User talk:Noclador/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks!

Thanks! I was impressed and moved by you appreciation of my work. Thanks again! --Checco (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, thanks. I take this opportunity to ask you some help. Can you write someting about the ideology of the Greens, The Libertarians and Union for South Tyrol? If there is something important to know about these parties, the South Tyrolean People's Party and South Tyrolean Freedom in de.Wiki, can you translate that information in the en.Wiki articles? When you have time, obviously. --Checco (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Argentine Army Chart

Hello Noclador,

once again, wonderful work on the Structure of the Argentine Army. However, there is one mistake. The 12a Brigada de Monte in Posadas is not a Mountain Brigade. "Monte" does not mean "mountain" (the spanish word here is "montana", see 5th and 6th Mountain Brigade), it means more something in the sense of "mounted". There is no literal translation. I suggest you translate it as "Jungle". Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.139.123 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Noclador Excellent work. I linked it from my site www.saorbats.com.ar , hope you don´t mind. would also like to help in other south american orbats. Rgds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.173.129 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Croatian Army 2

Great work Noclador! Here are the answers for you:

  • General Staff:
1) is it in Zagreb? Yes, it is.
2) are there more General Staff units besides the Guard Btn. & the Special Ops Btn.? Also positive - there is something that should probably be translated as ELINT Center (literally: Center for electronic surveillance)
  • Navy:
1) Where are the 1st and 2nd Coast Guard Divisions stationed? 1st division in Split (Lora), and 2nd in Pula
2) Where are the Marine Infantry Regiment, Coastal Surveillance Battalion & Navy Training Center based? Marine Infantry Regiment will be in new naval base around town of Ploče or on Pelješac peninsula. The Marine Btn (not regiment) will be formed after new naval base will become operational. Coastal Surveillance Battalion & Navy Training Center are both in Split.
3) Are the 2x Naval Detachments based in Split? No. Detachment North is in Pula, and South will be in new naval base around Ploče or on Pelješac
  • Air Force:
1) Where are the Air Surveillance Battalion & the Air Force Training Center? Air Force Training Center is in Zadar (Zemunik), and Air Surveillance Battalion is based in Zagreb.
  • Support/Logistics/Special Forces and HQ Yes, there is Support Command and Croatian Millitary Academy also falls under General Staff. Do you need the schemes of this two "branches" (they are quite simple)?
  • And you got the stars right ;) Ro0103 (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Croatian, you know, 3

First, you misunderstood me about the Marine infantry – There is no Marine Infantry Regiment but only Marine Infantry Btn. Second, here are the names of training centres if you can add them: ‘’’Army’’’ – Training and doctrine command “Fran Krsto Frankopan” ‘’’Air Force’’’ – Air Force Training centre “Rudolf Perišin” ‘’’Navy’’’ – Navy Training centre “Petar Krešimir IV”

Also, the names of battalions of Guard brigades are left in Croatian. Do you think they should be translated to English (in order of appearance Kune = Martens, Sokolovi = Hawks, Pume = Pumas, Tigrovi = Tigers, Gromovi = Thunders, Vukovi = Wolves, Pauci = Spiders)?

Something about SF units: I think Special forces & Commando ban should be renamed to Special operations Btn since this is right translation from Croatian (and we have it under the same name on Wikipedia). Military-inteligence Btn are also considered to be special forces - maybe if you can just adapt the syimbol? And we have another SF unit – in MP Regiment there is Company for Special Purposes (AT...)

And here are the schemes of this two units (they fall under direct command of General Staff, like two additional branches). I hope I managed to translate this to English correctly.

Support Command (Zagreb)

  • Command unit
  • Command HQ
  • Logistic operational Centre
  • General logistic support Btn
  • Service Btn
  • Supplay Btn
  • Maintenance institute
  • Logistic training and doctrine center (Požega)
  • Center for personel
  • Military medical center
  • Armed Forces Orchestra(Zagreb)

Croatian Military Academy „Petar Zrinski“ (Zagreb)

  • Directorate(Zagreb)
  • Deanery(Zagreb)
  • War School „Ban Josip Jelačić“(Zagreb)
  • Command School „Blago Zadro“(Zagreb)
  • Officers School(Zagreb)
  • NCO School (Djakovo)
  • School of foreign languages „Katarina Zrinska“(Zagreb)
  • Supplay unit(Zagreb)

This would be about all for now. If I find some more information I will shere it with you.

