copyright_investigations/20130819?
 * (b) Indicate that you have not, so that we need to scrub or delete-to-scrub them of potential copyvio? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mostly other folks, although I've edited both. The 15th looks good, but I need a closer look at the 30th. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Update on the 30th Bomb Sq. I'll be circling around the 1941-1942 hitory of the squadron in the Southwest Pacific.  Despite faulty citation, material elsewhere is mostly attributable to sources in the public domain.  I'm sorting out citations now to see where we are.  Mr Moll started adding citations to previous editing just prior to his ban.  However, he just cited to works, not to anything that would be helpful.  (Gorrell is a prime example: There are 15 "Series" in this history, with 2 to 48 volumes in each.  I believe he had access to the work, but there is no way to find the needles in a haystack that big.  Fortunately it is public domain.)  I expect that just about everything except fot the SW Pac is salvageable.  However, unless I come up with alternate material, Bartsch and Salacker are not public domain sources and mateial cited to them probably should be presumptively deleted.  In the long run, long excerpts of Bartsch are available online at Amazon and could eventually be salvaged with proper attribution. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

citation needed for 40th Pursuit Squadron
I was wondering what sort of citation you are looking for in this situation: Berry Airfield (12 Mile Drome),[citation needed] New Guinea, 2 June 1942

Perhaps an example would help me. I will added the citation if I can. Thanks Ahench (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahench (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The source cited for all of the stations for the 40th Flight Test Squadron is the 2007 factsheet (needs to be updated, by the way -- a 2018 version is now online). This source gives Port Moresby as the squadron's station (same for November).  The 2018 factsheet says the same, as does Maurer, Combat Squadrons of the Air Force in World War II.  Therefore, if the artcle's station list includes specific airfields in the Port Moresby complex where the 40th was stationed, another source giving that location is needed.  Port Moresby Airfield Complex is not helpful in this case, because it is unreferenced.  Some places to look might be  or .  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I appreciate it. Ahench (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Technical requests

 * (a) I've watchlisted Requested moves/Technical requests for anything you might want to do in future.
 * (b) The list of bases for the provisional wings of 1990-91 in CENTCOM was released shortly afterwards. The 2003 list of bases is only patchily declassified, and sometimes attracts retrospective attempts at censorship on Wikipedia. What's the best way to request declassification for the initial period bases for OIF? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Here're the addresses for declassification review:

Headquarters Air Force/AAII (Mandatory Declassification Review) 1000 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330-1000 Email: usaf.pentagon.saf-aa.mbx.mdr-workflow@mail.mil --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on 194th Wing
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://mil.wa.gov/units-of-the-194th, which is not released under a compatible license. It looks like a webpage produced for the US Government, but it's not, and it's marked at the bottom as being copyright. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

List of United States Air Force squadrons
Perhaps you would like to share your thoughts on this article at Articles for deletion/United States Air Force squadrons. --&#39;&#39;Paul, in Saudi&#39;&#39; (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger
We can probably merge the 8th Reconnaissance Group and the 318th Cyberspace Operations Group - take the lead should you wish.. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

That is, but for User:Kkmurray. I tried this merger in 2013. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Though he edits with spaces of months, he has not edited seriously since May, with about five total contributions in June and July. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hawaiian Air Defense Wing
Happy Christmas!! This is a redlink in Pacific Ocean Areas - can you help? Trust all goes well for a great New Year too!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And a Merry Christmas back. I have never heard of an AAF unit with this designation.  I went back to check the appropriate sections of Vols. IV and V of Craven and Cate's  history of the AAF in WW II and they do not mention it.  POA operated under the Navy system of task units and AAF organizations frequently operated under task unit designations.  For example, Combined Task Group 93.4 was the Very Long Range Fighter Escort Unit, essentially VII Fighter Command (but probably including all or some elements of the 301st Fighter Wing of Twentieth Air Force at times).  I suspect that Hawaiian Air Defense Wing was a POA name for a task unit under its control, probably identical with the 7th Fighter Wing.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason I wanted to ask you was the diagram on page 513, in Chapter 17, Volume V. That diagram mentions XXI Bomber Comd, 7AF, and the Hawaiian Air Defense Wing. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd compare the organizational chart on page 513 with the one on page 527 (which includes an Air Defense, Marianas: Combined Task Unit 94.4.1) The chart on p. 513 does not differentiate between the Deputy Commander of Twentieth Air Force and the Commander of AAF, Pacific Ocean Area as the one on p. 527 does and also appears to show a command relationship passing through staff agencies.
 * 7th Fighter Wing was assigned directly to Seventh Air Force (although attached to VII Fighter Command) until AAF, Pacific Ocean Area was formed, then it was reassigned directly to AAF, Pacific Ocean Area for the rest of the war, and after December 1944 it was commanded by a general officer.  While its 15th and 21st Fighter Groups moved forward as bases were prepared in the Ryukus, its 508th Fighter Group and wing headquarters remained behind in Hawaii to provide air defense there.  I believe this accounts for the "Commanding General Hawaiian Air Defense Wing" box on the chart.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Space Operations Command linage question
With 14th Air Force now redesignated as Space Operations Command, would that mean that all of the history, lineage, and awards would transfer over? That’s my understanding, but I wanted to check with an expert first. Garuda28 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If this was in fact a redesignation, yes, the lineage etc. remain. My only caveat is that what I have seen so far about this is press releases and Public Affairs types are not always faithful to the correct organizational terms.  I have seen a number of inactivations and simultaneous activations referred to in publicity as redesignations, which they were not.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I’ll hold off on any of that until something more official comes out. Garuda28 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been informed by AFHRA that Space Operations Command was returned to the Air Force and redesignated Fourteenth Air Force, so a new Space Operations Command has been formed. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi LG, Thanks for all the recent changes you made to the 530th training squadron. It all looks really good. Glennfcowan (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplication at Fifth Air Force and FEAF
There's a massive chunk of material at Fifth Air Force dealing with Philippine Department Air Force and forebears before November 1941; there's also a massive article at FEAF dealing with the three months of Nov 1941 - February 1942. I want to reduce the duplication and consolidate everything at the earliest-named article in line with WP:MILHIST guidance, but wanted to have a word with you first.. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm my post yesterday about error messages didn't remain on the page. A quick glance (other than errors) indicates to me that some of this may have been introduced when there was some confusion between Far East Air Force (now Fifth Air Force) and Far East Air Forces (now Pacific Air Forces).
 * I would think basically everything relevant prior to 1942 should be moved into the Far East Air Force (United States) article. There should probably be some overlap in 1942, since several dates could be used as the cutoff: February (when the 5th AF designation came into use); May (surrender of units in Philippines) or the date when 5 AF started acting as an operational command again after all the various arrangements in the Netherlands East Indies.
 * I would substantially reduce material about the period prior to 1941. (looks like mostly added in 2011) The 4th Composite Group has a decent article on its own, so that can go.  Some background is called for, but the proposition that 5 AF had its origins when the Air Office of the Philippine Department was established is open for debate.  This shouldn't be an article about military aviation in the Philippines.  As background, a sentence or two about the 2d Aero Sq and another about the 4th Group should suffice, with some more about the 1941 expansion in which group sized organizations (19th Bombardment Group, 20th Air Base Group, 24th Pursuit Group) were formed.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

86th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron
You might wish to work on this page a little..Buckshot06 (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Other than deleting it? Some of the best cited nonsense I've seen.  Coincidentally, I was just musing starting an article on the 55th Aeromedical Airlift Squadron.  I think I will, and then remove at least the 55th material from the page.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it inaccurate? I thought it just needed verification and layout checks.. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. It combines a number of unrelated units with similar (but not identical) missions related to transporting patients in Europe and other USAFE areas of interest.  You can view the 55th page, which I have started.  This is the only one of the units included that flew the airplanes that transported the patients.  The others provided medical specialists that cared for the patients in the rear of the plane.  But some were headquarters as opposed to operational level units.  I would not oppose an article on the subject of military air evacuation in Europe, but the subject unit of the article did not exist before 1984.  I believe the references (once I check them) will be proper, but tying a bunch of units together under this heading is incorrect.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd help you and create the 2d Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron page, and found first what I thought was a reliable USAF source on it's assignment in 1989, to the 375th AAW. Checking L&H, couldn't find it listed amongst the 375th's squadrons. Checking the Rhein-Main page, saw it was assigned to the 435th Military Airlift Support Wing, later 435th TAW. But cannot find amongst the constituent squadrons in the 435th's L&H!! Much of the article is correct and solid, but you'll have to help me with the wing assignment.. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * AFHRA and predecessors tend to limit information in L&H Statememts on components to "operational' components only. Since the 2d is considered a medical unit it falls under the category of support unit and is unlikely to be listed in L&H Statements.  I just ran into an extreme example of this, when doing some  quick edits on the 395th Strategic Missile Squadron, mosty to correct erroneoous information, using quickly available sources.  For the 1959-1969 segment, information is available for the time it was assigned to the 1st Strategic Aerospace Division, because it was designated as the 395th Strategic Missile Squadron for part of its time under the division.  However Ravenstein doesn't list the unit for either the 704th Strategic Missile Wing or 392d Strategic Missile Wing because it was the 395th Missile Training Squadron while assigned to those wings, therefore only a training (support) unit, even though it had the exact same mission.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So how do I reference the 2 AES L&H? What was your original source for the assignments? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Bit of hit and miss. I did this quickly from a non cited resource. I might have to add some "c." However, with a See, most of the time in France is in;
 * Changes associated with the bouncing back and forth between USAFE and MAC/AMC are ub:
 * Changes associated with the bouncing back and forth between USAFE and MAC/AMC are ub:


 * (part I)
 * (part 2 Chapter VI to end)


