Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:33, 13 April 2008

Welcome!

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

For logical positivists
Logical positivism asserts that only statements about empirical observations are meaningful, effectively asserting that all metaphysical statements are meaningless.

Unfortunately, this fundamental tenet of logical positivism belongs to the family of statements that it asserts to be meaningless. As a result, the entire edifice of logical positivism vanishes in a puff of logic.

This insight appears not to have occurred to the logical positivist school of philosophers.

Archives
Archive 1 (2006-2007)
Archive 2 (1-15 Jan 2008)
Archive 3 (16-30 Jan 2008)
Archive 4 (1 - 28 Feb 2008)
Archive 5 (2 - 15 March 2008)

Thank you for editing on the UK keyboard

Thanks for your message with above heading on 29Feb - haven't seen messages for a while. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

7 Indian Division

Let me explain the principle I'm working by. In both the land forces located in Ukraine in 1991 and with Pakistan in 1947, there was no change to the actual HQs, units etc on the ground. Their higher HQs and allegiances changed over the top of them, and later change occurred to them; but not at the time. 7th Division, located in what became Pakistan, did not disband. It stayed in existence, as the text you quote says: "By August 1947, the 7th Division (located in Rawalpindi with two brigades) was the Pakistan Army's only division." The question of official tracing which formation is entitled to the lineages of which preexisting formation when the country changed we can debate - I don't know the answers. But the records says the previous Indian Army formations did not disband and have personnel and equipment dispersed - they stayed in existence. They just woke up on the morning of 16 August and found themselves reporting to a new capital. Again, I take your point on official lineages - they're debatable, but my point is that the formations did not disband and reform -they continued. This is to a great degree about definitions, so I wanted to make clear what precisely I have been meaning. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point, is your POV! In this case I suppose you have a source that says the British Army did not disband the 7th Indian Infantry Division? If you fail to supply this source, I expect you to revert my edits. If you refuse to supply one, I will contact British Army Archives for your benefit. English being the official language of Pakistan, you can also get the official word from them.

I will get to Ukrainian units later. I'd love to get official confirmation of lineage transfer, because Russian media will have a riot when they find this out, and some people in Kiev will have very red faces.

Yes, Misplaced Pages can make a difference and educate the World...mostly how not to lie.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying not to use strong language(!) Please, I'm trying to make myself understood. I'm not worried about lineages, as I said. When you contact the British Army archives, ask them also what's their record of what happened at HQ 7 Div on 16 August 1947 at Rawalphindi. My understandin from the sentence above you found was, about that time, it probably lost one of its three brigades, as it had only two brigades. But the Div HQ didn't cease to exist, did it? Your opinion is that it could not transfer its lineage, and when you talk to the Br Army archives/Pak Army, whoever, you may find yourself right, sure! But the Div HQ continued in service into the new Pakistan Army, did it not? Can you find a source saying the Div HQ disbanded, then was reformed a day afterwards in the same place? Regards - and best wishes with your archive search; also might be good to talk to Ravi Rikhye, but I don't hear from him very often now. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if you use strong language as long as its sourced ;o)

I hear from Ravi occasionally.

The HQ 7 Indian Infantry Div ceased to exist. See here on departure of its British units, and here on status of British officers employed on contract. You can also consult the Sections 11 and 12 here for the actual removal of His Majesty's authority under the (British) Army Act.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the British units left - the division lost a brigade, though 7 Div is not mentioned in either of your references. But the Div HQ stayed in existence - whether it formally changed its name or not (and nowhere have you cited anything that said 'HQ 7 Ind Inf Div disbanded'). Let's try and be clear on this - you say that the lineage could not be inherited. Quite possible. But the people, (the GOC of the Pakistan Army remained a British officer, so I see no reason why the division GOC would have changed, but I don't know) buildings, furniture etc of Div HQ remained under the title 7 Division, though the army in which they served changed. That is the only point I'm making. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bucksot06, break, break, break...give me a break!!! The question is: What nation did the unit known to history as 7th Indian Infantry Division belong to? What happened to the desks and empty filing cabinets of its HQ is of no consequence. How many newly independent Pakistanis served in the HQ? Maybe 10% of the junior officers and NCOs. However, even this is of no consequences. The division, according to the Act of Parliament of United Kingdom, no longer fell under the authority of the Army Act, and therefore itself. The King could no longer appoint its commanding officer to the said HQ, or even order the said furniture changed. Stationary had to be changed also. The physical division may have been transferred, but the 'spiritual' division went with its British personnel to Far East, or UK, or Malaya. After 1947 the unit in question did not exist in the British Army. It did not exist in the Pakistani Army either (Period)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The GOC and hundreds of other British officers and some NCOs remained on contract to Pakistan's Army, not in commission of King George VI. They could not over-ride an Act of Parliament to keep a British unit in the field while the King already declared it outside of his authority (the Act covred all forces) as this would constitute mutiny.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. It's clear that we're discussing two different things. You're talking about what you just called 'spiritual'. I don't know about what happened to the 'spiritual' division and for that you may be right (I'm not sure where you'd get a authoritative answer through - lots of seeing various historical officials in MOD Main Building or in New Delhi, maybe.) As I've repeatedly said, I'm talking about the 'physical' division - it seems it retained a British commander, an MG Loftus-Tottenham. As I said at the very start, we only have to define our terms correctly, and the disagreement disappears. Cheers (and how are you going on finding sources for the Sov 8th Army, by the way?) Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely you do not suggest the division retained its lineage based on equipment and a contract British officer?

For the 82nd time, I'm not arguing over lineage! The ONLY thing I say is that the physical division HQ, offices, commander, personnel etc didn't change.

Does the Pakistani division also claim campaign history and awards? Are you saying the article should be 7th Indian Infantry Division (Pakistan)?

I don't know - ask them. As for the article name, of course not!!

Ok, replace 'spiritual' with administrative. Although British officers and NCOs remained, as did the British way of doing things, the authority and administration of the Pakistani Army changed. Along with it changed the name of the division to 7th Infantry Division of Pakistan's National Army. You may be interested to know that the first Israeli units were numbered after US, British and Soviet units depending on were the commanding officers came from, although that eventually changed to a different, and even less comprehensible for most military historians system which is unique.

Indeed, things slowly did change, no doubt. However I've never seen any sources anywhere which seem to be certain on titles. Do the Pakistani Army today use the term 'Infantry Division' or just 'Division' (and by the way, I've never heard of 'Pakistan National Army). Anyway, glad we sorted that out.

I need to finish an article on the Shyaulyay operation first, and then fix up the Bagramyan article a bit. Then back to the missing 1941 Armies without which I can't do border operations. You can just leave unreferenced templates for now if you like.

What unreferenced templates? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As the articles build up, so will sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So why on earth did you undo my edits on disbandment of the British Indian Army?!!!!

I gather then that you support retention of the article with a move to 7th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom)?

Pakistan uses division only for infantry I think, and Armoured Division for tanks. I'm busy reinstalling MS Office now, so can't look it up.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Because they physically split - as the footnote I inserted would tell you. The units were physically partitioned - as we've just established above. I've never said anything about what name the article should have apart from what I earlier said at the AfD (everything in the existing two articles should be at 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) with a redirect from 7th Indian Infantry Division). PS when I open your talk page it says it's 209 K - you may want to archive. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, what happened physically is immaterial. If you have read anything about the partition, you will know what went on there. The fact is that all British Army units in India were disbanded, finished, ended, no more, ok? So why the redirect?! The two units had nothing in common other then assets. However, if a typewriter from 213 field battery artillery unit was used, does that make the HQ 7 Pakistani div 0.01% 213 field artillery also? These were just things. All that needs to be done is add it to 7th Infantry Division disambig list if its not there already.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You see, that's the difference in opinion between us. I believe since 7 Div existed before and after 15 Aug 47 with no physical change, it inherits the history - physically on the ground, they were not 'disbanded, finished, ended, no more, ok' - they continued in the service of their new armies - 7 Div on the Pakistani side and all the divs that went to India on the other. You believe that physical situation is immaterial, and go on the nationstates' whole armies' history. Fair enough other point of view. By the way, you do not seem to have read my edit summary - that revert is for the point of a balanced discussion - people can see what it was originally. After the AfD no doubt it will change in accordance with the AfD decision. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not read the edit summary.