Looking good. Military inteligence Btn is similar to Serbian 72. Recon-commando Btn. They do operate UAVs but also are a recon unit. Nevermind, lets leave it this way for now.

Ro0103 (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

20 Infantry Division Friuli

What can I say - THANK YOU --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Armoured Guard Brigade, Croatia

It turned out that this brigade has one more battalion - Armoured Battalion in Gašinci. According to the Armoured forces development plan, there were plans for Brigade to have 4 main battalions: 2 mechanicized btn (Sokolovi and Pume), and two armoured battalions. During the defence reforms, all documents mentioned this two mechanicized btn and tank btn Kune, and it seemed that the fourth btn was abolished. In today's issue of Hrvatski vojnik magazine (issued by Croatian MOD), there is an article about Armoured Btn. They are armed with tanks M-84 and M-80A APCs. So, if you can edit the OrBat of Croatan Army... Thanks! Ro0103 (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Army Special Operations Command

I thought that the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) was a component command of the USSOC, but I don't see it listed on your chart. Am I mistaken?Pk52 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand now, thanks. One other question, On your chart you include SF in the 160th Spec OPs boxes. I thought only Green Berets could be labeled SF, with all others being labeled SOF's, like you did in the Ranger boxes?Pk52 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

On a non-US Army org chart I wouldn't have an issue with what you did - however, in the US Army, the only forces allowed to wear the coveted "Special Forces" tab are the Green Berets. The 160th are not Green Berets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pk52 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Some day, if you have time, it would be nice if you would expand the chart up one more level to show the USSOC and its additional Special Operations units like you listed. Maybe post it on the USSOC page. Your work is exceptional, by the way.Pk52 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I answered a couple of times - both times the answer disappeared. Did you ever see my answer?Pk52 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


South Tyrol templates

I don't agree with your new templates, since they give a location in a not-so-clear and dark map, which, above all, does not give an immediate localization of the site in Italy (consider position of Trentino/Alto Adige is surely not so known to foreign readers). --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ciao! Yes, that map looks pretty OK. I think it's strongly needed a location in Italy for the reason I said before. As for those removals, I a removing those automatic population graphs for two reasons: 1) having been added by a bot which created articles for only missing Italian communes, they already don't appear in all articles; 2) as population is updated, another bot would be needed to updated them. Let me know. Ahoj and good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Very good. Hope the image of Italy will be clear. Ciao and thanks from Attilio. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppet question

Are you still involved in sockpuppet-related work? I know of a particular user who is disruptive and been blocked several times, and I believe he has been editing anonymously with a few different IPs as well to help cover his tracks. His contribs are similar (identical, in a few cases), and he uses a similar style of speech in his talk page contribs and edit summaries, to include threats of reporting "violations" and a wild misunderstanding of policy in his favor. Would this be a sockpuppetry case, or simple admin action? Thanks. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Ukraine/Russia Ground Forces

Can't help you much with the Ukraine but like your Russia graphic. What is your source for the Russia information? Buckshot06(prof) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Noclador. There are two open-source references for mostly the same information, this - http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=239&linkid=2239&linkname=GROUND-FORCES-/-LAND-TROOPS and a Russian language post at soldat.ru. You'll see if you check 3rd Motor Rifle Division that I've started adding in some of the relevant detail already, but I'd like better sources before I spread it out everywhere, though I've added a note in the Russian Air Force page regarding the corresponding air force reorganisation. Given that there's not much individual detail available about each brigade and the structure may vary below brigade level, I'd would advise removing the battalion information and simplify the chart covering only armies and brigades for now. My thought anyway. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 11:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that would be the best idea - operational commands and brigades/regiments, but nothing below, given the thinness of the information. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 11:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you also tell me where you got the battalion-level listings for the US ARNG divisions? I can't find them on the net. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(prof) 11:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Carabinieri