 * Some of the rest is from DAF Letters (primary sources). Because they're not generic, like the consolidation letters from 1983-1985, they're a bit difficult to locate.
 * MAny thanks. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:United States Space Force
At "Details on the 23 USAF units that are transferring to USSF," at the bottom, is my initial listing of the 23 units. Are you able to do a quick and dirty brief writeup on the 533d Training Squadron, Vandenberg, and the 705th Combat Training Squadron, which could be placed there, with references, and then moved into the appropriate articles? What I would most like is (a) what those units actually *do*, and (b) what their lineage is. Many thanks for your assistance in advance. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In place of the 533d TRS, anything you can further fill in on the National Security Space Institute would be welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's clear what form the partial transfer of the 705th will take. What is transferring is Operating Location A (at Schriever), not the whole squadron (at Kirtland).  The 705th started out as the 705th Exercise Control Squadron some time prior to April 2004 and redesignated in 2006.  It's assigned to the 505th Test & Evaluation Group and is under ACC.  My guess is that Space Force will form a new squadron to absorb OL-A's mission and assets.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Air Material Force, Pacific Area
Thought I might set up a small article on this NAF (following on from Far East Air Service Command). Can you verify these two L&Hs at USAF Unit History and Aerofiles? Are they correct and can you give me a citation to a more credible source? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Japan Air Material Area (sic) already exists, so any more details you might be able to provide on my favourite subject, MAJCOM groups/wings associated with it, would be great!! Buckshot06 (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * L&H material on the USAF History site is generally directly from AFHRA, but what follows is usually cut and paste from other web sources, so it's better to look for the same material elsewhere to make an independent judgement as to reliability and avoid COPYVIOs. The Aerofile list looks accurate, but incomplete.  Depot wings and groups were on their way out when the two Air Materiel Forces (not Material) were formed as Air Materiel Command took over overseas logistics from FEAF and USAFE.  The list of MAJCOM Wings may help as a source.  McAuliffe's book on USAF in France has a lot on Chateauroux and the depot units there.  Japan Air Materiel Area did exist from 1946 (provisional unit until 1947) until 1949.  Obviously not a predecessor.  Overseas AMAs tended to go away by 1950, although there were 3 under AMF, European Area.  Depot Wings and Groups were absorbed into the staffs of AMAs during the 1950s.  I believe this was at least partially as the AMAs became product oriented, rather than geographically oriented.--Lineagegeek (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes I collected some time ago everything I could find about the AMAs at Air Materiel Command and the follow-on section. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Lineage template
Do you have an article that suggest using a as a template for a unit’s lineage? A lot of the ones I’ve seen appear to be quite complex and I want to make sure I get it right. Garuda28 (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure how this would work, but you might take a look at 6th Tactical Missile Squadron. It includes most organizational actions (constitutions, activations, consolidations), awards and campaigns, and aircraft and missiles.   It differs from most I've worked on in having the aircraft and missiles after the awards and campaigns.  That's usually reversed.  Lineagegeek (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated!Garuda28 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

SAC in the UK

 * RAF Bassingbourne - 3913 Air Base Sq 16 May 51-c. 4 Apr 53 p.3
 * RAF Brize Norton - 3920 Air Base Gp (later 3920 Combat Support Gp, 3920 Strategic Wg) c. Nov 51-c. 31 Mar 65 pp.8-9
 * RAF Bruntingthorpe - 3912 Air Base Sq (later 3912 Combat Support Gp) 15 Feb 57-c. Sep 59 p. 9
 * RAF Chelveston - 3914 Air Base Sq (later 3914 Combat Support Gp) c. 1955-c. Sep 59 p.16
 * RAF East Kirkby - 3931 Air Base Gp 17 Apr 54-c. 1955, 3917 Air Base Sq c. 1955-1 Aug 58 p.22
 * RAF Fairford - 3919 Air Base Gp (later 3919 Combat Support Gp) c. 16 Oct 52-c. 26 Jun 64 pp.23-24
 * RAF Full Sutton - 3930 Air Base Sq c. 1955-c, 5 Feb 57 p.25
 * RAF Greenham Common - 3909 Air Base Gp 16 May 51-c. 1954 3910 Air Base Gp (later 3910 Combat Support Gp) c. 1954-c. 30 Jun 64 pp. 26-27
 * High Wycombe - 3929 Air Base Sq 5 Oct 52-26 Mar 65 p.29
 * RAF Homewood Park - 3915 Air Base Sq c. 1955-c. 1 Aug 61 p.30
 * RAF Lakenheath - 3909 Air Base Gp (later 3909 Combat Support Gp) 16 May 51-1 Jan 60 p.33 3912 Air Base Sq c. 1954 till move to Bruntingthorpe) p.33
 * RAF Lindholme - 3916 Air Base Sq 16 May 51-c. 3 Dec 56 p. 35
 * RAF Manston - 3917 Air Base Gp 16 May 51-c. 1954 p. 38
 * RAF Marham - 3915 Air Base Sq 16 Mar 51-c. 1960 p. 40
 * RAF Mildenhall - 3910 Air Base Gp 16 May 51-c. 1954 p. 42 (moved to Lakenheath)
 * RAF Scampton - 3930 Air Base Sq c. 1951-c. 1955 (moved to Full Sutton)
 * RAF Sculthorpe - 3911 Air Base Gp 16 May 51-c. May 1952 p.50
 * Stansted Mountfitchet 3913 Air Base Sq c. 1952-c. 1955 (moved to Mildenhall) 3930 Air Base Sq c. 1955-1 Oct 58 (but see Full Sutton) p. 56
 * RAF Sturgate - 3928 Air Base Gp c. 1954-1 Aug 58 p. 57
 * RAF Upper Heyford - 3918 Air Base Gp (later 3918 Combat Support Gp, 3918 Strategic Wg) c. Jan 52-8 Sep 65 p. 59
 * RAF Waddington - 3914 Air Base Sq 16 May 51-c. Mar 55 p. 61
 * RAF West Drayton - 3911 Air Base Gp (later 3911 Air Base Sq) c. 16 May 51-1 Jul 59 p. 62 Lineagegeek (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Much appreciated.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Established vs. activated
I've come across a unit first being established then activated in AFHRA records, but I've noticed that official histories seem to use activated to mark a unit's birth. Can you help me understand the difference a little better? Thanks!Garuda28 (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me say that earlier works from AFHRA do not get as technical with this as do current works. The 1st Operations Group is an establishment.  Headquarters, 1st Operations Group is a unit that is assigned to the establishment.  The 1st Operations Group was established in 1991 when Headquarters,  1st Operations Group was activated.  The DAF Letter and TAC Special order would probably not have mentioned the establishment.  Establishments have headquarters to which units can be assigned.  Most groups and above are establishment (but not always).  I tend to overlook this as overly technical and because older units may have had more than one unit as a headquarters because of changes in their organization (for example, between 1944 and 1948 the headquarters pf all numbered air forces in the US were AAF Base Units.  So in the spring of 1944, Headquarters and Headquarters Squadron, Fourth Air Force was disbanded, and the 400th Army Air Forces Base Unit (Headquarters, Fourth Air Force) was organized.  Didn't really make much difference to Fourth Air Force, the establishment, but there were two different units, with separate lineages.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! Thank you!Garuda28 (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

