User talk:Noclador/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1st Armored Division

Noclador, if you are interested, the third combined arms battalion that is not identified on your picture of the 1st Armored Division ORBAT is 1st Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment

I am always interested in such things. Thank you! :-) noclador (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, for 3rd Brigade the Engineer Battalion is now the 2nd Brigade Engineer Battalion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmanrock29 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

4th Infantry Division (Greece)

User:Dragases and User:Constantine are doing a great rework and expansion of the Greek Army's formations, with references this time. 4th Inf Div is now listed as part of the Supreme Military Command of the Interior and Islands (ASDEN), but is not on your structure chart. If you have the time you might want to talk to them to update the charts. Main talk forum at the moment is Talk:15th Infantry Division (Greece). Buckshot06 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Program for creating TOEs

Hi Noclador, First of all, I think that these TOEs that you've created are pretty amazing - in addition to the standard notation, I really like your colouring of the different unit types as this makes them stand out easily. The question I have is what program have you used to create them? I'm part of a wargaming club & I want to create some of these (but with additional details such as vehicles used, etc) so can't simply make use of the ones that you've created Any help or suggestions greatly appreciated Cheers FozmanFozman (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. I did make them all with Photoshop as that was the only program I knew back in 2005 when I started to create them... and as all of them are in psd format I continue to use Photoshop. Best, noclador (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the swift response. How cheeky would it be for me to ask if it was possible to have a copy of your base psd file? :-) I presume that you have, in effect, a "template file" that has the individual elements that you then bring through into a new TOE? I don't have Photoshop (but my son does) & I'd then see if I could convert the PSD file to Visio. Cheers Fozman (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please use the "Email this user" function in the menu to the left and I send you the bast file. cheers, noclador (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Polish structure chart

Have you made any progress with that Polish structure chart? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian Air Force

Can you do this please:

And thank you so much.RabeaMalah (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces

Hello, Noclador; yes, indeed, the 1st Infantry Division is currently involved in a process of transformation into a Multinational Division (under NATO command), and some of its units were directly allocated under the Land Forces command. We'll have to wait a couple of years, until the re-organization process is finished (http://www.romania-insider.com/who-is-the-new-commander-of-natos-multinational-division-southeast-in-romania/154633/), and see what's going to happen. PS: Sorry for my late reply. Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC))

OrBat Graphics

Hi Noclador, I've been looking at different OrBat graphics recently and noticed that most if not all of the ones on Wikipedia are made by you. So I just have two questions for you.

First of all, I was wondering what program you use to make them. I'd imagine something like Photoshop or Visio, but if there is some other program that works better I'd be really interested in knowing.

Secondly, I've been thinking of trying to make some OrBat graphics myself for personal use, and I was wondering whether you had a base file of sorts for them. If so, I'd greatly appreciate having a look at it.

Cheers, PhoenixGamer (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It's all Photoshop. I use it for the graphics as it's the only program I know well. If you send me your email (use: the "Email this user" function in the menu to the right) I will send you a pack of graphics in the .psd format you can use as basis for your own work. cheers, noclador (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Caserta international airport?

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I've removed your addition at Template:Airports in Italy in the section "minor international" because Caserta-Gazzanise is just a military air base, without passenger services. Wjkxy (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

CENTAG wartime structure in 1989

Noclador, please do me a favour and rewrite the 1 Canadian Division section of this article in accordance with the summary of a published book I uploaded to Orbat.com back in 2002, now linked to the article via Further Reading. 1 CMBG's inclusion in the division is not supported by reliable sources!! Buckshot06 (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at the 1987 Defense White Paper "Challenge and Commitment" - you are correct: 1 CMBG was not included in the 1 Canadian Division. In case of war 1 CMBG would have sent 1,500 men to augment existing units of 1 Canadian Division, but would not have deployed as a unit. I will change the article now. noclador (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Correction: 1,400 men from 1 CMBG and 100 from Mobile Command to bring Division HQ to full strength. Also: "In crisis or war [1 Canadian Division] would be assigned to the Central Army Group Commander's tactical reserve, performing operations in support of either II (German) Corps or VII (United States) Corps." noclador (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you provide the link? That sentence should be used as a reference in the article! Yes, the Maloney book said that individual pers would have been drawn from 1 CMBG. Doubt 1 CMBG would have been operational afterwards as a brigade; maybe a single battlegroup orientated West toward Alaska? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

≈==WP:NOTBROKEN and Canadian 1989 order of battle article== Hi Noclador. Are you aware of WP:NOTBROKEN? We should not set up links that look like [[Joint Task Force (North)|Canadian Forces Northern Area]] because when Canadian Forces Northern Area (or, another example, some of the militia districts) are established, all the links will have to be changed. Either leave them as redlinks or set up redirects, but they should not point at connected present-day formations. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Many units from 1989 had their names changed over time. The units still exist, but the names were changed. That is why i.e. Canadian Forces Northern Area leads to Joint Task Force (North), because the one is the name in 1989, the other is the name nowadays. I thought it correct to use the 1989 names exclusively to make sure that the image of Canadian Forces 1989 I try to create is perfectly correct. What solution would you suggest? noclador (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Do not use, mention, or include in any way the up-to-date names. The link for Canadian Forces Northern Area needs to look like [[Canadian Forces Northern Area]] with no mention of any of the words 'joint', 'task', 'force', or 'north.' Similar practice for any other units or formations that have changed names. Links for the militia districts need to look like [[Prairie Militia District]] with no mention of any title including the words 'brigade' and 'group'. That's what WP:NOTBROKEN means. Do you understand now? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. Ah ok, so no links, just the old names. Question: Can I create redirects? Like a redirect at Pacific Militia Area to links to 39 Canadian Brigade Group?
  2. Chill!! Don't delete info! I saw your request for citation and was about to add it soruces, but you had already deleted i.e. Fighter Group Canadian NORAD Region. Everything in that article is sourced! I am working through a 217 page file with ALL units that Canada had between 1945 and 2014 and I am sourcing everything needed. Don't delete info before I can add a source. noclador (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. (a) Yes, redirects, like the one I've just created for Fighter Group (Canada) are exactly what we want. (b) I might have allowed FG CNR to stand, except there's a major error in it - if it existed, it would have been Fighter Group/Canadian NORAD Region, one headquarters with two functions. (Actually I just confirmed this [1]). We can easily create another redirect should that be necessary. I think you need to check your sources a bit more carefully. Especially I'm concerned about that string of equipment numbers in the battalion/regiment entries. Where do all those numbers come from? Are the sources reliable? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. Ok, I will create redirects.
  2. The name "Fighter Group Canadian NORAD Region Headquarters" is from the Canadian government's a) Royal Air Force website b) the Government of Canada’s terminology and linguistic data bank c) the Laurier Centre for Military, Strategic and Disarmament Studies (http://canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/) which pubslihes the list of all Canadian units in existence since 1945. (here is the file) And 2 out of these three use the name "Fighter Group Canadian NORAD Region Headquarters" without the "/". So, I think my sources are solid. I am working from solid sources and copying the material.
  3. Part of the sources for the equipment numbers are the Canadian government's defence White Paper, which lists what amount of equipment was where, and from a brochure in German about the Canadian Forces there. noclador (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. I'm baffled at your actions Noclador. Your very own first reference demonstrates the correct phrasing - Fighter Group/Canadian NORAD Region. The / is vitally important because Fighter Group was a Canadian national administrative headquarters, and Canadian NORAD Region was the NORAD operational air defence region. Go to the NORAD historical material in the NORAD article if you're skeptical; CANR preceded Fighter Group by seemingly decades. This was because the Canadian national fighter authority shrank from Air Defence Command (Canada) down to the status of a group. Now, the White Paper or associated documents may be slipshod with the title, but that's no reason for us to be.
  2. Secondly, you've just accepted NOTBROKEN, but here your reverts are reinserting the linkages between brigade groups which came along a decade afterwards, and the Militia Districts which existed in 1989. That's dumb.
  3. If you wish to continue listing detailed numbers of equipment with each battalion/regiment, you'll need to footnote them. TOE numbers theoretically showing that each battalion/regiment *should* have had such-and-such numbers of tanks/AFVs *do not show* that the battalion/regiment in question *actually* had them on hand at any particular time. It's far too cut and dried for real life - need individual sources for each battalion/regiment, equipment on hand. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. As far as I understand: Fighter Group was created in 1975, and merged with Canadian NORAD region in 1987. As you phrase it now: the / belongs in there. As said, I keep copying the stuff from the Annual Historical Reports as that lists units by their names and if names changed the open a new line for the "new" unit and they didn't use the /.
  2. I am right now going through all the NOTBROKEN links. I reverted your edits in that regard in haste.
  3. Ok, will footnote the equipment numbers. However a few numbers are from the government's White Paper (i.e. 4x Aurora's on he Pacific Coast, or 37 Leopard 1 at Gagetown etc.) I will leave those in. noclador (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Look at the (Fighter Group redirected) article - Air Defence Group was the 1975-84 organisation; FG was created in 1984. For the White Paper equipment numbers, just footnote the White Paper. There's no reason why those should not be in-line referenced while everything else is. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. So the lineage is: 1967 Air Defence Command -> 1975 Air Defence Group -> 1984 Fighter Group -> 1987 Fighter Group/Canadian NORAD Region.
  2. Please stop removing the Training squadrons from CFB Cold Lake!! It's unclear where they belonged and I am still trying to figure out how this worked. As: 1) air command units were always under operational control of the base commander 2) it seems "operational" training units were not part of Training Group in any way 3) and 419 Tactical Fighter Training Squadron with its CF-5D Freedom Fighters seems to have been a) the lead in fighter trainer squadron and b) air command's aggressor squadron. So for now I left them at Cold Lake, while I still go through sources to figure where exactly these units fit in. noclador (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. Well, in that case, remove the mention of groups!! Right now they're listed as part of Fighter Group!!