See what you mean it's added to my watch list --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added two sections at the end of the Carabinieri talk page in order to stimulate discussion and hopefully bring about editor concensus. Hope you visit and comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carabinieri Bibiki (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments on Hersfold's talk page [1]. I would also like to propose that we go for formal mediation on our Carabinieri dispute over my latest edits [2] Cheers! Bibiki (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Noclador, I hope you're reading this! Please let me know if you are willing to go through the formal mediation process with me regarding our dispute. It takes two to tango! Cheers. Bibiki (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Noclador. The MedCab mediation has started. Please refer to the Carabinieri article's discussion page to present your arguments. Cheers! Bibiki (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Noclador. After having tried all other available options that I could think of without managing to reach consensus with you regarding our edit dispute on the Carabinieri article I have filed an arbitration case: [3]. I am looking forward to reading your statement that you are required to fill in on the same page. Best regards. Bibiki (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Trentino

Hello, and thanks for your comments; I’ve replied there, (at last!) Moonraker12 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just been to this page again; and thanks, again. (and sorry for the delay again; I’m not able to come here that often!). It looks like someone beat me to it, though. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tunguska

Um, hey is there a reason you moved Tunguska to Tunguska (disambiguation)? Disambiguation pages are normally kept at the main title unless something else belongs there. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Someguy1221, yes there is - I looked on google for the Russian "Tunguska" Air Defence System by searching "Tunguska" and it brought me to the Tunguska event from which no link could be found to Tunguska. therefore I decided to include that link at the top of the page and took as example London & London (disambiguation). The result does not really satisfy me as the first line is a short non descriptive "For other uses, see Tunguska." and so I was set to read through Wikipedia:Disambiguation today and try to fix that - but if you could help me, I would appreciate that very much. the aim of the whole operation would be to have the template {{otheruses|}} at the start of the Tunguska event article saying: "This article is about the 1908 impact event in Siberia. For other uses, see Tunguska." thanks, --noclador (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think what we really need is an article on Tunguska itself, the area the meteor fell. But I'm having a bit of trouble coming up with one; it seems that even the Russian Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If I can eavesdrop here; the event occurred near Lake Cheko, in the Evenkiysky District. I've added the locations, but there's not much else to say. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle usage

Hey, Noclador. Just a quick note about your use of Twinkle rollback at Carabinieri - it looks like you were using the "vandal rollback" option to revert the edits of User:Bibiki. Having looked at these edits, I don't believe that they were intended as vandalism and were made in good faith. To avoid misunderstandings, could I ask you to use the "good faith" or "normal" rollback options with Twinkle in these cases so that you can provide an edit summary? Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't aware that this was quite this much of an issue. If that is the case, you may want to consider seeking some form of dispute resolution about the matter - I know you've said you've been at this a while, but inappropriate use of Twinkle won't help you out in the long run. Try to remain calm, and find some other way of dealing with this. Again, I wasn't aware this has been such an issue; please remember to assume good faith of all editors, particularly those who are just trying to help you out. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Slanderous and disgraceful behaviour

See

[4]

and

[5]

Ian Spackman (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Move request for Meran

There is a request that Meran be moved to Merano, at Talk:Meran#Requested move to Merano (5 July 2009) Ian Spackman (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to Merano. My rationale for doing so can be found here. Please let me know if you have a problem with it. Cheers, Jafeluv (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[6] made on July 6 2009 to Meran

