Talk:Munitions Systems Specialist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

24 March 2008- This article needs to be cleaned up. Too much personal opinion and not enough facts. A review of the Ammo Chiefs website would help anyone wanting to edit this page. Silverplate (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Part Deux

I can't say that I disagree on one count...AMMO troops are pretty much at every base, though instead of a full list, please see the edit I'll make after I finish here. However on some other points:

1) Can someone please change the main title to read "US Air Force"? For some reason people don't know it's two words, and I'm too new to know how.

2) Also, regardless of the basing issue there remains the NPOV matter...I think it's been sufficiently proven that the content of the article is satisfactory to those who do the job, and in the end it is the opinion of how we represent ourselves as AMMO troops that matters most. I'm also in no mood for further flaming. It made me feel like a parent scolding a child, and I'm too young for that. If whoever put the violation on the article is not available or will not drop it, there has to be a super admin or a Grand Dragon or Head Muckety-Muck that can be consulted. ConciergeMike 00:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)ConciergeMike

From a weapons troop who met Shakey the Pig 15 years ago in Guam: Ammo you still suck, but I'm glad you're around. How about an article on the rivalry between ammo troops and weapons troops (462's now 2W1's) and tie it into challenge coins? I love the gung ho enthusiam from these guys or should I say, from these bunch of neanderthals! Go America! These are the type of guys that keep you all safe at night (Ammo and Weaopons Troops). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.243.116 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Response

The original post defending the neutrality of the piece is absolutely correct. Azmaverick623, the actual title of the job isn't even used by other members of the service. Even the personnel people who write our orders and the medical people etc. etc. refer to us as AMMO. About the only people who might even use the word "Munitions" are recruiters, and that's only for ease of use with uninitiated recruits. Who are you to determine the alledgedly correct titling of an article when you yourself obviously have no firsthand experience? Should you question my credentials, I'm presently an AMMO troop, and have been for nearly 6 years. I don't need to rely on knowing someone since I do it for real. Go back to your cozy community college and let us stay busy defending you.

Mr. Megapixie - I can not convey to you how strongly I disagree with the characterization that we would glorify the use of alcohol while working with dangerous explosives. How dare you sir. I'm sure you or someone you know has shown up to work with a hangover. And for the record, there is no sensitive information contained in the article, so for you to speculate as such is completely unwarranted. I have no trouble confirming non-sensitivities, and if there was anything that represented a possible security breach in this article, I assure you someone would have taken care of it, be it a fellow AMMO troop or someone with inside enough knowledge. Clearly since you are a citizen of an allied nation and not an American, you would have no such basis for knowing what would and what would not constitute any type of sensitive information according to the standards of the US Department of Defense. Thank you for your national support in the Global War on Terror.

And no, the list of duty stations should not be reduced to a list of countries, since there are often multiple locations within one nation where we may be assigned, and research of those might help some young AMMO troop out there in determining the request of his or her next assignment.

I'm finished; drop the neutrality violation, enough said. I've already alerted several AMMO messageboards/web communities that this is happening. There's nothing like strength in numbers. IYAAYAS! 68.38.44.11 01:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)ConciergeMike

Just to clear this up I never made any such comment - if you look at the discussion history - [1] - the comment was actually made by User:Toad462 who made a grand total of 3 contributions to wikipedia [2]. He didn't sign his comment, so it appeared to come from me. I have marked the comment as unsigned by him to clear that up.

My point about the list of duty stations - is that it seems likely that AMMO troops work everywhere. I.e. the list of duty stations would be equal to the complete list of all US bases in the world. It might be worth reading some of the links I will shortly post on your user talk page - before you jump head first into an edit war. As for being helpful for young AMMO troops - surely there are US Army/Airforce websites that would be better suited to providing such information - or perhaps the AMMO message boards/web communities of which you speak (please add any as external links at the bottom of the article) . Welcome to wikipedia. Megapixie 02:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Duty stations

I'm not any expert, but the list of duty stations seems pointless, since AMMO troops appear to work everywhere. How about reducing it to a list of Countries ? Megapixie 06:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

AMMO troops do not work everywhere. Wherever you're getting your information from is wrong. There are some bases where one or two AMMO troops may have a position, or maybe some type of special duty, but this does not count as an established, common, base for which AMMO has a fully functioning bombdump. The list as it stands now is an accurate list of bases where AMMO has established organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.25.0.207 (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

---

This article couldn't be more against the NPOV if it tried! After perusing what all is entailed in the NPOV guidelines, I lost count of how many items in this article need to be removed; therefore, delete entire article. I'm not so sure they aren't giving out some sensitive information either. And way to go; glorifying the use of alcohol whilst working with munitions. Good game! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toad462 (talk • contribs) .

