User talk:Noclador/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Ready First

1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division became a stryker Brigade on 15 JAN 11. I know because I am in the unit and was at the ceremony. They even have half their strykers. http://fbmonitor.com/2011/01/19/%E2%80%98ready-first%E2%80%99-becomes-first-stryker-bct-at-bliss/ 3rd ACR is FY '12 DocHellfish (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the information!

now all I need is to know what the numbers of the companies in the brigade are - please can you confirm that the unit designations in bold are correct and find out what the designations of the 4 companies are:

OrBat 1st Armored Division

• 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team
  • Headquarters Company
  • 4th Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment
  • 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment
  • 3rd Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment
  • 6th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment
  • 2nd Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment
  • 501st Brigade Support Battalion
  • Company F, 51st Infantry Regiment (Anti-Tank)
  • 29th Engineer Company
  • 532nd Signal Company
  • 511th Military Intelligence Company

thanks, noclador (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Adjusted. The bold info is correct. I adjusted them right after we reorganized. I now work in the Division Public Affairs shop so if you need any more info, let me know. Also, we tend to put Cav in regular regimental order as they are maneuver. Sorry for the explosion of edits to this. I'm kinda scatterbrained right now. DocHellfish (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks! I did already the graphic with your info (see above). 1 question: regimental order means that I should order the units by their regiments number and not by their battalion number? Which in the graphic would mean that the 4-17 INF would come after 6-1 CAV but before the other two infantry regiments. Did I understand that correctly? also: whenever you have time to have a look at the other graphics of the for US units I created and spot an error, please let me know and I will correct/update the graphics in a flash :-) noclador (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

When standing in brigade formation we order the brigade as follows: 6-1 CAV, 3-17 INF, 1-36 INF, 3-41 INF, 2-3 FA, 501 BSB. The separate companies in 1SBCT fall in with the BSB. I will caution that each SBCT ADCONs (administrative control) its separates differently. 3SBCT, 2ID distributes it’s across the brigade. I would keep those as you have them. Actually, come to think of it, 3/2ID has its 3 INF BNs first followed by the RSTA Sqdn, and then the FA. I guess it is commander's discretion. DocHellfish (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, noclador (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It may make you chuckle to know that your graphic is now hanging on the wall in poster size at the 1AD DIV HQs Public Affairs Office. DocHellfish (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing some of your graphics I see what you were talking about. Yes, you always order the battalions by regiment, then battalion number. So between 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry and 1st battalion, 2nd Infantry, you would list them 2-1 then 1-2. DocHellfish (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Having my graphic hang at the 1AD DIV HQs Public Affairs Office is the greatest compliment to my work ever! :-) thanks for letting me know :-) as for the battalion order: I went with the European style of ordering units - namely no matter what the regiment, inside the brigade units are ordered according to their battalion umber. However if you deem it a problem, I will with the next updates change the order for the US division as to regiment before battalion number order. noclador (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Noclador, do you have a way of talking to you offline? I just had a First Sergeant come in and look at your graphic. He pointed out that divisions no longer have Special Troops Battalions. they are now referred to as Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion. He also said the colors are incorrect. Where did you draw your info for the coloring?DocHellfish (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My spidy sense is tingling

Paulioetc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Do you want to take a look at his contributions and see if you see the same pattern I do. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Bingo [1] one of his sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Generalmesse‎ For info. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Moncho2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Another I would welcome your opinion on. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Any chance you could have a look mate, Paulioetc is becoming a real pain repeatedly adding the same (incorrect) information time and again. Most of my editing time is spent clearing up after him. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

67.164.105.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Is Paulioetc, he is still putting erroneous information into articles. Can't cope with the o/p of this sock puppeteer, he's relentless. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sunday Adelaja

You are obviously not completely neutral as well. I happen to have knowledge in this topic and I can tell that the Adelaja Watch website is completely full of lies and false rumors. That's why it does not belong in Wikipedia, and I think links to it should be removed wherever it can be found in Wikipedia. Do you know that the organization behind that website criticize literally all recognized Christian preachers in the whole world (especially the most famous and most recognized)? Themselves are quite unknown compared to those they criticize. They are not serious and as far from neutral it can be as their false claims about different preachers are mostly based on false rumors. While most Christian preachers (although not being perfect and having made some mistakes sometimes, as all of us) are busy trying to help and save people in different ways, they are busy criticizing others and judging them. The critic from such organization becomes irrelevant. I think you can agree with me that it's not good to put links to them (any website that they are behind) on any preacher's page here on Wikipedia, especially if they are still in the living people category. I haven't checked other famous preachers' pages so much in detail here on Wikipedia, but I would not be surprised to find that this organization is behind parts of the criticism that you will find on those pages as well and maybe a clean up could be motivated on all those pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hheejj (talk • contribs) 15:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Noclador, at the top of this article (Sunday Adelaja) it's written "This article has multiple issues" and there are four points below.

Point 1: It seems like the article has enough verification for the information it contains now. Verifications has been added, and I think information without verification has been removed.

Point 2: I think it has become quite neutral. It looks like opinions has been removed and now it's information based on different verifications.

Point 3: I don't think the article is too long, it's actually not long at all. If more verifiable information is found, I think this article could become better even if it becomes longer.

Point 4: The edits by persons with conflict of interest, both for and against, seems to be reverted and the information left is more and more factual with verification.