No sources in USAFE 1989

I'm getting ****ing sick of this Noclador!! There are no cites in the entire article!! Footnote it, fully, pronto, or I'll nominate it for deletion!! Buckshot06 (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The whole article is copied/collected from the various sub-articles of the units linked. All of these articles are sourced, but I am adding now more authoritative sources. Also: how would you source i.e. my edits at Polish People's Army order of battle which is data transferred/translated from the Polish wiki. noclador (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
That's WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed. You have to have one reliable list. How can you be sure of the subordination of the air base groups in 3 AF, for example, if they have no articles? What about other units without articles. Anyway, you've got about 36 hours, then I will start mass deletions of the information, rolling them back until you provide proper sources. Armies of NATO's Central Front would do most of it, but it's late 1984, not 1989. Also STOP LINKING PRESENT-DAY TITLES!! Link the contemporary titles!! For the USAF all the older titles exist as redirects!!
Template:Translated page is what you need to put on the talk page for the PPA data. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Check the 2nd source for the Sixteenth Air Force!! It's a 52 page long file and lists ALL the damn units with a description of all their subunits and their planes and so on! And on page 43 is a list with all units that were part of the Sixteenth. Plus throughout the text you can find the units planes and their numbers. Just READ the source! noclador (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Bulgarian army

Hi it is very hard to have a reliable information on this topic because some of the information is still classified and of course no one has ever published on this topic. There is some books about regiments of bulgarian army but that`t all I think. I don`t know if you check this links but here you are: http://www.airgroup2000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37208 http://socbg.com/2015/04/%D1%81%D0%BC%D1%8A%D1%80%D1%82%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA.html http://www.militarymuseum.bg/Pages/Military%20history/Polkove/polkove.html http://www.boiniznamena.com/?action=article&id=88 --Ilikeliljon (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! this is very helpful. I was busy for the last two weeks, but when I have time I will now start with the Bulgarian air force in 1989 article. Thanks, noclador (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

486th TMW

Our wikipedia page, citing what is presumably AFHRA, says the wing was disestablished on 30 September 1988. Dragoner, as far as I can translated the usual German terms, says 'Das Geschwader wurde im August 1987 aufgestellt und bereits im September 1988 wieder aufgelöst.' Aufgelost has been used to where other units have been disbanded. Why are you continuing to readd the wing? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. Sorry. noclador (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI British Army Structure update

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-12-15/HCWS367/

The Army is refining its force structure to deliver the capabilities set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) 2015 and modernise the Army’s ability to fight at the divisional level. The SDSR 2015 significantly increased the readiness levels required of the Army, underpinned by investment in new capability and a war-fighting division as part of Joint Force 2025. It introduced the innovative Strike brigades, based on the new AJAX vehicle family and the development of Specialised Infantry battalions, reconfigured to provide an increased contribution to countering terrorism and building stability overseas.

I am today setting out refinements to the Army which will take place during the life of this Parliament. These have been aligned with the “Better Defence Estate” strategy announced in early November. As we previously committed, we will continue to sustain a regular Army of 82,000, a whole force of 112,000 regular and reserve troops and the Army’s footprint in the devolved nations. All existing regimental cap badges will be retained. Large parts of the Army will be unaffected but it will involve some units changing their role, equipment or location.

A modernised division will be centred on the 3rd (UK) Division, organised with four brigades of two Armoured infantry and two Strike, rather than three Armoured infantry as now. A significant uplift in capability, it will hold one of each at high readiness, rather than the current single armoured infantry brigade. From this, in times of crisis, the Army will be able to deploy a credible division of three brigades. To develop and transition to this new posture, in 2017 the Army will launch a Strike Experimentation Group in Warminster. This will ensure that the first new Strike Brigade will be formed by the end of the decade.

In 2017 the Army will also create the first two new Specialised Infantry battalions to pioneer this new capability. A new Group headquarters for the units will be established, initially based in York alongside the 1st (UK) Division of which the Group will be part, before moving to Aldershot by 2020. To reinforce this capability the Army plans to create two further Specialised Infantry battalions by 2019. They will conduct defence engagement and capacity building, providing training, assistance, advice and mentoring to our partners.

As part of our continued investment in the Army Reserve we will build on the success of the Future Reserves 2020 plan. We will optimise reserve structures, embed the successful pairing of regular and reserve units and increase the number of reserve combat units supporting the division. As a result two new reserve infantry battalions will be created from 2017. A new reserve Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) regiment will also be created.

A summary of the Army units most affected is described below.

Summary of changes proposed under Army 2020 Refine

Strike Brigade

The first Strike Brigade will operate from Catterick and Salisbury Plain and will be composed of the Household Cavalry Regiment, The King’s Royal Hussars, the 1st Battalion Scots Guards and The Highlanders, 4th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland. A number of Royal Logistic Corps (RLC) and Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineer (REME) units will be allocated to provide close support logistic support, beginning with 1 Regiment RLC and 1 Close Support Battalion REME.

