User talk:Lineagegeek

WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE! Leave me message·My archive

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Military history WikiProject
Articles for review
Featured Article candidates Turabay dynasty • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Battle of Poison Spring • Yugoslav submarine Mališan • Shigi Qutuqu • John Savage (soldier) • Tetricus I • Sam Manekshaw
Featured Article Review Candidates Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23
A-Class Review (Criteria/FAQ) Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) • CSS General Earl Van Dorn
Good Article Nominations Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Iga ikki • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • HMS Menace (1915)
Good Article Reassessments Lockheed YF-22 • Galatian War
Peer Review Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • Charles the Bold • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal
See the full list of open tasks
v t e

Hello, Lineagegeek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Pinkstrawberry02™ ^talk 13:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent reversion of the terminology, the action was not without some deliberate thought and after research, delving into etymology, before making any reversions. If you are saying that "inactivate" is the proper military terminology, that is news to me as the process of deactivating a base or unit is to make it "inactive". See:<http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MayJun08/deactivate_review.html> Even the dictionary definitions of the terms do not support the use of "inactivate" as most style guides refer the author/reader to "deactivate" as the proper use. There are even writers that claim that the adjective: "inactive" is proper while the verb: "inactivate" is not. FWiW, no style guides support the use of "inactivate" as it is seen as an example of an affectation or even "made-up" word. Bzuk (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think WP:JARGON may apply. While 'inactivate' may well be the official terminology, 'deactivate' is what's commonly used. Since it isn't wrong, per se, using the term more people will recognise might be preferable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "deactivate" (or the noun "deactivation") is more commonly used than "inactivate", although I would be happy to see support for this. (see below) I also disagree that the word "inactivate" is either jargon or more difficult to understand than "deactivate." "Inactivate" (with respect to US Army and Air Force units) also has the benefit of distinguishing what was done from other terms like "disband" or "demobilize" that "deactivate" does not do.

I would also be surprised to see the distinction between the words made in style guides with regard to military units. I did a little Googling in response to the style guides issue and did find one flat assertion [1] that "inactivate" should never be used. As for actual usage (and response to whether "inactivate" is really a word), there is one response that the Corpus of Contemporary American English (not familiar to me) gives 88 examples of "inactivate" and 102 for "deactivate" (indicating actual usage is fairly even) while another response indicated 8,180,000 Google results for "deactivate" and 17,600,000 for "inactivate. [2] (speculating specifically that the results may be skewed by military (and scientific) usage).

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

I can't speak for the Buschman (not an Aussie as far as I can tell, but an aficionado of the bang-'em-up sport), but my sense of humour is definitely (Note the Canadianism, I is Canajan, and sometimes classified for whatever purposes, as an official historian of the Royal Canadian Air Force, so that alone has to be accompanied by a sense of impropriety, at least) out-of-whack. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure what google results you have, but on my basic search of terms, "deactivate" is overwhelmingly the more common usage, by a factor of 7X or more. "Inactivate" is most often associated with a biological or medical term, and does not appear in the DOD Dictionary of Military Terms, although "inactive" does, as well as "deactivate." Just sayin', Bzuk (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the statement on the linked page concerning Google. Trying it myself got about what you did (to 15,200,000 to 2,630,000), although using the past tense of both verbs (because it would be more frequent in references to military units evens things out, even giving a slight edge to "inactivate" (1,640,000 to 1,800,000). I seem to have stored my copy of the OED so well I can't find it despite searching for several days, but other dictionaries seem to add military use as well as the scientific use you cite in entries for inactivate.

• The Free Online Dictionary

First meaning listed: Release from military service or remove from the active list of military service

• Websters Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged)

Second meaning listed: to remove a military unit from the active list without disbanding.