5th Interceptor Command
The data here seems much more detailed than the information available in the 5 FC entry in Maurer, Combat Units (though I have just realised that someone, probably Bwmoll3, could have just extracted all the detail from the individual group entries.) Anyway, please take a look and see what you think. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The three most obvious possibilities are They Fought With What They Had, Craven and Cate, and the USAAF Chronologies (all PD). However, the only hit I got on the list of units was in the May 1942 USAAF Chronology, which dates their end to 6 May 1942 with the surrender of Corregidor, not 9 April.  I have a sneaking suspicion that this organization may have had no formal existence.  AFHRA refers to it as " probably a provisional organization."  None of the references that popped up use the (Provisional) in regard to the unit.  The Report of the Pearl Harbor Commission says it could find no evidence of its activation.  5th Interceptor Command, unlike 5th Bomber Command, was activated in the US and had begun shipment to the Philippines when the Japanese attacks on the Far East turned it back.  It would have made sense for FEAF/5th AF to have started organizing an advanced echelon in the Philippines, rather than waiting for the formal organization to ship from the US.  That would account for calling the Philippine organization 5th Interceptor Command without the (Provisional) or taking formal organizational action to establish it.  Then, with the surrender in the Philippines, it would have just silently faded away. Lineagegeek (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Curiouser and curiouser. AFP 900-2 credits V Fighter Command with a Distinguished Unit Citation, a Philippine Presidential Unit Citation and campaign credit that it ccould not possibly have earned because it was back in the US as 2d Fighter Command at the time, and which were undoubtedly awarded to 5th Interceptor Command.  I surmise that in 1941, the usual set of commands were organized for Phillipine Dept AF/Far East AF/5 AF.  5th Bomber Command and 5th Service Command were organized in the Philippines.  5th Interceptor Command and 5th Air Support Command were organized in the United States for shipment to the Philippines (I'd love to see the Adjutant General 320.2 letter(s) involved.  During that period, they frequently would expressly mention that a unit was activated at one location for assignment to another location at a future date.)  At any rate, 5th Interceptor Command left the POE and was turned back, eventually becoming Fighter Command School.  5th Air Support Command (Maurer erroneously gives it a roman numeral in 1941) never even got that far, but became Ninth Air Force.  So it looks to me that there's not much to fear about copyvios, but the article could certainly be improved.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Beale in the 1960s
Just found again the section where you said you'd served in the 744th BS as one of your first assignments as a lieutenant. What was it like to serve as flight crew in the mid-1960s in SAC - still under LeMay, right?Buckshot06 (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, LeMay was Chief of Staff Thomas Power was CINCSAC when I got to Beale and John Ryan, when I left.  A typical month would involve about three or four 10-11 hour long training missions.  Each typically included climb to high altitude, rendezvous and air refueling (usually heavy weight), high altitude celestial navigation leg (or Hound Dog programming and captive launch).  Descent to low level for several bomb runs on an RBS site (including ECM),  Sometimes high altitude bombing runs against Nike sites. iwith practice instrument approaches then landing.  Stood alert a about three tours a month.  In 15th AF allert tours were on a 3 day/4 day schedule with changeover on Monday and Friday (8th AF stood seven day tours, I don't reall what 2d AF did).  Twice a year, the wing would spend a month flying Chrome Dome missions.  At first, we flew 25 hour missions on the main route -- across the northern US, over the Atlantic between Canada and Greenland, around the arctic, then back down across Alaska and down the Pacific coast.  Later we flew Chrome Dome west, about 21 hours up the Pacific coast, a big box around Alaska, down the Aleutians and back then back to Beale.  Once a year we would undergo an Operational Readiness Inspection.  There would also be an annual Bar None visit by the 1st Combat Evaluation Group.  Different missions included the FSAGA (first sortie after ground alert) flown in a bird that had been on ground alert.  Downloading weapons and safety of flight maintenance were allowed, but otherwise the idea was to validate that the plane could have reached its target on alert.  Occasionally flew air defense exercises and had one flight to check out the capability of recovery bases (never made it to Yokota --strongest jet stream I ever experienced.  We had enough fuel to get to Yokota, but weather was bad enough that we needed an alternate, and we couldn't make it to Kadena.  Took 8 hours to our turn around point and only 4 hours to get back home.)  --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft Article Review Request
Greetings, Looking through the task force listings, your specialty seemed closest, so I thought I'd drop a line. I have written a draft bio for Major General Frederick L. Martin, CC of the "Hawaiian Air Force" (18th Bomb Wing at Hickam Field and 14th Pursuit Wing at Wheeler and outlying airfields at Bellows and Haleiwa) during the attack on Pearl Harbor. It's not exactly USAF unit lineage, but you seemed the closest specialist. Could I interest you in reviewing it for publication and/or sending the link on to someone who is a better fit? I am a pretty new editor, having only made a couple of edits previously as an IP user, rather than creating an account, but I think this is ready for primetime. I would appreciate any comments or assistance.--SirGarick (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the article and made a couple of copyedits.
 * You might look into your reference formatting. I see you have listed the bare web site for Martin's bio several times.  First, I would recommend using the  template for this source.  Then, the first time you use it, instead of, use ,  then for future cites to the same source,, you just have to put in.
 * I assume you haven't become familiar with "piping." Take a look to the changes I made to the two links to the 3d Wing.  The "pipe" is needed vecause 3rd Wing will take you to entirely different organization.  This is a way to link to a Wikipedia article and have the text say what you want.
 * Having said that, Wikipedia biography articles have some specialized rules, and I think you'd do better with someone with expertise in biographies, rather than someone with expertise in the USAF and predecessors to make sure you meet the bio requirements. Looks like a good article, though.  Better than my first one.  Lineagegeek (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. The markup language for Wikipedia is quite a challenge.  I feel like I'm programming a 1990s website. I was not aware of piping, which is why I put the later redesignation in parens to tag it.  I'll give that template a shot.  heck, the info box template only took me three tries. ;)  Cheers from a fellow old zoomie.SirGarick (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As you will see, I have overruled the bot. Good work. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Second Air Force, note 8
Would you like to review note 8 of Second Air Force, sourced to a contemporary AAF publication, and make any lineage amendments necessary?Buckshot06 (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC) That pub does not match the lineage listed at AFHRA.


 * No it doesn't. Seems to have been added way back in 2013. Prior to that the paragraph gave 2 different dates for activation.  The editor picked the wrong one (constitution date).  As for the "organization" date in January, I don't know what the editor or work is referring to.  There may have been a delay in manning the headquarters, but I'm not aware of it.  I believe that the cited source was written during the war as a morale builder, not as a historical record.  I wouldn't regard it as a RS.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Contest
It's great that you've been submitting lots of articles to the MilHist contest, but it would be very helpful if you could help out by verifying other people's articles. A good rule of thumb would be to verify at least as many as you've submitted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Stormbird, I'm not sure what you mean about verifying. Got a link to more detail?  I have been assessing articles, including the link you included (had already been moved to Userspace by the MilHist bot).  Happy to help.  As for the contest submissions, I'm going through a bunch of past work that never were reassessed.  800 series Bomb Sqs for August.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By verifying, I mean checking to see if the nominators have correctly entered the starting and end classes and adding your sig to confirm that they're good. This month it was mostly me, Zawed and Gog the Mild who did them all.
 * And be advised that the contest is for significant work done during the month of the contest, not for work done prior to that month as per instruction #3 at WP:MILCON. I didn't realize that you didn't understand that aspect of the contest until your comment above prompted me to check the edit histories of a couple of your nominations. You hadn't touched one of them in a year, another only had a reference added and a third you did substantial work on last month. Please don't nominate the first two types of articles any more; they don't meet the criteria. You're doing great work here, please don't spoil it by nominating simple reassessments or simple fixes again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was under the impression that only Coordinators or Admins could do that kind of verification. Happy to help.  I'll keep putting in requests for B class reviews, but reduce the contest entries.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  I should have put these in on a current basis.  Most US bomber units numbered over 501 should now be B pr C, rather than start (not about 580-600).   feel free to withdraw the Chevrons and award them to whoever did the most current work.  Lineagegeek (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, while I am ready to be overruled by my fellow coordinators, you have put the work in for most of them, even if for a number of them it wasn't in the requisite period. Your offer to hand back the chevrons is appreciated, but I consider that you were acting in good faith and were in first place by a handsome margin and so decline to accept their return. You are, as Sturm correctly states, doing great work here and it is appreciated; just make sure that future contest entries are the right side of the rules. Have a (re-)skim of the contest rules, and if you aren't sure about the eligibility of any future potential entries feel free to give me a ping for a second opinion. It is impressive and refreshing to see they sort of input you have been generating, please keep it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in revoking your chevrons, but I appreciate your offer. Just be more careful in the future about your noms. And I also appreciate your offer to help verify the entries; it's not hard, but it is tedious. Which is why I didn't even bother listing 2/3s of my destubs this month; I've done it before, but it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I can review every other entry and still not equal my own nominations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Two items. First, as to your remark about helping with verifying entries, I presume that as a former coordinator, I should not be doing this, per a later posting on the MilHist talk page.  Let me know if this is correct.  Second, I'd like to point out that for a number of my entries this month, although the my major work improving the article was done earlier, the reference changes made this month make the difference between B and C levels, as Cattlemur pointed out in reviewing one of my requests for review.  Regards.  Lineagegeek (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's a formal requirement that only coordinators can review entries for the contest. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I did it even when I wasn't a coordinator because I almost always have a lot of noms. And as a former coordinator yourself, I don't think anybody would care if you did so. In my mind, a significant amount of work isn't tied to changing a rating, but rather how much effort is involved, but that's just me. I'm going to ping for his opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Contest instructions state "At month end, the closing coordinator will check the points claimed, sign the "checked" box, and tally each entrant's points up; and update the yearly scoreboard." Which of course isn't what we do, but does give a clear signal to non-coordinators to not sign the "checked" boxes. I think that the instructions need tweaking. Shall we ask for permission or forgiveness? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a bold change to coordinator or former coordinator? And what are you thoughts on what constitutes significant effort?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * apologies; why not "experienced project member"? Ah, I am not sure that I am the best person to ask that of. I believe that that there is an extended discussion on the topic archived. Are we talking about point 3 in "Instructions for contestants"? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Experienced project member" would be fine, IMO. And now that I reread bullet point 3 for the first time in many years, it explicitly says that adding references is a meaningful change, so I have my answer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believe it was tweaked 30 months ago after a miscreant newbie took a rather literal interpretation of the old wording.
 * I shall boldly make the change, Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder who so ever that miscreant could be? ;-)   Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * Sert - dead smile.svg Whoever it is I am sure that they have learnt their lesson, as I understand that they rarely bother posting anything less than a GA these days. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * Sert - dead smile.svg Whoever it is I am sure that they have learnt their lesson, as I understand that they rarely bother posting anything less than a GA these days. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sert - dead smile.svg Whoever it is I am sure that they have learnt their lesson, as I understand that they rarely bother posting anything less than a GA these days. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

588th Bomber Squadron edit
If you were to have left an edit summary for this edit, what would it have been? Thanks, † dismas †|(talk) 01:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I see no similarity between the units beyond the number 588. Therefore, I think they are too remotely related and doubt there would be confusion that could require a headnote.  Different militarys, different sized units.  If we were to assume that the number alone was enough to require an explanation, articles on military units would have pages of headnotes, especially for low numbered ones.  For example, the more closely related (same number, same designation, same service, if not same size) 301st Bombardment Group, 301st Bombardment Wing and 301st Bombardment Squadron do not have headnotes to differentiate them, although the squadron has one to differentiate it from a different "301st Bombardment Squadron."  Same for 301st Fighter Wing and 301st Fighter Squadron, although the squadron has a headnote for a Japanese unit with the same name.  I think the squadron headnotes in these cases demonstrate a real possibility for confusion.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Revert on 527th Space Agressors Squadron
Hey, I saw your revert of my edit and was slightly confused. The source I cited (https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2287104/us-space-force-stands-up-star-delta-provisional) stated that the squadron had transitioned over to the Space Force effective 24 July 2020. Is there something that I'm missing or not understanding that you see? Thanks!Garuda28 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, nothing wrong with that part, but as part of the edit (not mentioned in the summary) the infobox was substantially changed as well. Also, the squadron must have a new assignment, since the 57th is still part of the Air Force (possibly a change from assigned to attached).  Also, you changed some of the categories.  I'm not sure how Space Force will affect Air Force categories, but I'm fine with those changes as well.  Appreciate your efforts to bring Space Force units up to date.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah. That was my mistake then. It got assigned to STAR Delta per the source. I'll try to include more in my edit summaries in the future as well. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've also got a follow on question for you on 50th Network Operations Group regarding a discussion I've been having with over if the unit transitioned to the Space Force. All the sources I've found stated that all former AFSPC units transitioned over to the Space Force, but haven't been able to find any news articles discussing transitions for units below the wing level (which all described themselves as space force units). The NOG was just redesignated (if they are taken at face value on the lineage side) as Space Delta 6. Do you think that's sufficient to confirm their transition to the Space Force prior to inactivation, or will we likely have to wait for a more comprehensive history to be released by the SF later?Garuda28 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My contact through the AMC History Office seems to have fizzled, so I would not be sure of much other than the units were transferred. But the transfer seems to be sourced.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That was my assumption as well, that if AFSPC and it’s wings transferred then the subordinate units certainly would have as well. (Especially on the operations side). I know it’s not the article talk page, but was wondering if you had any thoughts?Garuda28 (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Second edit conflict in an hour!! If you give me a moment!! :) I have a suggestion: when there is *specific* data made public (like the great listing in STARD(P)) let's fill that in. When there is no data, let's wait without saying anything, except perhaps saying in lower-than-wing pages similar to the NOG article "50 SW was broken up and personnel transferred to USSF June 2020.." Buckshot06 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don’t have edit conflicts were not doing it right! Hmm, so here’s my thought process on this one: on one hand we know that AFSPC and it’s components (with confirmation news releases down to the wing) became part of the Space Force on 20 Dec 19; and with the most recent reorganization we got confirmation the squadrons are part of the SF since they’re part of the deltas. I think we can afford to wait on the groups until either the historians release something since the fact sheets indicate they were −redesignaded, or we just wait a few months and if the fact sheets still say that (which should be enough time for the historians to review it) we take it as face value they’re the same organization. I still think we have enough evidence that the groups transferred over, but I’m also okay with waiting a few months and seeing if any new information comes up as well. Garuda28 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