I do not express my points of view here. Everything I say is true. Any military unit in the world can only be created by an internationally recognised national state authority. If it is not, it has the status of mercenary. Its basic international military law. I don't know one instance where there was a transfer of formations and units from one independent state to another (well, I do know one, which confirms the rule about exceptions). Equipment transfers happen all the time. You are working on Turkish Army. How many German brigades and US divisions does it have?

Every time you start a sentence with "I believe..." I skip to next sentence. What you believe is between you and God. I'm not interested (for the purpose of Misplaced Pages).

Within three years all physical vestiges of the British unit were gone except insignia which was retained because it could not be produced locally, and cost too much to have it made overseas. US insignia was used throughout the post-WWII World for decades due to existing wartime stock. US equipment completely replaced everything by the time the last British officer left. Maybe it came from the US 7th Infantry Division. Maybe the 77th ID. Are you going to change designation again? Its just nonsense. Did the RNZAF retain squadron designation when it purchased Australian A-4s? Please don't reply unless you have some hard, sourced facts. I had enough for one week with Jassy-Kishinev tank you very much --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say Mrg I'm repeatedly annoyed by how simply rude and ill-mannered you are (Can't do me the courtesy of reading what I say?). As I said, I disagree with you. The division insignia remained the same, and as Ceriy and I say in the case of Ukraine, we believe the history continues. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying, and I doubt you disagee about what actually happened between 13-18 August 1947 at 7 Div HQ in Rawalphindi. As you put it, it's about 'physically' versus 'spiritually'. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't rude, I just have no stomach for intellectual dishonesty.

Wat happened is that a British division was disbanded and its assets and some personnel were uused to create divisions of newly independent states. Same thing that happened in Ukraine.

If you base unit lineage on unit insignia while ignoring at least three Acts of Parliament, then I have nothing else to say to you.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake man - I've admitted that there may be no lineage link, and you've said nothing may have physically changed those few days at 7 Div HQ, and you call that 'intellectual dishonesty'? What is dishonest? I do not understand. As for the Acts, I've just taken a look at Wikisource on the 1947 Indian Independence Act, and there's nothing in the text about disbandment of formations. Please tell me the clause and I'll take another look... Buckshot06 (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

===> Hello you 2 co-editors :) - I am an absoulute Wiki-newbie - the first thing i have learned was to go in my sandbox - this discussion is longer than the article - what a waste of time - cool down and have a nice day --Dan Wesson (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fourteenth Army reverts

Hi. You've actually now made 3 reverts on Fourteenth Army (United Kingdom) now. Can you leave the links in place until discussion is complete please? Leithp 10:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Research

Hi Mrg3105, my reluctance to join the discussion was mainly because of other demands on my time. I looked the discussion over and thought it best to not get involved as this week was quite busy. As to your question, no, I'm not in the U.K. I'll always consider a research request as long as it isn't a large amount of work so feel free to ask. That said, if the research requires access to W.O. archives, then I'm not the best positioned for that kind of work. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Front

Hi, you might be interested to know that I've now created the Vilnius Offensive Operation article and have substantially updated the existing article on the East Pomeranian Offensive with a lot more information (I realise that this was in fact a strategic offensive containing several more limited operations, but need to do a bit more work in this regard). Anyway, I hope these help with the GPW project.

My next task will be to do something with the "Silesian Offensives" article, which is little more than a stub (as well as being incorrectly titled) and expand the Vistula-Oder Offensive....Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't noticed. Just got home. I have the German OOB by Hogg, so might see what I can add--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth regiments

From your comments on the Talk:British Divisions in World War II I think you have little understanding of just how important regimental history is to Commonwealth armies. The disadvantages of deployment is considered more than outweighed by the fighting cohesion it brings to the men in a regiment. This difference was highlighted during the Cold War in Berlin, each day American planes arrived and left with men rotating through the units in Berlin while for the British a battalion would arrive and leave together en-mass. From an administrative point of view the American system is much more efficient.

I was going to write more, but the Regiment#Commonwealth army article is a good place to start. I think the article explains why at independence the Indian and Pakistani armies would have wished their inherited regiments to keep their regimental histories, because if they needed to go to war (as it turned out against each other) then given the military tradition they had inherited the regiments needed their histories. For example have you ever wondered why the Gurkha and Gorkha regiments are known as rifle regiments? They are known as rifle regiments because the 60th Rifles fought along side Gurkhas in defence of Hindu Rao's House, and the 60th were so impressed with the Gurkhas they campaigned for them to become a riflemen instead of sepoys. Why a rifle regiment? Because the 60th were a rifle regiment who along with the 95th won great renown during the Napoleonic wars.

Some of the honours are strange and not intuitive. For example before during and after the Napoleonic wars line regiments were numbered. The older the regiment the lower the number, and at the end of a war the higher numbers were disbanded because the size of the British Army was reduced. So far so good! But the 95th had proved so useful that the Army did not want to disband the regiment, so they took it out of the line and gave them a separate status. So today we have the situation that there is competition between regiments to be top of the list (oldest and most respected) and bottom of the list (elite). Hence at bottom of the infantry list are the Gurkha, Rifles and SAS! (see: British Army order of precedence). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Lir. Thanks. --Editorofthewiki 01:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Irkutsk Military District

Спасибо, но поскольку я человек сугубо мирный, вопросы территориального деления занимают меня только в гражданском аспекте :) Однако, ссылка может оказаться интересной участнику Buckshot06, который специализируется как раз по вопросам военных округов. Я передам.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Это не столько вопрос территориального деления, сколько вопрос истории войсковой администрации в России. Buckshot06 не знает Русского, и больше интересуется современностью. Я думаю ему не по силу такое. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Хм, я не знал, что он не знает русского :( Жаль, не хотелось бы пропускать такой источник. Просто дела войсковых администраций меня лично интересуют постольку-поскольку и в основном применительно к организации территорий вообще. В общем, to put it bluntly, не специалист я в военном вопросе...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mrg. As I said to Ezhiki, I'll gladly help with minor details, as you wish, if you want to do the main translation, and I can follow up looking for English-language sources. Regards from the other side of the Tasman, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophes

Romanization of Ukrainian names is covered by WP:UKR, romanization of Russian names—by WP:RUS. Both guidelines omit apostrophes. We don't use ISO because it does not work well for our purposes. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Debrecen

I have no objection to it being renamed, but Battle of Debrecen should remain as a redirect. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

km or kms

Please refer to Talk:Battle of Białystok-Minsk#km or kms.

Tabletop (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Armies of the Bear

You are correct, but I think you will see at the bottom of the main DSU article where you got the text originally, a full citation - I was using a cut-down cite semi-a-la Harvard.

While I'm doing that, would you mind inserting the <references/> tag at the bottom, after you insert references in the middle of the article, so that people don't have to come after you and do it? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The citation may be fine in the main DSU article, but needs to be added in every article itis used in Sources.

I was under impression that {{reflist}} was sufficient--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the point would be, you added that cite into the new 80th Division article. References? Either reflist or /references, doesn't matter which, please insert them! I had to do it. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I thought I did!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

However, there is an existing section of text which can be used as a basis. If/when you're keen to work on that, I'd suggest starting by expanding and adding references to that section of text, until the article size limit tag starts appearing at Division (military)#Infantry, which is where everyone will be looking for it, and then consider creating a new article. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know there is not even an article on Arms of Service and Service Corps?!

Ok, I'll do the Red Army if you do these

Officers of O.K.H and O.K.W.