Noclador, please look over it and see if you can remove that this article has multiple issues, or at least some of these points. Thank you! I will also look for more verifiable information and if I find I will try to enrich this article, and I'm sure you and others will edit what I add to keep it as neutral as possible.Hheejj (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hheejj (talk • contribs)

There are some potentially wrong information in the BBC article. Adelaja had Christian activities (underground church) in Belarus with fellow African students while he was a student at Minsk State University. However, he came by himself to Kiev and the church was founded with a few Ukrainians (people with alcohol and drug problems) who came to him when he organized Bible studies. I think the BBC reporter might have mixed up this information and that's why it's written in the BBC article that he started the church with a few fellow African students. This information is found here (http://www.godembassy.org/en/pastor_/bigraphy.php), and it is from a book that is edited by C. Peter Wagner (Out of Africa: edited by C Peter Wagner and Joseph Thompson, Regal Books, USA (2004) ISBN 0-8307-3292-6). What is the best way to correct this information?Hheejj (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the BBC article has something about Adelaja escaping witch craft and it's mentioned in the Wikipedia article too. I don't know where BBC got this information from, it cannot be verified. All information I have seen says that he received a scholarship to study Journalism in the USSR, and that's why he came to the USSR originally. However, there were speculations in a Nigerian newspaper from his childhood time that Adelaja's family was cursed (witch craft) because three of his close relatives died shortly in accidents when Adelaja was about six years old (I don't remember now exactly where I read about this). Information about the newspaper (a neutral source) can maybe be found in Adelaja's biography, Olorunwa. So, this information concerning escaping witch craft should also be corrected, since it must be a misunderstanding by the BBC reporter; he did not leave Nigeria to escape witch craft, this can also be seen in the book "Out of Africa" mentioned above. Do you have any suggestions how this correction is done in the best way?Hheejj (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Odyssey Dawn

Why did you redirect a page for multi-national military action to a page for one nation's military actions under the rationale that they were duplicate? I believe they weren't. The only duplicate was the name. ConconJondor (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it is the same mission! They are not different missions.

Ugh! The article documented the multi-national actions. You redirected it to the article for one nation. How is that the same? ConconJondor (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation Odyssey Dawn is the US operation; the multi national article is at Libyan no-fly zone as the multi-national name of the operation has not yet been announced! noclador (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, I think I'm working it out. I got to that page because it was linked to as a page about the multi-national action. The name should be redirected to Operation Odyssey Dawn, the content to Lybian no fly zone. I'll sort that link out. ConconJondor (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that, it's already been sorted out. I need a timeout ConconJondor (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

no problem, we're all editing under stress tonight. noclador (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry about editing the threating civilians sentence..i was thinking that pro-gaddafi ppl were saying thatZyon788 (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Canadian officers are conducting operations

It's called Operation MOBILE: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/risks-inherent-in-helping-protect-libyans-harper-says/article1948592/page2/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.140.69 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes the Canadians are conducting operations, but they are not leading or commanding it - and the infobox is for the leaders and commanders of the operation; I even believe Obama should be taken out of there, because politically France and Britain lead the operations now and militarily all the operations are done through US AFRICOM. Canadians are executing missions as ordered by others; therefore the Canadians do not belong into the infobox. noclador (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you source that? 24.85.140.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

find the many sources in the wiki-articles. noclador (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources all say Canada is operating independently of the other three nations; as all four nations ops are based on the UN Resolution. 24.85.140.69 (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

currently the operational command is like this:

• United States Africa Command - strategic command
  • Air Defence and Air Operations Command of the French Air Force
  • Permanent Joint Headquarters of the British Armed Forces
  • Canadian Forces
• United States Naval Forces Europe - tactical command in the theater of operations
  • commands all forces deployed by the strategic command during operations

the Canadians as the other nations do not command anything here; they execute orders as given by the two US commands. noclador (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tornado as a Tanker

Thank you for that info--looking quite silly actually. Was there evidence that the Italians were actualy using Tornados for aerial refueling?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks looks quite funny anyway--the picturesOther dictionaries are better (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

libyan page

Hi, it would be appreciated if you could help me with the link citation templates i don't know how to do them!!!82.35.242.87 (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

SP howitzers

Ok, thanks for the heads up. EkoGraf (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

3rr violation

I've reported your 3rr violation at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring --Sloane (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about the protest against the libyan 2011 military intervention page

Regarding your contributions to the "Protests against the libyan 2011 military intervention" page, do you have any idea of how to create one that documents public opinion supporting the military intervention? I've tried to create one with the title "public opinion supporting the Libyan 2011 military intervention", but it hasn't seem to work...just wonder if knew how the article-creation process works on Wikipedia. Cheers82.35.242.87 (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi nocaldor I've tried to create the "public support for the 2011 Libyan intervention" page following the steps you gave me, but I'm still unable to create it. is it possible that you or somebody that you know create it?82.35.242.87 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan uprising

Hello, Noclador. You have new messages at Labattblueboy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Al-Qaeda_and_Nato_are_co-beligrents.3F.21's talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan no-fly zone

NATO have now assumed command of all operations in Libya and thus they would all fall under Operation Unified Protector. I'm considering instead to find the ships which were involved in the early bombardment of Libyan air defences i.e. US and UK submarines and misile cruisers. Thoughts? Jolly Ω Janner 21:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Qatar Armed Forces

I have reverted your edits regarding the four C-130Js which Qatar has ordered. They are not yet in service; in fact the first has just come out of paint at the Lockheed Martin plant. Delivery after flight test is expected for June. Ng.j (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks, good that you caught that error - the reason for my edit was that the Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector articles both state (with a source) that Qatar is providing a C-130J-30 for operations in Libya. If the C-130J-30 is not yet in service what plane is Qatar then providing??? noclador (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit of research on the subject, and it turned out your source reference was wrong. The original source (which all the news agencies use) states that the Qatar Emiri Air Force deployed two C-17 Globemaster IIIs. I have updated the Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector websites. Ng.j (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Move Ff – Südtiroler Wochenmagazin

hi there,

please go to Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_requests and place your request to move Ff – Südtiroler Wochenmagazin. Gryffindor (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

about the lacasteriona division you just removed.