601st Air Operations Center
Both this AOC and the 701st Air Defense Squadron you might wish to take a look at. There is no lineage that I can see at AFHRA for the 601st AOC so I'm unable to find the skeleton to start working on it myself. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the Air Force Organizational Status Change Report, prepared by AFHRA, for November 2007, the 601st Air & Space Operations Center was activated on 1 November 2007 at Tyndall. The DAF/A1M letter directing this action was dated 25 Oct 2007, and is almost certainly the date of the center's constitution.  I do not know when the center dropped the Space from its name (Info on ANG units is not kept at AFHRA), but other centers did this in late 2014.  Simultaneous with the center's activation, the 701st Air Defense Squadron, 1st Information Operations Flight, and Air Forces Northern (First Air Force), Provisional were all inactivated and would seem to be the sources for the center's resources.  (Although one of the center's units is the 101st Information Operations Flight, and I suspect that it replaced the 1st -- again an ANG unit).  I would not place too much reliance on the "lineage" information on the center's web page (prepared by Public Affairs, not History Office).  There is no historic relation between 23d Air Division, Southeast Air Defense Sector, and the center, unless some consolidation has taken place that I do not know of.  I do not know the source for the emblem in the article (it was originally approved for Montgomery Air Defense Sector, I believe) on the center or whether it is actually the authorized emblem for the center.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Battery "I", 1st Illinois Light Artillery Regiment
Responding to your comments. Djmaschek (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the quotes around the letter I are unnecessary and irritating. For most states (see Battery E, 1st Missouri Light Artillery Regiment) there are no quotes. Someone even changed the names from Battery "A" 1st Regiment Illinois Volunteer Light Artillery to the current format (remove Volunteer, Regiment at end), but unfortunately they left in the quotes. All the Illinois batteries have quotes, so I am merely conforming to the current standard. If I change one, I'd need to change them all.
 * I will add a remark that the battery operated independently.
 * I generally like to provide full names. McCook's Division would be technically incorrect because it was McCook's 2nd Division, Army of the Ohio. I could put Alexander M. McCook to shorten it.
 * Sometimes I cite the sources as you suggested. Lately I've been doing it "One source says x. Another authority says y."
 * I usually use subheads under History. I'll do that.

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

548, 549 Wings
Hi, I have found the 550th Guided Missiles Wing, but were there 546, 547, 548, or 549 Wings? Is there a more comprehensive listing than Ravenstein, pre or post 1977? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The system is really wings and independent groups. So the numbers are taken by the
 * 546th Tactical Airlift Group (established as California Sector, Air Corps Ferrying Command)
 * 547th Tactical Airlift Group (established as 10th Pursuit Wing -- in Maurer)
 * 548th Tactical Airlift Group (established as the 8th Ferrying Group) duplicated by the 548th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group (established as the 6th Photographic Technical Squadron)

Although they were really numbered in a separate series, there have also been
 * 546th Aircraft Control & Warning Group
 * 548th Aircraft Control & Warning Group
 * 549th Aircraft Control & Warning Group

Ravenstein's the most comprehensive, but he excludes non operational wings, which when he wrote, included


 * 1st Civil Engineering Wg
 * 1st Medical Services Wg
 * 1st Weather Wing
 * 2d Weather Wing
 * 3d Weather Wing
 * 4th Weather Wing
 * 5th Weather Wing
 * 6th Weather Wing
 * 7th Weather Wing
 * 9th Weather Reconnaissance Wing	(he probably should have included this, but decided to treat as a weather unit, not a reconnaissance unit)
 * 13th Air Depot Wg
 * 24th Air Depot Wg
 * 25th Air Depot Wg
 * 29th Air Depot Wg
 * 30th Air Depot Wg
 * 39th Aerospace Rescue & Recovery Wg (also 39th Special Operations Wg)
 * 40th Aerospace Rescue & Recovery Wg
 * 41st Aerospace Rescue & Recovery Wg
 * 43d Weather Wg (two units with this name, second was a T/D unit that became a MAJCON unit)
 * 59th Air Depot Wg
 * 59th Weather Wg (two units with this name, second was a T/D unit that became a MAJCON unit)
 * 73d Air Depot Wg
 * 75th Air Depot Wg
 * 77th Air Depot Wg
 * 85th Air Depot Wg
 * 88th Air Depot Wg
 * 507th Tactical Air Control Wg (also 507th Air Control Wg)
 * 601st Tactical Air Control Wg (also 601st Air Base Wg, 601st Air Control Wg, 601st Support Wg)
 * 602d Tactical Air Ctl Wg (also 602d Air Control Wg)
 * 834th Tactical Composite Wg	(one of the many names of the 1st Special Operations Wing -- listed)
 * 901st Reserve Training Wg
 * 902d Reserve Training Wg
 * 903d Reserve Training Wg
 * 904th Reserve Training Wg
 * 905th Reserve Training Wg
 * 906th Reserve Training Wg
 * 907th Reserve Training Wg
 * 908th Reserve Training Wg (not activated)
 * 909th Reserve Training Wg (constituted 29 May 51, but action revoked)
 * 910th Reserve Training Wg
 * 911th Reserve Training Wg
 * 912th Reserve Training Wg
 * 913th Reserve Training Wg
 * 914th Reserve Training Wg
 * 915th Reserve Training Wg (constituted 29 May 51, but action revoked)
 * 916th Reserve Training Wg
 * 917th Reserve Training Wg
 * 918th Reserve Training Wg
 * 919th Reserve Training Wg (not activated)
 * 920th Reserve Training Wg
 * 921st Reserve Training Wg
 * 922d Reserve Training Wg
 * 923d Reserve Training Wg
 * 924th Reserve Training Wg
 * 925th Reserve Training Wg
 * 926th Reserve Training Wg
 * 927th Reserve Training Wg (not activated)
 * 928th Reserve Training Wg
 * 929th Reserve Training Wg
 * 930th Reserve Training Wg

Some formed or redesignated after his book (many upgraded from groups or formed by consolidation)


 * 1st Aerospace Communications Wg (also 1st Aerospace Information Systems Wg
 * 1st Space Wg
 * 2d Space Wg
 * 3d Space Support Wg
 * 16th Special Operations Wg (one of the many names of the 1st Special Operations Wing)
 * 18th Combat Support Wg
 * 30th Space Wing
 * 33d Special Operations Wg
 * 39th Air Base Wg (also 39th Wing)
 * 40th Support Wg
 * 45th Space Wg
 * 53d Wing
 * 59th Medical Wg (inactive as 59th Tactical Fighter Wg)
 * 76th Air Base Wg
 * 77th Tactical Intelligence Wg (also 77th Air Base Wg)
 * 85th Tactical Fighter Training Wg (also 85th Wing)
 * 88th Air Base Wg
 * 311th Air Refueling Wing (revoked)
 * 311th Human Systems Wg
 * 326th Aeronautical Systems Wg
 * 334th Air Refueling Wg (never active)
 * 335th Air Refueling Wg (never active)
 * 336th Air Refueling Wg (never active)
 * 343d Composite Wg (also 343d Tactical Fighter Wg, 343d Fighter Wing)
 * 350th Electronic Systems Wg
 * 352d Special Operations Wg
 * 353d Special Operations Wg
 * 356th Special Operations Wg (never active)
 * 357th Tactical Missile Wg (never active)
 * 399th Tactical Missile Wg (never active)
 * 400th Tactical Missile Wg (never active)
 * 404th Tactical Missile Wg (never active)
 * 411th Tactical Missile Wg (never active)
 * 412 Test Wg
 * 415th Tactical Missile Wg (never active)
 * 471st Special Operations Wg (never active)
 * 472d Special Operations Wg (never active)
 * 480th Special Operations Wg (also 480th ISR Wg)
 * 485th Tactical Missile Wg
 * 486th Tactical Missile Wg
 * 487th Tactical Missile Wg
 * 488th Tactical Missile Wg (never active)
 * 498th Armament Systems Wg
 * 501st Tactical Control Wg (also 501st Aircraft Control & Warning Wg)
 * 501st Tactical Missile Wg (also 501st Combat Support Wg)
 * 502d Air Base Wg
 * 503d Tactical Missile Wg (never active)
 * 510th Tactical Missile Wg (never active)
 * 521st Tactical Control Wg (never active)
 * 526th ICBM Systems Wg (also 526th Special Operations Wg)
 * 542d Crew Training Wg
 * 544th Intelligence Wg (also 544th Reconnaissance Technical Wg, 544th Strategic Intelligence Wg)
 * 554th Operations Support Wg (also 554th Electronic Systems Wg)
 * 603d Air Base Wg
 * 606th Support Wg (constituted 1 Jan 92, revoked 27 Jan 92)
 * 620th Air Base Wg
 * 623d Wing
 * 645th Air Base Wg
 * 646th Air Base Wg
 * 650th Air Base Wg
 * 652d Air Base Wg
 * 653d Electronic Systems Wg
 * 665th Air Base Wg
 * 673d Air Base Wg
 * 690th Electronic Security Wg (also 690th Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance Wg)
 * 691st Electronic Security Wg
 * 692d Electronic Security Wg (also 692d Intelligence Wg)
 * 693d Electronic Security Wg (also 693d Intelligence Wg)
 * 694th Intelligence Wg
 * 695th Electronic Security Wg
 * 710th Air Base Wg
 * 711th Human Performance Wg
 * 722d Air Refueling Wg
 * 812th Strategic Support Wg
 * 834th Air Base Wg
 * 908th Airlift Wg
 * 910th Airlift Wg
 * 911th Airlift Wg
 * 913th Airlift Wg
 * 914th Airlift Wg
 * 916th Air Refueling Wg
 * 917th Tactical Fighter Wg (also 917th Fighter Wg/917th Wing)
 * 919th Special Operations Wg
 * 924th Fighter Wg
 * 926th Airlift Wg
 * 927th Air Refueling Wg
 * 928th Airlift Wg
 * 932d Airlift Wg
 * 934th Airlift Wg
 * 939th Air Rescue Wg	(also 939th Rescue Wg)
 * 940th Air Refueling Wg
 * 944th Fighter Wg