War academy (Kriegsakademie)

veterinary officers and NCOs

veterinary troops

Artillery regiments

mounted artillery units

artillery observation units

artillery training units

artillery observation training units

experimental command Hillersleben

experimental command Kummersdorf

army map and military survey

army group command

general command

infantry divisional staff

infantry regiments

garrison battalion Vienna

machine gun battalions

motorcycle-units

mortar battalions

army AA units

infantry training regiments

staff military Authority of the Reichsprotektor

War college

cavalry units

reconaissance mounted

motorcycle units

light division staff

signals units

fortress signals

signals training regiment

army school of dog and pigeon service

reconnaissance motorized

motorcycle units

general armored commands

armoured division staff

rifle brigade staff

armoured units

anti tank units

armoured trains

motorcycle units

armoured training regiments

army school of motoring

motor maintenance troops

mountain troop divisional staff

rifle and mountaineering units

motorcycle units

armoured infantry units

smoke units

smoke training units

military justice units

medical officers and NCO

medical troops

medical training units

supply officers

transport units

transport training units

transport supply officer

pioneer battalions

fortress pioneers

railway pioneers

pioneer training battalions

railway pioneer training companies

technical officers

armoured engineer companies

recruiting personnel

military police

specialist officers

army propaganda troops

for Wehrmacht Heer ;O)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. I took all the training establishments out for now

Most of these are being done at the individual state level; for example, the Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals and the Jordanian Royal Maintenance Corps (Jordan). See also for example Sri Lanka Army#Regiments. Systematic treatment on branches of service like that is something I've seen in Soviet/Russian sources, but less for English-speaking nations - we tend to focus on the individual corps. But also check things like Military police or artillery (and the War template at Artillery, listing a number of arms of service) - I think you'll find a number of existing articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I know they are there. However, I need these for Eastern Front. Its a huge amount of work.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot spare you the discussion Mrg. That huge list simply does not belong in the middle of a textual description of the Red Army - it looks ugly, surely you can see that. With your agreement, I'll split it to a Arms and Services of the Red Army page, where it can be properly developed as soon as someone can find a sourced list of them in WW2 - one of the Colossus series? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Further, on the images, you'll see I carefully inserted a decoration for the Taman Division. What I objected to was inserting them when they appeared to have no direct relevance - even when the formation in question had not been awarded the Red Banner. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Space Forces

There's a question over at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Russian and Soviet military history task force about the Cyrillic abbreviation ~~MOM~~ (This is me trying to render it in Arabic characters) that you might be able to answer. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa

Hi, I myself believe that it was the largest in history, but a citation is needed per Misplaced Pages: Cite sources and we cannot claim the figure the "largest" simply because there is no larger one available.

The closest it has ever come to: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_barbarossa.htm

"Barbarossa the largest military attack of World War Two"

But I see no source online for worldwide comparison. 219.79.27.59 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the numbers, it becomes readily apparent, so I would not think a source is required. Its just an accepted fact. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikicitation rules clearly state you must source anything that a fellow editor asks for a source for. Please be polite and insert one. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking, because the other is an IP and not a fellow editor.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Everybody that edits is an editor. If you wish, please consider that every source request from a numbered IP address comes from me. Misplaced Pages:Cite sources allows nothing less. By the way, are you happy with a separate. linked, page for Arms & Services? There's certainly enough potential for a separate page there. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy by either of these--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Prague Offensive

Hi, even occupied there existed a government in exile. It is usually reffered to the Czechoslovak army forces as from Czechoslovakia or with Czechoslovakian allegiance, remember Ludvik Svoboda's army group. In those days there even France didn't exist, Belgium, Denmark etc ... ≈Tulkolahten≈ 12:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot that the Czechoslovak government was recognised by the USSR, and that there was a Corps serving with the Red Army. In any case, that's fixed now, somewhat. At least the article is there. Do you have a few images to add to it?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Georgiu-Dez/Georgiu-Dej

Moredn name is Liski, HTH. Cheers, --Irpen 04:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Brody (1941)

Ironically, I went to an old, large atlas to check your addition of Radekhov, thinking you had confused it with Radivlov (Chervonoarmeysk). I found a handmade overlay comparing Budyenny's campaign to the towns mentioned in Red Cavalry (I must have made it in the early '90s). And sure enough, Radekhov and Sokal are marked, strung along the road from Brody to (disaster at) Zamoste. That road has seen more than its share of soldiers. Jd2718 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting. I had trouble finding them first because I didn't have a good map handy, but after I looked it up on a topographical map it was no problem.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Improve English

Because I'm continually worried at the level of the english you use. I read 'The article informs about' and was, frankly, flabbergasted. Surely you know that it would be 'This article covers..' or 'This article .. whatever, but not 'The article informs'. Maybe in a bibliography 'Subject XYZ.' 'This article informs citizens about the invasion of ..' but even that, frankly, is terribly wooden english. I hate having to criticise you on your english, but you did ask... Buckshot06 (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is not a movie script Buckshot06. People read reference works to be informed and not entertained! 'Wooden' is fine as long as it is informative--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not annoyed to see improvements so that a better form of English is used. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot, why pick on me? There are 64K articles in the MilHist project alone. Do go any see how other articles start, and if you find that I violated some rule after surveying 51% of them I will gladly submit to your better knowledge of English. Frankly though most people looking for information on the subject of the article are unlikely to reject it from the first few words because they may seem 'wooden' to them....you think?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why pick on you? I don't follow Malian military articles, nor those of Paraguay. I follow Sov/Russian ones... and thus I see the errors that are there. For heaven's sake, don't take it personally... I've just corrected some minor english-isms at a South African constitutional article. I'm only trying to improve the encyclopaedia, and I only responded to your query on the subject. I'm quite happy to stop discussing the subject now. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's avoid criticizing anyone's English. -Irpen

Izluchina

Mrg, re your question, my best guess is Dnieper Lowland. More at my talk. Cheers, --Irpen 05:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Um sorry to intrude, but I've been following this, and the 'Dniepr Bend' is often used in English language histories of the Eastern Front. From my perspective, it might be better to keep the phrase 'Dniepr Bend,' but just define it clearly. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the Lowland is more of a name from Physical Geography (as this course was called in school) or even, perhaps, Geology. Not my cup of tea although I had top grades in school :). --Irpen 08:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think when it gets written, it may need a redirect because as Buckshot06 points out, the Dniepr Bend is used everywhere in military history sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

SRF and Russian Navy

Hi Mrg, good work on adding the official formation dates (and in one case the actual number of the decree) for these two organisations. Can you also indicate a web-link so they're sourced? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot again. I thin it was actually from the RF MoD site, will have a look. Did you notice only two of the three Forces in the current OOB share the date?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, was just about to say, that's great for the 2001 date, but the 1959 date was the one I was looking for a reference for. Did you find anywhere - Ru or Eng - the actual text of the decree? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks fro that. I assume it's the list of the ceremonial/celebratory 'Days' for each branch - that's what it look like - correct? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Type and Branch. You know this I think, right? Tip and Rod.

There is a longer list that includes battles and civil professions, but I think you will have too many problems with it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mrg. That's nice, but don't spend too much time chasing down decrees if it's not easy. The main thing I was looking for was the site where you got the 1959 date from. Cheers & thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the text Mrg. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. What I wanted was to add a footnote with a web address, as a citation, to the SRF article. So the question is, what is the web address of the webpage you got this from? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Its there!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just as I was about to say that I'd seen you put it in, you added the two words above, and we had an edit conflict... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Squadron naming conventions

Hey Mrg, appreciate the work you're doing with article names, but the naming convention for Old Commonwealth aircraft squadrons is (No.) X Squadron (AF abbreviation) - thus No. 75 Squadron RNZAF, or No. 1 Squadron SAAF. As has been repeated many times, the (Country) at the end is only necessary if there are two units with the same name. If you wish to change the policy so that every unit gets the (Country) suffix, it might be better to raise it at WT:MILHIST rather than just doing it without consultation. ..My 2 cents. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a bunch of (sometimes 40-series) Royal Tank Regiment articles. I would say they should all be merged into the main RTR article until they get to more than 2-sentance status. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one has done so until now, so why tell me the Soviet Rifle Divisions that are twice the size and are likely to have at least one reference will be deleted?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Sorry. I'm now going to have to seriously argue with you. The Civil War regiments almost never had the word 'Infantry' in their titles. You are now creating non-historical wikinames for the sake of consistency (and we've fought this before and been corrected - ref all the discussions over the name of The Old Guard). Please stop renaming the US civil war regiments until you have a determination from someone who knows about this that these regiments really had the description 'Infantry' in their titles. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but before I started, I had looked in the category and found that more had the Arm of Service in the title then not. Moreover several historical reenactor groups also use them in the title, and they are usually fairly reliable for accuracy. I have now moved a good dozen or more articles, and not one person had contacted me in the last few days, except yourself. If you feel that I am wrong, please bring it up in the ACW task force talk page--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case its not the country that is the issue. The use of abbreviations in title is not encourages, but spelling out the whole is also counter to the historical practice you pointed out. So, the full and historical use is in the article, but the article title is only that, the article title name for Misplaced Pages use. Seems to me a fair compromise--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No. We work on the title of the unit, not what we might want it to be. Stop creating invented titles for units whose traditions you're, with all due respect, not particularly an expert on. Please wait - and discuss with others - until you check with someone who knows. Surely the YAssy-Kishinev experience has taught you the value of standing back and waiting for others' opinions a little? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Better than that, I've just brought it up on the main talk page, because it covers more than the ACW. Would you mind please putting that particular focus of yours on the back-burner while the discussion is underway? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Divisions of the Soviet Union