"1471 - Lancastrian division led by the Earl of Warwick - out of position in the poor light and mist of early dawn in Barnet, Hertfordshire - fired at a division led by the Earl of Somerset, inflicting heavy casualties. This is one of earliest recorded incident of friendly fire".

Can i just add it in? This source was pretty good. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/3774/

should i added that friendly fire thing in or no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.105.159 (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest only to add material where the date and the occasion are known - in this case, when and where was this battle where the two allied units fired upon each other? Barnet, Hertfordshire it says in the article... but what date? and was there a battle in that location?? noclador (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ok, it was this battle: Battle of Barnet, but there it says that the Earl of Somerset was not present at this battle; and he is also not listed as being one of the commanders there. My suggestion is therefore to not add it. noclador (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ok fair deal but why did you remove operation cottage? Operation Cottage has friendly fires incident involving both US and Canadian forces. It's well documented even if you Google it it will say friendly fire. There is a link to it too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cottage. Also why did many people out sources that the RAF took part of inflicted heavy casualties on the 13th US infantry? Because i remember that part was there for like 3 years in Wikipedia friendly fire article. But I don't remember that the RAF took part of bombing in Saint Lo.67.164.105.159 (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

there has been consistent socket-puppet activity at Friendly Fire recently and as a precaution I and other editors added the article to our watchlist and also only well sourced additions will be allowed to be added to the article. I went now back and checked the Operation Cottage article more thoroughly and it is clear that you were right to add and i mistaken to remove it. sorry about this error. the only thing you need to do is very diligent sourcing and nobody will remove your additions (also to have an account helps to built trust with the wiki community.) noclador (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

oh ok i see. So i found this friendly fire incident involving both George Washington and John Forbes both were British generals in the French and Indian war. But the question is that i don't know how to put it. Those sentences kinda of confused me so i don't know how to put it in an easy sentences. Can you help me on it? I don't know what to put it on the Wikipedia friendly fire article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_in_the_French_and_Indian_War#Advance_on_Fort_Duquesne http://fortligonier.org/george_washington.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.105.159 (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you can do it yourself. If you wish I can afterwards have a look ad what you added and in case it needs improvement can then have a go at it. noclador (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok was this considered to put in the category of civilian casualties by ISAF forces or friendly fire article? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/12/2653950.htm 67.164.105.159 (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

or ahout this? can i put this in a article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rozi_Khan.67.164.105.159 (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

suspected return of user:SuperblySpiffingPerson

you may want to have a look at the 8 (as of this writing) edits by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.171.28.139 to the Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war.

the IP is subtle (at moment), but there is a pattern emerging similar to yesterday's mischief by user:Freibase (confirmed sock puppet of user:SuperblySpiffingPerson) and freibase's various predecessors over the past days.

i didn't tag the IP's talk page with the suspected sock puppet tag (template:sockpuppetry) yet. the IP's edits are a tad too sublte (within these 8 edits) and some of the IP's edits are plausible. i also didn't undo the edits because there are so many (in last 48 hours or so, i've been having trouble with getting "wikipedia foundation server error" messages when undoing something on a large article...not just this one) and as an unregistered editor (operate in no-cookie/no-registration environment), i can't "roll back". regards.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"hit by foreign airstrikes.", "is overtaken by riot mobs.", ecc. Definitely SuperblySpiff! Reverted his edits; and will continue to do so on sight. Thanks for letting me know; noclador (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you have been dealing with SuberblySpiffingPerson too. One thing i think you should do is if the account gets blocked, you should change the tag on the user page with "{sock|SuperblySpiffingPerson|confirmed}". Not sure about IPs though. TL565 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

ok - will do that in the future; with IPs... since he comes every time with a different one I think it is better to keep the suspected there; one day maybe some other normal user shows up with this IP and then it is better if it doesn't say "confirmed sock". noclador (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Also you should go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperblySpiffingPerson if there is any future disruption since i'm not sure if you were reporting in the right section. TL565 (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

well, if the sock is as obvious as User:Zambio and clearly vandalizing articles it is better to stop him immediately by going to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; however if then the vandalism stops as with User:Fixu2000; only then I think it is necessary to head to the sockpuppet investigation to confirm the association between the sock and master. I left a request to check for sleepers at your current investigation request. noclador (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: email

Well let's see what happens with this fellow, he might be at a friend's house, library or a net café. If it's him, he should slip-up pretty soon. He isn't exactly subtle after all. Good work with the tagging though, one can't be too safe and the worst that happens is it was incorrect and he has hopefully given up (Sorry, I didn't see an email link on this page. =( ). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

user:SuperblySpiffingPerson is an extremely annoying vandal; however I think with swift and hard action to always revert him on sight and block his socks, we can get rid of him. I fear he will only give up, when Gaddafi + sons hang from trees in Tripoli... and until then- eyes open and as soon as he resurfaces we must immediately slam him down; cheers and for the future the wiki link to email me: Special:EmailUser/Noclador. noclador (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Request your opinion

Hello. I would like your opinion on a sentence of policy. This request does not concern Operation Odyssey Dawn and I have decided not to work on that article any more. The sentence that I would like your opinion on is the first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability which states,

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

In your own words, what does this sentence mean? Please note that this is not meant to be the start of any kind of debate with you and I am only honestly interested in your opinion. I will look here on your talk page for your response. Thank you. 75.47.149.5 (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I have no opinion on that; as I am not interested in wiki-law. noclador (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

