I think you are wrong on these translations of unit designations, but at present I am on the road and don't have access to my sources to back me up. In any case, I don't really have a dog in this fight, since I am only interested in this division as it relates to the 304th RD. When I am in my Fortress of Solitude, sir, you will have your comeuppance. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wreck Smurfy, I'm surprised at this confusion, because we've already had this discussion at User_talk:Wreck_Smurfy#220th_Division. It was my understanding that we all settled on 'Motorised' (er, 'Motorized' for you Americans). You literally said "I side with Kges1901 on this," immediately after he corrected me. In any case, the relevant rule has already, as far as I can tell, been cited by Kges1901 at that discussion- we go with the expert sources in English, for which purpose he was using Glantz. We don't attempt our own translation of the Russian unless English expert sources are not available. My extracts on hand from Stumbling Colossus support what he says about Glantz's translation. For example, he refers to the 84th Motorized Division of 3rd Mechanized Corps on page 126, and, quoting a Red Army report, the 212th Motorized Division of 15th Mechanized Corps on page 136. It does not help that the corps were clearly designated "Mechanized", of course. I've got some further backing which I'm not willing to talk about here - contact me via the emailthisuser function if you're interested. Buckshot06(talk) 07:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say? I have since found additional source material which has made me change my previous opinion. Also, my Russian language skills have improved since then. First, Kges1901 himself gave me a link to Commanders of Corps and Divisions in the Great Patriotic War, 1941–1945, which I've been using extensively since then. I think this can be the definitive source on the exact names of these Soviet formations. In it, the 109th is identified in this period as a "motorizovannaya divizia", as opposed to the 112th immediately below which is a "motorstrelkovaya divizia". I think we can agree the second term can be translated as "motor rifle". As to the first term, when I look up the word "mechanize" in my English-Russian dictionary I find a Russian military term listed: "motorizovat'" (The mechanized corps use the term "mekhannizirovanniy", which may be part of the reason for the English confusion.) Finally I have this quote from a source I only received about 10 days ago: “To begin with, it helps to understand Soviet nomenclature during world war two, because in some ways it was very precise – particularly when applied to the armored forces.... A 'motorized unit' simply had the mobility of the combat elements provided by trucks or tractors: 'motorization', in the Red Army definition. The motorized rifle division of 1939-41 had the same three rifle regiments and two artillery regiments of a normal rifle division, but all the units had trucks and tractors to move everything, instead of horses and wagons. 'Motorized' did not imply or include tanks. The motorized rifle division had only one small tank battalion, and that was true of the regular 'foot' rifle division in 1939 as well. 'Mechanized' refered [sic] to a motorized unit with a substantial armored component. Typically, the armored component was at least one third of all the subordinate units in the mechanized force. For example, the Mechanized Division of 1940-41 had two motorized rifle regiments (0 tanks) and one tank regiment, for a total of 6 motorized rifle battalions and 4 tank battalions.”– Charles C. Sharp, “Red Storm”, Soviet Mechanized Corps and Guards Armored Units 1942 to 1945, Soviet Order of Battle World War II, vol. III, Published by George F. Nafziger, 1995, p. 4. I think the 109th in this period meets this definition of "mechanized". Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to do research that ends up changing your opinion. You've received a new source that changes your mind. But that is WP:OR. Our rules say we should go with authoritative sources in English - WP:RSUE. Glantz is, I would argue, the unimpeachable source in this case.
Thank you. My last word on this matter: I would suggest that Sharp, who is an English-language specialist on the Soviet order of battle, is more authoritative than Glantz, who is not an English-language specialist on the Soviet order of battle. And Sharp says the 109th was a mechanized division. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it is better to use motorized for motorizovannaya divisions because mekhannizirovanniy is ultimately a different word and it would be incorrect to combine two different Russian words in English translation. For example, see this thread on Axis History Forum. Kges1901 (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While we may have a local consensus of Kges1901 & myself against WreckSmurfy, my primary concern is to maintain the smooth working relationship that has resulted in so much incredible output documenting Red Army divisions. You two have worked together really well, and I would like to maintain that, rather than us just having a dispute over a translation where even the published authors on this disagree, and wrecking it with vituperative comments back and forth. I would suggest for the moment that editors consider retaining the mot/mech sections of each divisional history under the same-numbered Rifle Divisions section. This will not help us when a division number is changed, however, like the 109th Div. For that situation, given that Wreck Smurfy is taking the lead on this and writing the articles, I suggest that we allow him to maintain his translation as he wishes. However, I would ask that the full Russian translation of the division designation is inserted directly after the bolded English title, as is already the standard recommendation. I would also ask you, Wreck Smurfy, to consider a footnote that Sharp & Glantz translate the terms differently. This will avoid confusion when readers enter & search after reading Glantz etc instead of Sharp. Buckshot06(talk) 01:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, I did not mean any of my arguments to be vituperative. I enjoy a good academic debate, and frankly, do not have many chances for anything like that given where I live. This has been an enjoyable exercise for me, and I will go with the current consensus; as I have already said, I don't really have a dog in this fight, and we are a good team. That said, I hope we are open to changes to previous rules as new info is found and documented. Now, onward to the revision of the 305th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)! Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
September 2017 Military History Writers' Contest[edit]
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the September 2017 Military History Article Writing Contest with an impressive 65 points from 12 articles. Well done and congratulations, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For your efforts in creating the article on Gary M. Rose, I would like to present to you this barnstar. Keep up the good work! RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kges1901/2017, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
Technology update:
Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
General project update:
The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For your great start to 41 GRD. By carefully tracing the history all the way back to the GPW, you've covered an AA division at the same time!! Keep it up!! Buckshot06(talk) 19:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
