User talk:Lineagegeek/Archive 1

Air Defense Groups
Most of those groups I stubbed a year or two ago and I'm quite pleased that someone other than me is interested in Air Defense Command.... Clearly you have much more information than I did when I started them,  and the links to me are not as important as the information, so whatever works for you is fine with me.

The F-86A/E day fighters are fundamentally different than the F-86D/L (YF-95s), and I've labeled them as "F-86D Sabre Interceptor" in the aircraft name to reflect that. The "L"s, with their SAGE datalink were modified Ds, so generally I don't make any differentials other than listing when they were received by the squadrons; that's shown in the A Handbook of Aerospace Defense Organization (to varying degrees of accuracy); sometimes conflicting with Maurer Maurer and the AFHRA documents.

Basically, I've just been doing some minor changes to the updating/rewriting you have been doing. Curious where in the world you found the lineages to the World War II Service Groups. That's an area of World War II history not covered here on Wikipedia to any extent and was something I was looking do to more research on.. Regards and take care Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason that Groups and Wings (at least the present-day ones) have different articles is that they generally have different histories and lineages. Modern Wings date back to the late 1940s and the Operations Groups usually are the World War II Groups that all were inactivated in the early 1950s,  then reactivated as Operations Groups about 1990 or so when the AF reorganized their base structure to the current Objective Organization.  It's easier (and more accurate) to keep them as separate articles rather than try and combine them.   For the one you mentioned, the 57th Wing and 57th Operations Group, that's a particularly interesting one, as the Wing article also links to the 57th Adversary Tactics Group; USAF Weapons School and USAF Air Demonstration Squadron articles, as all of those organizations come under the 57th Wing.  And all are different, including the 57th OG (which has the lineage to the World War II and ADC air defense organizations). (Nellis AFB has this massive organization and a lot if major units assigned to it.   I worked on that for about a month sorting it all out).   If some of the redirects and re designations are incorrect,  edit away...


 * As far as creating a new page, that's quite simple.  Normally I just go to my talk page and create a red link 637th Air Defense Group putting the name of the page within double brackets  (for example), do a Show Preview, and click on the red link and then a new blank page is started.    Then just open an similar page, e.g. 4728th Air Defense Group, open it for editing, and start copying the elements such as the information box and other things, changing as needed and off you go....    Have fun :)  Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Belated welcome
I noticed your recent edits of the 1st Operations Group and that linked me to your User page. I have long been a "lineage geek" myself, as well as a banner carrier for keeping alive the history of the Brown Show Air Force. The former is a thankless task as there are countless editors who believe they "know better" how Air Force lineage works. I recently had a friendly but protracted entanglement with an otherwise well-informed New Zealander who knew there just had to have been a 58th Bomb Group. Your credentials are quite impressive in a plethora of areas including official experience, so I look forward to standing back-to-back against the forces of misconception--or occasionally butting heads. :-) --Reedmalloy (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say, ReedMalloy, that I resent this. As soon as you demonstrated that our previous departed, unlamented, tech sergeant editor was wrong, I was an enthusistic proponent of your expertise! I think I said *once* that there had to have been a 58 BG, and after you showed me I was wrong, I was all for the 58 BW! Buckshot06 (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer review/Carrier Strike Group Seven/archive1
Would you consider commenting on this peer review? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Much as I'd like to, My sources and expertise focus on the US Air Force (with some US Army as well). I have much less to do with Navy formations (although by coincidence a close relative was assigned to CSG-7 as its N-2) and, having looked at the article, don't see much value I could to the review. Lineagegeek (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Question re 24th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron
If you compare the details of attachment of the 24th SRS in the 6th SW article, and the material in the 24th SRS article, before noting the details I've just added, they don't match. Is the 24th SRS that was with 6th SW a different squadron from the 24 SRS article, or, is the lineage information inaccurate? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been two (or three) Strategic Reconnaissance Squadrons (and both have been Bombardment Squadrons as well). The first was the World War II 24th Combat Mapping Squadron, which was assigned to the 68th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing as the 24th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron, briefly became the 24th Bombardment Squadron, Medium 1952-1953, and then reverted to the strategic reconnaissance designation upon inactivation.   It's covered in   For some reason, while inactive, USAF redesignated it as the 24th Bombardment Squadron, Medium again, then in 1985 it was consolidated with the 24th Bombardment Squadron (Light), (Maurer p. 125) and the 24th Composite Squadron (not in Maurer), which was active at the time.  This is the unit that was the 24th Reconnaissance Squadron at Offutt AFB in the 1990s and more recently the 24th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron at RAF Mildenhall.


