Talk:86th Field Artillery Regiment

the numbers

ran the numbers on this one. the 86th was a phillipine scout outfit. and the 124th was a illinios outfit with the 33rd ID. without the linage its hard to say whats going on. Brian in denver (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

First formation, Second formation, just like the Red Army

Dear Kges1901, the lineage rules for the National Guard are made very complex by the rule that each patch of ground - a few towns/barracks locations - is the inheriting organism, not any particular regiment or unit. Really these NG regiments should be, I don't know, "The Burlington Regiment" (VT) that switches from cav, to infantry, to engineers, to whatever whatever whatever. It would make things a lot simpler. But what it means for us is that part of the history of the 86th FA is located within the 124th Field Artillery Regiment (United States). You will see how I inserted a section at 200th Infantry Regiment (United States) dealing with the first formation of the 200th Artillery, which was *not* in New Mexico. Would you double check my work as I insert a short "first formation" (1959-64) piece of data into the 124th FA? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a shared designation for the 124th Field Artillery as the Illinois 124th Field Artillery was never called the 124th Artillery. The Vermont unit was only ever called the 124th Artillery, so it is not necessary to mention the Illinois unit IMO. I would not introduce a system of referring to units by formation that is not used in secondary source. As to the convoluted NG lineage, it is hard, because I've seen support battalions where the designation was reused but neither unit is connected to the other. I've thought of adding sections on city/town pages detailing the NG units stationed there since often NG lineage goes through the same armory. What that does not cover is units that start in a city and then relocate to suburbs or headquarters that relocate. Kges1901 (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oh. Kges1901, what I am concerned about is that anyone looking for the 902nd Field Artillery, at any time of its existence, find some reference to it in the '902nd Field Artillery' article. Just like what I've done with the 200th Infantry/200th ADA. No we don't need to create first formation, second formation etc, but we do need to deviate from a rigid application of the Army lineage rules, by some mention & link of more than one lineage line in the same article. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, though as time goes on I think that enough information can be found to split articles by dates of existence, which will solve the problem. Kges1901 (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• We will however always need one single page as an entry point, so that anyone can have a start point for the '902nd Field Artillery..' or whichever regiment is being searched for. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Dear Kges1901 thank you for your recent amazing edit at 149th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, where you specifically stated two units swapped designations!! That is really helpful!! Please do that wherever you can!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)