Specialised Infantry Battalions

In 2017 the Army will also create the first two new Specialised Infantry battalions to pioneer this new capability. These units will be The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland and 4th Battalion The Rifles, the former relocating to Aldershot from Belfast by 2019. A new Group headquarters for the units will be established, initially based in York alongside the 1st (UK) Division of which the Group will be part, before moving to Aldershot by 2020. To reinforce this capability the Army plans to create two further Specialised Infantry battalions by 2019. These units will be the 2nd Battalion The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment and the 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment both joining the group in Aldershot by 2020.

Renaming of administrative structures

The introduction of the Specialised Infantry capability will mean some reorganisation of the infantry divisional structure, within which infantry regiments are administered, from seven to six divisions.

The Scottish and The Prince of Wales’s Administrative Divisions of Infantry will merge, incorporating The Royal Regiment of Scotland, The Royal Welsh Regiment and The Royal Irish Regiment. This administrative division will be called The Scottish, Welsh and Irish Division. The Mercian Regiment from the Prince of Wales’s Division will join with the King’s Division. Army administrative divisions of infantry are the groupings within which the Army manages its infantry soldiers and officers to give them the necessary broad spread of relevant career experience from across a number of different units and activities. They have no operational role. There will be no changes to the names or regimental construct of The Royal Regiment of Scotland, The Mercian Regiment, The Royal Welsh Regiment, or The Royal Irish Regiment as a result of these administrative changes.

Support

The changes announced will require adjustments in some supporting and enabling elements of the Army. HQ 102 Logistic Brigade, 32nd Regiment Royal Artillery, 35 Engineer Regiment, Headquarters 64 Works Group Royal Engineers, 2 Medical Regiment, Headquarters 4th Regiment Royal Military Police, 33 Field Hospital and 104,105 and 106 Battalions of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers reserve will be rationalised, with all manpower in those units being redeployed to other areas of the Army in its refined structure.

Army Reserves

As part of our continued investment in the Army Reserve we will build on the success of the Future Reserves 2020 plan. We will optimise reserve structures to better support the modernised division, embed the successful pairing of regular and reserve units and increase the number of reserve combat units supporting the division. As a result, two new reserve infantry battalions will be created from 2017. These are 4th Battalion The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment and 8th Battalion The Rifles. A new reserve Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) regiment will also be created.

Freyjaceleste862 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! I updated the British Infantry chart right away, but only half-did the Field Army Order of Battle as there is not yet info on the 2nd Strike Brigade and therefore it is not possible to do a proper graphic for the two remaining Armoured Infantry Brigades. As soon as we can find that info, I will update the Field Army chart too. Cheers, noclador (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2016 (U

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your massive overhaul of NATO Enhanced Forward Presence - much appreciated!! Buckshot06 (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Outdated Brazilian Army Orbat

I was looking into the Brazilian Army and it turns out you need to update your charts. I've checked the military commands.

  • It seems that the Northeastern, the Eastern and the Southern commands are unaffected.
  • The Special Operations Command of the Planalto Military Command was somewhat restructured.
  • The Army Aviation Command of the Southeastern Military Command lost the 3rd Army Aviation Battalion, which was transfered to Campo Grande and to the Western Military Command.
  • While the Western Military Command has gained the mentioned army aviation battalion the command elements of its 18th Frontier Brigade are being transfered.
  • The major restructuring occured in the north of the country. A whole new military command split from the Amazonian Military Command - the Northern Military Command, headquartered in Belém, Pará and covering the states of Pará, Amapá and Maranhão.[1] Its command and logistics units are being formed. The 23rd Jungle Infantry Brigade went from the Amazonian to this new Northern command subordination. Next to it a new 22nd Jungle Infantry Brigade is being formed and it is also called the Amazon Mouth Brigade (Brigada da Foz do Amazônas). The command, command company and the signals company of the 18th Frontier Brigade of the Western Military Command are being transferred to form the nucleus of this new brigade. The subordinated units of the jungle infantry brigades in these two northern military commands also got reshuffled. Best regards!B.Velikov (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
This is interesting. Seems they are trying to prepare for trouble at the Venezuelan border... as soon as work will subside and I have a bit for free time to look into it and update the articles and graphic. Thank you for letting me know! cheers, noclador (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture in Golan, Six-Day War

Hi. Could you please add the following picture of Israeli troops in the Golan above the paragraph that starts "On the morning of June 9, Israeli jets began carrying..." (in this section, as it was before previous picture was removed for lacking commons permit):

Israeli tanks advancing on the Golan Heights

Thanks--Mill48q (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, noclador (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

British Army 2020 Refine some ORBAT info

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/615377/2017-02130.pdf

FYI for diagrams. Thanks. Holland85 (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Very helpful! With this info now around 90% of all future UK military unit dispositions are clear. Soon I can do an update of the whole army structure with both Strike Brigades included. Thank you for letting me know about this file. Cheers, noclador (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Army National Guard

I just anted to say good work on the additions to the units section of the Army National Guard page. Please let me know if I can help as you continue to build out that section.

Regards,

Billmckern (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the thanks. I am almost done with adding all units. However there are a few problems that I could not yet resolve... i.e. the Army National Guard activated a new Military Police Brigade this year, but I could not find it's number and location. Also: there should be 16 Maneuver Enhancement Brigades, but I found 18 that still seem to be active... so which two have been disbanded? Same goes for the Engineer Brigades: there should 7, but I found 8, which means one has been/will be disbanded; but which? As for the remaining units: there are 19 Regional Support Groups. I am trying to find them all now, but that's not easy... noclador (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Army Air Corps (United Kingdom)