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Noclador (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wrong action by the blocking admin! a) 6 reverts??? where did he get that number? I made 6 edits during the entire day and the first two of these were to bring the article in line with the agreed standard format after a move discussion. Both those edits (and one by another user) were then reverted by another editor, who refused to accept result of the move discussion see also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pmanderson b) 8 hours after the attempts by said editor to force through his POV against consensus, an admin comes along and blocks me, when there is no reason to revert on the article anymore, as the only goal of said editor was to file this report! as evidenced by his threats, when he was told to please cease his POV campaign [7] c) I also gave a comment on every one of my edits explaining my reason to restore the article version created by user:JdeJ please keep with the standard format used for all 116 comunes! stop changing the standard format and accept that there was a move in line with the naming convention. please move on and let this discussion rest and went to the articles talkpage to explain my reason, which was ignored by the user, who kept pushing his POV until I had reverted his various attempts at pushing through his POV 4 times, so that he could file the report at 3RR d) I believe my actions to be justified, as the editor in question refused to accept a move done by an admin after a month long discussion, pushed POV, refused to discuss, and showed bad faith by insulting and threating other user (see ANI post above)

Decline reason:

Unambiguous 3RR violation. Pmanderson's edits may have been contentious, but they were not vandalism; hence, no excuse for the edit warring. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


Wrong action by the blocking admin! a) 6 reverts??? where did he get that number? - I don't know what you mean. I haven't said anything about 6R William M. Connolley (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation of Carabinieri

This is just to notify you that I have taken up the request for mediation for Carabinieri, please have a look at the article's talk page. -- QUANTUM ZENO 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Block expiry

It seems to be more than 24 hours since the 24 hour block was imposed. Shouldn’t the notice be removed? Or am I missing something? Ian Spackman (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He should be free to edit now, automatically; at that point the notice becomes a simple message. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ghost Units of World War II

Hello again. I was wondering where you found the graphics for the ghost units of the Fourteenth United States Army when you created them (50th US Infantry Division, 55th US Infantry Division, etc). I've been looking for sources related to those divisions for articles but I can't find any with those graphics. -Ed!(talk) 03:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your help! -Ed!(talk) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

76th Airborne Division

Hey Noclador, hope you're well. What's your source for the new list of units for the division? Please add this. Best regards Buckshot06(prof) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Manning in Italian Army squads

Hi Noclador,

I've been putting together some information on the sizes (number of men) used in modern (post Second World War) armies. Can you point me to any sources about the evolution of the various Italian infantry squads (mech squads, bersaglieri etc.) between 1950 and 2000? I've tried Google but there doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion on the internet about the historical organization of the Italian infantry, other than a bunch of articles about the World War era. Thanks and Cheers W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! W. B. Wilson (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

British Army during World War II

Hi, I am looking for some help and remembered your excellent Division, Army formation diagrams. British Army during World War II has sections on Infantry Divisions and Armoured Divisions and it was suggested during a peer review that line diagrams of the divisional formation would help in understanding. If you could possible assist I would be grateful. not being at all artistic in this respect I would not know where to start myself. If you are able to assist all the info required I believe is in the section text, but if any clarification if required just let me know. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Great thank you --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Well done just what I was thinking of AS ALWAYS a great job --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces

Hi Noclador, I was wondering if you had time to update the structure of the Romanian Land Forces at [8].

The changes would be:

DIVISION 1 "DACICA"

1. Change the 495th Inf. Battalion CLICENI from a paratrooper battalion to a regular inf. battalion (the paratrooper companies in the battalion have all been disbanded)

DIVISION 4 "GEMMINA"

2. Change the 4th Engineer Battalion "DEVA" to the "53rd Engineer Battalion "DEVA"

3. Change the "69th Mix. Art. (Ter) Brigade" to a Regiment.

4. Add to the "4th Logistics Brigade"(which now has no units under it) the following units 1) 41st Transport Battalion "Bobalna", 2) 43rd Transport Battalion "Roman I Musat" and 3) 88 Maintenance Battalion (Cluj-Napoca).