Please stop moving Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol place pages. I would like to discuss this change, which I strongly oppose on the Talk:South Tyrol page. Outback the koala (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

we already discussed it; we decided to move, all moves have been done already; I doubt we will open the discussion again. noclador (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

another suspected return of user:SuperblySpiffingPerson

you may want to have a look at the 4 (as of this writing) recent edits by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Parentalmachismo of Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war (btw, parentalmachismo's only edits since registering). the editor's pattern corresponds (or will very soon i believe) to sockpuppet user:SuperblySpiffingPerson and superbly's aliases' previous style at that timeline article. i tagged parentalmachismo with "suspected sockpuppet". regards.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK and WP:GIANTDUCK apply here. Nice work 96.232. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for keeping an eye out while I was asleep! and good work on catching him so early :-)noclador (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

but note! i didn't reverse the 4 edits. i get the "foundation error" message when undoing such a large mess and it really becomes a bigger mess. i have to rely on you to undo the sockpuppetry. (btw, there appears to be yet another, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sectioner). late here; i'm off to slumber. --96.232.126.111 (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sectioner is definitely another one, I will clean up for you. Have a good rest, noclador (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing of rank inisgnia images from Military ranks pages

Hi there. Please have a look [2]. Thank you. --Nicola Romani (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Another one?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 11:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

US Army Europe command structure

I updated the File:US Army Europe OrBat.png image to show that the commanding general of U.S. Army Europe/Seventh Army has been downgraded back to a three-star position (which it hasn't been since WWII). However, I wanted to add the deputy commanding general of U.S. Army Europe/Seventh Army to the command structure but I didn't have the editing software to add it. I was wondering since you created this, that you could add it instead. Thanks. Neovu79 (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

no problem at all :-) where should I add the deputy commanding general? does he have some units under his command? or is he just a deputy commander without any attached units/commands? any time you wish to have one of the graphic updated, let me know and I usually do an update within 24 hours. Btw. thanks for fixing the commanding general of U.S. Army Europe/Seventh Army rank - that totally escaped my attention! noclador (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The deputy commanding general is a two-star who is immediately below the commanding general. In the chain of command, the deputy assists the commanding general in handling day-to-day operations. Generally any order given by the deputy is to be considered as an order given by the commanding general, unless it is superceded by the commanding general. Neovu79 (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologies. I thought I was helping a little. I'm sure it's in the wiki guidelines not to do so. Neovu79 (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem dealt with

just letting you know. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Krasny bor

"70% of those engaged" means exactly what it says. According to Glantz, the Blue Division had 4,500 men engaged on the first day. Other sources put Spanish strength to 5,100. The division was pulled apart and guarding several different sections of the Leningrad Front. So 70% is a true figureD2306 (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

then we need to put the source and its info into the article - i.e. "70% of the 4500 men engaged that day" - then all is well; because if it just says division readers - like me - might assume that either the division was actually only Brigade sized or that our numbers here are wrong. noclador (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede does not need to be cited if info is in the article. Glantz (2002) pp. 294–295 is one source for the low strength and casualties estimates for the Spanish division ( 4,500 and 3,200 respectively), Isayev p. 464 for the 70% number.

Feel free to word it in a clearer way. Maybe like "the division lost lost 3,###-3,###(low-high estimate) men in the fighting, amounting to ##-##% of those engaged". The info is very useful to highlight the intensity of the fighting, and really should be in the article.D2306 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I reworded the part to make it clear that the casualty rate only applies to the men engaged in battle. please have a look and let me know if it is fine with you. noclador (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine now. Hopefully, I will find time to get back the article and pull it the B-classD2306 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

170th IN BDE structure

Please do not change what I posted. I know the source, as I am the one that posted it. No platoon in the Army is listed with 3 digit number and the associated branch it's never 501st MP platoon. It's instead 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc platoon. I would know as I am in the Army. But if you still need a 'source' look the http://www.170infantry.army.mil/mission.htm and the brigade structure. Shovonma17 (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

42nd In Div OrBat

Your OrBat states that the 27th BCT has the 342nd Brigade Support Battalion. That is incorrect. It is the 427th BSB. Here's the reference: http://dmna.state.ny.us/arng/27bct/27bct.php?id=units Shovonma17 (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Shovonma17 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Military Symbols

Your military symbol for the 4th Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, 173 Abn BCT, does not contain the airborne marker. You did get it correct for the airborne FA battalions in the 82nd Abn Division, though.

Also, the 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, needs to contain the diagonal line that goes from the bottom left to top right. You can check FM 1-02, Appendix B, page B-3.Shovonma17 (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

check what??? :-)

the 173BCT is now corrected, as for the 1st Air Cavalry - ok, add to all the symbols the Cavalry line? or just to the brigade symbol or... ? please elaborate to exactly which symbol the line needs to be added. thanks, noclador (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You should add the diagonal line to at least the brigade symbol. I'm only telling you the Bde symbol for now, as I did not find the necessary reference for the battalion-level Cav AV units in the FM 1-02.

The Field Manual 1-02 is the reference manual for the Army and the Marine Corps for military symbols. With that in mind, I'm curious as to where you found the reference for the airborne infantry battalions. I'm not trying to sound condescending, please understand, as I think you did to good job with the OrBats - seems like it took some effort and you got most of the symbols correct. But according to the FM 1-02, the symbol that you used, with the parachute embossed over the crossing lines, is not correct. It is instead the airbone marker below the crossing lines, the same marker that you used in all other airborne units (just as the update you made to the Abn FA unit). This applies to the 173's IN battalions and those of the 82nd's.