Hi - Many thanks for your very helpful addition to Army Air Corps (United Kingdom). Do you have a source for this? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This site has all units of the British Army from 1945 to today. Took days to sort it through, but I have now 99% of the army structure in 1989. As for the Helicopter numbers: this site has ever helicopter ever in service with the Army Air Corp]; and this site is the best and most detailed listing of the BAOR in 1989 I have seen. I also used the official histories of the units on the site of the British Army to counter check the data. The unit structure is 100% correct. The helicopter allocation is somewhere around 90-95% correct. The problem is that independent flights always had 4x helicopters, but flights in squadrons (depending on the operational needs) went up a bit or down a bit... and as the army was sending Lynx AH.1 to be converted into AH.9, it's absolutely unclear what squadron what how many helicopters. However Scout and Hirundo numbers, and all pure Gazelle squadron numbers, all flight numbers and also the numbers for 672 Squadron AAC are all 100%. With the Lynxy... if you have a source to help out with numbers, please let me know.
Also: this update is just a side effect of a bigger article I work on, namely to create a complete and full overview of the British Armed Forces in 1989. The Navy is now complete, the Army will be done by this weekend, but the Royal Air Force is still a work in progress... The end result will be some like these articles I created: Structure of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1989, Structure of the Canadian Armed Forces in 1989 (also done: Belgium, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Austria). (Also working on Denmark (90% done), Netherlands (80%), Italy (50%), Germany (90%), Bulgaria (50%) and for France and Spain I got the entire armies by now). In case you happen to have some info about the Royal Air Force's structure in 1989, please let mek know. I got all flights, and most bases, but higher command... there are a lot of holes still. The best structure I could put together from various sources follows here below. If you have any other question, feel free to ask. Cheers, noclador (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Great. Many thanks for all this. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me playing in your sandbox, but you seem to have left out the districts in the mainland UK, which had a very real homeland defence role, and HQ UKLF. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
You'd save yourself some trouble if you just copied out your earlier December 1989 listing which is half-way down Commander Field Army. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Never mind you joining in helping editing! I am not yet done, and still collecting info. As for the districts, I am right now making a map showing their boundaries (Having trouble with the Lowland/Highland boundary tough). Good additions on the Joint Commands!!! So far the only part that is 100% done is the Royal Navy, but feel free to check it for errors and omissions (Main source is: this site. What I really need is help with the Royal Air Force structure... there is 0 info on the support units (Signals, Radar, Logistics, Training, etc. etc. of RAF Support Command). Also - feel free to edit around in the sand box. Also: if you have a way to add the above listed 4x sites to the Army Air Corps article as references that would be excellent. So far I only wanted to list them at the bottom of the article under the title: "Cold War References". noclador (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear! Great find. I added that 2012... and forgot about it! Also, with the site listening all units of the Army post-1945, I will need to add/update the Commander Field Army list. Thank you! noclador (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I've just dug out of a box Peter R March, 'The RAF Almanac 1995,' RAF Benevolent Fund, 1994, ISBN 0 9516581 8 2. It's the best source I've ever seen on all those never-mentioned support units of all types, from maintenance units to HQ Military Air Traffic Operations. It was the first edition of the almanac, and comes after the split of Support Command into P&TC and RAF Logistics Command. It does not include a full order of battle, but does have a number of really useful structure charts, text describing P&TC and Logistics Command, and, the real gem, a textual list of all bases with, as far as I can tell, most units. Suggest you search around on the internet and see if you can find it, for a start. Otherwise I'll start trying to figure out what I can add. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm,... can't find it online. How many pages are those lists? noclador (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Over forty pages. But I realise that that's about the first time I've pulled it out of a box for years. Might be more useful to you than me. If we can sort out the postage costs, I'd happily send it to you. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
40+ pages? Ok, that's a bit too many for what I usually do in such cases: take the brochure, smartphone-photograph the relevant pages and WhatsApp or email them. The Adobe Acrobat OCR reader can work with that. I will keep digging online. As the British Army annoyed me a bit... I did the Danish military instead Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989. Most of the info is from Allied Forces Baltic Approaches, but I cleaned it and separated the Home Guard from the active forces. noclador (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
You have an e-mail which should help you with the British Army. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

RAF / Army

Thank you for the email! This will be helpful, when I get to the army. I am still stuck at RAF Support Command... even after looking through the London Gazette, and googling all commands that were listed there I still have no clue, what units made up this wild/chaotic organisation. I am adding bits and parts to other sections though... because before getting to the army I want to have the Navy and RAF finished. BTW. SAR Force is a thing with its own commander and HQ. Btw. I found this list of appointments of higher RAF Commands. Tomorrow I will check if it can be source to give Support Command some structure. Cheers, noclador (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you put aside Support Command for now, or ask me nicely to post you this book. There are no references for SARF at all, and none of my period references list it - all just have 22 and 202 reporting directly to 18 Group. Sometime in the 1990s it definitely did grow a separate HQ etc, but I'm not sure that was the case in 1989. Do me a favour and until we have a reference indicating its' existence in 1989, whip the HQ out. For the rest, focus on CINCFLEET and Strike Command... honestly few are interested in Support Command. Finally, what is your source on CINCNAVHOME's war role? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Danish Army OrBat chart

Hi, Noclador! I see you have updated the Danish Army chart. There are some things, that need to be taken into account about the Army's current structure.

  • until 2013 the Army, the Navy and the Air Force each had their own Operational Command: the Army had its Hærens Operative Kommando (HOK). Then the three merged into the Joint Services Defence Command (Værnsfælles Forsvarskommando (VFK)). Within it an Army Staff was formed (Hærstaben) with the responsibilities for army units training and readiness. So the two-star staff on top of the chart should be Army Staff, not Army Command. The ruling Danish coalition is actually in talks right now to reverse the merger and reestablish the separate Army, Navy and Air Force Operational Commands in 2018.
  • since 2015 are the Jægerkorpset and the Frømandskorpset no longer integral parts of the Army and respectively the Navy, but part of the Specialoperationskommandoen (SOKOM), which is a two-star command, equal in status to the Army, Navy and Air Force. So the Jægerkorpset does not fit in that chart any more.
  • The three Total Defence Regions (Totalforsvarsregioner (TFR)) are part of the Homeguard, not the Army and in 2016 they have been reduced into two Land Regions (Landsdelsregion Øst og Vest) with the purpose to reduce 93 Homeguard positions.[2]
  • As for the two schools on the chart - the Army Officer School and the Army Sergeant School are part of the Defence Academy, which is directly subordinated to the Defence Ministry.(Hertil kommer Hærens Sergentskole i Varde og Hærens Officersskole i København, som sorterer under Forsvarsakademiet.[3])
  • If you want, you can add the Danish Division, the 1st and 2nd their explanatory names to the diagram - they are official:
    • Danske Division - Hærens Taktiske Stab
    • 1. Brigade - Hærens Internationale Center
    • 2. Brigade - Hærens Kampcenter

Actually you can just take a look at the Danish Army article on the German Wikipedia. I just edited it. Greetings!B.Velikov (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent information. I already updated the chart of the Danish Army. If you have any other army/unit you wish to have updated, please let me know. The amount of info and details in your post made updating the chart wonderfully easy. Thank you! noclador (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainian Airmobile Forces structure

Hi! Thanks for your contribution. We've discovered 2 issues so far:

  1. the whole structure have new name: it's Air-Assault Forces since November 2017
  2. Artillery Divisions should be Artillery Battalions

More details on the article's talk page. --VoidWanderer (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Artillery Brigade (Ukraine)

  • Please quote your sources.
  • I have added Interwiki. I suggest you do it yourself, because you know the subject better than me.Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the interwiki links. There are a few more, which I would like to ask you to do, as I have no idea where to find the right place to add these links:
As for sources: I posted a short summary of the Ukrainian articles, which are sourced. Would it be enough as source to put a reference to the original and more expansive Ukrainian articles? Thank you, noclador (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I believ you should copy the original references, but I'm not an expert.Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Air base naming convention

Tim Vasquez at RussianAirfields.com specifically set up all the Russian/Soviet airbase names up at Placename (airfield) because that's the way the Russian sources listed them. User_talk:Timvasquez#A_statement_about_my_Russian_airport_work. "..I have never encountered Soviet airfields that literally contain "Air Base" in the title (at least in the English literature). This seems to be mostly a convention the U.S. Air Force uses for its own bases. In Russia the convention seems to be to use the nearest village name, or in the case of a large city, use a numerical designator, i.e. Severomorsk-2. Quite often they are just referred to as, variously, "Tiksi aerodrome" and "Tiksi air base" (uncapitalized). This is also the convention I see in declassified FOIA documents in the CIA archive website. So if there is ambiguity I use (air base)."