I very much mind, and will revert you if you try. Please have the basic courtesy to ask, rather than inform, when specific users have been heavily involved with articles. W.B. Wilson said himself that the good thing about that list was that it was in one place. As you pointed out yourself, it needs to be separated by branch, and that I would have no disagreement with - the infantry one's already done. But there is no need to hurry - it can be done when there is information enough to fill out branch-specific articles. (And, incidentially, what would you call each breakdown of 10 articles each? I can't imagine!) Buckshot06 (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not articles of 10, just sections of 10 in the list. I am getting a bit sick of having to scroll down pages and pages just to insert one bit of info--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the proposal to break this list up. I think that it's a great resource and works just fine. It's only 46 Kb long, which isn't too bad, especially given the amount of topics the article needs to cover. Any discussion to split the article should only be done after a consensus to do so is reached. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick, you are looking at the wrong list. This page, see my last contribution, is This page is 108 kilobytes long. Then again, maybe the sections made it that long?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, serves me right for butting into some-one elses' conversation! I agree that Infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 is rather long, but am not convinced that an outright split is the best option. How about converting it to just a straight list of the names of the divisions and then create sub-lists (blocks of 10 seems much too small - how about blocks of 100 or 50? - these wouldn't be particularly long lists) with the key stats and a very short summary of each division. Longer articles on the individual divisions can then be created at a later stage. I'd also suggest that the sub-lists be set up as tables - this is common for featured lists and seems to be best-practice so you may as well do it when setting up any new large lists with lots of information. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, not a bad suggestion. I don't mind scrolling through 50 divisions, but not 450.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will happily modify the page with 100-division blocks along the lines Nick suggests (however, as Kirill suggested, with lists, I think) but that doesn't stop you copying the data and rearranging it, Mrg, any way you wish - please, go ahead, copy the data, and reorganise it by military district at another, new, page. I believe List of German divisions in World War II and Formations of the United States Army during World War II gives enough of a precedent for this page remaining much as it is. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance does not qualify for precedence! The US Army had recruiting districts (aha!) (as part of the Region Recruiting Commands), and Germany had Wehrkreis. So why the linear thinking?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Says who - you only, just because you disagree with it? And what have military districts got to do with it (Corps areas or the postwar US field armies are better fits for the USA, I think) Take the information - no problem, rewrite it as you wish - the Soviet Armed Forces are big enough to deserve multiple ways of interpreting the data.. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point - a numerical list is NOT one of the "ways of interpreting the data". There is an informal convention in Logic that a discussion of any subject benefits from beginning at the start. Most US divisions did start somewhere, so why start with their Corps areas or the post-war US field armies locations?! The history for these units starts in Continental USA.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

re: FA?

Admins don't reclassify FAs: such reassessments are dont through a Featured article review, which you can initiate. You can also delist GAs yourself by following the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment, but this should not be done without a discussion on the articles' talk pages, especially as they're FAs. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had never done either of those before, so will have a look at the process.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Be Amazed?

Um, not sure what you're talking about here Mrg - can you explain? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the Soviet Army

Hi Mrg. I'm a bit torn here. We're both interested in the same subject and our collaberation could be really fruitful (you could say it already is) but we keep on having these massive arguments on presentation. Would an olive branch from me help? I think SoLando's idea of a Structure of the Soviet Army, to match Structure of the British Army, Structure of the Australian Army, etc, is a great idea - much better than our existing Formations of the Soviet Army, which as you rightly say, doesn't cover arms and services. Would you like to move Formations of the Soviet Army to that title - or start off a new one, laying out the structure and contents, and I can help fill in the sections? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06, in case you need reminding, I was the one who proposed cooperation when I first returned to editing last year. The problem I have, and not doubt you do also, is that there is so much to do and so little time.

Structure of the Soviet Army would be great, but you had not done that in the articles you edited, and given your emphasis on units and formations, and the sheer volume of work you and Mr Wilson had done, and still have to do, I had not suggested it. The greatest issue I have is that the all the articles and categories are lacking in project coordination. This is funny because I'm currently doing PM associate certification, so I should be able to do the job!

Essentially the Structure of the Soviet Army is predicated on the Structure of the Imperial Russian Army legacy and Structure of the Army of the Russian Federation descendent. So, unlike our peers in the British and US articles, we are (ideally) working on three nations, and not one. This may not be readily apparent in terms of unit lineage, but it is when considering Forces doctrine for which these units and formations were developed. I have grappled with how to approach this best, and obviously have not been successful. On top of this, there is the issue of Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front. It is not as complete in Misplaced Pages as one may have wished. Typically there are lots of people editing the technology articles, but not the many other articles, some of this just don't exist. Compare Wehrmacht with Structure of the British Army, and you will see that this also needs development, and that makes four.

So, my project goal is to describe Operations on the Eastern Front - both Axis and Soviet. To achieve this goal I need to achieve several objectives within the project scope

• G0. Describe Imperial Russian Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
• G1. Trace development of the Red Army from Imperial Army
• G2. Trace development of the Wehrmacht from Reichswehr
• G3. Describe Red Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
• G4. Describe Wehrmacht - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
• G5. Describe Operations on the Eastern Front

Now, your project goal, as I understand it, consists of the following objectives within the project scope

• C1. Trace development of the Soviet Army from Red Army
• C2. Describe Soviet Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
• C3. Trace transition of the Soviet Army into post-USSR forces of the Former Soviet Union states.

Do I have this correct?

As I see it the objective C1 can not be achieved without the G5, but it would be pointless for me to produce G5 if nothing could be derived in terms of how they influenced C1

I need to go, but if we can agree on the goals and objectives, maybe we can get to cooperate from there in deciding which articles need to be done, in which priority and to what degree of urgency.

I will be tagging articles for use with Igor, and I suggest you also download it. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My project goals could well be described as C1, C2 and C3 above, but I'm not particularly interested in the technology, which is already well served - only the technology as it affects the force (which is probably what you mean). I'm incorporating bits of G5 as they become available.

I think, as you've laid out, that our goals are separate but related. Why don't you lay out your list of priority articles - my only real one, really long since discarded, was to promote Red Army to FA. However I think a Structure of the Soviet Army (Ground Forces) would be really good, but it would have to take in ~45 years of history. Maybe a Structure of the Red Army would be better first. Also I'd like to move Army (Soviet Army) upwards as well. Articles for the 10th and 14th Armies would be good too. I'm now looking more closely at African armies and USAF MAJCOM wings. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Project expansion

However, you must agree that technology is explicitly interdependent with other aspects of the subject area. It is not possible to write about the Eastern Front without mentioning the T-34 and Il-2, and it is not possible to discuss the Soviet Army without considering the lessons it derived from the war.

Nor is it possible to isolate the Soviet Army from other Types and Branches, particularly Air Force.