I don't want you to simply take my word for it, hence why gave you the appropriate reference. The FM 1-02 is available for public download, so just Google it. Make sure you download the most recent edition, 2004. Once you have the manual, see Appendix B for what I'm noting. Shovonma17 (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

don't worry! I am fine with critique of my work as I am always happy to correct it to make it more encyclopedic :-) I used a NATO publication "APP-6 MILITARY SYMBOLS FOR LAND BASED SYSTEMS July 1986" and a US Department of Defense publication "COMMON WARFIGHTING SYMBOLOGY MIL-STD-2525B 30 January 1999" for the symbols... which sometimes contradicted each other. as I come from the Italian military I choose the symbol the Italian Army uses in cases I was unsure about the right use of symbol (i.e. the parachute is used for the Army's Airborne Brigade). However if the US military now uses the airborne marker below the crossing lines for the airborne infantry units this in my eyes supersedes the Italian Army and I will update the US Army graphics - the 82nd Div., the 173rd Bde. and this also applies to the 4th Bde of the 25th Div. if I am not mistaken. Can you confirm that? The updateof the 1st Cav. I already did. The rest later today. noclador (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

ok - I updated all the airborne US-units now; other NATO armies will follow in the next days. noclador (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok I see what you are talking about in regards to the reference you used. And yes, good catch with the 4BCT, 25th ID! But I would hold of on changing the symbols for ALL NATO units. I can only speak for US military symbols, being a US Army Soldier myself. And I'll back it up with the appropriate reference. Hence, my reference may NOT apply to non-US NATO military land units. I suggest you just leave them until you or someone else can dispute the symbols with the appropriate reference for the NATO units. I hope you understand what I'm trying to convey.

Also, it's a good idea to check for the most recent references, as symbols from 20 years ago may be out dated. Military manuals are updated, at least in the US, every 5-10 years. Thanks for the updates. Shovonma17 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

the European military manuals are updated with material copied form the US military manuals when the US Secretary of Defense holds a angry speech in Europe about the Europeans being sloppy about updating their manuals, doctrines, ecc.... :-) I would have gone with the airborne symbol modifier for all European units earlier as the newer of my sources uses the airborne modifier to symbolize airborne infantry. However then I saw that the Italians, Swiss and Germans stick with the older parachute symbol... and so I decided to keep it too unless I find out that this symbols is not used anymore for the airborne infantry.

But I am for consistency on wikipedia - so if you agree I will change all the symbols of all the armies to the symbol we use now with the US units, based on the fact that wikipedia is from the USA and we therefore stick with the US-standard version of app-6a. noclador (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need to change symbols of other countries' military to that of the US's. I don't see how Wikipedia being in the US would justify that. Wikipedia is an online source and therefore a global product. Here's the point I'm trying to make - say that the German (or any) army has their standard symbols that they are used to. If I were a German army soldier and I saw symbols on an OrBat for a German unit that is not in accordance with German regulation, I would have a problem.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. Like you said, you want make this as accurate possible, so just display the correct symbols and don't base it on the precedence of another country. I just care about the accuracy of information, that is all. Shovonma17 (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

ok, agreed - if you find any other changes that need to be done to the graphics let me know. thanks :-) noclador (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Map rendition

• Hi there, I was wondering if you can help with a map image file that we have in commons which we want to use on an article page, please kindly proceed to User talk:Nick-D#Map of Singapore. Thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Gabriele Nasci A request for assistance

Hello. I have written an Hebrew article about General Gabriele Nasci[3] who was the commander of the Italian "Corpo d'Armata Alpino", During the Battle of Stalingrad in WW2 [4]. I lack the exact details about birth and death dates and places of the general, and ask your assistance in this subject. Thanks --Assayas (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

puh, that is a tough question! I have no clue and I checked now the various Alpini sites and the Italian Army homepage, but could not find any information. btw. I am impressed that you created and article for him! great work :-) but I fear I can not help you as I am now working and living in Ukraine and can't find any info on Gen. Nasci in Italian archives. Sorry, noclador (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks anyway. I sent an e-mail to the Italian army archives, and hope it will be answered. bye --Assayas (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

smart move :-) all the best to you! and keep up the good work :-) noclador (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good evening. Well, it took a while but I found the answer in page 139 here [5]. So i have managed finish writing the articles about him and the WW2 eastern front corpo [6]. Regards --Assayas (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions About and Offer of Help With Spec Ops Command Org Chart

Hello, I was wondering if you have a key for what the different colors/shapes/graphics signify on the Special Operations Command Chart? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Special_Operations_Command.png I would also like to volunteer to convert the chart to wikipedia:Graphviz format and or create a similar chart in Graphviz. What program did you use to create the graphic? Do you have the original source file? Thank you for your great work. I posted this on the wikicommons talk page in error the first time. I apologize for the duplicates. DouglasCalvert (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize. The symbols used are the NATO Military Symbols for Land Based Systems as published in NATOs APP-6A (Allied Procedural Publication 6A). All the symbols come from there. The coloring is based on the colors used in some NATO member countries to denote different military units in organizational charts. As for the program with which I created these graphics: Photoshop. Years ago I began to create this graphics and have been using Photoshop ever since, as all the basic symbols are in there. The only source file I have is therefore a .psd file... if that helps I can email it to you. cheers, noclador (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi

I explained both my edits that you undid twice. You said "the source does not mention OECD or World Average - did you make that up?" but if you had read the source its right there it does mention OECD and World Average. The other one you say ""illegal political opponents" what a BS! is this new-speak? or what??" and I fully countered with "'dissidents", which is anyone opposed to the government, was not used by source, political opponents was and at the time in Libya being a political opponent was a well known crime" So why are you calling my edits vandalism and undoing my work. Not only did you undo the parts you talked about, you also re-added sources that do not back what they claim to back and the altering of sources. Adding sources from the world bank is not vandalism. I'm going to undo your purging of my work, if there is something actually wrong with my work, than we can talk about undoing my work. Public awareness (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Col di Lana.jpg needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Col di Lana.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

• If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which:{{subst:usernameexpand|Noclador/Archive 9}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
  or use the {{own}} template.