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

Please look at the two edits I made prior to this if you have time. I have two copies of The United States Air Force Dictionary. Deactivate is in it with this note: ""Deactivate" is not considered good usage in the AF. See activate." Inactivate, inactivated and inactivation are listed as the preferred United States Air Force usage. Would you like a copy? Thank you for your service to our country. Welcome Home! GBU. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a couple of different sources. I have made the same change frequently, but confine myself to units (although I think facilities should usually be "closed" rather than "deactivated.") I usually mark the changes as minor copyedits if I do nothing else to the article. But at any rate a .pdf or .doc of the dictionary would be a useful reference.--Lineagegeek (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two copies of The United States Air Force Dictionary I have are books, not files. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would you mind working over the PACAF Regional Support Center, formerly the 611th Air Support Group? Complicated interrelationship between PAFRSC and 673d Air Base Wing, it appears, to support the remote radar sites. Not clear that wikipedia reflects the current situation. Cheers and best Buckshot06 (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: most of the confusion was generated by the mention of the 766 Specialized Contracting Squadron, from it's number clearly not an 11th Air Force unit. Maybe you could take a look at these squadrons [3] at the same time. I'm sure the Air Force Installation Contracting Agency page would benefit from your attention!! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Appears to have no long lineage from anywhere, and established from new to supervise the 13th Air Expeditionary Group. Can you confirm? Certainly unlikely to trace it's lineage from the 13th Air Depot Wing.. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest I have on it is January 2008, when it was activated for Exercise Cope Tiger 08. No conversion or constitution information at all, and its assignment to PACAF would have been at an unknown earlier date. I would guess that a more likely predecessor would be 13th Strategic Missile Division (ex-Bombardment Wing). --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How would we go about finding out the wing lineage & honors? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With a little WP:OR ;-). The 13th Air Expeditionary Wing has no permanent predecessor, but has been strictly a provisional organization. This means (like the old days) that each time PACAF activates a 13th Air Expeditionary Wing, it is a different organization with no connection to previous 13th Air Expeditionary Wings, much less to a permanent organization. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I would surmise therefore that the 13 AEW was the 13AF/CC's personal shotgun wing, was activated whenever he or his A3/A5 staff saw the need, was allocated by HQ AF because of the numerical lineup, and AFHRA may not have even been queried about properly tidying up the L&H. You'd agree?

Next question - the 10th Fighter Squadron, Commando referenced in Bien Hoa Air Base, flying the combat-trial F-5s under 'Skoshi Tiger'. What is its lineage? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised there's not an article about it. Simple, yet complicated. I'll have to start something. But the article you mention will be a redirect. I think the 10th Airborne Command and Control Squadron is where to put it. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, simple but complicated. Fairly complete now, with a ton of redirects created. Possible additional material on the 10th Transport Squadron from the Admin History of ATC, probably a bit more on the ACCS. I did not include possible additional material on the 4503d (details on missions from Da Nang and comments on success of the tests) Since I've linked the 4503d to the Skoshi Tiger section of the article, do you think it would be appropriate? --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your note in the MAJCON wings article says 'During both the Viet Nam War and Desert Storm, SAC obtained permission to number some of its MAJCON provisional units with three digits'. Do you have any idea why 7 AD choose the 800-809 ish series for European units, while on the other hand the 4300 BW was activated at Diego Garcia? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but I suspect two things 1. Somebody's personal preference. 2. An association with Eighth Air Force. Unfortunately, there is not been an equivalent to Craven & Cate's compilation of AAF in World War II series. Futrell's work on the Korean War is a good match, but there are no equivalent works on wither Vet Nam or either operation in Southwest Asia. I am not aware of any comparable non-official works either. Starting with Desert Storm, the problem is made greater by the use of provisional or quasi provisional organizations (eg. the XX Tactical Fighter Wing (Forward)). --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you've confirmed my suspicions, given the creation of the 801st Bombardment Group (Provisional) for Operation Carpetbagger missions in the middle of the war. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do go ahead and insert the material on the Tactical Fighter Squadron, Provisional, 4503rd (do I have the naming right?)

