User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 5

Moscow Mil District

Buckshot, I'm sorry for reverting you in the Moscow Military District article, but adding an entire section in Russian is far too much in my opinion. Just give me some time and I will find somebody to translate those names. Thanks for understanding! --Eurocopter tigre 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be enabled now. Thanks! --Eurocopter tigre 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I still didn't receive any email from you. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, I'll wait. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That maps are brilliant Colin! I wonder if Komersant are actually a press agency, because they look like a secret service!:)) Looks like I'll have to learn some Russian :P. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

SD & Normandy Landings

Re. your adding citation-required tag to the assertion that "all" armies were notifies. Wilmot ("Struggle for Europe") and Foot ("SOE") both state that 7th and 15th armies were alerted, but only 15th Army HQ passed SD's warnings to its troops. I'll verify this and try and put it into the article. HLGallon 05:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}- How do I move a article from one title to an existing redirect's title without destroying the edit history? I want to move the contents of Sixth Army (Soviet Union) to 6th Army (Soviet Union). Buckshot06 15:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You use the "Move" button on top of the page right next to "Edit this page" and "History". You can move over redirects and this will also keep the page history. Suva Чего? 16:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Operation Licorne

Hi, you are quite right it's under French command, is there something in the article that could lead someone to think otherwise ? Sometimes when translating the meaning of the sentence can get altered, (the worst type of mistake). The second phrase is It is under French command., but perhaps another part of the article contradicts this, please tell me or correct it if there is such a sentence. I am a native English speaker leaving in France too, by the way, but for 20 years now, so it's like my mother tongue, you will see sometimes you will lapse into franglais too. Jackaranga 18:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I'm here may I ask you a question, do you know how to say "interarmes" in English ? It means a unit made of different specialists and trades but all from the same part of the military, (for example a unit containing infantry and cavalry, but no elements of the Navy or Air Force). (not to be confused with "interarmées": joint task force). Jackaranga 19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, I changed those parts of the article also, if there is anything else you want to change there, please be my guest, that's what wikipedia is about after all. Jackaranga 19:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Jesus clip for speedy deletion with the reason "non notable". However, "non notable" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the page to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

6th Guards Tank Army

Buckshot06, suggest you move the article's name to "Sixth Guards Tank Army (Soviet Union)". Nice article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Un-taskforced WPMILHIST articles

Well, it would be possible to generate such a list by cross-referencing the main article categories with the task force ones; but there isn't any such feature implemented at the moment. If we re-generate the assessment lists (a matter that's being discussed by the coordinators), I'll try to put that feature in. Kirill 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

African Military history

Hi. I saw ur comment on wikiafrica project in regards to african military history. i'd be happy to contribute whatever i can wherever u need. i specialize in precolonial stuff. my current works in this regard are below

• Kongo Civil War and pretty much all battles attached to it
• Franco-Dahomean Wars i'm really proud of the Second Franco-Dahomean War page. hope someone rates it soon.

holla back when u can. Scott Free 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi buckshot, i only got like a portion of ur comment. "Good to hear from you 4shizzal. Sounds like you've already made a good start on several African military subjects. You might be interested to go through to "

what were u trying to direct me to?Scott Free 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

76th Rifle Division

Hey, sure, go for it. --Marshal Bagramyan 22:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1077th AA Regiment

Buckshot, in the text a source is named as the "Volvograd Archives" -- should that be Volgagrad? W. B. Wilson 05:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake I'm afraid! I must have been thinking of cars while I was typing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.217.100 (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh! And I'm User:Metacosm.. sorry.. wasn't logged in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metacosm (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Misc