• If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Generalmesse is back

[7] Still using the same sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Noclador. Wee Curry Monster mentioned that you're familiar with this case. If you have a moment, could you stop by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc and give your thoughts on this new editor as they possibly relate to the master? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

2012 reform

Thanks Noclador. Would you mind writing a quick paragraph on each of the reorganisations since 1990 for the main Italian Army page? You could then add a note on the 2012 reorganisation as well. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I can well understand that. However it would be really good if you could write something on the earlier reorganisations - fill in a bit of history. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What about the 1998 reorganisation? Creation of the FODs? That I believe certainly qualifies! Buckshot06 (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Noclador, that's a real step in the right direction. Can you tell me which were the initial three divisions under LANDSOUTH in the northeast in 1952? Buckshot06 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Army History

The 3 divisions under LANDSOUTH were in 1952:

• Inf. Div. Mantova (Udine)
• Inf. Div. Folgore (Treviso)
• Inf. Div. Trieste (Bologna)

however this is strange as there were two more Div. in Northern Italy at that time: Inf. Div. Cremona (Turin) and the Inf. Div. Legnano (Bergamo). The Cremona and Legnano were part of the 3rd Corps and the Mantova and Folgore part of 5th Corps. Trieste was under a regional command. The other Div. of the Army in 1952 were:

• Inf. Div. Friuli (Florence)
• Inf. Div. Granatieri di Sardegna (Rome)
• Inf. Div. Avellino (Naples)
• Inf. Div. Aosta (Messina)

In 1954 the Army raised four more divisions:

• Armored Div. Centauro (Novara)
• Armored Div. Ariete (Pordenone)
• Armored Div. Pozzuolo del Friuli (Palmanova)
• Inf. Div. Pinerolo (Bari)

and by 1962 six of these Div. were already reduced to brigade: Aosta, Pinerolo, Avellino, Friuli, Trieste and Pozzuolo del Friuli. with another three reduced to brigades in 1975: Cremona, Legnano and Granatieri di Sardegna. And the last 4 going the same way in 1986 Centauro, Mantova, Folgoreand Ariete.

As for the 3 brigades under LANDSOUTH... I assume they were the three Alpine brigades: Julia, Tridentina and Taurinense as they were the only Army brigades at that time! noclador (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Noclador, that was quick. Could it be that Cremona and Legnano were simply not operationally ready, and thus were not declared to NATO? Is there any indication that they were assigned later? Buckshot06 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

mmh,... I just saw that the 3rd Corps was only activated in 1957... 5th and 4th Corps (2x divisions and 3x brigades were definitely under LANDSOUTH). with 3 Corps not activated yet I wonder why the Trieste was under LANDSOUTH; usually no unit under a military region was under NATO command... operationally the Cremona and Legnano were ready- they were later (1954) placed under LANDSOUTH. the divisions/brigades were thus distributed among the corps (the date when the unit was raised in brackets) under LANDSOUTH:

• 3rd Corps (Milan): (July 1st, 1957)
  • Inf. Div. Cremona (1945)
  • Inf. Div. Legnano (1945)
  • Armored Div. Centauro (Novara) (1954)
• 4th Alpine Corps (Bolzano): (1945)
  • Julia (1949)
  • Tridentina (1951)
  • Taurinense (1952)
  • Orobica (1953)
  • Cadore (1953)
• 5th Corps (Vittorio Veneto): (May 1st, 1952)
  • Inf. Div. Mantova (1945)
  • Inf. Div. Folgore (1945)
  • Armored Div. Ariete (Pordenone) (1954)
  • Armored Div. Pozzuolo del Friuli (Palmanova) (1954)

other divisions:

• Inf. Div. Trieste (1951)
• Inf. Div. Friuli (1945)
• Inf. Div. Granatieri di Sardegna (1948)
• Inf. Div. Avellino (1951)
• Inf. Div. Pinerolo (1954)
• Inf. Div. Aosta (1945)

noclador (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing on the reorganisation of the Polish ARmy/Polish Land Forces; I've been concentrating on filling in some of their history, rather than the present status. Best information is probably at the websites. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

talk

What were those two mountain brigades, mech and other units doing garrisoned way over in the west? Surely they'd have been better placed further east? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

oh, that made sense if one knows the full NATO defense plan for Italy:

1. Tridentina, Cadore, Julia secure the Northern Flank.
2. Alpine Brigade Orobica keeps the Reschen and Brenner passes open in case US and German forces in the South of Germany get cut of by Warsaw Pact forces rushing through the Fulda Gap to the Rhine. In that case these units would retreat to Italy over the Brenner Pass or over the more Western Reschen Pass (and thus violating the Austrian neutrality)
3. V Corps with its brigades (4 Armored, 3 Mechanized, 1 Rocket) tries to stop the enemy forces before they can break into the North Italian plain. 2 mechanized brigades will NOT engage at first but defend certain area to guarantee lines of retreat for the units of the V Corps if they should fail in their defense: Trieste (and the Lagunari Rgt. in Venice) will defend the coast against amphibious landings and in case a retreat is called secure bridges over the Po, which will form the 1st line of the defense of Central Italy (with the Apennines defended by Folgore, Friuli and Acqui as 2nd line of defense). Brescia brigade will secure that the mouth of the Adige valley, where the retreating forces coming from Germany would enter the North Italian plains, is in allied hands. also a bunch of brigding units were stationed in that area to secure mobility over the large rivers there.
4. III Corps with its units around Milan (Centauro, Goito, Legnano, Cremona) should defend Milan (the first 3) and Turin (Cremona) if defenses further east would fail. If the defenses in the east would hold or the enemy suffer heavy losses, they woudl surge forward to destroy the enemy forces with the Brescia and Trieste joinig their attack.
5. Taurinense will defend Turin alongside Cremona if the enemy would advance this far, and then join the French Army in defending the passes leading into France. In case the III Corps would surge forward to meet the enemy the Taurinense would NOT join in the attack, but be available for NATO to be deployed were needed (Norway was the likely destination, so the Taurinense actually did do battalion-strength maneuvers once a year in Norway).