That's the way they've been for years. Do you have new information that Ukrainian sources are referring to them as Placename Air Base? Otherwise it looks like we're mirror-imaging Western practice, which is not what we should be doing. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I based my decision to rename them all on the Ukrainian wiki (the work I did over the last two days is all merely translation work from the Ukrainian wiki) and there they name the airbases always in the following way: Авіабаза + name. So I went to bring the English wiki articles in line. Here is the complete list: uk:Список авіабаз України. Ukraine has begun to adapt to NATO standards in everything (naming, structures, C2, ammo, fuel, etc.). noclador (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Not quite sure but we can go with it for now. Suggest we pause on the Ukrainian side and translate uk:Список російських підрозділів вторгнення на території України. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I am already done with all I wanted to do with the Ukrainian military. A few editors had finally managed to do a full listing of the Ukrainian army and air force and that was what I wanted to translate as it is a needed resource in the ongoing conflict. The list of Russian units involved in the war interests me less... because in the end the answer is simply: "All Russian units were involved in the war in Ukraine". Now, weekend time,... maybe I will finally get to do the Bulgarian military in 1989 when I have some time again. noclador (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Structure of the French Army

Hi, Thanks for the graphic of the structure of the French Army. There is just 3 little mistakes :

  • 1st Division has no Compagnie de Commandement just a staff
  • 3rd Division has no Compagnie de Commandement just a staff
  • État-major spécialisé pour l'outre-mer et l'étranger (EMSOME) is a brigade level staff (X) not a division level staff.

Niko67000 (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Structure of the Bulgarian People's Army 1989

The article Structure of the Bulgarian People's Army 1989 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While extensive, this is not suitable for Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a database for past military formation information.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Why do you believe that information on past military organisation is not notable? If it is covered in multiple reliable sources, even in a foreign language, it meets GNG, correct? To give a comparison, should I, following your logic, proposed-deletion Departments of the Continental Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Structure of the British Armed Forces in 1989

While the Prod above is inappropriate, I give you warning that if you do not extensively reference the British page named above within 12 hours, I will strip it back to the referenced sections. This is not Bulgaria or other more obscure places where references are scarce. JUST PUT IN FOOTNOTES WHERE YOU FOUND THE DATA!! Reference your work, please!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But give me more than 12 hours. I am retracing all the steps I took to find this info in summer. noclador (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
[Expletive deleted] man!! This website BLEEDS CREDIBILITY because of incomplete referencing!! Can't you KEEP YOUR data AND references TOGETHER!! Buckshot06 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I will continue to delete every section of the RAF article that does not have in-line referencing. You cannot trace the sources without it. DO THE JOB PROPERLY!! Buckshot06 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Your actions are vandalism. One can't source stuff when someone else keeps constantly deleting stuff and you have to revert it back in to add the source. Go for a coffee and chill. noclador (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, you are incorrect. Jimmy Wales said "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." [4][5] Because there are no adequate sources in most of your 1989 articles, and because I keep identify things that are wrong, there is nothing to be gained by having poorly sourced info put up. I will continue exactly what I am doing until you source stuff properly. I've just been dealing with other things and haven't brought the hammer down enough. Do us all a favour and just footnote the details as you pull the data together. Information cannot be evaluated properly, in military-professional circles, without some idea of the source. Otherwise you're in fan-boy territory. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

45th odshbr

What are your sources for the structure of the 45th Air Assault Brigade (Ukraine) that you added recently? I would like to know for the purposes of WP:VERIFIABLITY. Kges1901 (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I translated the articles regarding the Ukrainian military from the Ukrainian wikipedia. This is the standard organization of all brigades of the Ukrainian Air Assault Forces. The equipment changes from brigade to brigade, but the basic organization remains the same. As of now it is unclear what the numbers of the brigade's battalions are, as so far it was only announced that the brigade was raised by expanding the 88-й аеромобільний батальйон. I am constantly keeping an eye on the Ukrainian wikipedia articles for more info to become available and then add it to the English wiki articles. As for WP:Verifiability - all I can do for now is to guide you to the various brigade articles on the Ukrainian wiki and the uk:Десантно-штурмові війська України article which is the one Ukrainian wikipedians keep updating regularly. noclador (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

INDOPACOM

I was surprised!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a Cosmetic change... I don't think the US will now do any force-posture changes. Maybe some more trainers to India? noclador (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Completely cosmetic, aimed at China. I'm just waiting to see if we get INDOPAFLT, INDOPACAF, USARINDOPAC, MARFORINDOPAC etc!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
You're correct. And I wonder if Trump will honor the ANZUS treaty... noclador (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
ANZUS is not at issue right now. It *might* need to be invoked after 2020, but the Chinese won't reach Aust/NZ before then. Right now we just need Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, and the Philippines to come up with a clear policy and request U.S. assistance when necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Those countries can't even agree on the color of the sky... I doubt they will ever come up with a clear policy. If they do - I will be surprised. Australia and New Zealand stand alone... that's also on what the new defense policy in Italy grounds. noclador (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi will you be creating

The page Structure_of_the_British_Army_in_1989? Cause you did Royal Navy and RAF.

Thanks

Sammartinlai (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have created such an article already, but keep it in my sandbox, as I have not found enough sources to confirm in detail all of the data collected about the Army in 1989. Here is the link to the data in my sandbox: User:Noclador/sandbox/Structure of the British Armed Forces in 1989. If I will one day find a reliable source to confirm the information I will move the data to a wiki-article, but for now I will leave it where it is. noclador (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks alot !Sammartinlai (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You've created a double article for the Portuguese Mech Bde

Check Category:Brigades of Portugal and do something about it, please. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Will fix it! noclador (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Suggest actually you create a stub from it for the 1955-1976 Nun Alvares Division.. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't really have time nowadays. Too much work. Only the new structure of the Polish Land Forces I plan to update in October, as they are activating a new division the 18th Mechanized Division "Żelazna" on September 17th; and latter add the new Field Artillery Brigade to the US Army Europe chart. noclador (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Links for this new division? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Execellent draft. Sammartinlai (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I admit

I was the one who used your sandbox to improve the 1989 Order of Battle for the British Army, but my intention was only to improve that horrible entry by J-Man11 who refused to answer any talk. I did not intentionally copy all of it but part of it and was searching for sources.

Not sure how accurate is the line that Deputy Commander-in-Chief Land Forces directed the forces at Wilton. In any case, your entry wrote UK Field Forces which did not exist then.

Thanks and apologies

Sammartinlai (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I knew. But I don't name names. And I realize you had good intentions. But Sandboxes should be off-limit, unless the user allows stuff to be copied from there. I hadn't yet copied the full article into the mainspace as I collected that info over years and have never found sources that confirmed all the details. And I do not have the time to look for sources now (too much work). Now that I copied all my data into the mainspace feel free to correct/update/source it as you see fit. Best regards, noclador (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Italian Army 1974

Had a gander at your recent edits. JUst wanted to say I think this is great, but if you wish to take it to mainspace you'll have to reference it substantially. More importantly right now, I found it hard to follow - had to guess at many of the Italian terms. Suggest a list of translated terms, and possibly corps, division, and brigade titles in English. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, but this work is far from finished! My plan is to first make sure the information is correct and source it, before taking it out of my sandbox. I am having especially trouble with the artillery units, which were named differently depending on their equipment; and between 1972 and 1975 almost all old equipment was taken out of service in favor of the M109 and M114... so all the artillery units I need to double check. I will keep the Orbats in my sandbox until I can find enough reliable sources. The translation is also forthcoming. Right now I am doing a list of units that were active in that year and next I will go and read up on the units' history entries at the esercito website. noclador (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Structure of the Italian Army

Salve, ho visto che ha annullato la modifica dell'utente 93.41.124.65 (ero io senza essere collegato) nella pagina Structure of the Italian Army. I due reggimenti il 31 dicembre 2016 sono stati soppressi e il giorno dopo contratti a battaglioni (fonti la Relazione sullo stato di avanzamento dei provvedimenti di ristrutturazione delle Forze Armate, anno 2016, pag. 8 e questa pagina).

