Talk:56th Artillery Command/Archive 1

Archive 1

(Pershing) or not?

{{helpme}} It is my belief that this unit should be portrayed as the 56th Field Artillery Command (Pershing) and to omit the (Pershing) Designation is dis serving to the unit itself. If I am wrong I'd like to be shown, otherwise I'd like to see this article improved to include this correction and to provide some better references than those now contained.My76Strat (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Note cancelled 'helpme' here, answering that side of it on user talk page  Chzz  ►  22:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Was that an official part of the unit name? Is there another 56th FA Command from which this unit should be distinguished? If the answer to both is "no", then this is probably at the right article name already. If the answer to either is yes, then discussion on the talk page may support such a move. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Per AR 220-5:[1]

• "Parenthetical identification: A word or phrase, usually referring to a function, added in parentheses after an organization’s official designation."

• "Where the designation includes a parenthetical identification, that portion not in parentheses is the official designation."

The parenthetical identification is descriptive, not official. It is entirely possible that the 56th FA could be reactivated with a different mission. Compare to 1st Battalion, 41st Field Artillery, which was Honest John from 1957, Pershing from 1971, 105mm from 1988 and Paladin from 1994.[2] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

1963 or 1986?

Why is it said "The 56th Field Artillery Command was a brigade size element of the United States Army from 1963 through 1991"? The 56th FACOM was officially designated on 17 January 1986 as the article states. Perhaps it is more correct dating them to 1963, but I am curious if there is a correct explanation.My76Strat (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not the best wording— it was last active from 1963 through 1991, but the lineage starts in 1942. As noted, the 56th was reactivated as a group in 1963, became a brigade at some point and a command in 1986. Regardless, it is the same unit with the same lineage. 56th Field Artillery Group and 56th Field Artillery Brigade redirect here. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Resources

• Unit history: 56th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Brigade, 1943-1945, 1950-1951; Pensylvania State Archives
• George Maurice Badger, CG, 56th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Brigade. March 1944–September 1945 [3]
• Milton L. Ogden, CG, 56th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Brigade, 1955–1957 [4]
• History of the 56th Antiaircraft Artillery Brigade [5]
• 56th Field Artillery: Group 1963-1970, Brigade 1970-1986, Command (Pershing ...[6]
• U.S. Army Heraldic Crests [7]
• Department of the Army Pamphlet 600–66–85[8] "2–11. HOW ’BOUT THEM DAWGS?"; discusses the building of the obscuration fence around Redleg CAS.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Active periods of the 56th

The box to the right of the opening paragraph shows two periods of active service, from 1942 through 1945 and 1951 through 1991. I am certain 51-91 is incorrect as the last period is factually known to be 1963 through 1991. I think it should be 42-45, 51-58 and 63-91 but am awaiting confirmation as to 51-58. Either way showing it as 51-91 is incorrect and inconsistent with the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I have seen states that the 56th was deactivated in 1958. It was reformed in 1958 and reactivated in 1963. According to one source, the 56th was in Kitzingen in 1962 with an Honest John battallion, two Corporal battalions and an 8-inch howitzer battalion.

[9]

• HHB, 56th Arty Group Kitzingen
• 1st MSL Bn, 41st Arty (HJ) Kitzingen
• 2nd MSL Bn, 81st Arty (CPL) Erlangen
• 2nd MSL Bn, 82nd Arty (CPL) Kitzingen
• 1st HOW Bn, 83rd Arty (8-inch) Erlangen

I'm not sure of the reliability of this source, so I would certainly like confirmation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Some unit history is included in MGM-31 Pershing, and there is a timeline at Talk:MGM-31 Pershing/Timeline 1956–1991. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The previous is contradicted by this: "In August 1963, an exchange of unit designations occurred with the 35th Artillery Group exchanging colors and numbers with the 56th Artillery Group in Kitzingen, Germany. Immediately upon redesignation, the 35th Artillery Group moved to Bamberg, Germany, arriving in September 1963."[10] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

2/82 and 2/81 were Corporal units in 1961, but I can't tell if they were under the 56th or 35th:

• 2nd Missile Battalion, 82nd Artillery, formerly the 558th
• 2nd Missile Battalion, 81st Artillery, formerly the 557th

Bragg, James W. (April 1961). "Development of the Coporal: The Embryo of the Army Missile Program" (PDF). Redstone Arsenal: 263. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did the movie play?