This list is not quite current, especially in the areas of intelligence and cyberspace.
 * Thanks yes -- and great helpful list!! I ran searches for the 548 & 549 Fighter & Bomber Groups, but did not realise that number range was actually probably reached only later and should have run more current group type designations.. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even going back to Air Force Combat Units of World War II, there is a gap for the no-doubt-never-formed 425th Group, and the same for the 427th - 431st Groups. I have searched high and low for the 431st Group or Wing, with no success. What happened to these set of five designations, unused in WW II (minus the 427 ASG, which I've just found)? Buckshot06 (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

From primary sources: The gap is explained by the following units that were constituted in June 1943, but the directive was revoked before the units were activated (some numbers were used later)
 * 411th Bombardment Group (Dive) (648, 649, 650, 651 Bombardment Squadrons (Dive))
 * 412th Bombardment Group (Dive) (652, 653, 654, 655 Bombardment Squadrons (Dive))
 * 413th Bombardment Group (Dive) (656, 657, 658, 659 Bombardment Squadrons (Dive))
 * 414th Bombardment Group (Dive) (660, 661, 662, 663 Bombardment Squadrons (Dive))
 * 419th Bombardment Group (Light) (680, 681, 682, 683 Bombardment Squadrons (Dive))
 * 420th Bombardment Group (Light) (684, 685, 686, 687 Bombardment Squadrons (Dive))
 * 421st Bombardment Group (Light) (688, 689, 690, 691 Bombardment Squadrons (Dive))
 * 422d Bombardment Group (Light) (692, 693, 694, 695 Bombardment Squadrons (Dive))
 * 425th Reconnaissance Group (40, 41, 42 Reconnaissance Sq, 43 Liaison Sq)
 * 427th Reconnaissance Group (48, 49, 50 Reconnaissance Sq, 51 Liaison Sq)
 * 428th Reconnaissance Group (52, 53, 54 Reconnaissance Sq, 55 Liaison Sq)
 * 429th Reconnaissance Group (56, 57, 58 Reconnaissance Sq, 59 Liaison Sq)
 * 430th Reconnaissance Group (60, 61, 62 Reconnaissance Sq, 63 Liaison Sq)
 * 431st Reconnaissance Group (64, 65, 66 Reconnaissance Sq, 67 Liaison Sq)

Numbers used again in the 19802
 * 420th Military Airlift Group (former 20th Ferrying Group)
 * 421st Military Airlift Group (former 21st Ferrying Group)
 * 422d Tactical Airlift Group (former 22d Ferrying Group)
 * 425th Tactical Airlift Group (former 25th Ferrying Group)
 * 427th Tactical Airlift Group (former 27th Air Transport Group)
 * 428th Military Airlift Group (former 28th Transport Group)
 * 429th Combat Crew Training Group (former 29th Transport Group)
 * 430th Combat Crew Training Group (former 30th Transport Group)
 * 430th Military Airlift Training Group (former 1st Ferrying Group)

As for the 427th Air Service Group, that was numbered in a separate series, which began in September 1940, when existing Air Base Squadrons were expanded to become Air Base Groups (Air Base Squadron, 1 or 2 Materiel Squadrons, ASWAAF units). In June 1942, when the numbers had gotten up to about 336, the system changed. Air Base Groups were redesignated Service Groups, the Air Base Squadrons were reassigned elsewhere and the groups with only one Materiel Squadron (now renamed Service Squadrons) were assigned a second. Their mission changed from supporting a base to supporting two combat groups. This took the numbers up to 387. As the B-29 units were deploying, a new type of support group was designed. Originally called a Service Group (Special), it became the standard as the Air Service Group in 1945. It was designed to support one combat group and consisted of a Headquarters and Base Service Squadron, an Air Engineering Squadron, and an Air Materiel Squadron, with most of the ASWAAF troops joining the Air Corps in the Base Service Squadron. Eighth Air Force got the first new groups, 391-453 (although 391-402 were revoked) IX Troop Carrier Command got 454-467, Ninth AF got 468-495, then a mix. Most of the low 500s went to the MTO, while the Pacific tended to redesignate and reorganize existing groups. The numbers eventually got to 575, with a couple more being organized after the war. All of these units still existing were disbanded on 8 October 1948. Some soldiered on. The 500-503, 514-521, 525, 527-530, 533, 534, 564, 566-568, 575 became Air Defense Groups from 1952/1953-1955, only to be disbanded again in 1984. The 501st and 503d were constituted a third time as Combat Support Groups and the 501st has been active. Twenty one were allotted to the National Guard and renumbered in 1946. Others have also been active more recently under other designations.

--Lineagegeek (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And the air bases groups in the 420 series now active in the UK under the 501st Combat Support Wing? Where do they derive from? Cannot find anything at AFHRA; not even listed as components in the 501 CSW page!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware of this, but the AFHRA has "hidden" lineages. They do not appear in the indices of units, but if you enter them as a search term on the site, links will appear. You can find the one with an asterisk this way. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 420th Air Base Gp (420th Air Service Group)
 * 420th Air Base Sq (420th Base Headquarters and Air Base Squadron)
 * 421st Air Base Gp (21st Air Depot Group)
 * 421st Air Base Sq (421st Base Headquarters and Air Base Squadron)
 * 422d Air Base Gp (22d Air Depot Group)
 * 422d Air Base Sq (422d Base Headquarters and Air Base Squadron)
 * 423d Air Base Gp (73d Air Depot Wing  -- there's an organizational action between 1947 and 1951 that I am not clear on that may extend this to an earlier air depot group)
 * 423d Air Base Sq* (423d Air Service Group)
 * 424th Air Base Sq (424th Air Service Group)
 * So going through the wings and independent groups list, cannot locate 300, Bombardment or Fighter or Combat Cargo. Also, is there really both a 301st Fighter Wing and 301st Air Refueling Wing, both at the same level of the hierarchy, that were both active at the same time? Appears to be an anomaly.. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no 300th Wing (or group). Historically, the group of numbers allotted to the Air National Guard was 101-300.  The Guard never got that high (There was a 299th Tactical Forces Planning Group from 1970-1972).  For some reason the DAF Manpower & Organization shop during the 1960s did a number of odd (at least nonstandard) things.  One of them was to constitute the only unit to carry the 300 number, the 300th Military Airlift Squadron — but it was a Reserve unit, not a National Guard unit.  At some point this century, M&O recognized this anomaly, and the block of numbers allotted to the Air National Guard is now 101-299.  On the other hand, they have now slopped over on the other end, as the 100th Fighter Squadron is now a Guard unit.
 * There are two 301st wings. The 301st Fighter Wing, which is one of three World War II wings to still be wings (others are 24th and 54th), was revived in 1972 as the overall headquarters for reserve F-105 units.  The 301st Bombardment Wing was one of the first wings under the Hobson Plan, and served SAC, ultimately as an air refueling wing until 1992.  Its operational unit 1947-1952 and 1991-1992 was the 301st Bombardment Group of WW II.  Bothe were active from 1972-1992.  To remove the duplication, the 301st Air Refueling Wing and 301st Operations Group were redesignated the 311th Wing and 311th Group, but this action was revoked.  The wing has remained inactive since, and the group became the operations group of the fighter wing.  There have also been two 39th and 40th Wings, although the 39th Wings have been consolidated.
 * And there are lots of 1st Wings. In addition to the 1st Fighter Wing and 1st Special Operations Wing, there have been 1st Composite Wing, 1st Weather Wing, 1st Medical Service Wing, and 1st Civil Engineering Wing --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks yes very clear that there has been lots of 1sts, including the irritating 1st SOW that keeps on coming back even when the appropriate Air Staff org shops (DAF M&O you say, that creates and allocates the designations?) tried to hide it away at 16th or 834th. Just found the 1st Composite Wing yesterday, but it appears that that was a DC exception and derived from a MAJCON wing anyway. To what extent now would the 'non-operational' 39th, 40th, and 41st ARR Wings, which were doing very seemingly combat, "Sandy" type missions in the 1980s, have moved into the 'operational' wings listing for any hypothetical reissue/ new edition of Ravenstein 1977? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The 39th ARRW is already consolidated with the 39th ABW; the 41st ARRW is the only wing with that number. The 40th ARRW overlaps with the 40th Tactical Group, so my guess is that if it were ever activated again, it would probably get a number in the 500s (like the 2d and 3d Air Rescue Groups did.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Gaps in 300s
I'm making some progress on this, as you will see, but cannot locate the 304th Group -> Wing?, 324th Group -> Wing; 326 you show above; 329, 331, 332, 337, and 341. Am I just looking in the wrong places? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 304th - The 304th Bombardment Group of WW II was only inactivated, not disbanded, so even though it has not been active since 1942, it occupies the 304 slot
 * 324th - World War II 24th Pursuit Group redesignated 324th Tactical Fighter Wing in 1985, but has not been active
 * 329th - 1950s Fighter Group, Armament Systems Group, 2006-2007
 * 331st - Air Expeditionary Group, has been activated in the US under 1st Air & Space Expeditionary Task Force
 * 332d - Air Expeditionary Wing
 * 337th - 1950s Fighter Group, Aeronautical Systems Group, 2006-2008
 * 341st - Missile Wing--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So why the 623d and 629th but also the 710th and 722d? Why not use one series? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The 600/700 system is not all that old and only pertains to subordinate groups. Otherwise, what to add to the base number is (and has been in the past) up to the project officer for the Programming Plan establishing the unit (with input from elsewhere).  Why did air refueling squadron numbers start with 901 for those assigned to strategic wings?  Why did the first missile wings start with 701?, Why did air divisions not redesignated from WW II wings start with 801?  I've got no explanation.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So the only wings constituted in the 700s and 800 series were the 701-706, 710, 711, 722, and 812th? Is that right? Any others I have missed? I've found the 868th (independent) Group; where do I go looking for the others? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been starting a list at [sandbox2] to collect the numbers used by wings and independent groups. Groups in the 700s are mostly either air defense groups that took the number of the radar squadron they replaced or a couple of expeditionary units that have numbers similar to the 7000 series numbers they had when they were USAFE NAJON units.  The main 800 series of groups are air base groups/combat support groups.  SAC started forming these for bases with two wings and an air division in 1952, and some have the numbers of the 800 series air divisions they were assigned to.  The series went up to about 824.  SAC repeated this in the late 80s giving numbers adding 800 (or 700) to the division they were assigned to (the 812th was big enough to be a wing), adding the 800th, 842d, and 857th.  TAC copied this and formed some groups in the 830s.  In the late 1950s, SAC replaced its Tactical Hospitals and USAF Hospitals with Medical Groups numbered in the 800s.  There are gaps, but this series got as high as 870.  In 1963, ConAC formed the 901st-945th Troop Carrier Groups and during the Korean War activated reserve training wings numbered (with gaps) in the low 900s. Still haven't figured out what to do with units that didn't quite make it (like the 54th, 59th, 65th and 69th Combat Airlift Wings.  Constituted 20 June 1962 for activation 1 July 1962, action revoked 27 June 1962).  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