Poi, curiosando ho anche scoperto che sta costruendo il quadro di battaglia dell'Esercito per il 1974, alla vigilia della ristrutturazione. Se vuole posso darle aiuto, visto che ho parecchio materiale riguardo l'ordinamento dell'EI (il sito Ramius non è molto attendibile). --Cayman (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Scusami per aver annullato la tua modifica. Non mi fido di modifiche di IP e se non trovo una conferma sul sito dell'esercito le annullo. Adesso ho annullato il mio errore. E visto che c'erano dei altri cambiamenti ho anche aggiornato il articolo Structure of the Italian Army e la grafica della struttura.
Si sto creando una serie di articoli. Per primo un articolo che si intitolerà "Structure of the Italian Army in 1974" e poi un articolo che si intitolerà "Italian Army reform 1975". Ho realizzato che il sito Ramius non è molto attendibile e per questo ho chiesto oggi alla biblioteca che mi vengono portati i tomi del "L'esercito verso il 2000" qui a Merano. Intanto se mi vuoi aiutare per favore aiutami! Io intendo creare un articolo sulla struttura per il 1974 che è 100 per 100 corretto. Per favore lavori per ora solo sull'articolo che parla della struttura nel 1974 User:Noclador/sandbox/Italian Army 1974. Dopo aggiorniamo il articolo User:Noclador/sandbox/Italian Army 1974-1975 unit changes che lista tutte le unità in vita nel 1974 è i cambiamente avvenuto nel 1975. Per ultimo lavoriamo sull'articolo finale User:Noclador/sandbox/Italian Army reform 1975. Primo intendevo scrivere solo articoli per la wiki inglese e per quel motivo avevo già cominciato a tradurre parte del User:Noclador/sandbox/Italian Army 1974 articolo. Ma adesso, con tuo aiuto, vorrei anche creare articoli corrispondenti per la wiki italiana. Sei d'accordo? noclador (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Due delle mie fonti per i dati nei articoli sono:
con i quali il presidente della Repubblica assegnava la bandiera di guerra e il nuovo nome ai reparti creati durante la riforma del 1975. noclador (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Perfetto, ho visto la prima pagina ed è già a buon punto, giusto qualche correzione e precisazione. Le modifiche che eventualmente farò le segnalo poi nella pagina di discussione con indicate pure le fonti. Per ora ho alcune osservazioni da fare:
• Prima del 1975 gli stemmi dei reparti erano in uso esclusivamente ai reggimenti, in quanto erano considerati corpi, mentre i battaglioni/gruppi autonomi no. Solo dopo la riforma, con i battaglioni autonomi dotati di fisionomia di corpo, si è dato a tutti stemma, motto e bandiera di guerra. Direi quindi di inserire lo stemma solo per i reggimenti;
• Per la traduzione in inglese di termini particolari, come reparto, suggerisco di usare l'equivalente in lingua straniera del livello ordinativo di riferimento. Quindi:
reparto comando di reggimento artiglieria lo farei diventare command o headquarters battery
reparto RRR in supplies, repairs and logistics battalion e autoreparto in auto o transport company
i reparti aviazione leggera ed elicotteri di uso generale in light aviation battalion e general purpose helicopter battalion, ecc.
Questo per rendere immediatamente comprensibile la tipologia e dimensione del reparto. --Cayman (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. Si, so dei stemmi. Li ho messo intanto nell'articolo per qualche unità cosi che poi è più facile per me fare le connessioni con le nuove unità. Nei articolo finali ci saranno solo stemmi per reggimenti, brigate, divisioni e corpi... ma non sono sicuro di tutti i stemmi per queste unità. Per esempio: qual era lo stemma della Pozzuolo del Friuli prima del 1975? Quello di oggi o uno diverso? Se hai delle informazione (ho dei stemmi che mancano), per favore fammi sapere.
  2. Perfetto. Solo una domanda - Reparto Comando = battery, Reparto RR = battalion, Autoreparto = transport company, Reparto Aviazione Leggera = light aviation battalion. Company? Credevo che reparto è sempre un'unità a livello battaglione/gruppo. Credevo:
  • Armata = unità operativa (4 stelle)
  • Corpo d'Armata = unità operativa / Ispettorato = unità administrativa (3 stelle)
  • Divisione = unità operativa / Comando = unità administrativa (2 stelle)
  • Brigata (1 stella)
  • Reggimento = unità operativa / Raggruppamento = unità administrativa (Colonnello)
  • Battaglione, Gruppo, Gruppo Squadroni = unità operativi / Reparto = unità administrativa (Maggiore)
  • Compagnia, Batteria, Squadrone (Capitano)
  • Plotone
Correggimi se sbaglio. noclador (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. Sì, gli scudetti da braccio di grande unità sono corretti per il 1974. Giusto i corpi d'armata mi pare che abbiano avuto gli stemmi araldici da taschino nei primi anni Ottanta, mentre il Comando Truppe Carnia-Cadore e il Comando Artiglieria Controaerei non avevano scudetto di grande unità in quel periodo.
  2. A grandi linee è così, prima del 1975 quella che sarebbe diventata la batteria comando di gruppo e reggimento si chiamava "reparto comando". Diciamo che reparto è un termine generico dell'Esercito per indicare unità che non sono propriamente compagnie, ma che non sono nemmeno dei battaglioni pieni, anche se in base al tipo erano guidati da capitani, maggiori o tenente colonnelli (qualche volta colonnello ed oltre, se necessario; vedi Reparto Rifornimenti e Riparazioni Missili Controaerei). È una delle tante questioni incomprensibili che riguardano l'EI.
I comandi militari territoriali erano a livello corpo d'armata; i comandi Carnia-Cadore, Truppe Trieste e Artiglieria Controaerei erano tutti a livello divisione
In ogni caso, si vede caso per caso come comportarsi. --Cayman (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Domande

Ho visto che hai cominciato a aggiungere dell'informazione sull'articolo. Grazie!! e ho tre domande:

  1. Nel 1974 erano chiamate compagnie comando e servizi, fino alla fine degli anni Cinquanta o inizio Sessanta (non ricordo esattamente, è scritto in La storia della dottrina e degli ordinamenti..., ma ora non ricordo la pagina) erano semplicemente compagnia comando, anche se avevano al loro interno elementi dei servizi. Nel 2000 sono finalmente diventate compagnie comando e supporto logistico.
  2. I volumi L'EI verso il 2000 (che utilizzano le memorie storiche ufficiali redatte annualmente dai reparti) usano la designazione "Gruppo Squadroni NOME" senza nessun numerale, che sarà aggiunto solo nel 1975 (vedi: "Lancieri di Aosta", "Cavalleggeri di Lodi" e "Cavalleggeri Guide"). Purtroppo il sito dell'Esercito è zeppo di errori, imprecisioni od omissioni e non è una fonte attendibile.
  3. I quattro reggimenti di cavalleria erano tutti su tre gruppi squadroni "corazzati" (ognuno su sqd. comando e servizi, sqd. meccanizzato e sqd. carri), qualcuno in posizione quadro. Penso fossero designati semplicemente "X Gruppo Squadroni", senza specificare la tipologia, ma dovrei approfondire.
A proposito, siccome la ristrutturazione è iniziata intorno al giugno 1975, secondo me è meglio cambiare il nome dell'articolo in "Ordine di battaglia dell'Esercito Italiano nel 1975 (pre-ristrutturazione)", così da includere tutte le modifiche ordinamentali avute in previsione della ristrutturazione (gennaio-giugno 1975). --Cayman (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
a) Hai L'EI verso il 2000?? Excellente!
  1. Ok, cambio tutte le compagnie comando in "Compagnia Comando e Servizi".
  2. Ok, andrò subito a cancellare tutti i numeri dai gruppi squadroni della cavalleria. Per il sito dell'esercito: si, è vero. Nonostante quello ho aggiunto references che puntano al sito dell'esercito nel articolo User:Noclador/sandbox/Italian Army reform 1975, perché abbiamo bisogno di più fonti possibile.
  3. tre gruppi squadroni a solo due compagnie? sei compagnie in totale per il reggimento... ben pocco. Mettiamo tre per reggimento per ora e se troviamo informazione su quelli che erano quadro lo aggiungiamo dopo. Credo anch'io che eran solo chiamati "I / II / III Gruppo Squadroni", ma controlliamo per favore. Specialmente per il Gruppo Squadroni "Lancieri di Novara", che ho visto con la designazione di "Carri".
  4. Hmm... questi ordinamentali in gennaio-giugno 1975 per me facevano già parte della ristrutturazione. Erano per prepare unita, caserme etc. per la riforma, ma visto che erano state fatte in ambito della ristrutturazione (e non per esigenze operative/administrative), credo che fanno parte della riforma e idealmente facciamo un articolo sull'esercito al 31 dicembre 1974, uno sui cambiamente nel 1975, e poi uno com'era l'esercito il 31 dicembre 1977 (anno in quale gli ultimi reparti nuovi ricevevano la bandiera).
  5. Altra cosa: visto che hai L'EI verso il 2000, potresti per favore inserire fonti (con la pagina) nel articolo? Piú lo riferenziamo, meglio è. Grazie, noclador (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Tutte le discussione riguardante l'esercito nel 1975 continuano a: User talk:Noclador/sandbox/Italian Army 1974. noclador (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Blogspot copied out NORTHAG OOB

http://coldwardecoded.blogspot.com/2013/07/natos-northern-army-group-wartime-order.html Buckshot06 (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we do something about it? Should we do something about it? noclador (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Noclador/sandbox/Italian Army reform 1975

I edited User:Noclador/sandbox/Italian Army reform 1975 to solve some actual problems.

  • <center/> is a self-closed tag. Most HTML tags, including <center>, cannot self-close. HTML tags are closed with a slash at the beginning, not the end. For example, <small> is closed with </small>, not <small/>.
  • <center> is obsolete HTML that was valid in HTML4, but invalid in HTML5. Even though browsers still support it, it is obsolete. <center>...</center> should be replaced with <div style="text-align: center;">...</div>. But, I see that I messed up, and used <div style="text-align: center;"...</div>, so this is probably why you reverted. Sorry. I will do it right this time. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Now your edits in the sandbox make sense. Because the first time around everything was suddenly aligned to the left and there were code artefacts showing up in the text. Thank you for your edits. This article is part of a series of three articles about the Italian Army reform and still a work in progress (and will be still for some time). Thank you Anomalocaris for having edited the HTML tags. Cheers, noclador (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


Draft:1989 Norwegian Armed Forces Order of Battle

Would you kindly please review this page and make comments at the associated talk page? I am particularly concerned at the apparent use of the NATO Order of Battle which is now really super superceded.. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

1nd Libyan Division Sibelle listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1nd Libyan Division Sibelle. Since you had some involvement with the 1nd Libyan Division Sibelle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

OrBat Creation

Noclador, Not only are they incredibly precise, but your OrBat diagrams are perfectly clear and easy to read. What tool(s) do you use to create them? Thank you! -Taranis83 Taranis83 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. I use only Photoshop to create the graphics. They are all in .psd files. noclador (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Very interesting work on Italian Army Orbats Emibro (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Collaborazione per OrBat EI

Vorrei collaborare alla stesura/revisione degli OrBat dell'EI post-ristrutturazione. Come posso aiutare?

Emibro (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Non so se è il modo corretto di collaborare, mi scuso nel caso in cui non sia corretto:
Io ho sottomamno (ma non ho uno scanner per ora) sia i Volumi/Tomi de L'Esercito Italiano verso il 2000, che il precedente L'Esercito e i suoi Corpi. Ho anche un volume che riporta gli ornamenti degli stemmi araldici pre-1987 (anno più, anno meno). Ho anche, in pdf i Regolamenti per le Uniformi dell'EI del 1971 e del 1989, che riportano diversi distintivi di reparto Emibro (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Emibro
Anch'io ho i volumi dell'Esercito Italiano verso il 2000 e ho basato gli articoli riguardanti la riforma del 1975 su quelli. Per i stemmi prima del 1987 suggerisco contattare gli utenti it:Utente:Arturolorioli (che sta creando tutti gli stemmi storici dell'esercito) e it:Utente:Massimop (che è l'esperto di araldica italiana).
Per i OrBat dell'EI prima, durante e dopo la ristrutturazione del 1975 - Io ho finito gli articoli che riguardano la struttura del 1974, la riforma propio, e la struttura del 1977. Adesso si dovrebbe tradurre gli articoli indietro in Italiano, controllando anche tutti i wikilinks and facendo atto della it:Wikipedia:Convenzioni di nomenclatura/Unità militari dell'Esercito Italiano:
Stessa cosa si dovrebbe poi fare per:
Se sei interessato a fare questo lavoro, ti aiuto - io intanto sono già alla nuova struttura dell'esercito inglese. Se hai domande, ti puoi sempre rivolgerti a me, o anche al it:Utente:Pierpao. Cheers, noclador (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Emibro:

Latest British Army restructure

For your information and perhaps chart creation

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/army-restructures-to-confront-evolving-threats

Thanks

BlueD954 (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Original source removed, mirror link here. https://www.miragenews.com/army-restructures-to-confront-evolving-threats/

BlueD954 (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Damn! This is VERY useful! and timely. Thank you @BlueD954: for bringing this to my attention. We have to update articles over the coming days. :-) noclador (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This is the most accurate to date and the British Army website has changed accordingly

https://www.joint-forces.com/uk-news/25322-field-army-restructures-to-confront-evolving-threats

38th Irish and 160th Wales Brigades have moved to Regional Command.