So really it should be

• G01. Describe Imperial Russian Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
  • Grand Strategy
  • Tactics
• G02. Describe Imperial Russian Navy - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
  • Grand Strategy
  • Tactics
• G02GS Describe Imperial Russian General Staff
  • Strategy
• G12GS Describe Soviet General Staff
  • Strategy
• G1A. Trace development of the Red Army from Imperial Army (Revolution and Russian Civil War)
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• G1N. Trace development of the Red Navy from Imperial Navy (Revolution and Russian Civil War)
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• G1AF. Trace development of the Red Air Force from Imperial Army Air Service (Revolution and Russian Civil War)
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

• G2. Trace development of the Wehrmacht from Reichswehr (Wehrmacht was all Service inclusive) I'm hoping to find someone else who can do that
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

• G3A. Describe Red Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• G3N. Describe Red Navy - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• G3AF. Describe Red Air Force - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

• G4. Describe Wehrmacht - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) I'm hoping to find someone else who can do that
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

• G5. Describe Operations on the Eastern Front (putting it all together)
  • Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II (Western Front) (because there were no solely Navy or Air Force operations of any significance) actually the three Strategic Directions
  • Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II (Far Eastern Front) (because there were no solely Navy or Air Force operations of any significance)
  • Strategic operations of the Wehrmacht in World War II (Eastern Front)

Now, your project goal, as I understand it, consists of the following objectives within the project scope

• C12GS Describe Soviet General Staff development
  • Strategy
• C1A. Trace development of the Soviet Army from Red Army
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
  • 1st of period (June 1945 - May 1957) - the reduction of the formations of rifle troops with a simultaneous qualitative improvement in their organizational and manning structure and extent of outfitting taking into account realties of the begun “Cold War”;
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
  • 2nd of period (June 1957 - December 1964) the -transition actually of all formations of infantry in the rank of those motorized, a short-term notable increase in their number with the subsequent reduction in the favour of political ambitions;
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
  • 3rd of period (January 1965 - December 1985) - restoration and further increase in the number of formations of the motor rifle troops with the relatively clear priorities in their further development, methods of application, possibilities of their use, etc;
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
  • 4th period (January 1986 - December 1991) - an attempt at the realization of all dogmas of the 3rd period with the subsequent conducting of the “new thinking” policy and indiscriminate reduction of the formations of the motor rifle troops with simultaneous reduction in their qualitative parameters derived from this.
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

• C1N. Trace development of the Soviet Navy from Red Navy
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
  • periods in Navy were somewhat different
• C1AF. Trace development of the Soviet Air Force from Red Air Force
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
  • periods in the Air Force were somewhat different
• C2A. Describe Soviet Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategic operations of the Soviet Army in the Cold War (Western Front)
  • Strategic operations of the Soviet Army in the Cold War (Central Asian Front) (because there were no solely Air Force operations of any significance)
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C2N. Describe Soviet Navy - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C2AF. Describe Soviet Air Force - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategic operations of the Soviet Air Force in the Cold War (Far Eastern Front) (64th Air Defense Corps, and Vietnam War participation
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C2MF. Describe Soviet Missile Forces - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there?
  • Strategic operations of the Soviet Missile Forces in the Cold War (North American Front) (Cuban Missile Crisis)
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C2SF. Describe Soviet Space Forces - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there?
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

• C3. Trace transition of the Soviet Forces into post-USSR forces of the Former Soviet Union states.

• C5. Russian Federation
• C5A. Describe Russian Federation Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C5N. Describe Russian Federation Navy - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C5AF. Describe Russian Federation Air Force - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C5MF. Describe Russian Federation Missile Forces - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there?
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C5SF. Describe Russian Federation Space Forces - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there?
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

repeat for the rest

• C5. Belarus
• C5. Ukraine
• C5. Moldova
• C5. Georgia (country)
• C5. Armenia
• C5. Azerbaijan
• C5. Kazakhstan
• C5. Uzbekistan
• C5. Turkmenistan
• C5. Kyrgyzstan
• C5. Tajikistan
• C5. Estonia
• C5. Lithuania
• C5. Latvia

How does this look? I know it looks complex, but the reality is that this is what you are dealing with now anyway when you link between categories, but just not in a structured way.

This may look daunting, however, firstly consider it as something to put on your resume (research project team member), and secondly consider the publication possibilities without which you will not get noticed. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this points out a key difference in our approaches. You like to lay out long-term plans, while I focus on improving or creating specific articles. First, yes, we're saying the same thing about technology different ways. Second, I am only interested in the Red Army Ground Forces (actually don't think that was a term) and Soviet Army Ground Forces - maybe I should have been clearer about that earlier. I think we can put aside the Russian Federation for the moment and leave it to later; it's not within our collaberative area (the Ground Forces, my specific area, is already partially covered by the FA I wrote, Russian Ground Forces). So, considering all that, I am only worried about C1A and C2A - once those are fully written in near-complete detail, only then would I be interested in looking at the C-category ones. That does not preclude looking at G-category ones first, such as the one I'd be most interested in, the sub-G3A, Structure of the Red Army. (My publication priorities are completely elsewhere, as I cannot read Russian; the land forces of Liberia and the DR Congo). Buckshot06 (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are researching to publish on Liberia and the DR Congo?

Yes - already have actually, with an article in the Jul/Aug 2006 New Zealand International Review

Ok, I think we have a different philosophical approach. You like to focus on a single article and build it up to FA quality. I on the other hand would rather see a broad coverage of the entire category, if only with stubs, because that offers more sources of reference to prospective readers. In other words, while you "fish the whale" I "fish the sardines" ;o) Of course in time I hope to get all my "sardines" to somewhere around marlin size, but that is another story ;o)

Indeed, that's been evident for some time.

Do you have plans to learn Russian?

No. French.

It is difficult for me to understand how we can collaborate because we are working in different conceptual environments.

Name your proposed highest priority article within the area that our interests coincided, and we can both work on it.

I don't mind helping you with specific articles, but as it stands the structure of categories and existing articles does not exactly fit in with the outline of the project above as I'm sure you appreciate.

Railways are a good example. Railway use by military on both sides during the GPW was huge. It defined strategy and operational capabilities. Many people have written books on the success of blitzkrieg having never looked at the map of USSR. All panzer group operations essentially moved along the major rail lines. Where there were none running West to East, as in southern Ukraine (from Romanian border), the advance stagnated. Caucasus was approached via Kiev and Kharkov and not the shortest route along the Black Sea shore for logistic reasons. This defined the Soviet strategy during the war, and epitomised the importance of the military railway troops. In all the great strategic operations of the war the element of surprise was gained by the ability to rapidly move troops from place to place, largely by rail. And yet I find there is not even a general article on the use of railways by the military, never mind Red and Soviet Army railway troops. Etc, etc, etc. There is so much to do.

Yes, I've had a look at your sandbox article.

In any case, it is not that I am not unappreciative of your work, or others, but what has happened is that lots of editors covered the 'sexy' subjects, but the overall theme of military forces within the area broadly defines as Russia in the modern period are not coordinated and only patchy. This is the big picture view.

Now, if you can suggest how you see C1A, C2A and the sub-G3A, Structure of the Red Army being developed, please tell me. As for myself, I only see the Ground Forces of Red Army and Ground Forces of Soviet Army as two parts of a whole that commenced in 1918.

Agree totally.

The people that shaped the Red Army of GPW were all FWW/Civil War veterans. Evolution of doctrine and formations structure (or are you just interested in the OOB?) were defined by personal and not theoretical experiences. It is wrong to think that what was written by Uborevich, Tukhachevsky and others was theory. The Soviet Army was created from, and largely existed as an inheritor of very same experiential application well into the Cold War despite the 1956 realisation by the General Staff, better known as the T-55. So you tell me what you want to do, since now you know where I'm going.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Two alternatives, I think. Firstly, I think merging Formations of the Soviet Army into a broader Structure of the Red Army would be good, with maybe a 1945 onwards article on the Sov Army GF structure later. I think this covers both our interests, especially your specific requirement to describe how Red Army rifle units and formations were organised. Secondly, if you have another priority within that coinciding area, speak up.... Buckshot06 (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces

Well, no. Anything from Army up formations can include Air Force and Naval units that are operationally assigned to the Army command. However, the "formations" part does not really apply to anything above a Front at best. Theatres and strategic directions really belong to the Soviet General Staff article. In reality they are parts of the Command structure.