707th Missile Wing?
You have written that the 701st - 706th were Missile Wings of various types and that the 708th *was* to be a missile wing at Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL. Was the 707th at some point going to have been a missile wing? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was, then whatever action taken would have been revoked, and would only be reflected in a pair of AFOMO Letters. I am not aware of it.  The only missile wings I am aware of that didn't quite make it are the 708th Strategic Missile Wing, programmed for activation at Huntsville AIN on 23 Feb 58 and assignment to the 1st Missile Div, but cancelled; and the 550th Tactical Missile Wing (former 550th Guided Missiles Wing), which was originally intended to be the GLCM wing at Molesworth.  In preparation, it was consolidated with the 1st Proving Ground Group (originally 23d Composite Group), but a different number was selected for the Molesworth wing.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What does AIN stand for? OK. Not quite really looking for the missile wings as such, but more lineage clues for the 707th Group/Wing/whatever. Are there any more organizational actions as regards as 707th Group/Wing, beyond the 707 ISRG and its MAJCON heritage, that you are aware of? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * AIN is Army Installation. The 707th ISR Gp traces its lineage only to the 6917th Security Squadron.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

6000th Operations Wing
Can you locate anything more on this wing? ?Buckshot06 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The only Operations Wings I am aware of in Japan (or anywhere) are the 6013th (Northern Area) at Misawa; 6014th (Central Area) probably at Johnson; and 6014th (Southern Area) at Itazuke, all active from Nov 50 to Mar 51. The only 6000th Wing I know of is the 6000th Support Wing at Tokyo and Fuchu AS (although I have seen a reference to a 6000th Air Depot Wing, which I believe to be a typo for the 6400th). I am aware of a 6000th Operations Squadron at Tachikawa from 1960 to about 1962. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The reference says it was at Yokota, and the squadron descriptions make it sound like an analogue for the 7575th Operations Group et seq in Europe - a clandestine surveillance wing. Might it have been a previous or subsequent designation for the 6000th Support Wing? MAJCOMs seem to have kept the same MAJCOM numerical designation at the same base, often, keeping the number but changing the descriptive (Support --> Operations etc). Buckshot06 (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The 6000th did have other names, starting out as the 6000th Base Service Unit in 1948, quickly changing to the 6000th Base Service Group, then the 6000th Support Group and finally the 600th Support Wing from February 1956 to June 1961. Until 1957, it was assigned to FEAF. When FEAF moved to Hawaii and became PACAF, it was assigned to 5th AF. It was located in Tokyo until May 1956, then at Fuchu AS. If you're looking for an equivalent of the 7575th Operations Group operating from Yokota (no direct equivalent, the 7575th operated legally in the Berlin Corridors), it might be the 6007th Reconnaissance Group, or the 6091st Reconnaissance Squadron. Other than the support wing, the only 6000 units I know of are an Air Base Gp, a Materiel Gp, a USAF Dispensary, an Air Base Sq, a	Flight Operations Sq, an Installations Sq (later Civil Engineering Sq), the Operations Sq I mentioned, a Personnel Processing Sq, and a Support Sq. I really think that this site has misidentified the unit involved by its level, or its number. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't establish redirects for wings that were never activated
Dear Lineagegeek, in expanding these listings I've noticed you've set up redirects for some units & formations that were constituted or designated on paper, but were never actually activated. This really has the potential to cause confusion, as people looking at categories could imagine in some cases that the USAF had a bunch more wings than actually ever existed. I have no problem with 13 AEW, 13 AEG, 332 AEG etc, but to create a redirect for the 332 ARW seems needlessly confusing. Would it be possible please for you to cease creating redirects for wings & groups that never took physical form? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

10th Air Rescue Group
I've just redlinked the 10th ARG in the 176th Wing article. Have no idea of the lineage but if you point me to it I can do a stub article. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The information in the 176th is almost accurate. The 10th Air Rescue Group was redesignated the 210th Rescue Squadron, so this was not a "bestowal" of honors.  As you can see in the 210th article, the 10th had a previous association with Alaska.  I have redirected the previous designations of the 210th to its article, so the link is no longer red.  However, there are now two links to the same article.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent Attack and Reconnaissance Operations Center
Is this a *part* of the 432 Wing, or superior to it? What is its command chain? https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1347532/new-operations-center-in-rpa-enterprise/ ?Buckshot06 (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't know what has happened to it since 2017, but it looks like organizationally, it is a detachment of Hq, Twelfth Air Force, operationally, it looks like an operations coordinating center for UAV operations based in the US. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah it looked superior-to-432 Wing. Just found it on the new Fifteenth Air Force site at https://www.15af.acc.af.mil/About-Us/Units/ seemingly as Det 1, 15 AF or Det 1, 432 Wing. Also has the new 800th RED HORSE Group at Nellis, activated June 1, 2020. I will update the Fifteenth Air Force page in time. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, a det of 15 AF makes more sense than one of 12 AF, since 12 AF covers Western Hemisphere operations only. It may have even spent some time as a det of (new) 9 AF. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Also, 655th Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Wing, Air Force Reserve Command, officially became a wing Sept. 20, 2018 at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (https://www.445aw.afrc.af.mil/Units/655th-ISRW/).Buckshot06 (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thinking more of the persistent center. I have never given much thought to it, but Creech is the station of the 432d Wing and the 432d Air Expeditionary Wing.  It makes sense to have separate operations centers for the 432d Wing (training and exercise operations, mostly) and for the 432d Air Expeditionary Wing (combat operations)  --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

'340th Air Expeditionary Wing'
Hi LG greetings again in the post-Afghanistan world!! Don't think this lineage can be correct - what evidence do you have for the existence of the 340th Air Expeditionary Wing? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The 340th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron lineage is correct (I've added a reference and citation) It is a "rainbow" expeditionary unit – i.e. there is no one force provider, but it is made up of deployed people and equipment from various organizations.  As for the 340th Wing, it's not an expeditionary unit, it's a flying training group at Randolph and the headquarters for reserve associate flying training squadrons (the 340th Wing and 340th Group were consolidated in 1982).  --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So the Assignments you added (maybe I should have been extra specific, not Lineage) is *definitely* incorrect. The '340th Air Expeditionary Wing' never could have existed. You added in that diff that the 340 EARS was assigned to the 340 AEW '2001-unknown.' Can you check? Was it the 376 AEW throughout? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No idea why I did that. Yes, always part of the 376th AFAIK. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

FOIA / Declassification Review request for L&H of Air Expeditionary Wings and Groups, up to day before Inherent Resolve started
Dear Lineagegeek, eighteen or so years have passed since OIF. I would like to put together a consolidated list of requests for each known AEW and AEG for public release of full L&H up to the day before Inherent Resolve began. Would you mind helping me compile that list? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but I'm not sure I could add much. I would, though give some consideration to making your request entirely conclusive.  Listing units one knows participated would likely lead to a shorter list than one for "all expeditionary units" that participated in the operation.   Subject to restrictions by other countries, that might lead to some surprises. I've recently (unsuccessfully) made an attempt to find out what expeditionary unit Air Mobility Command activated at Kabul for its evacuation efforts in August.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point; I would do that with any second try. But I already e-mailed the declassification review office e-address you gave me ages ago, several days before your reply, with a list of several most-unclear AEWs: incl 40th, 405th, 406th. I have received nothing, not even an acknowledgement. Can you advise me on what to do next? Should I send a FOIA? I'd like at least an acknowledgement, because I understand the time to turn these things round stretches during COVID. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You might try the FOIA route as well. At least some of the activations of the 406th AEG/AEW were not classified.  Attitudes toward declassification chnage, as well.  I visited AFHRA in early June and Musser would not let me look at For Official Use Only reports from 2010.  The only time I got truly classified  organizational information was from what was then Electronic Security Command.  They did not respond to my request, which did not surprise me, but a couple of years later, I got a bunch of redacted G Series Orders.  Not too encouraging. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