BlueD954 (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I made an update to Administrative structure of the field forces of the British Army, but as the British Army website is garbage, it is totally unclear what happens now to the units under the brigades, and what happened to 1st Military Police Brigade, what happens to the units of 102nd Logistic Brigade, and what unit is now located where, what units are part of 38th Brigade, and what part of 160th Brigade, and so on and on... If we find some file/source that lists all brigade structures I will do an update of the graphics. noclador (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

To answer; 1st Military Police Brigade is under 3rd Division - you can find that here [2]. 102 Log Brigade yes, the brigade HQ was slated to be disband, no confirmation if it really stays and which sub units are under it. BlueD954 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

new structure

@BlueD954:, @Dormskirk:, @Hammersfan:, @Buckshot06: I have begun to put together the new structure of the British Army after yesterday's "reform"... User:Noclador/sandbox/British Army 2019. Except for 3rd division nothing is clear, lots of units have no higher command, it seems all of this "reform" was half-assed. If one of you stumbles upon a source outlining the future structure of the British Army, please let me know so we can update the relevant articles and graphics. Thank you, noclador (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Noclador, the only thing that happened was that FTC was renamed 6 Div, and shifted a number of its subordinate brigades and groups to either 1 or 3 Divisions. The Russians are coming digitally necessitates some greater focus by a 2-star HQ, it seems to have been decided. So all you have to do is move a few of the brigades/7 AD Gp to 1 and 3 Divisions. We will no doubt hear in due course if more fundamental changes have occurred.. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of changes! I heard:
  • 38th and 160th brigades lose their infantry units - which are now part of the brigades of 1st Division
  • one of the regular 1st Division cavalry regiments moves to the intel+surveillance brigade as long range recon and target acquisition unit
  • 3rd Signal Rgt to 3rd Division, 16th Signal Rgt to 1st Division
  • it seems the four Engineer rgts for 3rd Division will be attached to the brigades... that would make 25 Group HQ superfluous
  • 1 MP Brigade has disappeared from the British Army website Orbat
etc. etc. There seems to be lots of changes, but 0 communication about it publicly. noclador (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure it will be revealed in time. They just don't work as fast as orbat enthusiasts want. I can say however that the new Provost Marshal (Army), Brig Vivienne Buck, has been named as PM(A) and Commander 1 MP Bde so that is an indication that 1 MP Bde has not gone away.. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so 1 MP Bde stays... ah well, if the Brits aren't updating their structure, I am gonna do the Romanians next. noclador (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@BlueD954:, @Dormskirk:, @Hammersfan: if anyone finds a bio for Brig Buck, please tell me; she deserves an article. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think 38th and 160th lose their battalions/regiments. They stay but on operations, fall under PJHQ neither 1st or 3rd or 6th Division. There was an old FOIA in the public domain [3] about other wider changes but I fear this is now outdated. For instance, the new restructure says 102 Logistic Brigade will stay in 1st Division - that unit was to disband under Army 2020 Refine. As for myself, I'm made FOIs but since FOIs are personal research they can't meet wiki standards until the MOD releases the answers like on the above. With regards to Brigadier Buck, I added her to the List of female British general, flag and air officers list, but only her promotion date. A high proportion of herr bio is on social media so can that be used? BlueD954 (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You can upload the FOIs directly to Wikipedia, removing your personal details, or to theyworkforyou.gov (check the exact web address). What are the specific details of Brig Buck's career available? We could use some of them, depending on how uncontroversial they were. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I use whatdotheyknow but sparingly and I don't always FOI all ORBAT stuff. So far, @Noclador: 's edits and others are fine. All I actually see of Brigadier Buck's stuff is either on twitter - search for her name - or on the 1st MP Brigade facebook. [4]. I leave it up to you others to fine details but I thought only Major-Generals and above are significant for wiki entries. The List of female British general, flag and air officers gives an almost complete list of female OF-6 and above and the British Army is sort of 'second place' to the RAF. Only the Royal Navy has yet to produce a female 2-star/Rear Admiral. On that note, you can first work with Brigadier Buck's service number and check the London Gazette for her possible previous appointments and promotion dates.
@Noclador: In your draft, you place 6 CS REME and 106 REME under 102nd Log Brigade. Do you have a source for this? 106 has merged BlueD954 (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks BlueD954. Brig Buck is not notable as a one-star (see my arguments at the current AfD) she's notable as Provost Marshal (Army), and head of RMP. PM (A) is a position for which all the rest would be red/bluelinked, so would make an entry for her. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

6 CS REME and 106 REME

6 CS REME and 106 REME are under 102 Logistic Bde as I do not know where they will go once 102 is disbanded... well, if 102 Bde is disbanded, which is something no now seems to know. As for 106 REME: AFAIK 102 REME merged into 106 REME... but maybe it was the other way around. What is the name of the new merged unit? and where is it based? noclador (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The last I have 6 CS REME is still with 101 Log Brigade - what is your source they are under 102 Log Brigade? 102 and 106 REME merged to form '102 Force Support Battalion' which rests under 101 Log Brigade but not directly paired with any of the regular REME units there (FOIA answer). Confusing yes. You may want to watch [5]. BlueD954 (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Uff, the more we talk the more I realize that at this point I have 0 certainty about anything that has to do with the army's logistic units. I think I will wait for some weeks before continuing with the work on the British Army. I will watch the FOI you linked to, hoping we will get some answers. noclador (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
To all, instead of spamming Nocaldor's talk page, I'm posting unit changes here. Please do so as well. Thanks. BlueD954 (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian Army

Hi Noclador, I came from the Saudi Arabian Army talk page. I saw your work in the structure of the Saudi army and you have done a great job. But you have some mistakes and one of those mistakes is that you have added the royal guard regiments to the Saudi Arabian Army Command Structure. The Royal Guard is an Independent Unit and has the mission of protecting the King and the Crown Prince. Another mistake is you have put three armored brigades rather than six armored brigades. Also, there are four aviation groups rather than tow. I think you should visit the Saudi ministry of defense website (www.mod.gov.sa) and maybe you will get some better information. عمر خالد 8888 (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment for my work. As for the Saudi Arabian Army: I don't know Arabic and the usual procedure is for editors from a country (in this case Saudi Arabia) to create an overview of their nation's army down to battalion level, which we then can transfer to the English wikipedia. Based on that information I then create the graphics. I created the Saudi Arabian Army graphic on 2 March 2007, hoping to encourage Saudi editors to come forward with more information about their nation's army so we could complete the structure and graphic. For 12 years nothing happened... (see: Talk:Saudi Arabian Army#Graphic of the Army Structure). I do not have the time to also do the work of Saudi editors. Therefore (for now) I only removed the Royal Guard from the graphic. Further changes (which will require a lot of my time) will come when the Saudi Army structure is a detailed as i.e. the structures of armies at Category:Structure of contemporary armies. Best regards, noclador (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Noclador just to confirm the Royal Guard is just about a separate armed service; its exact status however has never exactly been clarified as far as I know. It will certain respond to the Royal Family's directives over the RSLF command structure. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.cmn.eb.mil.br/acoes-e-programas.html
  2. ^ http://krigeren.dk/tre-totalforsvarsregioner-bliver-til-to-og-der-spares-93-stillinger-i-hjemmevaernet/
  3. ^ https://www2.forsvaret.dk/OMOS/ORGANISATION/HAEREN/ORGANISATION/Pages/default.aspx
  4. ^ Jimmy Wales "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006
  5. ^ Jimmy Wales "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Noclador/Archive_12&oldid=1028335238"