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

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

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

Couple of questions:

1. Do you want to include only DoD level names or also service and command level?

2. Do you want to categorize under generic names (Buy, Busy, Rivet, Pacer, Coronet, Cobra, etc.)? I see you have one categorization under weapons system (Minuteman).

3. Should Operations be listed separately?

4. What about consistency in capitalization? (I believe there's a MOS guideline on this, but it's often ignored). --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Everything as long as it's clearly in the two-word scheme, from Dept of the AF to UCC to flight. 2. No, alphabetical (Minuteman listing simply haven't focused on moving them into the alphabetical listing). 3. No everything together - you'll see there's exercises, COBRA BALL (need to add Senior Trend), and DESERT STORM all in together. The idea is to be able to look up a two-word codename and find it. 4. For WP, since we aren't DOD, Cobra Ball rather than COBRA BALL. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about first word assignments at the peak of the system? E.g. Busy: first word assigned to Strategic Air Command for exercises and projects, same for USAFE and Coronet, I believe Cobra was assigned to the NRO, Rivet to AFCC, but I haven't had the manual for about 40 years to look it up. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Arkin, I'm aware of that practice, and you'll find (some of) them listed alphabetically, sometimes with their subvariants - Constant, Senior, etc. Please add them to the list, using the Constant example for the layout. What was the manual in question? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remember its name or number, but it listed the assigned first words by command. Not all were ever used, and some commands used their group of words for particular purposes. There were probably about a half dozen for each command or agency. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would be great to have the manual's name/designation, but, we do have this list in terms of the content. Plus Arkin 2005. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about Fox Able. Fox Able 1 was particularly notable -- the first nonstop deployment of jet fighters across the Atlantic, supported by air refueling. Two reasons for hesitation. I don't know how high the series went and the name is simply derived from the US Military (pre-NATO) Alphabetic for FA (from Fighter Atlantic). --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do stick in Fox Able, yes. You mean it went Fox Able, Fox Baker etc, or Fox Able 1,2,3? If the later, as a continuing exercise series just note that it continued.. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It Went Fox Able 1, Fox Able 2 . . . --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

best regards

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

@92.30.88.60:

I'm assuming that you have not read my comments on the talk page for the article on the 493d.

First, the usage of the name Helton's Hellcats is not based on Bowman's 1998 book, but is footnoted to a book published in 1970 by Roger Freeman, a respected historian of Eighth Air Force.

Second, I also assume that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia and its conventions. Freeman is what is referred to as a reliable source. Although he also uses the term, Watkins is not cited (although he is generally reliable in this area, he may well have relied on Freeman or Bowman). On the other hand, the primary sources you rely on are original research, which contravenes Wikipedia's guidelines. You can click on the links to see how these are used on Wikipedia.

What could be done is to add the second nickname, if a reliable source can be cited; or an explanatory note indicating that the use of the name is disputed. On the other hand "I never heard overseas" is a long way from "it was never used." --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your explanation

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

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

Never mind I will carry on knowing the real answer

regards

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

From the look of the referencing of these two pages, you may have carefully gone through them and attributed everything correctly after Bwmoll3's mass copyvio. Can you either:

• (a) Confirm you have removed / cited all potentially copyvio material, and therefore make a Y or N note at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20130819#Articles_1_through_20?
• (b) Indicate that you have not, so that we need to scrub or delete-to-scrub them of potential copyvio? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly other folks, although I've edited both. The 15th looks good, but I need a closer look at the 30th. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: Update on the 30th Bomb Sq. I'll be circling around the 1941-1942 hitory of the squadron in the Southwest Pacific. Despite faulty citation, material elsewhere is mostly attributable to sources in the public domain. I'm sorting out citations now to see where we are. Mr Moll started adding citations to previous editing just prior to his ban. However, he just cited to works, not to anything that would be helpful. (Gorrell is a prime example: There are 15 "Series" in this history, with 2 to 48 volumes in each. I believe he had access to the work, but there is no way to find the needles in a haystack that big. Fortunately it is public domain.) I expect that just about everything except fot the SW Pac is salvageable. However, unless I come up with alternate material, Bartsch and Salacker are not public domain sources and mateial cited to them probably should be presumptively deleted. In the long run, long excerpts of Bartsch are available online at Amazon and could eventually be salvaged with proper attribution. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For [4] - the revealed list of AFRICOM codenames - was on my list to do, and you've done it already!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