Don't get frustrated over something you don't understand. Yeah, "sensitive" information. Go back to your civilian life, we can handle COMSEC just fine.

Please feel free to make any changes to the article you see fit. I think it was originally copied out a recruiting brouchure (it certainly reads like it). Edit away. Megapixie 01:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

(Edit- Direct, challenged and unsubstantiated accusation of plagiarism) A good friend of mine is part of the AMMO group at Eielson AFB, AK, so I'll try to get him to get on here and fix it up. Also I think this article should be titled "Munitions systems specialist", since that is the proper title for the field -- Maverick 19:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have since talked to the main contributer of this article, and he assures me he did not copy anything out of any pamphlet, so in good faith I rescind my statement. However, the rest of my post stands. --Maverick 06:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is OPSEC not COMSEC. You would know that if you paid attention to your training. Easy peasy.

---

This article was written by an AMMO troop, me! By myself. For the love of AMMO. Once AMMO, Always AMMO.

My qualifications are that I did time from June 92 to June 96, stationed in the 57th FS/35MS in Iceland, 633rd MXS in Guam, 366th MXS at Mountain Home, deployed to CFB Cold Lake in Canada, and did time in the 4404th MXS(P) in Khobar Towers, Dahran/ Al Khobar, KSA. (Yes, THAT Khobar Towers).

The bases I listed were either listed on Dream Sheets while I was in, or were derived from public articles posted in Airman Magazine, the Internet, or from personal experience. Note that I did not list any locations that I learned from classified/confidential sources, and most can be found here: [3], so whether a site is classified or otherwise, I am not bound to my 50 year non-disclosure form that I signed when I resigned my clearance. I listed the specific bases because, as I said, they are already publicly available, and also to show the variety of bases, not just countries, that AMMO could be stationed at.

To some, it makes a difference that you can be stationed in Adak, Alaska, versus Elemdorf. A small island is surely a worse assignment, to many, than a land-based city.

Who's to say that there's not another AMMO troop currently active duty, about ready to get his Dream Sheet and is sitting at home, wondering where to be stationed. He Googles "ammo bases", and hits my Wiki site and sees that Mountain Home Air Force Base is a potential duty station for him. He researches southern Idaho and decides he likes it. When his Dream Sheet is released, he now knows that he wants to put in for Mountain Home, instead of just guessing where to try to go next.

I would not have volunteered for Iceland had I not been able to reasearch and find out that Kef was only roughly 45 kilometers from the capital, Reykjavik. Besides, Wikipedia is to be a trove of information... the more information, the better.

Is that not representative of what Wikipedia is for?

Also, I never stated that we consumed alcohol while on duty or performed our duty while under the influence. I said that we were known for being the hardest drinking and most mischevious bunch. That does not imply drinking while on duty.

Anyone that was stationed in Guam in the early to mid 90s knows that the bomb dump occasionally shut down early on Fridays and had AMMO calls down at Terrague Beach with flight sponsored beer and pig roasts (the only flight to do so). And, of course, most of the single airmen in the dorms got trashed. We were the only unit on base assigned our own bus to drive out to work and to use for other "unit activities", including our Terrague Beach Pig Roasts. And everyone else knew about it and rolled their eyes at us. A couple of my roomies were non AMMO- AGE, Contractor Squadron, etc- and I got a lot of the same sentiments from them.