The other brigades in South were only meant to safeguard against air or amphibious landings there and would not move anywhere outside of their regions. that was the defense strategy from around 1960ties to 1991. noclador (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

two more points: this defense strategy was also the reason the Aquileia Rocket Artillery brigade was tasked with turning the Puster Valley, Piave Valley and the Northern part of the Province of Udine in a nuclear wasteland, to stop or slow down the Warsaw Pact forces there and this strategy was also the reason, why the German Army had the 1st Mountain Division with an Armored and two Mountain Brigades stationed closely to the Austrian border (Division Command in Garmisch-Partenkirchen with the 22nd Mountain Brigade in Mittenwald with strike direction Fern Pass and Seefeld, the 23rd Mountain Brigade in Bad Reichenhall with the Inn valley as target and the 24th Armored Brigade in Landshut to cover the Northern flank) and furthermore around a dozen US military units were stationed alongside the 1st Mtn. Div. as support units. noclador (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Noclador this is fascinating stuff. Is this written down in any reliable source in Italian (or English?) Please, if you know of any reliable source that discusses this, wherever it is, identify it, here if you like. Once we put it in as further reading in the Italian Army article, or a nascent LANDSOUTH article, we can add it once the source is clear. ARe there any specialist Italian defence journals that discussed this? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Also what was the G2 enemy estimate? Not Yugoslavia, surely? Hungary/Romania/Bulgaria and the Southwestern Strategic Direction? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

nope, this is what I learned at the Italian Army during my time there - the officers of the to be dissolved Tridentina and at the COMALP were shredding tons of stuff and I had a look at what they handed me to shred. I am sure there must be some sources out there that discussed this, but as of now I am unaware of any specific ones. I will try to look around if there are reliable sources that studied the Cold War defense plans for Italy. As for the enemy it was the Soviet Southern Group of Forces along with the Hungarian Army. The expectation was that they would cross the border of Austria with up to 10 divisions and swiftly move towards Graz then Klagenfurt and then to Villach and from there they would try to force their way over the Alps towards Udine. Broken into the Italian plains the expectation was that Milan, the port in Genoa and Bologna were the aims of the operation. It was expected that one division would try to break through to the Brenner pass (with the Tridentina in the way). Yugoslavia did not feature much in the plans after the 60ties as Italy and Tito came to a nice understanding. noclador (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

List of special forces units

Should we move this page to 'List of military special forces units'? That would explicitly rule out the police. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Polish Armed Forces and Polish Land Forces

Would you mind taking a look at the status and recent edits on these two pages, and giving opinions or any suggestions for development at the talkpages? Miny peer review request, I suppose.. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Also, would you please mind always putting a title and date on your structure diagrams? Makes it easier for everyone.. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)a

ok, noclador (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

2nd Sustainment Brigade, Fort Hood

Dear Noclador, while trying to update de:Fort Food I've found a notice there, about a 2nd Sustainment Brigade planned for 2010. After some research I've come along this edit of yours, where you removed it from the list. I don't know anything about the Army, so I don't doubt that you're right. Still I would love to understand, what exactly happened to that unit. Best regards from the white Black Forest, --Flominator (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Franco-German Brigade

Hey Noclador. Was reviewing the Franco-German brigade page and found that someone had removed my careful addition about a German battalion which was going to be stationed on French soil for the first time in ... decades. Thought that was important, so I added it back in 2009-2010. Was very surprised to find out that this edit, removing it, was made by you. Please do not remove sourced history of units. We're trying to eventually write featured articles, not remove each event after it has happened. Best wishes for the holidays, Buckshot06 (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Buckshot, I did not remove the information! If you look carefully at my edit you will see two things: I removed that "In February 2009 it was announced that a German battalion of the force was to be moved to Illkirch near Strasbourg in France", which by the time of my edit was already an outdated announcement, because as of my edit the battalion was already based in Illkirch for over a year! (and it wasn't moved there - it was raised there on April 6th 2010 and fully activated on December 10th 2010!) The second part of my edit was to update the locations of the brigades units removing the abandoned locations of the brigade (Sigmaringen, Meßstetten, Stetten am kalten Markt and Villingen-Schwenningen) and adding the new locations of the brigade in Metz, Illkirch-Graffenstaden (both in France). (Please note: according to the ongoing German Army reform the units in Immendingen will move to the unused base at Stetten am kalten Markt in 2012.) Therefore I saw no need to keep the announcement of something that already had happened. noclador (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response Noclador. Appreciate it. I have no issues whatsoever with the second part of your edits updating the brigade locations, and it's great that you did so. The first part of the edit was the issue - let me try and explain what I mean. I wanted to keep the change of location whether it had already happened or not. It's really politically important that a GErman unit was to be based on French soil effectively for the first time in peacetime conditions. That change of barracks from Germany to France will be an important part of the article when it becomes Featured (so we hope, whenever). It's a significant political issue. Thus it is part of the *permanent* history of the brigade, and not just a routine change of barracks. That's why I made the edit and I carefully sourced it. It should stay there in the textual history. It should not be removed. If the International Herald Tribune with the early data got the details wrong, we can always find a source, add the details, and correct the fact that it was not moved, a new unit was created. Something like.. 'announcement was made that a German unit was to be moved to garrison in France.. actually, later , new unit raised.. same effect created.' Do you see what I mean ? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

understood :-) (PS: the idea was always to raise a new unit - a mixed unit of Reconnaissance and Infantry.) noclador (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Noclador. You'll see that I've reversed and modified your latest edit at Grow the Army for similar reasons. Each division eventually should have a note in its article that under Grow the Army it was to grow to five-six brigades, but did not. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand Army