Good day Colin and thanks for the corrections made on my user page! Unfortunately I was unable to contribute to wiki in the past few days, as I changed my internet provider. Just a question: are those Russian Armed Forces graphics really correct - I'm asking you this because I just found a submarine icon in Moscow :)). I'm quite surprised that the Russians released such informations to the public... Best, --Eurocopter tigre 17:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked again and it is the 60th..., based in Kaluga...-on "KV Map 03 MMD" img. --Eurocopter tigre 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I will take care of that in a minute. --Eurocopter tigre 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He seem to be calmed down now, as he didn't remove anything since October 1st. Anyway, in the future i'll watch closely those pages and I will intervene if he's removing sourced informations again. If you have any other problems, please don't hesitate to tell me. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I would like to know if you are interested in cooperating to promote the Romanian Land Forces article to FA class. I would like to make it after Russian Ground Forces or DRC military models. Unfortunately, I can't do this alone because I don't have sources and your experience. Would we be able to do this? --Eurocopter tigre 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the infos from WB Wilson are useless for this article. I don't want to put such many details from that part of the RoLF history - posting the entire structure of the Romanian People's Army would be quite uninteresting (the only solution I think is to put it in a "Romanian Army during the communist era" article, or something similar). I already used some of WB infos, as well as infos from CIA world factbook, etc, for the history part. The problem is that I would like to find new and updated data from western sources (ex. Jane's, etc) - and I can't do this because I live Romania. Also, if you think I missed to mention in the article some important infos left by WB, please process them from my talk page, and put them into the article. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 12:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I was just about to do the same thing!(Red Army) --Eurocopter tigre 16:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, he has just been announced. --Eurocopter tigre 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I just asked user:Bogdan if he is able to translate that article for us. I'm waiting for his reply. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Buckshot, from now on, when you are starting a discussion on my talk page, I would like to reply there, so the discussions can flow. I just want to let you know, as you might want to add my user page to your watchlist. Also, user:Bogdan gave us a positive answer! Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Ground Forces

You should reform the Ukrainian Ground Forces page with the same amount of detail that you did the Russian Ground Forces. By reading the Ukrainian page, there is no discussion of problems there, nor of the gross underfunding - the Ukrainian military budget is only around $600 million compared to the Russian military budget of $32.4 billion, some 55 times higher than the Ukrainian one yet the size of the military is only some 4 times larger.--Miyokan 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• 440 is not the size of the 51st brigade, it is a number of reserves that will be added to the current number in case of war. Ceriy 14:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing it. I didn't know how to word it properly. Ceriy 15:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Light Horse

Ok, done. Kirill 01:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Attention = yes : Please advise

You removed "attention=yes <!- article needs references ->" from Peleg Wadsworth. I thought I followed the instructions on WP:MILHIST carefully in regard to the applicability of the "attention=yes" but since you couldn't possibly mean to indicate that the article is not in need of references, the applicability of the "attention=yes" must be the problem. Please help me understand.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

You just tagged American Flag Desecration in the United States for a possible merge to an article that does not exist. Did you mean move? - Rjd0060 14:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

O. I see you fixed it. Never mind. - Rjd0060 14:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Should be merged. - Rjd0060 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator page on AfD

The coordinator page on WPMILHIST has been nominated for deletion, this being one of the most stupid things happening on Wikipedia since I came here. You might like to leave comments regarding this, here. --Eurocopter tigre 20:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, the problem has been quickly resolved! Best, --Eurocopter tigre 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

USAF Intelligence Wings AFD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_10#List_of_USAF_Intelligence_Wings_assgned_to_Strategic_Air_Command

Your arguments added to the discussion won the day. The AfD was closed and the article was deleted. Bearian 21:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

210th Armoured Division

It was a Yom Kippur War Division. Most if not all IDF units switched its numbers after 1973. Most of it switched again after First Lebanon War. Originaly, after Second Lebanon War it was supposed to switch again, but I don't believe that the Israeli General Staff would take such an obsolete and ineffective measure of classifying. However, there is no chance that a nowadays' "ha-Mapatz" Div. have the number 210. Anyway, I don't think that it is a good idea to write the "ha-Mapatz" Armored Division might be the 210th Armd Div. Either it is, or it isn't. Flayer 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Guards

Hi.

I notice you added a merge tag to Guards unit which I just split off from Russian Guards. Please add your views to the discussion at talk:Russian Guards.

Thanks. —Michael Z. 2007-10-23 22:21 Z

Hi again. Since there's no merge proposal at talk:Russian Guards, I'll remove the merge tag from Guards unit. Feel free to restore, if I've made an incorrect assumption. Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-10-24 17:09 Z

Hi. Responded to your last at talk:Russian Guards#Renaming. You have a good point, but the best solution is not yet clear to me. —Michael Z. 2007-10-24 21:53 Z

Soviet ranks

I asked similar questions on Talk:General_of_the_Army_(Russia), Talk:Marshal_of_the_Russian_Federation, and Talk:Marshal_of_the_Soviet_Union, and on that third page, you answered my question and said that my proposed answer was correct. So thanks. You also linked me to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Russian_and_Soviet_military_history_task_force for a previous similar discussion. That previous discussion was about Russian ranks. My first question for you now is: were the Soviet ranks the same as the Russian ranks? Also, do you know the answer to my question here: Talk:Chief_Marshal? Thanks. - Shaheenjim 04:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I updated the article for Marshal of the Soviet Union in response to your answer to my question. Someone else made a similar update to the article for General of the Army (Russia). So now that's cleared up. By any chance do you know the answers to my similar questions at Talk:Chief_Marshal or the article for the international Talk:General_of_the_Army? - Shaheenjim 07:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago, with this update, you answered one of my questions, saying that the Soviet rank of Major General was equivalent to the US rank of Brigadier General. I made some changes to some articles based on that.