5. To the 15th Mech. Infantry Brigade, the addition of the following units (some of them are there already but without any names or with a different name like in the case of the 33rd battalion):

1. 631 Tank Battalion (Bacau)
2. Replace 33rd Battalion "Alexandru cel Bun" with 634 Mech. Inf. Battalion "Petrodava"(Piatra Neamt)
3. 635 Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion (Bacau)
4. 335 Artillery Battalion (Botosani)
5. 198 Logistics Battalion (Iasi)


I realize you're probably busy doing so many other updates, new images, etc. but really thanks alot. Best, Dapiks (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot. As always your work is amazing and your contributions are invaluable.
6. Also the 51st Air Defense Missile Regiment "Pelendava" is now the 2nd Air Defense KUB-Missile Battalion "Pelendava" and is now under the 53rd regiment together with another battalion the "1st Air Defense Missile Battalion."

Thanks alot, Best of luck. Dapiks (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Swiss Army

Hello there! Long time no speak. I've noticed you've drastically changed the structure of the Swiss Army, in opposition to what is still listed on the army websites and to what I personally know. Caught news of some new upcoming reorganisation? Because I was quite surprised to see the InfBrig 4 missing and infantry battalions within the Armoured Brigades. Being with the Armoured Brigade 1, I have so far not heard of any new "infantry" reinforcements. Boy are our pzgrenis not going to like it if fusiliers come around stealing their jobs :D Hope to hear from you soon! Russoswiss (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! E-mail sent, awaiting your reply. But might I suggest that for the time being you leave the OrBat graphic with the current structure on the page? Once the reorganisation is done, you can always replace it with the new graphic, but for the time being it will avoid the confusion. Russoswiss (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll check my home compy for the old graphic when I get back home later tonight. If I don't have the older one, you could just as well put in Gültig ab 01.01.2011/Valid from 01.01.2011 in the new Graphic to avoid confusion. And thanks for the e-mail! Russoswiss (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swiss_Army.png Actually, there's a historic of the older files on that page with the older graphics. Unless you meant an older version of the .psd? Russoswiss (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you'll need to change much on the old graphic, since you already have a new one handy :) I just think it's better to keep the old graphic around for the next year. 14 months is a long enough period. But otherwise, congratulations on a job well done! Russoswiss (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swiss_Army.png On this page, is it possible to edit the "Description" part? I think you should put there that the most recent graphic is valid from 2011. And that the current structure is in the 17:07, 5 October 2008 version. This way, if people are still confused, then it's their own fault =) Also, check your e-mails. Russoswiss (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


28th Infantry Division

Greetings: Noticed a slight error in the Combat Aviaition Brigade section of the page. It lists the 1-224th AVN (S&S). This is incorrect. The 1-224th AVN currently is organic to the 42nd CAB, 42nd Infantry Division http://www.1-224ssb.org/organization.html You will probaly notice that the official website also says they operate under the 29th CAB, 29th Infantry Division. This is peace time, in state command and control only. Even still, they answer partly to the 42nd CAB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon b5 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Agamemnon b5 - long time no hear! Nice to have you back :-) one question though: 28, 29, 42,... ah- to which division does the 1-224 AVN (S&S) actually and operationally belong???? Could you please clarify that for me, before I change graphic and articles? thanks, --noclador (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just realised how wordy my explaination was and how confusing the official webpage can be. The 1-224th AVN is currently (and I do stress the word currently as the Army loves messing with us soldiers lol) part of the 42nd Combat Aviation Brigade of the 42nd Infantry Division. I'm actually in the same building as HHC and A Co(-) 1-224th (and there are times I wish I wasn't). I also noticed there was an entry for Det 1 C Co 1-169th AVN. Believe it or not, the main portion of C Co 1-169th AVN is also in the same building. C Co, 1-169th is a 185th Theater Aviation Brigade asset (to include Det 2 in the Kentucky Guard). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon b5 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Russian Airborne 106th Division (Tula)