What is the correct way to identify a theater of operations as to spelling theater? Do you have a reference where it is written? Just curiousMy76Strat (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As in Theater (warfare)? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:52, 25 April 2010 (My76Strat (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)UTC)

Does the term insinuate warfare?, Would "the Cold War" apply? And is that the correct spelling?My76Strat (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Theater of operations" certainly implies warfare. American English would be "theater", British English would be "theatre". Since I don't know the context, I can't be more clear. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 06:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your answer coupled with a reading of Theater (warfare) has properly guided me away from using the term improperly, which I was about to do. At first it was only an issue of the correct spelling, as I have seen it both ways, After learning of the "armed conflict" connotation, I can better avoid misuse. Thank you for your assistance.My76Strat (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Superior Unit Award

Every time I try to incorporate the following image: (|image=), to the article, it replaces the SSI center top the info box, which is not my intention. I wanted to show it in the info box directly below the statement about the award leaving the SSI as the prominent image. Help if you can, which I feel you certainly can an perhaps easily.My76Strat (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Disregard as I have accomplished this attempt in a subsequent effort.

I tweaked the size to make it a bit smaller and centered with the SSI. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Redundant references

How do you cite a reference multiple times without listing it more than once? For example Ref 2 and 10 are the same Pershing cable 25.My76Strat (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Also I have failed at attempts to show reference 1 as other than a web address which is less preferable to the descriptions you are skilled enough to add. If you would be so kind as to clean up reference 1 for me as well, not only will the article improve but I would also be appreciativeMy76Strat (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See ref 3 for an example of using named refs; see WP:REFNAME. Although the same issue of the Cabel is used, different articles are referenced, so this should not be merged.

I have been considering the removal of the display missile content. It is not directly relevant to the 56th. The missile is probably a trainer from Redstone Arsenal and the subject is covered in more depth in Pershing missile#Legacy.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I included the reference as the summary enunciates the "15" systems excluded by the INF Treaty. Also it is not a trainer but rather an SS 20 missile which was made inoperable and subsequently displayed.My76Strat (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I see now that your comment was directed toward the content itself and not the reference. From this perspective I can only offer that it seems every bit as relevant to include efforts to "Stand Down" the Command, as also efforts to field. Upon ratification of INF, the mission changed, almost overnight, from mutual assured destruction and nuclear deterrent, to efforts necessary to comply with and assist implementation of the INF treaty. This to the ultimate deactivation* of the Command.My76Strat (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that the mention of display missiles is pertinent. There are a total of fifteen PII and GLCM display missiles, seven of them are PII. I added a note to Pershing missile#Legacy on the known locations. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point a somewhat concur. Especially in light of the Legacy article where that form of content is more appropriate. The reasoning which led me to include this content was to highlight that the bulk of the Commands equipment was destroyed. And unless you knew that some were preserved at museums, you wouldn't know that you could actually see and touch the equipment used by this Command. Certainly readers can link to the references and lean more and more details about this unit, their mission, their equipment, what the equipment looked like, how expensive it was and so on. But to a large extent, the article should provide enough information to stand alone. Now because I can imagine a reader wondering these kinds of things about this Command, I can also see a level of appropriateness to include these things in the content as well. That is only my opinion, and I'm not here to force it, but rather offer it for consideration. Maybe there is a better place in the article to introduce some of these other types of facts, or maybe they don't belong at all. By all means let's do what's best for this article.My76Strat (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Weather the Command was deactivated, retired, or in some other form had their Colors cased, is unknown by me at this time.My76Strat (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The 5th was deactivated in 1991. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Belgian Fourragere

Would it be appropriate to list the "Belgian Fourragere" in the info box as a combat award? I think it would.My76Strat (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the proper name is "Belgian Fourragère 1940"; and for HHB only. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Commanders

• ??? Walter T. Kerwin, Jr.