Note that another user named DmitryKo has undone several of those changes. I discussed it with him here. It sounds like he knows what he's talking about, so I'm going to leave his changes, but I thought I'd let you know about it. - Shaheenjim 23:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference to the article about Russian Army from anonymous user

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/ittech/ May be it helps... LostArtilleryman 12:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Sorry but I'm also swamped, simply no spare time in my current state to do such a large translation!--Miyokan 14:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag & Assess

I reckon you've done closer to 400 so I've updated your tally acordingly. No further explanation needed :) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Lst4002 jmsdf-01-s.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lst4002 jmsdf-01-s.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Megapixie 14:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Russia FAC

Hi Buckshot, thanks for the offer - not as of now, I seem to have delt with people's concerns so far. I'll contact you when I need some help. Also, I will be without an internet connection for about 2-3 days starting tonight.--Miyokan 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. user:GB-UK-BI and Kosovo Protection Corps

user:GB-UK-BI is a socketpup of our old friend indef blocked vandal user:gon4z. He has a vast record of inserting unsourced nationalistic pro-Albanian propaganda and/or anti-Serbian claims into articles - especially regarding Kosovo and Albanian military forces. So be careful about his edits - he also edits as User:82.35.33.72. With best regards, --noclador 02:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

27th Guards Rifle Division (Soviet Union)

Thanks for the heads up. I must admit that I don't know that much about Russian military history or order of battle, so I didn't know there were two divisions named "27". I was just looking at it from a formatting & standardization point of view, so I defer to your superior knowledge of the subject. I created several redirect pages to 27th Guards Rifle Division to make searching for it in the Wikipedia database more user-friendly which may need to be sorted out. Pen of bushido 13:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Numbering scheme for Israeli units

The first 12 IDF brigades of 1948 and its battalions were numbered consequently. Later on there was no consistent logic of re-numbering or giving numbers to new units (divisions, brigades and so on). For example, unit #669 was numberd this way because it is similar to Sayeret Matkal's number (then possibly considered #169 or #269). Divisions could be numbered for its first commander favorite number x10, and re-numbered after any war after next commander's favorite number x10, or using same digits in other order. Nowadays there is no scheme, except keeping same old "rules" like numbering Y battalion of XXX reservist brigade like XXXY, and so on. And even these "rules" non always obeyed. Flayer 14:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this, so a comment although not really participating in the Israeli project. The initial 12 IDF brigades were so numbered for the 12 tribes as a symbolism of Zionist restatement of Jewish return to its Biblical homelands. Subsequently all units are numbered using the gematria numerology system. This is obvious in Israel where the use of Gematria is prolific in every day life, but virtually unknown outside the Israeli society. This is why there are three digit numbered units. The use of numberx10 is also based on Kabbalah where 10 is considered a 'complete' number, and is related to the unit commander's good fortune. So there is a system, its just not a very military one. Few Israeli officers will admit to this (except Dati (religious) since it woudl be considered superstitious and irrational to most of their NATO counterparts. Hope this helps :o)-- mrg3105mrg3105 22:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Ground Forces

Hi; I have begun to create an OrBat graphic of the Ukrainian Ground Forces as there is now enough information available. But one question remains: What is the strength of the regiments and battalions? Examples:

• 93rd Mechanized Brigade has 5 regiments and 8 battalions - if I take an average regiment size of 1000 men and an average battalion size of 500 men, then the Brigade has a strength of 9.000 men. This is too much for a Brigade.
• 25th Airborne Brigade has 4 battalions and 7 companies - with companies of around 100 men - the brigade has 2.700 men. This is the right size for a Brigade.