Hello again! According to news dating from May 2009 (http://lenta.ru/news/2009/05/26/tula/), the Ministry of Defence cancelled the planned disbanding of the 106th Tula Division, just a week before the unit was to be de jure disbanded (June 1 2009). This means that theoretically at least, the division is still in service pending the higher ups in the Kremlin figuring out what they want to do with it. Russoswiss (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You think too much as a European :) The division was to be de jure disbanded on June 1 2009, and de facto on December 1 2009. The news article cites that it did not receive any recruits with the 2008 call ups, but I do not know whether it was replenished in the 2009 call ups. If it did not, it's just as good as a rump unit, because conscript service has been reduced to 1 year in Russia. I'll try to dig up more information and shall poke you later on the issue! Russoswiss (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I could read some talk on the 106th Division on some Russian boards where past and present airborne servicemen meet. So, I have nothing like a news article I could link to. However, from what I could gather, the situation is the following. The 51st and the 137th Guard Airborne rgts, as well as the 1182nd Guards Artillery rgt, remain with the 106th division. However, the various support units have already passed their equipment and manpower to the units in other divisions. Also, Russian wikipedia has a different unit listing for the divisions than the one you have in the picture. I am not sure whether yours is more accurate as per the planned army reform, or whether the Russian ones are accurate. I can translate them for you if you wish, and I shall also poke those airborne people to comment on the graphic. Russoswiss (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Army

You should have enough to do a brief graphic now: I've integrated some data from Jane's World Armies and IISS Military Balance to do a outline organisation. No unit designations below corps level though: doesn't seem to be available anywhere. Oh and by the way; check Talk:Russian Ground Forces#New brigades for a list of their new brigades. Any chance I can get a copy of that new structure doco for the RGF you mention at your talk? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed your chart, as it assumes relationships between the artillery brigade and regiments, and the SAM brigade and regiments, that have nothing to back them up. Also it does not list its sources - IISS and Jane's World Armies. Please fix those and then maybe we can readd it. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Why revert?

What was the reason for your revert in the Blue water Navy page?Bcs09 (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The navies listed are in different order. IN's power projection capability in the Indian Ocean need to be mentioned separately. Otherwise we have to add IN to the list of blue water navies, which is not supposed to happen till 2012. It's a peculiar situation.Bcs09 (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
While reading the section, one gets the impression that Italian Navy, Indian Navy and Spanish Navy has similar capability. You have clubbed them together. I do feel that the power projection capability of the Indian Navy in the Indian ocean along with operational capability in other world oceans is the thing that sets them apart. Since the subject itself is a complicated one, its better to take time to decide on the final version.Bcs09 (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Brevity

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, in which case i fully support your decision to remove such comment. Regards --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Manning in Italian Army squads, part 2

Noclador,

I finally got ahold of Empar, but he stated he has given away his reference material and was only able to provide broad guidelines. He did say that you had a good idea regarding the at least some of the squad organization of Alpine troops, and so I am asking again if you can assist in this regard. My specific interest is in how many men were present in Alpine infantry squads during the post World War II period. Empar mentioned 14-men and 7-men squads and I wonder if these were in the Alpine troops, or if not, how many men made up an Alpine infantry squad. Thank you for any assistance. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

8-229th AVN, 29th Infantry Division and US Army Military Police Corps

Greetings. I was poking around the US Army Reserve website when I came across this http://www.usar.army.mil/arweb/organization/commandstructure/USARC/OPS/11Avn/Commands/8229Avn/History/Pages/default.aspx

Apparently, the 8-229th now fall under the 11th Theater Aviation Command. The wording of the article suggests that this is either a recent change or Army Public Affairs just recently put the story up. I believe another section of the USAR website also shows 8-229th personnel wearing the 11 TAC patch (I belive the Army made the Reserves two AH-64 units report directly to 11th TAC and not 244th TAB, but I'm still looking for some verification on the website). I am trying to confirm if this is just a peacetime organization with the 8-229th WARTRACE to the 29th CAB or if this is permamnent. Apparently, the National Guard is in yet ANOTHER stage of minor realignments and reorganizations.