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

Perhaps an example would help me. I will added the citation if I can. Thanks Ahench (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahench (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahench: The source cited for all of the stations for the 40th Flight Test Squadron is the 2007 factsheet (needs to be updated, by the way -- a 2018 version is now online). This source gives Port Moresby as the squadron's station (same for November). The 2018 factsheet says the same, as does Maurer, Combat Squadrons of the Air Force in World War II. Therefore, if the artcle's station list includes specific airfields in the Port Moresby complex where the 40th was stationed, another source giving that location is needed. Port Moresby Airfield Complex is not helpful in this case, because it is unreferenced. Some places to look might be Edmonds, Walter D. (1992) [1951]. They Fought With What They Had: The Story of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific 1941-1942 (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Air Force History. Retrieved February 7, 2018. or Craven, Wesley F; Cate, James L, eds. (1948). The Army Air Forces in World War II (PDF). Vol. Vol. I, Plans and Early Operations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. LCCN 48003657. OCLC 704158. Retrieved December 17, 2016. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help). --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Here're the addresses for declassification review:

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

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

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

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

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

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

Perhaps you would like to share your thoughts on this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Air Force squadrons. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

Happy Christmas!! This is a redlink in Pacific Ocean Areas - can you help? Trust all goes well for a great New Year too!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And a Merry Christmas back. I have never heard of an AAF unit with this designation. I went back to check the appropriate sections of Vols. IV and V of Craven and Cate's history of the AAF in WW II and they do not mention it. POA operated under the Navy system of task units and AAF organizations frequently operated under task unit designations. For example, Combined Task Group 93.4 was the Very Long Range Fighter Escort Unit, essentially VII Fighter Command (but probably including all or some elements of the 301st Fighter Wing of Twentieth Air Force at times). I suspect that Hawaiian Air Defense Wing was a POA name for a task unit under its control, probably identical with the 7th Fighter Wing. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I wanted to ask you was the diagram on page 513, in Chapter 17, Volume V. That diagram mentions XXI Bomber Comd, 7AF, and the Hawaiian Air Defense Wing. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd compare the organizational chart on page 513 with the one on page 527 (which includes an Air Defense, Marianas: Combined Task Unit 94.4.1) The chart on p. 513 does not differentiate between the Deputy Commander of Twentieth Air Force and the Commander of AAF, Pacific Ocean Area as the one on p. 527 does and also appears to show a command relationship passing through staff agencies.

7th Fighter Wing was assigned directly to Seventh Air Force (although attached to VII Fighter Command) until AAF, Pacific Ocean Area was formed, then it was reassigned directly to AAF, Pacific Ocean Area for the rest of the war, and after December 1944 it was commanded by a general officer. While its 15th and 21st Fighter Groups moved forward as bases were prepared in the Ryukus, its 508th Fighter Group and wing headquarters remained behind in Hawaii to provide air defense there. I believe this accounts for the "Commanding General Hawaiian Air Defense Wing" box on the chart. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With 14th Air Force now redesignated as Space Operations Command, would that mean that all of the history, lineage, and awards would transfer over? That’s my understanding, but I wanted to check with an expert first. Garuda28 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

If this was in fact a redesignation, yes, the lineage etc. remain. My only caveat is that what I have seen so far about this is press releases and Public Affairs types are not always faithful to the correct organizational terms. I have seen a number of inactivations and simultaneous activations referred to in publicity as redesignations, which they were not. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you! I’ll hold off on any of that until something more official comes out. Garuda28 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

@Garuda28: I've been informed by AFHRA that Space Operations Command was returned to the Air Force and redesignated Fourteenth Air Force, so a new Space Operations Command has been formed. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

There's a massive chunk of material at Fifth Air Force dealing with Philippine Department Air Force and forebears before November 1941; there's also a massive article at FEAF dealing with the three months of Nov 1941 - February 1942. I want to reduce the duplication and consolidate everything at the earliest-named article in line with WP:MILHIST guidance, but wanted to have a word with you first.. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm my post yesterday about error messages didn't remain on the page. A quick glance (other than errors) indicates to me that some of this may have been introduced when there was some confusion between Far East Air Force (now Fifth Air Force) and Far East Air Forces (now Pacific Air Forces).