Please do not remove the old structure chart. Just change the caption to 'NZ Army structure 1993-2011'. The reserve battalion groups now fall under 'Training and Doctrine Command', the old 'Army Training and Development Group' former 'Army Training Group'. The structural diagram you want is at http://www.army.mil.nz/our-army/structure/org-chart/default.html - see the TRADOC page. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

ok - I will upload a new chart then and keep the old one (usually I overwrite the old charts and try to keep it at one chart per Army, but that one up to date). Will try to do a new NZ Army chart today. cheers noclador (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Issue 425 of the NZ Army News included a company-level order of battle of the Army from next year. It's available here (see page 14). Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D. Noclador, your charts are important historical evidence. Would you consider starting to keep more than one chart per army, but just dating them in the file? Thus there would be NZArmy2011 or whatever, and the old one could eventually be renamed NZArmy1993.. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I was so fast, that I already have done a 2012 NZ Army chart! before I saw your post Nick!

the new chart

I will now check the correctness of my chart, thanks for pointing that out Nick :-) and - agreed I will now do a new chart for each new Army re-organisation that happens. noclador (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Noclador. Would you mind if I held off adding the NZ Army chart yet? I'm not sure of the rank of the three commands which you've given a single star to. We only had one 'line' army brigadier as the LCC. Don't know about 1 Bde, and certainly not TRADOC - those are possibly colonels, and I believe that may be the case for DJTFHQ-L. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks very good, though I have a few suggestions based on my limited knowledge of the NZ Army (mainly from that NZ Army News article!)

• 1 RNZIR is converting back to a light infantry battalion in July 2012
• The inaugural commander of 1 (NZ) Brigade is a Colonel: [8]
• The Deployable Joint Task Force is being formed from the 3rd Land Force Group HQ, so will probably also be a Colonel-level command.
• The Chief of Army and Army General Staff is missing from your org chart. According to the Army's website, the National Army Museum and NZ Army Marae report directly to the Chief of Army. Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I changed from stars to 2x regimental icon and for the brigade to the standard brigade symbol (an X)... however if there is any chance to know what icons the NZ Army would use for this it would help as we're guessing here what is the correct icon for this unit (3 bars? an X? or a star?)... I intentionally left out the Chief of the Army as that is not an operational unit and my charts focus solely on the operational side. best regards, noclador (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Buckshot might know, but I'm afraid that I don't. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If I asked my people back home, you might get several different answers! Let's go with this: 1 Bde is just fine at the moment. U.S. brigades can be commanded by colonels. At least we haven't promoted a brigadier into the job - I was afraid of that!! Is there a 'training' icon you can use for Army Training and Development Group ? The three-bar regimental icon is fine for that. For DJTFHQ-L, you know the the little APP-6 icon - sort of like half a 'E' turned 90 degrees to the left - that represents a provisional entity, usually used for a combined arms battalion group / UK battalion group / US battalion task force ? Can you do one of those over the regimental symbol? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah-ha; found the 'task force' symbol. This is for a brigade, but could you do it for a regiment? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I should have said, re the org chart names, 'until 20xx' is just fine. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Noclador. As regards the new TRADOC, might it be possible to simply do a box with a regimental three-lines and inside the letters 'TRG'? TRG is the prevalent abbreviation for training back home.

As regards DJTFHQ-L, I mean, not the brigade part of the symbol above but the 'hat' for it. This designates task entities - see APP-6A#Graphic_modifiers, second line, Task Force, Field D. Can you do such a 'hat'?

If you're running out of data for active armies, we need to find you some more things to do. How about a Libyan ground forces structural diagram before Gaddafi's fall? (pre-2011)? I can work with you on that. What about the Egyptian Army? What about the Jordanian Army - think we could sort that out, or the Arab Legion at least. Best wishes as always, Buckshot06 (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your work on the NZ Army. Singapore, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Kuwait you say? First two are easy; plenty of sources. Take a look at Tim Huxley, 'Defending the Lion City', which is the bible on the SAF, but significant amounts of data have been added to the SAF page and I should be able to ferret out the rest. Also try the Ch-wiki pages if there are any. I just saw a page for the 3rd Division (Singapore), ([9]) created a little while ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind turning http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/army/About_Us/Org_Structure.html into a wikiorgchart first? The higher interrelationship of branches, island defence commands, and the General Staff is interesting and needs to be set out. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to the NZ Army I'm sorry but still more things must change. As I said, the 'hat' for the DJTFHQ-L needs to be over a regiment not a brigade, as it's probably a colonel's command. The infantry green and crossed bars need to be removed from the territorial battalions, because they're basically now UK admin regional brigades for TF CSS subunits on a smaller scale. The combat elements will be joining the regular battalions directly, and so with 11/4 Battery which has joined 16 Field Regiment. Please make them white and if you can find a generalised CSS symbol that would be good. Hope I've been clear. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

US Army Pacific OrBat

Hello Noclador, under the orbat of US Army Alaska (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/US_Army_Pacific.png), "3rd Maneuver Enhancement Brigade" needs to be replaced by 2nd Engineer Brigade. The subordinate units are still the same so only change that please. Here's the US Army Alaska's unit page for reference: http://www.usarak.army.mil/main/units.asp.--Shovonma17 (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update above. I've noticed the following inconsistencies in the rest of the OrBat.

• For the 311th Theater Signal Command, you've placed ALL the signal battalions and related units under the 516th Signal Brigade. This is an incorrect depiction. The units need to be shown correctly underneath the signal brigades they are assigned. The 516th has the 30th Signal Battalion, Hawaii; 58th Signal Battalion, Japan; 59th Signal Battalion, Alaska; 78th Signal Battalion, Japan; and 307th Integrated Theater Signal Battalion, Wheeler Army Airfield, Hawaii. The 1st Signal Brigade has the 41st, 36th, 304th signal battalions, and the 6th Signal Center.

• Under 500th MI Bde, the The 301st MI Battalion is missing.

• Also please update the OrBat for the 25th ID CAB, in the 25th ID Wikipedia Site. The 1st Attack Sqd, 2 Avn Regiment, needs to be added in. I see you have already done that in the US Army Pacific OrBat (which is correct). --Shovonma17 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

done, noclador (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)