Also (I'm not sure if you're the go to guy for this one but here goes...) the "Military Police Corps (United States Army)" page has a couple of errors. The only bit of info I could find for the 290th Military Police Brigade is this http://www.vetshome.com/military_police_patches_history2.htm which shows the brigade ceased to exist in 1985. Other than that, there seems to be nothing posted at all (nothing on the Institute of Hearldry page or any US Army websites. I can't even confirmed if it ever was a Maryland National Guard unit. The 260th Military Police Brigade, D.C. National Guard should be listed as the 260th Military Police Command, D.C. National Guard. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/260mp-cmd.htm http://states.ng.mil/sites/DC/leadership/Pages/aagarmy.aspx http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/mp/260th%20Military%20Police%20Command.htm Agamemnon b5 (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxen militärische Einheiten WP:DE

Hallo, bitte mal hier schauen de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Militärgeschichte_Frühe_Neuzeit ganz unten. Habe die Box ein wenig angepasst und dann zum Standard auch für frühneuzeitliche Einheiten gemacht. Danke für Hilfe! --Westfalenbaer (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain World War II Armoured Division Structure 1940.png

A few comments on this excellent diagram; Armoured Division basic Organisation II (April 1940) states the armoured division should be laid out as follows:

Div HQ

Arm Bde -3 arm regts

Arm bde -3 arm regts

Support Group - RHA regt -LAA/Anti-tank Regt (a mixed regiment) -2 Motor battaliosn

Div RE -Field Squadron -Field Park Troop

In October 1940 the was a change labeled Basic Organisation III that changed the division, on paper, to as follows:

Div HQ

Armoured Car Regt

Arm Bde -3 arm regts -1 motor bn

Arm Bde -3 arm regts -1 motor bn

Support Group -RHA regt -Anti-tank regt -LAA regt -Inf bn (lorried)

Div RE -2 Field squadrons -1 field park troop

--- So there the basic organisations that the War Office set out (source: Lt-Col Joslen, Orders of Battle Second World War, pp. 4-5) so it does not entirely tally with your work; there no sign of a recce regt for example and the makeup of the support group is slighlty different.

Regards--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain World War II Armoured Division Structure 1944.png

According to Basic Organisation VIII (march 1944) - which was not changed till the following year - the graphics match up but for one detail; you have missed the Independant Machine Gun Company that was a divisional assest.

If you needed additional information on the engineers posted to the division, there was now two field squadrons, 1 bridge troop and 1 field park squadron.

Regards--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for being willing to look into the matter. From what i have read so far i believe what they planned on doing and how the first few armoured divisions were formed were two different matters; ill be initially tweaking the text at British Armoured formations of the Second World War before copying over what is need to the main article, once i have done so i will get back to you so have more info for the diagrams :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks allot :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The information is now in place in the above mentioned article; it may shortend down/tidied up in time as it looks like its a but too much lol but if you need additional info i can take photos from Joslen's work if you need them.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No probs and cheers :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it be easy to lengthen the diagram so it can slotted in?
Also just a massive thanks for the changes and the inclusion of a entire new diagram, amazing stuff!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
A little thank you for the creation and “updation” of these brilliant graphicsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

3rd SS Totenkopf

Restored a section you removed from the article about this division a while back. The reason for your edit was: "Totenkopf End: quick fact check: Karl Ullrich wrote the book, but he was not present at the Totenkopf surrender as he commanded Wiking Div. at the time- so it is hearsay on his part". I assume that you have not read the book in question since the episode mentioned in the article is drawn from an account given by a veteran of the division. The book features numerous such first hand accounts from various veterans of the division. If you have a response, please leave it on my talk page. Tchernobog 00:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Buckshot06#Iraq_forces_map

I was told you might know someone to edit the maps? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Afghan National Army