AMMO was nearly always the single largest flight on base (along with the SPs), so AMMO always dominated the Maintenance dorms, and so it was quite often AMMO that organised the largest parties- simply because there were so many more of us than anyone else. And it was an AMMO troop that tried rapelling from the third floor of the dorm near the volleyball court during one of those Guam parties in '94, only to miss the brake line and fall all three floors onto the small concrete walkway near the courts. (Actually, between 92 and 94, several AMMO troops had been pinned trying to successfully, or unsuccessfully, rappel from the third floor, and roof, of the maintenance dorms). Only in the bomb dump at Andersen could you check out a 10k AT forklift to go booneystomping to find the japanese tank, or the old burn pits to collect old projectiles. It was only AMMO that, not just in Guam, but everywhere, that during commander calls, if an AMMO troop was presented an award, or AMMO was pitched a compliment, the whole flight would do the IYAAYAS call. (Yeah, see how many other career fields in the Air Force have the reputation to tell a Squadron Commander "If You Ain't Ammo, You Ain't Shit!" and get away with it.) That's a small example of what has made us the "black sheep". And, honestly, in the 80s, before Tailhook and all the PC bull, a whole heck of a lot more went on.

If you don't understand this, then explaining to you what AMMO really is just isn't possible: "It was with the 400 MMS on Kadena. The first thing I noticed as I was being led into the barracks was a gigantic anchor sitting in the middle of the lawn in front of where I was going to be residing. I don’t mean a small one; I’m talking about one that was about 2 stories tall and a good 5 tons. And after a few days I asked someone why there was the anchor out there; aren’t we in the AF? And I was told that about a month earlier AMMO went across the base to the Navy side and stole it from in front of their HQ building. And of course the first thing I am thinking is, don’t people get in trouble for doing things like that, and that must have been quiet an operation picking that up and hauling it off and doesn’t anyone care that it is still sitting over here. As it turned out the Navy folks who it belonged to were trying to figure out how they were going to retrieve it. And our commander was extremely proud of his troops and their ingenuity. But our commander was an AMMO troop himself that had dedicated himself to over 20 years of just munitions. It was in his blood.

And in those days I still believed that everyone in the AF was like this. But I would have other Airmen come up to me and ask why are you people so different? I couldn’t figure it out. But I started to feel good inside to be labeled as an AMMO troop."

This was written by CMSgt. Paul Smith, USAF AMMO. The speech is linked below.

Tangentially, read about Shakey the Pig... [4]. There are no other AFSCs, or units, in the Air Force with an officially sanctioned living mascot that has endured that long (though that article was about Shakey the Fifth). No where else in the Air Force will you find un-badged, civillian personell allowed unescorted into a Controlled or Restricted Area to pet and feed a pet.

Go look at http://www.ammotroops.com/ and see some of the stuff posted there. Pictures, stories, comments... they will mostly back up what I have said. Note that you'll be hard pressed to find similar stuff posted at other AFSC related sites.

Another reason AMMO troops are known for having developed the IYAAYAS attitude is that the amount, difficuly, and the extreme danger of work that we do is often unrecognised. At a Commander's Call at one of my bases, a troop from the Fab (Sheet Metal) shop was awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal for having moved a several ton steel I-beam with a forklift. AMMO troops in Storage Element, on a daily basis, moved maybe 100,000 pounds of high (1.1) explosives, and that was NEVER recognised for a medal. That was expected of us. Often, our prep work for breaking out training munitions for a 14 day excercise would start (meaning 12 hour shifts) 3 to 4 days before any other organization on base would begin to prep for the excercise. And once the excercise was over, all other organizations on base were usually allowed to go home immediately for the weekend, but AMMO would need another three days to repack and restore all our munitions, doing another 2 days of 12 hour shifts.

These statements are based on fact... I have personally lived/observed most of these events and heard most of these comments not only from other AMMO troops, but also from other Flight, Squadron, Command and even Base Commanders. Read this speech, [5], spoken before two Bird Colonels. Chief Smith's speech becoming a Holy Grail amongst AMMO troops because it says all the things we wish we could tell others, but are too dumb to find the words for. I don't think anyone would go up in front of two O-6s and say that no one understands us, even officers, and we don't get any respect, even from officers, unless everyone knew it was true.