VII Bomber Command
Can you help me with a precise assignment from sources available to you for VII Bomber Command for the first three months of 1946? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I was quite surprised the other day to see from the AFHRA L&H of Seventh AF that VII BC's assignment to 7th ended in January, when 7th AF returned to Hawaii.  It's not listed under FEAF or any of the numbered air forces in the Pacific (5, 8, 13 or 20).  AAFs, Pacific Ocean Areas had inactivated by then.  I suspect it was unmanned and its assignment missed when left 7th AF.  8 AF seems most likely (5th had moved to Japan, 13th was in the Philippines and 20th was still in the Marianas), but no major subordinate commands are listed for 8th while it was on Okinawa.--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just ran across a similar problem with IX Air Defense Command. Removed statement it was always part of 9th AF.  I suspect the 4 day gap in 1945 is a matter of two historians reading the orders differently (reassigned on date of order or date 9th AF returned to the US).  No idea what assignment was after USAFE.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. Past whatever the historians were guessing years later, is it just me that gets annoyed with the quality of contemporary military record keeping? Whichever AF it was under, or higher HQ, should have updated its own records!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!
Been good to work with you this year!! Have a great break, and please consider getting fully vaccinated with boosters.. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1st Air Support Operations Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luliang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - February 2022
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

59 FIS photo from 1964
My dad was in Gooseberry. I have an old photo of the Squadron if you would like to post it.

Karentherese@hotmail.com 97.113.202.123 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have the copyright, you can post it yourself on Wikipedia Commons --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - March–April 2022
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fort Totten and Far East Air Force.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - May 2022
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - June 2022
⭠ Previous Issue ⭢ Following Issue

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

523rd Air Force Band
Dear, it would be great to get some idea of the source for the lineage listing you added here. Preferably the exact details of the (primary?) source. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. Please do continue to add the exact primary source details when that is the basis of the lineage information you have. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

West Coast Wing, Air Transport Command
Just established 517 TRG / 7th Ferrying Group and found this article. Was the West Coast Wing's lineage assigned to and taken up by any later USAF organization, whether actually activated or not? Cannot find it in your superb wings-and-groups working list.. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope, and I won't vouch for anything in the article. The only reference given doesn't seem to me to be appropriate for the page content. But who knows. Thereofre: The wing lineage is:
 * Constituted as the 25th AAF Ferrying Wing
 * Activated on 23 June 1942
 * Redesignated South Pacific Wing, Air Transport Command on 5 July 1942
 * Redesignated West Coast Wing on 1 January 1943
 * Inactivated or disbanded on 31 October 1943

The lineage of the 517th goes
 * Constituted 14 February 1942 as Northwest Sector, Air Corps Ferrying Command
 * Activated 21 February 1942
 * Redesignated Northwest Sector, Domestic Wing, Air Corps Ferrying Command on 25 April 1942
 * Redesignated 7th Ferrying Group on 26 May 1942
 * Disbanded on 31 March 1944


 * Reconstituted 31 July 1985 as the 517th Tactical Group
 * Redesignated 517th Training Group
 * Activated 14 May 2009

As for the 1944 action, I disagree with the interpretation of AFHRA (which I have used here) AFHRA treats the disbandment of a group headquarters as a disestablishment of the group, but does not do so for higher headquarters (if it did, 1st, 2d, 3d and 4th Air Forces were all disbanded in 1944  -- with no subsequent consolidations). What happened here was:
 * Headquarters and Headquarters Squadron, 7th Ferrying Group disbanded on 31 March 1944
 * 557th AAF Base Unit (7th Ferrying Group) designated and organized on 31 March 1944
 * 557th AAF Base Unit discontinued c. 12 Dec 1945

So IMHO the 7th Ferrying Group did not go way unti 1945 --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 517th Training Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Falls.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Military aircraft ferrying units and formations
The aircraft ferrying category is now over 20 entries. Please use Category:Military aircraft ferrying units and formations for all squadrons and higher level entities from now on (and we can start moving the ones in the main cat to "Cat:Military aircraft ferrying squadrons" I suppose). Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Too bad HotCat doesn't display subcategories on Wikipedia as it does on Wikimedia for moving categories,  --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What about the 25th, 90th, and 307th Ferrying Squadrons (so, beyond 7 Ferry Sqn, the original set in 7 Ferrying Group / 517 TG)? You haven't set up redirects for any of those three. Are they not connected to any present day USAF units? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * None of these three have existed since March 1944. Probably do a redirect to 517th Training Group.
 * I've added a couple more ferrying squadrons to the list. All ATC ferrying and transport squadrons were disbanded in 1943 (overseas - including Maine and Alaska) or 1944 (rest of the US).  A couple of squadrons in the ETO were inactivated, but then disbanded in 1948.  Ferrying squadrons that were reconstituted but whose successors do not have Wikipedia articles include (most were MATS squadrons in the 1950s):
 * 5th Ferrying Sq (705th Tactical Air Support Squadron)
 * 6th Ferrying Sq (6th Air Transport Squadron)
 * 9th Ferrying Sq (9th Airborne Command and Control Squadron)
 * 21st Ferrying Sq (21st Air Transport Squadron)
 * 26th Ferrying Sq (26th Air Transport Squadron)
 * 32nd Ferrying Sq (32nd Air Transport Squadron)
 * 33rd Ferrying Sq (33rd Air Transport Squadron)
 * 35th Ferrying Sq (35th Air Transport Squadron)
 * 42nd Ferrying Sq (42nd Air Transport Squadron)
 * 45th Ferrying Sq (45th Military Airlift Squadron)
 * 47th Ferrying Sq (47th Air Transport Squadron)
 * 56th Ferrying Sq (56th Air Transport Squadron)
 * 78th Ferrying Sq (56th Air Transport Squadron)
 * 83rd Ferrying Sq (83rd Air Transport Squadron)
 * 51st Ferrying Sq (51st Air Transport Squadron)

--Lineagegeek (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The other TASS we're missing is the 703rd. Is it possible to pull together articles for the 703rd and 705th TASSs and the 9th ACCS? 197.237.141.133 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the other 7 FG squadrons have not existed since 1944 (25th, 90th, 307th) we do not need redirects. They're so closely associated with the 7 Ferry Group that anyone specifically looking can find all relevant information in the group article. In my view, those three redirects could be deleted.

30th Troop Carrier Squadron moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, 30th Troop Carrier Squadron, is not suitable as written to remain published. The article is nearly empty, and needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Storchy (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement
Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

393rd Bomb Squadron
Could you have a look at 393rd Bomb Squadron? It has some maintenance tags. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  17:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

600th Wing
Dear Lineagegeek, was there ever a 600th Wing? Have found 660th TACG [ERROR - 600 TACG!!] and 600th ABG, but no 600th Wing. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

660 TACG? In the 600-610 sequence, there have been the following groups and wings:


 * 600 Air Base Gp (Reserve at Mitchel AFB 1961-1964, Torrejon AB 1992-1994) (later 600 Exped Air Base Gp)
 * 600 Tac Control Gp (Hessische Oldendorf AS 1976-1985)


 * 601 Tac Control Wg (Sembach AB 1968-1995) (later 601 Air Base Wg, 601 Support Wg) (all units later expeditionary)
 * Component groups: 601 Combat Spt Gp (later 601 Support Gp); 601 Tac Air Support Gp (later 601 Operations Gp); 601 Logistics Gp
 * 601 Air Spt Operations Center Gp (Maurice Rose Kaserne 1984-1988) (later 601 Air Spt Operations Gp, 4 Air Spt Operations Gp)
 * 601 Regional Spt Gp (Sembach 1992-1995)
 * 601 Tac Control Gp (Sembach 1965-1985)


 * 602 Tac Air Control Wg (Bergstrom 1966-1982, Davis-Monthan AB 1982-1995) (was 602 Tac Control Gp, 602 Tac Air Control Gp, later 602 Air Control Wg)
 * Component group: 602 Tac Air Support Gp (later Air Ctl Gp)
 * 602 Air Support Gp (Moehrigen Army Ins 1985-1988) (was 602 Air Spt Ctr, later 8 Air Spt Ops Gp, 8 Air Spt Ops Flt)


 * 603 Air Base Wg (Sembach AB 1966-1968) (later Regional Support Gp, Spt Gp)
 * Component group: 603 Tac Control Gp (Sembach AB c. 1966-1968)
 * 603 Air Support Gp (Kadena AB 1990s)


 * 604 Regional Spt Gp (McClellan AFB 1995- ? )
 * 607 Air Support Gp (Osan AB 1998-2008) (later 607 Logistics Gp)
 * 607 Air Support Ops Gp (Osan AB 1994-
 * 607 Support Gp (Osan 2008-2011)


 * 608 Air Operations Gp (later Center) Barksdale AFB
 * 609 Air Operations Gp (later Center) Shaw AFB
 * 610 Regional Spt Gp (Bergstrom AFB 1995, Carwell AFB c. 1996- ? )