Now my question is: What symbol should I use for the regiments and battalions? As I see it the regiments should have the battalion symbol II and the units called battalions should have the company symbol I. But maybe you can help me and give me a better idea what strength symbol I should use. The units names I will copy 1 to 1 from wikipedia into the graphic - that means units named regiments will also be named regiment in the graphic. thanks, --noclador 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Buckshot06 - I think user:Bogdans idea is good and we should continue the discussion at User talk:Ceriy#Ukrainian Ground Forces 2. The unit strength symbol does not define a units combat strength, but it size in men and therefore I would still suggest to downsize the unit symbols of the 17th, 92nd and 93rd by one. But let us discuss this at user:Ceriy site. noclador 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Archiving peer reviews

I've gone ahead and archived it for you. The full instructions are at the top of WP:MHR#PEER; but you shouldn't need to worry about them, since the reviews get archived on a semi-regular basis anyways. Kirill 22:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Russian Navy frigates

Hi Buckshot
About the Russian Frigate 22350 FFG:

• "Who are we to say what the Russians call frigates" - It is not we who say what the Russians call Frigate, they call it that themselves! It is this unknown editor Mikhail Barabanov, who says otherwise. This is a unsourced claim by a unknown person, who says something that does contradict the official Russian naming of the ship: in the article it says 6 times that the ship is a frigate, the Russian navy calls it a frigate and the convention is Frigates are around 3.000- 5.000 tons and destroyers 6.000 - 10.000 tons. This ship has 4500 tons - that is why I removed the claim that this is a destroyer, because everything - with the exception of Mikhail Barabanov - says it is a frigate. It sure is a large frigate and could be reasonably called a destroyer, but it is definitely not "a large destroyer". That it is called a frigate surely has political reasons, but as I said: this ship is in no way a large destroyer; the Kongō class destroyer or the Arleigh Burke class destroyer are large destroyers (both over 9.500 tons).
• About the major units of the Ukrainian Ground Forces: Have a look at the white book of the Ukrainian Armed Forces page 91. It lists 2x Armored, 6x Mechanized, 3x Artillery, 1x Airmobile, 1x Airborne, 1x Rocket Artillery Brigade as the planned strength of the Ukrainian Ground Forces for 2007. The 79th Airmobile was founded last year so it isn't there yet. It also says that the strength is 88.500 men, 889 tanks, 2638 armored vehicles, 104 helicopters and 1128 artillery systems. I think this info is much more accurate than what the IISS says. By the way the white paper states that the operational forces compromise 56% of the manpower which means that there are around 49.560 man in the operational forces, which means that there is not a single division sized brigade left! therefore also the regiments can not have much more than a battalion of troops.
• I do not want to get into an edit war, but you can be very sure that I only add or change things on wikipedia of which I'm 100% sure. I would therefore ask you to reinsert my edits, as in fact they are correct.

thanks, --noclador 23:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I get the point your making :-) Sorry - I was in a hurry and just read your first post quickly and than answered. Citations I don't normally do... I'm a former member of the Italian Army (reserve now) and so the material I get is seldom public, but always accurate. I know that wikipedia is now striving to get all things cited and sourced, well - I will get used to it and try to find and add sources whenever necessary. --noclador 00:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I updated now the Military of Ukraine#Organization and hopefully got it right with the citations and sources. could you please have a look. thanks. as for the armies that are next: Iraq (almost done), UK (waiting for confirmation of the structure from the MoD - unfinished graphic here: commons:Image:British Army OrBat.png, than Bulgaria and Greece (as soon as they answer me the questions I sent them), Sweden and last but not least I will do a major update of the Polish and Romanian Army charts.After that I will try to do Japan... and maybe India, Argentina and Brazil... but what I really would like to do is Russia, but the info too much incomplete to start. --noclador 00:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

and thanks for the accolades about my graphics - it is nice to hear that I do a groundbreaking confidence-building measures type of work, Hopefully the reaming armies will see this too and hand over their structure data to me (i.e. Taiwan, South Korea, Turkey) :-) --noclador 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that the entire article List of Russian Navy frigates is a copyright infringement, as it is a 1:1 copy of this and this and so on... What to do? Report it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems or remove the copied text? --noclador 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces

I will do a graph of the Russian Ground Forces. Hopefully one day we will get more details. Today the Japanese Ministry of Defense answered me - in effect the said "get lost"... ggrrr... such things anger me. South Korea, Taiwan and the PLA are also very difficult to get infos, as all three classify the information about the location and composition of their units. The only nation in Asia that does publish good data about its units is the Army of Singapore - I will do that one too in the next weeks. Also Malaysia has much info available, but its structure is nonexistent as it doesn't use brigades, but the same kind of useless organization that the South African Army uses. --noclador 13:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Any corrections? --noclador 16:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, take your time - when your ready we will start with the detailed Russian graph. Just send me whatever you have and I will do the graphs. What about the above graphic - it has all the info I found on wikipedia - shuld I add it to Russian Ground Forces#Dispositions article? --noclador 08:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Structure Russian Airborne Forces

Hi; as you can see I created the VDV graphic. There are many more units in the chart than you listed on my talkpage, because I checked my sources and much more info (i.e. this one) I think the chart is now extremly detailed - the units are all there with their correct names, but the symbols show the real strength (i.e. all the Artillery Regiments (except the 1065th) have just 600 men and therefore I gave them the symbol of a battalion. The only missing thing are the support units of the 31st Brigade. --noclador 00:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I updated the graphic now as you wished, but I still think that it is a abomination to call a unit with less than 200 men a battalion. You say that "it's the fighting power equivalent, with the CSS that Western battalions have integral is actually held somewhere else (higher echelons)" I don't see where all this CSS is held somewhere else at the VDV. But you are clearly the expert here and I will follow you in this, as you know much more about this topic than I do. --noclador 10:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Wiki Chevrons

I, noclador, hereby award you, Buckshot06, this barnstar for your extensive and tireless contributions to various army articles, especially your excellent contributions to articles about the armies of the Soviet Union and Russia. Keep up the good work! --noclador 10:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

South African Army

Thanks for adding the info about the South African Army - this allowed me to finally do (albeit an incomplete) graphic of the South African Army: * South African Army --noclador 11:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the sources to the image page son commons. I don't want to add the sources to the graphics themselves. --noclador 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Task force scopes

Please, please, try to avoid setting us up for scope wars between different task forces. Sharing is good. :-) Kirill 22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Russian/Soviet TF does cover the Baltic states for the period in which they were part of the Russian Empire and the SU. I would have thought that the remainder being out of scope would be obvious from the note about "non-Russian" military histories not being included. Do you think that's not clear enough?

(In general, I'd like to avoid any sort of wording that suggests a contention between different task forces about who "owns" a particular topic. If there are borderline cases, it's much better for the social health of the project if we let anyone with an interest come in; the worst case there is a few extra task force tags, which is far better than endless arguments about where each task force's scope ends.) Kirill 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Poking at this a bit more: is this any better? Or is it still confusing? Kirill 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. :-) Kirill 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that looks fine; I hadn't considered the fact that the CIS wording might be ambiguous. Kirill 00:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

wouldn't mind an intervention

Hi there, my patience is being tested and I wouldn't mind a third opinion/attempt to cool passions. I do not consider this to be a content dispute, and until an explanation on why it may be is offered, I will treat it as a flouting of policy, in which case I will wear my admin hat and the other user will be disappointed in the result. Thanks, BanyanTree 07:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PXE Edit

Hiya mate.. Thanks for editing the Proof and Experimental Establishment page. I wanted to clarify an issue. You have added Indian before DRDO in the infobox and page. I agree that the name sounds generic, but if you search wikipedia, there is only one Organization that is named so. Considering that, I think its not necessary to add the country specification as well, especially when it would be very clear just from a cursory reading of the article. What do you say... Cheers. Sniperz11^talk|edits 04:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out.... I never realized how difficult it was to figure out which country we're talking about. I'm improving the page, and all the associated pages, by including the following text as the first line. Tell me if it works.

The Proof and Experimental Establishment (PXE) is an Indian defense laboratory of the :Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO).

I've also replaced the Infobox Organization from Defence Research & Development Organization to DRDO, India. Does this sound ok? Thanks for the help.. Sniperz11^talk|edits 11:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ground and Coastal Defence Forces of the [[Baltic Fleet]

Hi Bucksot, thanks for the data about the Baltic Fleet. it will take me some time to make the graphic, as I'm swamped with work. I will try to make the coming weekend. Btw. the link you added to the Italian Army - a major restructuring of the Italian Armed Forces is planned (no details publish yet). If you find anything in Janes, please let me know. thanks, --noclador (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Seventh Guard Army

English: Hello!

I was surfing Pages needing translation into English, and found your request out. I retranslated the first passage, however, I save the previous text as a comment in order to let other people return something

Russian: Здравствуйте!