I challenge you to present information contradictory to what I have posted here that might suggest that this is not a neutral point of view, or that this article was plaigarized from a recruiting pamphlet.

Maverick- As I stated previously, I wrote this article by myself, with minor revisions be other Wiki users. I ask that the plaigarization charge be removed as for it is an unsubstantiated personal attack that constitutes libel, which is illegal. Under US law, you can be held civally responsible for such charges.

I'm not a registered Wiki user, but if you want to contact me regarding any of this, you can touch me at "misterpex at hot mail dot com".

Regards,

MrPex

MrPex, If you are not getting awards it is not the wings problem but due to the fact that your leadership did not submit them. Happens all the time.

Base List Redux

Hi Everyone,

Hey fellow AMMO boys, thanks for the words. AMMO is probably the only AFSC where you'd see something like this happen... And that's why I still love AMMO.

When I wrote the article, I specifically put all the bases I could think of in the list because Wiki is touted as an encyclopedia. Where does one go for thorough, substantiated information? An encyclopedia.

This is the easiest analogy I can think of to make people see my point as to why leave the base list. It's half jest, but I believe the point is succinct.

Remember when you first started searching for online pr0n? The links that said "Click here for free porn?" Then you'd click that link, and end up at some Top 100 site with the top 100 "free sites". So you'd click one of those links, and the cycle would continue, until, an hour later, if you got lucky, you found a few hardcore pics of Jenna on some TGP, and a hundred pop under ads on your screen.

Why tell someone to "click here" or "go look it up at the recruiter's office" when, if they're here reading the article already, they can read the info here?

I typed the information, there's no effort on anyone else's part required to maintain the list, or even to just leave it as is, unless someone would like to add to it. I understand the argument that the list may seem redundant when one can probably track it down on an official Air Force site, or someone else's site. But, when someone is already reading the article, and I've already put the information in there, what's the point of removing it and sending them elsewhere to get it?

I realize Wiki articles are evolved, whittled, shaped and expanded on an ongoing basis. Updates to fix typos, clarify an idea, fix bad grammar, update information, and the like, are an absolute must. Without these, Wiki becomes as useless as the stagnant thirty volume set of Encyclopedia Britannicas that your Granma bought you 25 years ago. But I argue that to remove valid, relevant information, even if YOU see it as redundant, is senseless.

I'm not asking anyone else to write the long list, or keep it up, I've written teh list on my own time.

If someone comes along and removes it, maybe I'll fix it, maybe I won't. I know not to take a Wiki articles and keep it as your baby. But I would like to see the list stay, and even grow.

But again, thanks for backing up the NPOV argument about the article. You men know how it is, and you know I wrote it like it is. Cheif Smith's speech really hits the mark. [6]

IYAAYAS,

Mrpex 09:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Will you please actually read my responses. The point is that it would appear that AMMO troops work at every US Air Force base (yes/no answer please).

If the answer is yes, then the list complete list of Air Force bases is sufficient i.e. List of U.S. Air Force bases. Which is actually actively maintained. Trying to manage a seperate list will probably end up in the list being incomplete or inaccurate.

And to borrow an image from your collective responses - the 17 year old recruit will be getting inaccurate information.

Also, the tone of the article is also far from encylopedic:

has allowed AMMO to attain its dubious distinction of being the Air Force's hardest drinking, wildest, and most mischievous bunch

That statement clearly isn't verifiable (unless the Air Force publishes some kind of league table). What I'm trying to say is that the article isn't up to the Standards that wikipedia aspires to. Megapixie 09:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have responded directly to your responses. You wish to link to other articles to make the reader track down further information when that information can be presented to them immediately.

No, not all AMMO duty stations are listed on that site. NAS Keflavik, Iceland, is a Navy base, but there is an Air Force side that is presently manned with minimal numbers of permanent party personnel and with stateside bases serving several month long rotations at the base. It is not listed on the list of Air Force Bases because it is not an Air Force Base or Air Force Station, or even an Air Base. (Yes, there is a distinction between the three.) Yet, AMMO troops can get staioned there.