Units numbered 604-610 were numbered for the Air Forces they support[ed] Lineagegeek (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Er, 600 TACG, not anything else. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we know where the 600th Expeditionary Air Base Group went? Hardly seems likely to have been active in 1992-94 under that designation.. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Schleswig AB, Germany from 20 Mar-14 Apr 06 with the 56th Expeditionary Rescue Sq assigned. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is the 602d TACW not in Ravenstein? Because it was a group for most of the time? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See his explanation on p. viii. Ravenstein didn't consider rescue or tactical air support units as combat units.  Same for Maurer (tack on strategic airlift for him.  IMO, Ravenstein wouldn't have included them either, if they hadn't had troop carrier units in their lineage.) Lineagegeek (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, we do not have an article for the 602nd Tactical Air Control Wing. I would argue under most notable designation it would need to be at 602 TACW, not 602 ACW; I will defer to you on your current practice on 602d versus 602nd; I would also seek your input on sources, though I can see a fair few annual history summaries at airforcehistoryindex.org.
 * I would imagine the "Sandy" fliers of the Vietnam era would have greatly and loudly enjoyed the opportunity to disagree with Ravenstein; if memory serves the TASS fliers in Vietnam also got a lot of metal hurled at them. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year!! New Zealand is marking the departure of a popular (left-wing) lady Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. Led well in crisis but could not address the great strides to fix the big systemic issues (not clear whether anyone could have, but this is how she is being judged.) Buckshot06 (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Same to you. I can understand an 80 odd year old saying they don't have the energy to continue being Pope, but a 42 year old without energy to be PM?  Here in the US it's "to spend more time with family."
 * As for the TASS folks, a pilot training classmate (actually a "tablemate" - we had the same instructor in primary) just had a bridge named for him in Massachusetts based on a decoration he received as a Forward Air Controller.
 * as for the rd/d nd/d stuff, my policy is to just follow what's on the page. If the grammar Nazis have changed it, I'll use nd/rd.  If they haven't, I'll continue wih d.  I have sometimes considered taking this to its logical extreme and moving a page to 3rd/Jagdgeschwader 27 and letting people figure out if its 3. Staffel or III Gruppe.  Lineagegeek (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Acknowledge your last three edits. At least some people are still concerned with correct spelling!! What would be your guidance on best sources for the 602 TACW? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your conclusion that "Tactical" should remain. In addition to the airforcehistory abstracts and a quick look to see if there's an alumni organization (frequenty have links to histories), 71st Tac Air Support Gp (assets folded into 602d when it went from Tac Control to Tac Air Control).  Search of subordinate units may add information (712 DASC Sq/ASOC Sq, a couple of units numbered 602 (but be careful some were assigned to the 601st) 22 Tac Air Spt Tng Sq (AFHRA 23 Fly Tng Sq) 27 TASS, 701 TASS, 705 TASS, 607, 608, 609, 4468, 4469 Tac Ctl Sq).  A Companion piece would be for the 507th Tactical Air Control Wing  – the equivalent unit for Ninth Air Force.  Lineagegeek (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 703d Tactical Air Support Squadron, 507th TACW, Shaw Air Force Base, SC.
 * Grand. Got the 23rd and 27th TASSs, but the others are useful plus the ..712th DASC Squadron? Never heard of that!! Now Onel5967 something is tracking all my new articles and breathing down my neck on notability, so I need mentions in some absolutely gold standard sources.. would there be any? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Most sources concentrate on flying organizations. The AFHRA factsheet for 12 AF doesn't mention the wing as an "operational" component.  I checked radomes.org, but they are still entirely focused on air defense.  There's a Georgia Tech article on TACS (I see it's now the "Theater" Air Control System), but it focuses on Viet Nam. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0714292 has a study on TACS, which is what the 602d ran for 12 AF.  mobileradar.org may have some useful stuff Lineagegeek (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple more thoughts. The Air Force Association web site has a searchable list of past issues of Air Force magazine, I believe.  There may be an article or two on the wing, and it should be listed in the annual almanac issues (which gets you past the press coverage element of notability).  I know the old MILHIST guidelines have gone by the wayside with issues like whether being a general or a fighter ace meant automatic notability. A quick check of the AFPC web site shows the wing earned at least two Air Force Outstanding Unit Awards, which ought to be at least an indication of notablity. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes it appears this was at MobileRadar.org that I added many years ago; it looks like the kind of thing you collect. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 403d Bombardment Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 65th Special Operations Squadron, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Distinguished Service Cross and Buka.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Strategic bombing squadrons of the United States Army Air Forces
Dear Lineagegeek, as you come across and work on B-29 Superfortress squadrons, please place them in this subcategory, which will in turn place them in the World War II strategic bombing units category. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 414th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goose Bay Airport.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Is "Air Offensive, Europe" the correct streamer title for strategic bombing of GE by 8/15 AF?
If I was to use the correct Air Force terminology, would I title the category for Europe, as opposed to Japan, something like 'Strategic bombing units and formations of the AAF which took part in Air Offensive, Europe' ?? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This term is the name of a specific campaign, running from 4 July 1942 (day the 15th Bombardment Squadron made the first AAF attack on European targets) through 5 June 1944 (day before D-Day). After 6 June, campaign names in northern Europe followed the ground war. As did operations in the MTO dating back to 9th AFs arrival in Egypt.  Maurer's Combat Units book has a list of campaigns and their descriptions through the Korean War in Appendix II, starting at page 478

In text, I frequently use strategic bombing campaign against Germany --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks LG. I have looked at the Maurer listings, thanks for the ref. I will have a think about this. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 722d Tactical Fighter Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thirteenth Expeditionary Air Force
Hello, earlier I was looking to expand on the lineage of the Thirteenth Air Force, as I noticed it only consisted of its establishment and activation during World War II despite (supposedly) having been inactivated in 2012. However, when I went to look for the AFHRA sheet for it, I noticed that it says that immediately after being inactivated in 2012, the 13 AF was converted to provisional status as the Thirteenth Expeditionary Air Force and once again activated. According to AFHRA, the lineage is up to date through 2022, so that suggest to me that the 13 AF was active as the 13 EAF this entire time.

While looking for additional information, I also found the AFI 13-103 PACAF Supplement, which reads in part that "The PACAF/A3/A6 director is the director of the JAOC, is the 13th Expeditionary Air Force Commander (13 EAF/CC), [...]", that document is current as of 2019, adding to the idea that 13 EAF is "alive and well".

Before I now go and change a bunch of things in the Thirteenth Air Force article (and potentially even rename it to Thirteenth Expeditionary Air Force), I had hoped to get your input on this lest I make a major mistake because of me misunderstanding something. Thanks in advance – Recoil (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * User: M16A3NoRecoilHax have at it! The AFHRA is accepted as a RS.  I'd avoid the Jargon (A3, A6, JAOC) from the supplement.  If you have any remaining doubt, read further down the AFHRA to the list of commanders, and you will see it continues right up to the date of the factsheet.  Lineagegeek (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I'm not misreading something. I've implemented a number of edits to reflect the redesignation and continued existence as an active part of the Air Force. – Recoil (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

4925th Test Group
Could you add 4925th Test Group to your work list? The article is currently unreferenced. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hawk, it looks like someone tried in part to add references in a couple of places and didn't know how. I found one (tagged for page needed), but not Greene (1957), so I've moved them to references and added references from Mueller.  I also assessed downward.
 * User:Buckshot06 Did you review this in Mr Moll's copyvio review? It looks like he added the Greene and Hardison "citations".  Lineagegeek (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You will see at Contributor_copyright_investigations/20130819 that no one has gone over the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 874th Tactical Missile Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mitsubishi Aircraft.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

728th Airlift Squadron
Greetings,

I recently saw that you made some changes that I made on the 728th Airlift Squadron wiki. I'm a current member/historian of the 728th and was trying to figure out why the images for the patches were changed, and hoped to talk about it. The patches that you replaced them with are not accurate and have never officially been worn, whereas the ones that I have posted are/have. Kharris728 (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you are mistaken. The approved emblem for the squadron is displayed on the Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA) web site at Factsheet 728 Airlift Squadron (AFRC). This page was updated most recently in January 2021.  AFHRA is the authority for emblem approval per DAFI 84-105, Organizational Lineage, Honors and Heraldry. (Although when the emblem was approved in 1984, emblems were approved by the Air Force Military Personnel Center and design is done by The Institute of Heraldry, an Army organization.)
 * You refer to a "patch". It is not unusual for units to wear patches that claim to display an image of their emblem, but sewing does not always reproduce what has been officially approved and usage does not make an emblem official.  For example, the "patch" used by my squadron in Viet Nam from 1966 to 1972 never received formal approval, and the squadron only acquired an emblem in 2000.
 * Another small point, for Wikipedia. Material in Wikipedia should be supported by a Reliable source.  The AFHRA factsheet for the 728th is such a source.  My (or your) personal experience is not, and material based on it is subject to removal. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

4925th Test Group
Could you have a look at 4925th Test Group for me? It needs references. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  09:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 419th Flight Test Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

49th Aviation Squadron
Dear LG,

You may wish to examine this new page and make appropriate changes. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've left a long comment on the article's talk page explaining why I question the unit's notability. Lineagegeek (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 364th Bombardment Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brunswick.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Interested in discussing the role of the 15th airborne’s role on Dec 7th 1941 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slide.ind (talk • contribs) 05:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I have no idea what the "15th airborne" is. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies the 47th Pursuit Squadron specifically the 15th Pursuit Group. Slide.ind (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ask away! I'll see what I can do.

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 8th Air Support Operations Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Lewis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting
Hi, just a quick note that you've voted for too many nominees in the military historian of the year category. You've a maximum of three votes. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

435th Bombardment Squadron
I assessed this article as B class after the last time you were online. I am removing the completed assessment from the assessment request page because it is now several days ago. Thanks for your work on this. Donner60 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 436th Training Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1st Wing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 168th Air Refueling Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Presidential Unit Citation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 168th Air Refueling Squadron, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Airborne Warning and Control System and Alert.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail - a few questions about your userboxes!
Hi Lineagegeek, I'm making an art project about Userboxes, and since you have quite some on your User Page, I send you an email with some questions about them.

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 441st Air Expeditionary Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 84th Fighter Wing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 218, June 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 219, July 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)