I believe there's enough information at the Afghan National Army#Corps section to create a basic corps/brigade level orbat chart. Six corps - 201, 203, 205, 207, 209, 215, and one division (111). Please for 215th Corps just insert a single brigade plus an extra brigade placeholder section, as other brigades will probably be attached but we don't know the details yet. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the usual mistake you make is that you go in for too much detail - it makes the charts unreadable. Thus my preference would be to stick with the right-side design and only to brigade level. You could make a note at the bottom that a Afghan brigade now has x infantry battalions, y artillery etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I had an additional thought. I think you should put on the actual diagram itself 'Wikipedia - not to be reproduced without attribution' which will cut down on people stealing your figures. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Good! Also I would start replacing your existing images with new ones with the Wikipedia message in them. Best wishes Buckshot06 (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. But don't remove the old ones, simply date them - 'Venezuelan Army 2005' - and leave them. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The D-30 battery is part of the combat support battalion, not separate. The 215th Corps doesn't have a commando battalion or regional logistics depot - not sure whether these will be added. Also you can't put a copyright (c) symbol because Wikipedia is not copyrighted. Can you instead have the message as a shadow background stretching across the entire image? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
All OK except query on six or seven commando battalions. Where are your sources? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
This Afghan table is going to get a lot of attention, and it's not 100% solid - we can't check everything. Could you mark it as provisional? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
In all three places, I think. This is 'best guess,' not official information. Also thanks for the Kazakh table. The source site, Vad777's at brinkster.net, is inaccessible right now, so I can't check the accuracy. But I like the in-diagram attribution note - think you should stick that in the Afghan one too. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Noclador. Good work on the ANA diagram to date. One point though - 205 Corps actually has a 4th Bde (based in Tarin Kowt), also I think 1st Bde may be based in Kandahar, not TK... I don't have any sources though to confirm these assertions only first hand experience though (not 100% on 1st Bde, but positive on 4th Bde). Sorry, I know we need solid info on wikipedia but maybe it might help. Take it easy and keep up the excellent graphics. ChoraPete (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Army

To answer one of your questions, the 21st and 22nd Construction Regiments have been assigned to Army Reserve brigades - the 21st Construction Regiment is now part of the 5th Brigade (in Sydney) and the 22nd Construction Regiment is part of the 4th Brigade (in Melbourne). As a correction, according to the document explaining the recent restructure of the Army, Forces Command is a 2 star headquarters, and it and the 1st Division report directly to Army Headquarters (see page 5 for the Army's current high-level structure). From early 2011 the 1st Division headquarters will no longer have any units permanently assigned to it, with its current units switching across to Forces Command except for when they're assigned to the 1st Division HQ during pre-deployment training and exercises (page 7). Note also that two brigade-level training units have been integrated into Forces Command; I don't know that these comprise however. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian military

Hey, I saw you needed some more info about the structural organization of the Bulgarian army. Its hard to find such even here, because our ministry of defence classifies most of the information on the military, but here is some info that can probably help you:

  • Ranks
  • Main services are:
    • Liaison brigade - responsible for communications, currently that is 62nd Liaison Brigade (62-ra svarzochna brigada)
    • Logistics brigade - responsible for logistics, 110th Logistics Support Brigade, or simply The Logistics Brigade (110-a brigada za logistichna podkrepa)
    • Joint Operative Command - responsible for organizing different sorts of operations, including overseas, training, planning, etc.
    • Land forces
      • 61th Stryamska Mechanized Brigade (elite land forces) - Karlovo
      • 68th Brigade (elite land forces)
      • 9th Armored Brigade (tank forces, T-72 equipped) - Gorna Banya
      • 13th Armored Brigade (tank forces, T-55 equipped, training) - Sliven
      • 101st Mountain Brigade (alpine infantry) - Smolyan, Ardino, Momchilgrad
      • 301st Rocket Batallion (tactical missile forces, SS-21 equipped)
      • 5th Shipchenska Mechanized Brigade (elite land forces) - Kazanlak
      • 4th Artillery Brigade (artillery forces) - Asenovgrad
      • others
    • Air Force
      • Krumovo Air Base
      • Vrazhdebna Air Base
      • Bezmer Air Base
      • Graf Ignatievo Air Base
    • Navy
      • Atiya Naval Base
      • Varna Naval Base
      • Marine Battallion - Burgas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourbillon (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Military Information Service
    • Military Police Service
    • Military Medical Academy (Sofia) - medical support

- Tourbillon A ? 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I hope some of it will be useful to you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Noclador/Archive_7&oldid=1065414527"