Nor is Araxos in Greece listed. Nor is Camp Darby in Italy, an Army base. Nor is Diego Garcia (which is actually listed, but only as a specialty assignment that would actually exclude AMMO). Nor is Tule, Greenland, where AMMO personnel could get a special duty. Nor is Al Udeid in the Persian Gulf, where I personally sent a 150 pound care package of goods I collected from work to last summer for the American Fourth of July holiday.

And many, many, many of those foreign air bases do NOT have positions for AMMO troops. They are places where a number of American Air Force members serve, but only from a few select AFSCs, and unless an AMMO troop says "Been there...", how is someone else supposed to know that they can even be stationed there? Case in point: When I was leaving Guam, Araxos, Greece, was on my Dream Sheet, but in the four years I was in, no one else had ever heard of it or mentioned it. So how was anyone else supposed to know that AMMO could go to Greece, unless I spoke/wrote/spread the word? What if I had said "Oh, go talk to CBPO about it, they'll tell ya." That's telling the next guy to keep clicking links instead of just giving him the information when I have the chance.

Now you may argue "OK, go ahead and put those bases on the site as an addendum to the original Air Force Base article and link to that." But that goes back to my argument. Why make someone click a separate link to get more information if the information can be presented on the page they are already on, in the context of the actual article? And what if the other article ends up listing a station that I listed first? Does that invalidate the article I wrote due to redundancy?

By your own argument, my article should be "...nearly self-contained; includes and explains all essential terminology required in the article, such that someone could completely understand the subject without having to read many other articles." I argue that listing AMMO duty assignments helps make the article self contained.

Believe it or not, and not for just AMMO, but this is true for most AFSCs in the Air Force, it is nearly impossible to ever get a comprehensive list from official souces as to where you can get stationed. Openings are handled through Randolph AFB in Texas, and, unless you have a friend there, you will probably never know EVERYWHERE your AFSC can get stationed, unless someone starts listing where people have been.

Also, by your definition of verifiable, my statement is NOT a quote, therefore, I do NOT need to properly or formally cite a source, per the information in the link you provided in that comment. Again, this touches on my major sour note of this whole discussion, the fact that I was accused of plaigarism in writing the original article, where I AM the original and major author of this article based on my personal knowledge, a source that need NOT be cited as per any reputable writer's reference. I am still waiting for a reply from that accuser.

You state that my article should follow the NPOV guidelines. The definition of NPOV on Wiki states that "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views." I listed no information with any conflicting POV, nor has anyone who has challenged the neutrality of this article. Again, I ask you to show me any information that contradicts or conflicts with what I, and what the many others in the several sources that I linked directly to, and what the other two respondants, have written about AMMO's reputation. I have linked to outside sources and cited quotations to back up what I wrote. Neither of the two people who have challenged my NPOV have presented any information contradicting what I wrote.

There are some subjective statements that can be made without affecting the truth of an article. Look up Apple Pie. The second sentence says "The best cooking apples (culinary apples, colloquially cookers), such as the Bramley or Granny Smith, are crisp and acidic." Is there anyone TRULY qualified to tell ME what "the best apple" for MY apple pie is?

Look up Hawaii. That article states that, "For various reasons, Hawaii is considered the endangered species capital of the United States." I, personally, am familliar with the reason for this statement, but just who is to say that Hawaii is the endangered species capital of the US? What constitues that title? Is it the number of current endangered species? The number of species that have become extinct? How about the overall impact on the environment by the loss of any given species? Would not the loss of wild Salmon, which would affect Alaska, Canada, Washington, Oregon and California, make any ecological changes on Hawaii by the loss or endangerment of some other species seem comparatively moot?

These are completely ambiguous statements that cannot be verified. They are statements that are generally believed by enough persons of normal sensitiveness and reason that they are not misleading to the general population. By the way, what "a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness or reason" believes is what many laws and legal precedents have been, or are, based upon.

I do not believe that my statement is misleading or overtly unbiased against what you might hear if you took a random poll on any given base that has a sizeable AMMO troop population.

By the way, the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view page has it's own talk page. Maybe the information you are basing your argument upon is, itself, in question.