The articles on the British, Australian and American Armies really do not deal with all three dimensions. Structure usually relates to the decision (i.e. command) functions of the forces (strategy), organisation relates to the combination of units and formations under various (strategic) Command HQs for execution of expected missions (operational level), and doctrinal explains how these combinations are used in the execution of the missions (tactics). Note that strategy may not apply only to the national military strategy, but strategy in general, like Army training strategy, or budgeting, providing direction to industry for technology development, etc.

There is a great degree of confusion from article to article because they were not coordinated. The Structure of the French Army shows the organisational OOB, but not the command and doctrinal aspects. The Structure of the British Army is largely its OOB, and those parts of the Army which relate to the administration of training, the Arms and Services Corps. It is the Land Command article that deals with the stricture of the British Army since it is there that decisions are taken on the organisation and doctrinal use of the units. I didn't see anything that would explain the doctrine which guides the organisation of the British Army except for the lone generic link to the Battlegroup (army). The United States Army is better, but also does not explain why it has the organisation that it does because the there is not mention of the operational or tactical doctrine, but only why the Army is operationally divided" into units, and what they are as sub-parts of organisational administration.

So, if you want to build up the Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces (Sukhoputniye Sily), I will help you, because it is in my own interest, but it is likely to be a very different article to the others due to it being three rather then two-dimensional. I would go to FA with that..or die trying ;o)

SGF

My proposal would be to call it simply Soviet Ground Forces. The Red Army structurally was a part of the Soviet Union after all, so it would not be that wrong.

Wasn't this Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but struktura in Russian has a defined meaning unlike its application in English. I'll explain tomorrow--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(i)Within the article I would start with a short introduction, giving an overview of the major trials, tribulations and conflicts, followed by the the main body of the article. The main body needs to acknowledge the legacy of the Imperial Russian Army and the First World War experience that created the Soviet Union, the Civil War, and war with Poland of course. These would represent the introduction to why and how the Red Army was created. (ii) I'd suggest the article needs to have a brief historical overview of the development of the Ground Forces through its significant periods: formative (1925 - 1936), combat (1936 - 1946), transformative (1947 - 1961), consolidating (1962 - 1984), and final (1985 - 1993), and explain what happened for them to deserve these appellations (ok, not those actual words - I just used one word for what would be a sentence).

(iii) Then go to the Structure and say how decisions were taken at strategic level, including the link to the Politburo, (iv) then the section on the organisation, and how that relates to the operational art as a doctrine. (v) Finally, the OOB and how and why the Ground Forces were organised, stationed and equipped in the way that they were. (vi) Lastly, you can include a section on "Suvorov" and his views as criticisms, something other articles on Armies lack completely as if no one has ever criticises then.

How does this sound?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting your thoughts. Do you know who started and wrote most of the Land Command article? Yes, yours truely. The difficulty from a Western perspective on this is that we don't do the 'military-scientific' very well. (i) is fine, though it would not be more than three or four big paragraphs. Same with (ii). (iii) would be quite short, just outlining the chain of command mostly - one or two paragraphs. (iv) What do you mean by organisation? Rifle Corps/Rifle Div/Rifle Bde/Bn descriptions etc, same for artillery, tank forces, etc? Long section. (v) A full OOB would be several separate articles, listing ~500++ divs in midwar, plus mech/tank corps, ~300(?) odd divs in 1946-7, and 200 odd divs in 1960s-80s. What exactly do you mean? (vi) Descriptions of how/why etc would be good though, but where would you source it from?, and maybe more importantly, at what period? !930s? 1946? 1960s-89? We'd need reasonably solid English-language sources if we are both to work on this. (vii) Sure, but 'Inside the Soviet Army' mostly praised the arrangements, if I remember rightly. Be interested to hear your thoughts. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry for the criticism, but IMHO you went the wrong way! The Land Command article repeats the OOB! Instead it should go to Ministry of Defence and higher. This is why there is nothing to link to in the Category:Commands of the British Army!

From a British Army point of view, this is incorrect. Command (military formation)s in the British Army were functional or regional organisations theoretically of a four-star status, which could contain several field armies (only actual example was the BEF in the first world war). They had field formations subordinate to them. (Depending on how big it was though, it could be as small as a Colonel's command - our NZ Army Central Command at Trentham immediately after WW2) They were not administrative, and definitely not part of the War Office or, now, Ministry of Defence. They were just the largest type of formation subordinate to it. They were often regional, such as Malaya Command or Middle East Command. This lists some , but others included GHQ Home Forces etc. This lists most of them at Army level (whether they were Army, Army Group, or lower, depended on the numbers and size of field formations subordinate to them.) I've been thinking to start writing on some of them, but it would be long and not very relevant.

Your characterisation of 'Command' may be correct for the USSR/Russia etc, but is not for the United Kingdom. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to explain more because its late and I don't feel like doing British research. Are you saying that the Land Command is not responsible to the Defence Council?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Chain runs - Defence Council - Army Board - CGS - Commands. (British Army, A Pocket Guide, 97/98) All Commands of the British Army report to the Chief of General Staff's staff - whether earlier called the War Office, now called MOD (Army). One could compare the CGS to a battalion commander, who in World War II would have had over 15 companies in various parts of the world. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• (i) is fine, though it would not be more than three or four big paragraphs. - yes, sure
• (ii) Same.
• (iii) would be quite short, just outlining the chain of command mostly - one or two paragraphs. - I would be surprised if you can do it in one/two even large (3-4 sentence) paragraphs, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
• (iv) What do you mean by organisation? Rifle Corps/Rifle Div/Rifle Bde/Bn descriptions etc, same for artillery, tank forces, etc? Long section. - yes, organisation is organisation for combat; troop types and branches are administrative, so part of the structure

So where are the troops types and branches (often very different from the West) dealt with? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• (v) A full OOB would be several separate articles, listing ~500++ divs in midwar, plus mech/tank corps, ~300(?) odd divs in 1946-7, and 200 odd divs in 1960s-80s. What exactly do you mean? - The OOB is dealt with paragraphs with Main article redirects.
• (vi)Descriptions of how/why etc would be good though, but where would you source it from?, and maybe more importantly, at what period? !930s? 1946? 1960s-89? We'd need reasonably solid English-language sources if we are both to work on this. There are good sources, primarily Simpkin and Glantz again (his job for US Army was in Soviet doctrine, not history).

Do you mean Race to the Swift? And which Glantz books? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the late Brigadier wrote several books on the operational art, and was an expert on the Soviet doctrine bar none in terms of published material.

Glantz wrote Soviet Military Operational Art - In pursuit of deep battle which is not on his article. I would highly recommend it as it recapitulates the Simpkin research, and adds to it in a relatively slim volume. Somewhat more readable also because Simpkin wrote not only in the British style, but one from another era ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• (vii) Sure, but 'Inside the Soviet Army' mostly praised the arrangements, if I remember rightly. - well, I just thought it would be something to "bounce" the rest of the content off. He wrote other books you know ;o).

I know well, his rubbish on Stalin's 'plans', but I never look at those books. As far as I'm concern Glantz's Colossus series demolishes his books on that subject very well. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel that some other-then-technical perspective needs to be included on the evaluation of the Ground Forces....maybe a Culture section? It was not a monolithic series of unit designations and troop directorates. It had a good and bad about it as a state body, as any armed forces of any nation do. I think this is lacking in the other "Structure of..." articles. You know the saying, "see the man behind the face"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why this proposed article is Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces. It'd be great to have Personnel of the Soviet Ground Forces - dedoshchina, officers' path, soldiers, conscripts, praposhniks (sorry about my spelling) etc. (See Russian Ground Forces#Personnel) This is structure and it's dry - but it's worth writing. The human element is in other articles, not dry structural details. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you are right. However like in all armies there were generational cultural influences that shaped the struktura and the organizatziya and the doktrina, so I wanted to reflect that. In any case, can talk about it when we get to it. I know I have seen you write some content on it somewhere already. Good night.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure

This is an English article & encyclopedia; we should use English terms, and this is the correct one. Structure in English covers both administrative (arms and branches of service) and operational (divisions, brigades etc). If you want to insert a Russian article name which does or does not use a word that sounds vaguely the same, that's fine in either case. If there is a need to link it eventually to a Russian article with a different name, that's fine too. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused! Are you confirming that there is no rule which says the article must be named Structure of...? It seems to me it is precisely because "Structure in English covers both administrative (arms and branches of service) and operational (divisions, brigades etc)" that the word should not be use as a means of disambiguation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you mention disambiguation at all. What we are trying to do, I thought, is detail the specific Red/Soviet Armies details of both administrative and operational organisation - surely the word Structure is appropriate. Otherwise we would have to completely replan it, as 'Soviet Army Ground Forces' would cover, from 45-91, history, operations, organisation, personnel & training, mobilisation & war plans, and equipment, etc - not just structure. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry, but we had an edit conflict and I had to undo your edits (not on purpose) because mine were all over the place and I had been editing for like 30 minutes.