I would think basically everything relevant prior to 1942 should be moved into the Far East Air Force (United States) article. There should probably be some overlap in 1942, since several dates could be used as the cutoff: February (when the 5th AF designation came into use); May (surrender of units in Philippines) or the date when 5 AF started acting as an operational command again after all the various arrangements in the Netherlands East Indies.

I would substantially reduce material about the period prior to 1941. (looks like mostly added in 2011) The 4th Composite Group has a decent article on its own, so that can go. Some background is called for, but the proposition that 5 AF had its origins when the Air Office of the Philippine Department was established is open for debate. This shouldn't be an article about military aviation in the Philippines. As background, a sentence or two about the 2d Aero Sq and another about the 4th Group should suffice, with some more about the 1941 expansion in which group sized organizations (19th Bombardment Group, 20th Air Base Group, 24th Pursuit Group) were formed. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

You might wish to work on this page a little..Buckshot06 (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than deleting it? Some of the best cited nonsense I've seen. Coincidentally, I was just musing starting an article on the 55th Aeromedical Airlift Squadron. I think I will, and then remove at least the 55th material from the page. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it inaccurate? I thought it just needed verification and layout checks.. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. It combines a number of unrelated units with similar (but not identical) missions related to transporting patients in Europe and other USAFE areas of interest. You can view the 55th page, which I have started. This is the only one of the units included that flew the airplanes that transported the patients. The others provided medical specialists that cared for the patients in the rear of the plane. But some were headquarters as opposed to operational level units. I would not oppose an article on the subject of military air evacuation in Europe, but the subject unit of the article did not exist before 1984. I believe the references (once I check them) will be proper, but tying a bunch of units together under this heading is incorrect. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd help you and create the 2d Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron page, and found first what I thought was a reliable USAF source on it's assignment in 1989, to the 375th AAW. Checking L&H, couldn't find it listed amongst the 375th's squadrons. Checking the Rhein-Main page, saw it was assigned to the 435th Military Airlift Support Wing, later 435th TAW. But cannot find amongst the constituent squadrons in the 435th's L&H!! Much of the article is correct and solid, but you'll have to help me with the wing assignment.. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFHRA and predecessors tend to limit information in L&H Statememts on components to "operational' components only. Since the 2d is considered a medical unit it falls under the category of support unit and is unlikely to be listed in L&H Statements. I just ran into an extreme example of this, when doing some quick edits on the 395th Strategic Missile Squadron, mosty to correct erroneoous information, using quickly available sources. For the 1959-1969 segment, information is available for the time it was assigned to the 1st Strategic Aerospace Division, because it was designated as the 395th Strategic Missile Squadron for part of its time under the division. However Ravenstein doesn't list the unit for either the 704th Strategic Missile Wing or 392d Strategic Missile Wing because it was the 395th Missile Training Squadron while assigned to those wings, therefore only a training (support) unit, even though it had the exact same mission. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I reference the 2 AES L&H? What was your original source for the assignments? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of hit and miss. I did this quickly from a non cited resource. I might have to add some "c." However, with a See, most of the time in France is in;

* McAuliffe, Lt Col Jerome J. (2005). U.S. Air Force in France 1950-1967. San Diego, CA: Milspec Press. ISBN 978-0-9770371-1-7.