 * Next is a unit not in Maurer. When the 6th Strategic Aerospace Wing inactivated at Walker AFB, which closed, the 24th Bombardment Squadron, Heavy inactivated with it.  When the 6th reactivated at Eielson AFB as the 6th Strategic Wing two months later, the 24th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron stood up there as well.  For whatever reason USAF chose to neither reactivate the first Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron (from the 68th wing) or redesignate the traditional 24th squadron from the 6th wing, but constituted a brand new 24th (on 20 Dec 1966) and assigned it to the 6th wing.  In 1985, this was "corrected" and USAF consolidated the 24th Bombardment Squadron, Heavy and the 24th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron in inactive status as the 24th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron.  So, the two different 24th squadrons under the 6th wing became one again.


 * I personally find the way AFHRA and its predecessors show information on consolidated units -- in linear fashion as if actions taken 40 years later were taken at the time units were active.  (and I think this applies to the two 24th squadrons that became one)  I've recently edited the 26th Tactical Missile Squadron article in a way that presents the lineage of each unit showing each consolidating separately and dealing with each in a separate section of the History.  Hopefully this will make more sense to the casual reader not up on the arcana of DAF Letters, General Orders, etc.

--Lineagegeek (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks LineageGeek. That's a really helpful and comprehensive answer. I trust you will at some point modify the 24 SRS article to make things clear in the same way as you've modified the 26th TMS article. Next question for you and Bwmoll3 is squadrons that are redesignated while inactive and remain inactive. Now as far as I can tell, nobody knows about the new designation except geeks like us and the USAF lineage officials. In line with WP:COMMONNAME, should the articles not be at the last active designation, not the renamed designation which nobody used for real? We can of course have a redirect at the latest designation, but I think having the article at that name is misleading - it was never active at that name. Tell me what you think. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm of two minds about this, but I generally come down on the side of the most recent designation. However, when I updated the article on the 630th Radar Squadron I decided to leave most material there, rather than moving it to the article on the 24th Expeditionary Air Support Operations Squadron (whose page I'll have to revisit to see if has been updated).  In general, it seems to me that the most recent designation is a vehicle to include two or three [or even more] if I get around to the 908th Air Refueling Squadron ] articles that might never get beyond Start status into an article that might end as a B or even A article. (there are a couple I have edited and self assessed as C that I think could be B with very little addition).  It strikes me as an easy way to do that.  Last designation held as an active unit is a possibility, but 24th Tactical Missile Squadron demonstrates a problem with this as well.  The most recent designation is the 74th Air Defense Missile Squadron, but the unit held the current designation earler.  Arguably (and in my opinion) its period as the 4th Antisubmarine Squadron (which saw combat) and as the 74th ADMS are more notable.  It seems that picking one of these designation for the article including all prior designations might have POV problems with regard to the selection.  I think an exception might be in order when one of the consolidating units was active at the time of consolidation. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I will defer to Lineagegeek on this as the material he has, especially with regards to the AFHRA 1985 unit consolidations, far exceeds the amount I have access to. Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Aeronautical Division
Just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your assessment of Aeronautical Division, U.S. Signal Corps and left a comment on its talk page.--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)