Best Regards,

Mrpex 13:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Look - I'm not trying to fight here. I'm going to address your points

1. Hardest drinking... Verifiability not truth. All information has to be verifiable - quote or not. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. If someone REPUTABLE (i.e. not a webpage/forum/blog) has published something , then it can be said to be verifiable (and thus meets Wikipedia:Verifiability). Otherwise it is original research and has no place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has come under fire recently for articles that were plain wrong. Waving your hands and saying "trust me", doesn't cut it.

1A regarding Hawaii check A lot of other people are saying the same thing

1B regarding cooking apples check Lots of people seem to think that sharp acidic cooking apple are the best

1C regarding AMMO being the hardest drinking Only wikipedia and answers.com (a mirror of wikipedia) seems to think that.

Again - don't get me wrong. I'm sure you'd all drink me under the table - but the point is that it's not verifiable.

2. NPOV talk page. Every page has a talk page. Even the front page has a talk page.

3. I did not attach the NPOV tag to the article. I don't have a problem with it's neutrality.

4. I personally feel that the tone of the article is wrong. It reads like it's aimed at prospective recruits - it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. Looking at some of the external links, there is some material that might be suited for incorperation into the article for example : History of AMMO. The article might be better with an introduction - pretty much as it is now, a history, explaining the changing role, and the current situation with your list of bases if you so desire it.

5. The list of bases. Point taken - I might reformat the list a little, break it out into bullet points.

6. Links. Come on. Give me a break. This is the Internet. The point of the whole thing is Hypertext - cross linked text pages. It's the H in HTML. You can reduce your argument to putting all of wikipedia onto a single page. The idea is to keep things concise. For example you wouldn't expect to find all the minor subversions of a AGM-65 missile here, along with the various bulletins, procedure updates, etc ? At least not on a single page ?

Anyway. Regards Megapixie 14:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to fight, either. Unfortunately, the tone of one's speech doesn't convey very well over the Internet.

There have been alot of updates to the article in the last few days, and that's good. When I first posted the article, the point was to have something on the career field on Wiki. Meant as a brief overview for other people to come in and add to later, I felt it important to include some of the statements that some have questioned as for they are part of what makes being an AMMO troop what it is.

You might question my statement about AMMO's reputation, and I understood that some people might have problems with that. I'm not expecting anyone to blindly believe me "because I said so." That's why I did put outside links at the end of the original article: so that people would follow to the other sites and read the stories posted by AMMO troops, see the pictures, and get a feeling that the reputation held true.

Unfortunately, not everyone gets to spend a day or two on an air force base to get a feeling of what life is like, to hear the comments, to see off duty personnel interacting with each other, so yes, the article may seem to be written towards new recruits. But it's not. It's written for all those people who have not had the opportunity to see what AMMO is all about.

Being an AMMO trop is not just about going out and hooking up to a trailer of live AIM-9s and hauling it out to the flightline, or sandblasting 2000 pound bombs for renovation, or all the other work duties that we perform. AMMO is also a culture. And those subjective statements reflect that culture.

In the same way many links on the net also state that certain appples are the best for an apple pie, the links that I pointed to back up the reputation of AMMO that I spoke of.

Yes, you're right, no one can prove that AMMO is the hardest drinking or most mischevious bunch in the Air Force, but you go and ask enough people on a base, and most of them will back that sentiment up. In the same way, no one can prove that one apple is better than the other for baking pies. In the end, it is the opinion of the person eating the pie that determines if that apple was good or not, regardless of what any given number of other people on the Internet say.

Now, obviously not every AMMO troop drinks a lot, parties hard, or the like. I've known some rather religious AMMO troops, some non-drinking troops, and many aren't mischevious or get into any trouble at all, and who were outstanding soldiers. But what I wrote is the first impression everyone gets of an airman when they first find out he is AMMO, it IS the reputation that AMMO has, and it is a very important part of the AMMO culture.

I understand that you aren't the one who put the tag on the article regarding the NPOV, what I wrote before was adressed to whoever had a problem with statements or the overall appearance of the article, not just you. I should have addressed my arguments to who they were meant to be read by. I'm willing to bet the guy who challenged the article is a loader, the guys who actually load the munitions on the planes. There is a rather intense rivalry between loaders (as we are called AMMO, they are called "load toads") and AMMO. It's not just a rivalry like you would see between different football teams or students from different high schools, it can, in a very real sense, get rather mean spirited.