Changes associated with the bouncing back and forth between USAFE and MAC/AMC are ub:

• MAC Office of History (1991). Anything, Anywhere, Anytime: An Illustrated History of the Military Airlift Command, 1941-1991 (PDF). Scott AFB, IL: Military Airlift Command. ASIN B001GTIDDA. Retrieved April 15, 2020. (part I)
• MAC Office of History (1991). Anything, Anywhere, Anytime: An Illustrated History of the Military Airlift Command, 1941-1991 (PDF). Scott AFB, IL: Military Airlift Command. ASIN B001GTIDDA. Retrieved April 15, 2020. (part 2 Chapter VI to end)

Some of the rest is from DAF Letters (primary sources). Because they're not generic, like the consolidation letters from 1983-1985, they're a bit difficult to locate.

MAny thanks. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At "Details on the 23 USAF units that are transferring to USSF," at the bottom, is my initial listing of the 23 units. Are you able to do a quick and dirty brief writeup on the 533d Training Squadron, Vandenberg, and the 705th Combat Training Squadron, which could be placed there, with references, and then moved into the appropriate articles? What I would most like is (a) what those units actually *do*, and (b) what their lineage is. Many thanks for your assistance in advance. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In place of the 533d TRS, anything you can further fill in on the National Security Space Institute would be welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's clear what form the partial transfer of the 705th will take. What is transferring is Operating Location A (at Schriever), not the whole squadron (at Kirtland). The 705th started out as the 705th Exercise Control Squadron some time prior to April 2004 and redesignated in 2006. It's assigned to the 505th Test & Evaluation Group and is under ACC. My guess is that Space Force will form a new squadron to absorb OL-A's mission and assets. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I might set up a small article on this NAF (following on from Far East Air Service Command). Can you verify these two L&Hs at USAF Unit History and Aerofiles? Are they correct and can you give me a citation to a more credible source? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Air Material Area (sic) already exists, so any more details you might be able to provide on my favourite subject, MAJCOM groups/wings associated with it, would be great!! Buckshot06 (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L&H material on the USAF History site is generally directly from AFHRA, but what follows is usually cut and paste from other web sources, so it's better to look for the same material elsewhere to make an independent judgement as to reliability and avoid COPYVIOs. The Aerofile list looks accurate, but incomplete. Depot wings and groups were on their way out when the two Air Materiel Forces (not Material) were formed as Air Materiel Command took over overseas logistics from FEAF and USAFE. The list of MAJCOM Wings may help as a source. McAuliffe's book on USAF in France has a lot on Chateauroux and the depot units there. Japan Air Materiel Area did exist from 1946 (provisional unit until 1947) until 1949. Obviously not a predecessor. Overseas AMAs tended to go away by 1950, although there were 3 under AMF, European Area. Depot Wings and Groups were absorbed into the staffs of AMAs during the 1950s. I believe this was at least partially as the AMAs became product oriented, rather than geographically oriented.--Lineagegeek (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes I collected some time ago everything I could find about the AMAs at Air Materiel Command#Air Technical Services Command and the follow-on section. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an article that suggest using a as a template for a unit’s lineage? A lot of the ones I’ve seen appear to be quite complex and I want to make sure I get it right. Garuda28 (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this would work, but you might take a look at 6th Tactical Missile Squadron. It includes most organizational actions (constitutions, activations, consolidations), awards and campaigns, and aircraft and missiles. It differs from most I've worked on in having the aircraft and missiles after the awards and campaigns. That's usually reversed. Lineagegeek (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated!Garuda28 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