Я просматривал Pages needing translation into English, и обнаружил ваш запрос. Заново перевел первый абзац, но оставил предыдущий текст в качестве комментария, чтобы позволить другим вернуть что-то

A. Demidov (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

From Eurocopter

Hi Buckshot, I was wondering if you could send me the info about the RoLF from Jane's November 2007 (you didn't replied to the email which I sent to you on 16th November). Regarding your latest translation request, I'm sorry to say that I was very surprised of User:Bogdan reaction - [1]. Best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, just a minute. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just sent it again. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems that we have a problem with the emails, as I can receive them from you, but you don't receive mine ones. However, could you send me please that info?? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're probably right, maybe I was hurrying while I made all those articles. However, your edits seem to be ok. I'm asking you for the 5th time I think, could you pleeease send me the info about the RoLF??? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, first of all, you need to stop being patronizing and treat me like a 5 years old child who needs to do his homework in order to get his candy.. Secondly, I advise you to look more carefully at the air armies articles, as I'm absolutely sure it would not fall under copyright infrigement. I would say that you "fixed" the 14th Air Army article wrong, as you don't have to mention the source three times per paragraph while it is mentioned at the bottom of the article - actually, mentioning five times in a text that AFM said this, this and this, it's like an advertisement for them. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, as I'm quite busy at this moment and unable to contribute to those articles now. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lake class patrol boats

Thank you for providing the missing pendant numbers for these boats. I entered them as "X" because I couldn't locate them anywhere. Would you mind telling me where you sourced them?--Geronimo20 (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

noclador

Hi Buckshot, i'm extremely stressed out at the moment. Will be this week too - will try Sunday to make the graphic - no guarantee at the moment, but i sure will make it one day. greets, --noclador 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06

On October 30th you wrote:

"Great work for all your edits on the Greek Army. Can I ask what's the source for all the lists and locations of the military units? Buckshot06 14:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)"

Thank you for your comment and appologies for my late reply. This lists of equipment are not my work though, so I have no answer to your question. Take care.

--->kompikos 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

T-55AGM

Why do you consider an article that I posted a while ago a copyright violation? I modified the unreadable text from [2] and wrote it in the simplest way that I could and you call that a copyright violation? - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I modified the text about T-55AGM. Now it looks like this:

The modified text:

Ukrainian T-54/T-55 modernization. It brings up the T-54/T-55 tanks to T-80 standard. It can also be applied to Chinese made Type 59 and Soviet T-62. It is fitted with 5TDFM, two-stroke liquid-cooled multi-fuel supercharged diesel engine with boxing pistons which develops 850 hp (634 kW), improved running gear, automated movement control system with a steering handlebar control, additional passive protection, built-in explosive reactive armour, countermeasures system, new fire suppression system with over-ride facilities at the commander's station, automatic loader which holds 18 rounds and anti-aircraft machine gun that can be aimed and fired from within the turret under a complete armour protection. The anti-aircraft machine gun is installed on the commander's cupola and is intended to be fired at air and ground targets. The buyer can choose between two main armament options: 125 mm KBM1 smoothbore gun or 120 mm KBM2 smoothbore gun. Both of them with use of enhanced performance conventional ammunition and barrel-launched ATGM can defeat modern tanks form distance of 2000-3000 m and up to 5,000 m using the ATGM. The tank can carry at least 30 rounds. The 125 mm KBM1 smoothbore gun weighs 2,5 tonnes, has a barrel length of 6 m (48 calibers) and can fire APFSDS, HEAT and HE-FRAG rounds while 120 mm KBM2 smoothbore gun weighs 2,63 tonnes, has a barrel length of 6 m (50 calibers) and can fire all types of ammunition that meet the requirements of NATO standards and Ukrainian-made ATGM. Both guns have normal recoil length of 26-30 cm and maximum recoil length of 31 cm. The tank can be armed with either the KT-7.62 or the PKT-7.62 coaxial machine gun and can carry 3,000 rounds for it. The tank can also be armed with either KT-12.7 or NSVT-12.7 heavy machine gun for AA protection and can carry 450 rounds for it. The approximate successful range is 2 km during day and 800 m during night. The AA HMG can be elevated between -5 to +70 degrees. The remote control for anti-aircraft machine gun is stabilized in the vertical axis during automatic mode (by using the TKN-5 sight) and is using the PZU-7 sight for semi-automatic mode.

Are there any more copyright problems with it? - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Award

In recognition of your diligent contributions towards the various reviews of military history articles, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal. Kirill 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)