Speaking of which, not sure why you decided to remove the section on the formation of Imperial Russian naval infantry.

Also, the Russian Navy is not the same as the Military Naval Fleet of the Russian Federation.

I'll relink it to the 1991- section further down. Well spotted. As far as I know, I didn't remove anything, rather added the intro. During edit conflicts, are you aware of the second box at the very bottom of the page which has your edits, which you can copy/paste and thus add without trouble? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes we did agree on detailing the specific Red/Soviet Armies details of both administrative and operational organisation, but Structure of refers only to the Command (administrative) part of that.

Yes, but only for Russian speakers reading in English (not our primary audience). 'Structure,' in the sense of this proposed and the other en-wiki land forces articles, refers to 'the manner of building or construction; the way in which an ediface, machine, etc is made or put together' (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon, Oxford, 1973, p.2156). You are trying to justify an article title in the English section on the basis of what the word means in Russian. For the English section, this is illogical. As I said, we can link the various sections to the appropriate, potentially differently named, parts in different Ru-wiki articles if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So naming the entire article in this way will only confuse because it will also be one of the names of the sections.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but this means you would call the section on struktura what? I'm perfectly happy to just name it Soviet Armed Forces, and use structure for the section dealing with it where it will be used consistently with the Russian and English meanings.

At this time I would not want to think about creating separate articles.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrative structure, with the other being operational structure. An alternative to Administrative structure would be Branches of Service. 'Branches' is an often used term for these arms and services - see Category:Branches of the United States Army. I thought we were proposing to do the Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces, so it would deal with all the branch organisations - those rifle company/battalion/regiment/brigade/division/corps and others - artillery, tank forces etc - and the formations and the operational organisation - imported, for the ground-forces appropriate section, from Formations of the Soviet Army. This is much less all-covering than Soviet Armed Forces, for which we have an article on anyway. Unfortunately, if you write 'Structure' in the English article, meaning 'strucktura,' you will have English speaking readers asking 'where's the rest of the structure' - meaning the admin organisation. 'Struktura' and 'Structure' do not mean the same thing, in this context, and are not consistent. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you want to start a sandbox and see how we go?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Later. Need dinner now. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, mine is almost ready, just waiting on the bread to finish baking--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, set up. It's accessible through the top of my userpage - feel free to start adding material and references. I think I need to get a copy of Colossus 1/2/3 ..Buckshot06 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't get anything yet. I'll make comments in the sanbox talk first.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we've moved our clocks back early this morning. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just synchronising our watches ;o)

So you are going to move content over first and then do some preliminary writing/editing?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I am already, mostly fitting the existing text to the new article structure. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you direct me to english-language sources talking about the five periods of Ground Forces's history (eg 1947-61 transformative)? Or, if not, can you add the link to the Ru-language source/s? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've got Excel. Do you not have a spreadsheet package? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have. I was just looking at your edits with the Arms and Services and though its easier to do with a spreadsheet.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the significance of January 17, 1992 for the RF Navy. The text lists something like June or July 22, 1992. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The St Andrew's ensign was reinstated in the Fleet.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces (II)

Mrg, can you find - or even add to Misplaced Pages - an orbat for the Imperial Russian Army in its last days? It'd be much easier to build up the initial history of the Red Army structure if I knew which Imperial Russian forces were where. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit ahead of you here. Its almost finished, the reason for taking so long is because I have had to piece it from several sources. I will be using the 1917 version, in part from ru-Wiki because it provides the second and third wave regiments. However, as you may appreciate there is a bit of formatting to do. I will add in the next few days.

Hey, weren't you going to help me with this article? Would appreciate you adding text and references if you could, especially with the Politburo/higher command section... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought a better process would be to let you finish as much as you can edit, and then I will edit and we can work on that. Editing over each other is unproductive in terms of either clarity or system viability due to there being constant edit conflicts since we are in the same time zone. Just buzz me when you are done, although I am watching your edits. Don't be concerned about my temporary foray into religious articles. I need to get off the subject from time to time to renew my inspiration. "A man does not edit by Eastern Front alone" ;o). However, I am still gathering data off-wiki. I will also be doing an FA article for someone in England in the next few weeks, nothing big, so that may take my attention off our project very temporarily. I don't usually like doing FA from scratch, but its a good cause. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm just about done for my first wave on this. Do you want to make some edits for a few days...? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start tomorrow, but will probably not be able to put much substantial editing until weekend

On a related subject, it seems that our OB for the Sov invasion of Poland in 1939 on-wiki here is pretty bad. Do you have a well-sourced order of battle somewhere for the operation? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not immediately to hand, but I will have a look. It had never been of interest to me so I haven't even read the article, though I should--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed up the OOB. There is also a link to a Russian (recent) work in the sources section on the campaign which has lots more information.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits Mrg. Unfortunately, in doing so, you've changed the links for most of the armies from 'Xth Army (Soviet Union)' to 'Xth Army (Union)' and thus broken most of the links. Would you mind reestablishing them? Also, your note on ranks would probably be more informative actually on the page itself, rather than on the talk page. Cheers & thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wehrkreise.jpg

Hi, I have cleaned up the image for you and removed the photocopy marks. Next time you need an image cleaned up, there is now the Photo cleanup repair section of the new military logistics department where you list it. Woody (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

military categories

I'm not so sure that'd be an obvious win; Category:Military conflict (it'd have to be lower case 'c') would certainly include Category:War, but not necessarily Category:Military as such, at least in its entirity. It's not an area I'm hugely familiar with, however. The "permanent" categories don't really have a working group or centralised coordination in the way that stub types do, so you're probably best bringing it up at MILHIST, and/or the talk pages of those categories, prior to carting it off to CFR. Hope that helps somewhat. Alai (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so flaming obvious?

The year was, in context. For the rest, see its talk page. Trekphiler (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered. Hope I'm clear. Since you appear to have the sources at hand, I'll leave you to rewrite, unless you want me to make a pass. And not that I mind, but you might just quote, next time. It makes finding & answering your points easier. (For everybody...) And saves you signing so often.... Trekphiler (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Prophecy

Hi! I noticed you made a number of changes to Prophecy and added a notice at the top saying the article is protected. It isn't, just putting a notice up doesn't protect an article, so I removed the notice. In all honesty it isn't entirely clear to me why an article with a general title of "prophecy" should discuss only the experience of prophecy as distinct from beliefs and other perspectives about it. In any event Misplaced Pages's consensus policy says the basic approach and content of articles is a matter for discussion with other editors. Could you do us a favor and add an entry to the article's talk page (Talk:Prophecy) explaining why you believe the article should take the "experience" approach? If you make good arguments you might be able to persuade me and the other editors. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to ask another admin to protect the page. Page protection is reserved for heavily trafficed pages that get vandalized hourly or more, this article doesn't seem to be vandalized that often. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I see, so there is no daily vandalized rate protection! Hmmm...how sick does one have to be before seeing a doctor?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The protection policy treats it as an extradinary intervention -- more like putting someone on life support than simply seeing a doctor. Doable, but only when at the edge of death. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Operation Koltso

I've edited Operation Koltso so that it now points to Battle of Stalingrad. Hope that helps. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't work Nick--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It was my fault because I moved the original WWII article without realising there was the 1991 operation, and the redirect worked in automatically. Sorry--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Prophecy II

Substituted a {{fact}} template for the statements you added that there are no sources on contemporary prophecy in the modern church. Suggest using the {{fact}} template (which becomes ) rather than making a statement that "there are no sources". A claim that "there are no sources" is itself original research. It's a statement about the outside world (the state of current research) that people would be likely to regard as controversial. So it has to be verified! It can be challenged, and removed if it remains unsourced. The {{fact}} tag, which simply notes that no source has currently been supplied to Misplaced Pages, avoids this. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

defeat in the field

Do you mean like the end of the Army of Northern Virginia and the way the German Armies of World War I were saved from total defeat in the field by the civilian collapse in morale which lead to a request for an armistice? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, kind of. In this case the claim is that the Talk:Army Group Courland was never defeated in the field (see talk). I tried to point out that it had been as Army Group North, and that, confined to the peninsular s it was, it had few chances to challenge the near 0.5 million Red Army force that was blockading it, but I do not want to get into an edit war in this ridiculous suggestion that the AG was "undefeated in the field" as it surrendered on 8 May 1945. I did find one American definition from First World War, but was wondering if you may have a second definition. Strategically it was a "defeat in detail". Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We had an edit clash.