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

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

Much appreciated! Thank you!Garuda28 (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The data here seems much more detailed than the information available in the 5 FC entry in Maurer, Combat Units (though I have just realised that someone, probably Bwmoll3, could have just extracted all the detail from the individual group entries.) Anyway, please take a look and see what you think. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three most obvious possibilities are They Fought With What They Had, Craven and Cate, and the USAAF Chronologies (all PD). However, the only hit I got on the list of units was in the May 1942 USAAF Chronology, which dates their end to 6 May 1942 with the surrender of Corregidor, not 9 April. I have a sneaking suspicion that this organization may have had no formal existence. AFHRA refers to it as "probably a provisional organization." None of the references that popped up use the (Provisional) in regard to the unit. The Report of the Pearl Harbor Commission says it could find no evidence of its activation. 5th Interceptor Command, unlike 5th Bomber Command, was activated in the US and had begun shipment to the Philippines when the Japanese attacks on the Far East turned it back. It would have made sense for FEAF/5th AF to have started organizing an advanced echelon in the Philippines, rather than waiting for the formal organization to ship from the US. That would account for calling the Philippine organization 5th Interceptor Command without the (Provisional) or taking formal organizational action to establish it. Then, with the surrender in the Philippines, it would have just silently faded away. Lineagegeek (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser. AFP 900-2 credits V Fighter Command with a Distinguished Unit Citation, a Philippine Presidential Unit Citation and campaign credit that it ccould not possibly have earned because it was back in the US as 2d Fighter Command at the time, and which were undoubtedly awarded to 5th Interceptor Command. I surmise that in 1941, the usual set of commands were organized for Phillipine Dept AF/Far East AF/5 AF. 5th Bomber Command and 5th Service Command were organized in the Philippines. 5th Interceptor Command and 5th Air Support Command were organized in the United States for shipment to the Philippines (I'd love to see the Adjutant General 320.2 letter(s) involved. During that period, they frequently would expressly mention that a unit was activated at one location for assignment to another location at a future date.) At any rate, 5th Interceptor Command left the POE and was turned back, eventually becoming Fighter Command School. 5th Air Support Command (Maurer erroneously gives it a roman numeral in 1941) never even got that far, but became Ninth Air Force. So it looks to me that there's not much to fear about copyvios, but the article could certainly be improved.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just found again the section where you said you'd served in the 744th BS as one of your first assignments as a lieutenant. What was it like to serve as flight crew in the mid-1960s in SAC - still under LeMay, right?Buckshot06 (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Greetings, Looking through the task force listings, your specialty seemed closest, so I thought I'd drop a line. I have written a draft bio for Major General Frederick L. Martin,^[1] CC of the "Hawaiian Air Force" (18th Bomb Wing at Hickam Field and 14th Pursuit Wing at Wheeler and outlying airfields at Bellows and Haleiwa) during the attack on Pearl Harbor. It's not exactly USAF unit lineage, but you seemed the closest specialist. Could I interest you in reviewing it for publication and/or sending the link on to someone who is a better fit? I am a pretty new editor, having only made a couple of edits previously as an IP user, rather than creating an account, but I think this is ready for primetime. I would appreciate any comments or assistance.--SirGarick (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked at the article and made a couple of copyedits.

You might look into your reference formatting. I see you have listed the bare web site for Martin's bio several times. First, I would recommend using the {{cite web |url= |last1= |first1= |title= |date= |publisher= |accessdate=}} template for this source. Then, the first time you use it, instead of <ref> . . .</ref>, use <ref name="Martin Bio"> . . .</ref>, then for future cites to the same source,, you just have to put in <ref name="Martin Bio"/>.

I assume you haven't become familiar with "piping." Take a look to the changes I made to the two links to the 3d Wing. The "pipe" is needed vecause 3rd Wing will take you to entirely different organization. This is a way to link to a Wikipedia article and have the text say what you want.

Having said that, Wikipedia biography articles have some specialized rules, and I think you'd do better with someone with expertise in biographies, rather than someone with expertise in the USAF and predecessors to make sure you meet the bio requirements. Looks like a good article, though. Better than my first one. Lineagegeek (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the feedback. The markup language for Wikipedia is quite a challenge. I feel like I'm programming a 1990s website. I was not aware of piping, which is why I put the later redesignation in parens to tag it. I'll give that template a shot. heck, the info box template only took me three tries. ;) Cheers from a fellow old zoomie.SirGarick (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SirGarick: As you will see, I have overruled the bot. Good work. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

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

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