• (~1967) COL James Edward Convey, Jr.[11]
• (1975) BG Milton E. Key[12]
• (1978) BG Richard D. Boyle[13]
• (198? - 1982) BG Sidney Davis
• (1982 - 1984) BG William E. Sweet
• (1984) BG (MG) Raymond E. Haddock[14]
• Roger K. Bean

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Source needed

Can the following inclusion be supported by a reference: "HHB is entitled to permanently display the Belgian Fourregere from the spearhead of its guidon."My76Strat (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

From the DUI section:

The crossed cannons with the Antwerp Tower allude to the Headquarters Battery's two Belgian Army Order of the Day Citations, the Belgian Fourragere for action at Antwerp and the Defense of Antwerp Harbor

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The award is a cord which is worn with the dress uniform. I was curious as to the display atop the guidon. If in fact both manners of display are authorized, both manners should be mentioned.My76Strat (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the cord can be worn only by those who were members of the unit during the action. The streamer may be permanently affixed to the guideon. Info is rather sketchy. [15] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference which shows the correct spelling of "guideon", as shown in your comment, or "guidon" as currently shown in the article?My76Strat (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is guidon. I don't consider the link above to be particularly reliable, but it is fairly typical of ohter info I have found. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

56th Field Artillery Group

I have recently received information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the 56th Field Artillery Command, and its lineage. The 56th Field Artillery Group is not shown as a previous manifestation of this Command. I believe and will research the possibility that some unit history for the 35th Field Artillery Group has been mistakenly incorporated into this article. I know the article at the cold war museum substantiates the existence of the 56th FA Group,[16] but believe this may be an error as it is not reflected in the official history documents I am in possession of. Help sorting this out would be appreciated. Thanks. My76Strat (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Send me an email; I will reply and you can send with attachments. As I noted above, that source on the 35th is sketchy. The initial incarnation under Pershing as the 56th Field Artillery Group is correct; for example, File:Pershing Professionals Badge.png. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is another reference which authoritatively states the 56th Artillery Group was separate from the 56th FACOM.[17] My76Strat (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen that, and have it at User:Gadget850/Pershing Professionals Badge. I would not consider it authoritative, as it has several errors. See [18] The history you sent me is very interesting and confusing. It mainly concerns HHB. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

As a footnote, I am trying to determine If the 56th Field Artillery Group is not more correctly known as the 56th Artillery Group. Current research is indicative of the latter. Cheers. My76Strat (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

56th Artillery Group would be correct. From 1957 to 1968, the branch was Artillery, then it was split into Air Defense Artillery and Field Artillery.[19][20][21] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of QRA

The article contains a statement to this effect: " The Pershing missile alludes to the unique mission of the unit as a participant in the Army's first nuclear strike force with missiles on constant alert (ORA). Should that perhaps be QRA for Quick Reaction Alert? Also if it is introduced as QRA rather than spelled out, many novice readers might confuse it for the unit motto! There's my opinion, any others out there?My76Strat (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The SSI and DUI descriptions are quoted from The Institute of Heraldry.[22] Darned if I know what ORA means. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted the webmaster of this quoted statement for a clarification. I'll post the answer when I receive it.My76Strat (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Webmaster for The Institute of Heraldry has notified me that it should be (QRA), They have updated their page and I have updated this one as well.My76Strat (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

QRA was the motto of the 56th Artillery Group, the 56th Field Artillery Group, the 56th Field Artillery Brigade, and the 56th Field Artillery Comand. Quick Reliable Accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.30.221.93 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Unit Crest was also worn by the 55th Maintenance Battalion.

Until a new one was approved. Is it original research if I have both? I remember the ceremony when Service Battery was split between HHB 1/81 and B 55 was formed.

Aoeuus (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I will check with COL Littlefield. I hit HHC in 1985 then B/55 in 1986 so that was before my time. It is rather a bit of trivia. --21lima (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Split?

Early days yet, but with the reactivation, I'm considering splitting the Pershing section to another article. I suspect the unit insignia will change, as Pershing no longer applies, but it needs to be retained for history. --21lima (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would you split the article? The 56th Artillery Command continues to trace its lineage all the way back to the Coastal/AA formation formed during World War II, and the article is not over even 60kB. The 56th Art Command shouldn't be separated from its history..

WP:SIZERULE says that for under 40 kB of "readable text size" not the whole markup, which is longer, "Length alone does not justify division." This article is 29kB of *markup*, and less than that in readable text size. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)