Anyway, ya, I'm not hear to argue either. I felt I needed to justify why I wrote what I did, and I have done so. I understand changes will be made to the article: some I will like, some I won't. Maybe I'll work on it some more also, maybe I won't.

In the end, I do appreciate and understand the criticism, and agree that it is needed.

Regards,

Mrpex 08:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Being Bold

I am removing the part about AMMO being the hardest drinking party people, as it reeks of POV and doesn't cite sources, as mentioned above. In the meantime I might also remove/rearrange things to give this a more encyclopedic edge, and try to get some sources in as well.

And also I'm gonna seek some comment on moving this article over to Munitions Systems Specialist, as that is the official title of the job. -Maverick 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeing you cant find ref's that AMMO is the title. While "Ammunition Systems Specialist" for the 2W0 career field is correct, yet it is commonly referred as AMMO. See here for the article namely this section; "Most bombs don’t come straight from the factory, ready to drop on the enemy. On the contrary, munitions mechanics must install fuses, attach fins, install mounts for different aircraft configurations and laser guidance systems for “smart bombs.” Ammo airmen — technically called munitions systems specialists and classified under the specialty code 2W0X0 — belong to a relatively small career field, only 6,200 or so strong. Their mission: handling, maintaining, building, delivering and accounting for conventional munitions used on aircraft. “Ammo” troops are not to be confused with weapons loaders, known as “load toads” in ammo circles, or with nuclear weapons technicians, maligned as “mushroom mechanics.” Of course, these other two vocations have their pet name for ammo — BB stackers. The ammo troops motto is the catchy “IYAAYAS,” which means “If you ain’t ammo, you ain’t spit” (more or less). " Now If You Aint AMMO You Aint What???? I know cause I am AMMO and I am in a world of...."spit".... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.146.154 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Shakey the Pig

The article to be merged and the section in this article are pretty much synonymous, so it only seems appropriate to bring the two together. The subject has at least asserted its notability through a source (Airman Magazine publication), but I'm not sure if it's worthy of its own article. Comments welcome. --Scani 13:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DON'T Merge from Shakey the Pig

I think that Shakey does deserve his/her own article. The article, as currently written, is a near duplicate of the sub-section in the AMMO article, however, Shakey is an independent bit of Air Force history in that he/she is the only sanctioned currently-living mascot of any unit in the U.S. Air Force that has been documented online or in printed press. It's rare that common visitors are allowed into a "Restricted Area" for any reason, let alone to visit a "pet", however, people are allowed to do so to visit Shakey. Also, Shakey is not a passing phenomenae; there has been a Shakey for about 20 years now, a testament to the fact that Shakey is not a passing "attraction" and is more than a minor note in AMMO history.

As for the duplication from the AMMO article, when I wrote the original article on U. S. Air Force AMMO, it took quite some time for others to eventually add to it and make it a decent article on its own. I think the same will happen with the article on Shakey. Mrpex 07:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What's with IYAAYAS

IYAAYAS on List_of_U.S._government_and_military_acronyms redirects here. But isn't found here.

--217.81.173.75 (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What douchebag changed "insignia" to "pisspot"

see (as yet) current version of the article, right hand side, image subtext.

WP has no indication that "pisspot" were a special, or even vulgar slang, term for "insignia".

--217.81.183.106 (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Pisspot" is what we call it, it is not insignia, more or less our unofficial symbol, which we "borrowed" from the US Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.13.202 (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Weapons Load Crew Record - 223 Sorties RVN

I did 18 months at Cam Ranh Bay, RVN, 1 April 1968 to 4 Nov 1969.

Early in the tour the Stars and Strips did a story about a load crew in Thailand that claimed a record of (I think it was around 70) 70 combat sorties without a "hanger". Our crew, 9G, thought we could beat that. We did. With 223 consecutive sorties. To the best of my knowledge that record went unbeaten for the duration of the war.

I've got the Stars and Strips article, in PDF, if anyone can tell me how to upload/attach it.

Archive 1