Thinking about it a little more, the French defeat in the field lead to their defeat in Vietnam, the Americans were never defeated in the field during the Vietnam War but they lost the war because of the civilian collapse in morale. Was Dien Bien Phu a siege ... --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it would have been chewed up just like Army Group Centre was if it had not surrendered immediately so as you say it is an irrelevant statement. I'll take a look. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip, I'm not the one arguing with you here. This is the case of "legendary" performance by a Latvian SS division that was never defeated...according to the Latvian Encyclopaedia. And then these people tell me that Soviet encyclopaedias are not to be trusted!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

USAF Squadron & Wing Naming Conventions

Do you really have to rename the squadrons and wings to show that they are part of the United States? It's not like there are any other countries with wing or squadron names that could somehow be confused with the American units. Those said units usually begin with "RAF" or "RAAF." Show me a few units that could be confused and i'll back down but otherwise I don't think that these units should be renamed just for the sake of it. The miitary naming conventions indicate that this probably doesn't need to be done. Kevin Rutherford 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An article named (for example) 101st Airlift Squadron is just too generic.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Military organization

good point, and since I'd forgotten that the Army section goes down to fire team as its smallest unit, it's probably fair enough, so I've self-reverted. David Underdown (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to expand though. For example your edit makes it obvious that the subject of the article is not well defined.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sephardim and Oriental Communities

Pretty much all the information is on the Knesset website, e.g. Personally I'm not a believer in referencing stuff which is obvious and uncontroversial, but you're welcome to do so. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a hint; when you reference articles, please do so like this (i.e. showing the web page title and the site name, rather than this, which doesn't show the references properly. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

39th Rifle Division and 8th Cavalry Corps

I've got groupings of information for these two formations at Far Eastern Military District and 4th Army (Soviet Union) respectively, but I'd like to upgrade them to full articles. Can you point me toward some more sources? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Far Eastern Military District and 4th Army (Soviet Union) could use a bit of addition also.

You don't mean 39th Guards Rifle Division?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you'll see under 130th Machine-Gun Artillery Division, in brackets, it says 'originally 39th Rifle Division' formed before 1941. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm trying to translate this text on the 99th RD: '05.1942 Has got in an environment under Барвенковым from which send(have left) 1067 person of staff. 08 - 15.06.1942 It is deduced(removed) from structure YUF and from area Redkovskie Sand it is directed for доукомплектования in Балашов to structure of 6th Reserve Army. From 10.07.1942 It is transferred to the 8th Reserve Army. By 10.03.1943 In structure of 62nd Army (Soviet Union) has plunged on item Паньшино and it is sent in order ЮЗФ (item Two-river)'. The original text is at http://www.rkka.ru/handbook/guard/88gvsd.htm - can you straighten out the untranslated bits and the 'item Two-River'? Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You realise its for the 88th Guards Rifle division and not the 99th Rifle?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the page. It covers the history of the 99th RD (I Formation) and the 88th GRD, which it became after being renamed. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I got confused looking in Poirier and Conner--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So these are the words I need translated: Барвенковым, 'send(have left) 1067 person of staff -what does that mean?, доукомплектования in Balashov, and 'has plunged on item Паньшино and it is sent in order ЮЗФ (item Two-river)'. Shouldn't be too hard. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• попала в окружение под Барвенковым, из которого вышли 1067 человек личного состава

Was surrounded at Barvenkovo (place), with only 1067 of unit personnel managing to evade capture

• 08 - 15.06.1942 выведена из состава ЮФ и из района Редьковские Пески направлена для доукомплектования в Балашов в состав 6-й рез.А

During this period was removed from the complement of the Southern Front, and from the area of Redkovskiye Peski (place) sent for reorganisation to Balashov (place) in the dispositions of the 6th Reserve Army

• к 10.03.1943 в составе 62-й А погрузилась на ст. Паньшино и отправлена в распоряжение ЮЗФ (ст. Двуречная)

as part of the 62nd Army were loaded on a train at station Panshino and sent to the dispositions of the Soutwestern Front (YZF) as station Dvurechnaya (literally two-rivers)

(sorry for delay, I was going to translate the whole thing but the online translation site I use is down)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I try to be careful when I'm dealing with units that became Guards at one point or another. Still for the 99th, I understand all this passage following except the reference to 'a boiler' which is how the machine translation does it - can you help?: попадает в окружение под Уманью, где большая часть дивизи погибла или попала в плен, удалось избежать окружения только части артиллерии и тылов; всего из Уманского котла вышло - около 2-х тысяч бойцов, при этом удалось сохранить знамена дивизии и полков.. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I use machine trans. to same time, but don't really need it. The site is down for the first time ever.

Boiler is actually a reference to the German kessel, cauldron in which one boils ;o)

• The division was caught in a "boiler" encirclement at Uman, where a large part of it died or was taken prisoner. The only parts of the division to escape were the artillery and elements of the tyl (service support); in all 2,000 soldiers escaped the Uman cauldron, managing to save the standards of the division and the regiments.

I have the 39th Rifle Division, but there is not much. Poirier and Conner have it at Kursk in 1943, but I can't find confirmation for this. They also have it in Transcaucasian MD from 22 March 1946 which I don't see how. They also have it awarded Order of Kutuzov which I can't confirm. Where do you want it?

You'll see I have most of the at Far Eastern Military District#Current Order of Battle, including the note that it may have been at Kursk in '43. WHat I was looking for was Russian internet data - divisional association page, if it existed, or whatever. Can you find any of that? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I may have to go to regimental level, but not now--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

National units

Maybe, but I do not remember. I would much rather you worked on the missing sections of the 'Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces' page. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said I'm not?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was looking at your contributions, and you seemed to be doing mostly partisans and religious things. You're doing it off-wiki? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes mostly. I find it difficult to work in sandboxes because I tend to write/translate/do course/ eat/speak to people on the phone and forget that I'm in edit and when I get back to the sandbox I'm told the session data was lost. So I have to go Back and cut and paste, etc. Its a pain since I can spend an hour looking for stuff online or in the books, so while I search for what I want I also participate in other stuff. For example the thing with dragons was most useful in learning something about tables and images.

Partisans was kind of related, but mostly its about putting things right.

Same with religion. It amuses me how much myth and ignorance there is on the subject. I became interested in comparative religions about 7 years ago, and started learning about Judaism since as a good historian I go to the sources. I wasn't brought up in a religious family so learned a lot. Most of all I don't like people making untrue or even misleading statements.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Hmmm...

Hey. Sarcasm is almost extinct, as it soon being called as "personal attack" by some. Sad but true. All the best, M.K. (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: deleted orphaned redirect talk pages

Hi, Mrg3105! I'm using a robot to delete these pages; 35000 deletions straight probably wouldn't be too good for my mental health. :-) Thanks for the heads-up anyway. east.718 at 12:25, April 13, 2008

First, I had a friend with access to the toolserver generate a list of all redirect talk pages for me. When I run the bot, it systematically goes through the list of pages, testing each to see whether it has no history, no incoming links, and is more than a week old. If all of these criteria are met, the page gets deleted, otherwise, nothing happens. east.718 at 12:33, April 13, 2008