Talk:38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade (United States)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled comment

OK! I don't know what the problem is with this so am copying and pasting the Wikipedia article entitled:

Combat Arms

"Combat Arms is a collective name in a system of administrative military reference to those troops within national armed forces which participate in direct tactical land combat. In general they include the Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery units.[1]

In some countries, notably the British Army, the artillery units are categorised as Combat Support. Some armies such as the United States Army, classify combat engineers as a combat arm also, while armoured troops constitute a combat arm in name although many have histories derived from cavalry units.[2] This is also true for the combat aviation units in many armed forces throughout the world.

Artillery is included as a combat arm primarily based on the history of employing cannons in close combat, and later in the anti-tank role until the advent of anti-tank guided missiles. The inclusion of special forces in some armed forces as a separate combat arm is often doctrinal because the troops of special forces units are essentially specialized infantry, often with historical links to ordinary light infantry units.

In Commonwealth Countries the combat arms in the Army are: Infantry Armoured Artillery Combat Engineers

In the United States Army the following branches are considered Combat Arms: Infantry Armor (including Armored Cavalry) Field Artillery Air Defense Artillery Army Aviation (e.g., Attack Helicopter and Air Cavalry units) Special Forces Engineers (only Combat Engineers, e.g. Land Mine Clearance and Route Clearance (Also done by construction engineers in combat heavy units)). See also sapper.

- Note that Aviation and Engineer branches have many different roles, as such these branches can be Combat Arms, Combat Support or Combat Service Support depending on function.

United States Marine Corps doctrine designates only Infantry forces as Combat Arms, with all other Ground Combat Element forces (Artillery, Assault Amphibian, Combat Engineer, Light Armored Reconnaissance, Reconnaissance, and Tank) considered Combat Support. (Air Defense, as a part of Marine Aviation, is contained within the Aviation Combat Element.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenTS42 (talk • contribs)

StephenTS42, no one is disputing that Air Defense Artillery is one of the combat arms of the US Army. The problem is that information doesn't belong in the "role" field of the infobox. The "role" field is intended for a specific use of the unit. The examples given in the template are "e.g., shock troop, special operations, mechanized infantry, ceremonial guard, etc." Clearly, these are more specific than the broad "combat arms". So, no one is disputing that the 38th was "combat arms". There are probably arguments both ways on how relevant that fact is to the article. One could say that the unit's designation in the U.S. Army's classifications system is relevant. On the other hand, one could observe that few, if any, other articles seem to mention this fact about the subject unit. Regardless of the relevance of the fact, it doesn't belong in the "role" field. May I recommend, then, that if you believe the fact is relevant that you find a place for it in the article. Or, I will be happy to try my hand at this if you prefer not to. Ocalafla (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

So, what is the problem? Are you dissatisfied with the meaning of the word 'role'? Must each unit in the military have a distinctive role? Do any of the examples given fit the role of a combat arms unit? Shock troops or assault troops are formations created to lead an attack. "Shock troop" is a loose translation of the German word Stoßtrupp. Military units which contain assault troops are typically organized for mobility with the intention that they will penetrate through enemy defenses and attack into the enemy's vulnerable rear areas. Yet that is not a broad role? Combat arms has a specific function or role in direct tactical land combat. Unlike a medical unit or an administrative unit. Maybe you have confused a units mission with its role.StephenTS42 01:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This may sound like I am splitting hairs but allow me to show you the difference between military unit roles and missions.

Mission

a specific task or duty assigned to a person or group of people: their mission was to irrigate the desert.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=mission

Role

the actions and activities assigned to or required or expected of a person or group; "the function of a teacher"; "the government must do its part"; "play its role"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=role

StephenTS42 11:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

StephenTS42, I'm afraid the dictionary definition of "role" you have used is less relevant in this context because the infobox template assigns a more specific meaning to the term for the purposes of the infobox. This definition is further refined by the examples given in the infobox, to the point where it is quite a bit more specific than the very general dictionary definition. You will note, for example, that one of the examples the infobox template uses as a "role" is "mechanized infantry". We would both, I'm sure, agree that "mechanized infantry" is a combat arm. But, the template clearly intends for "mechanized infantry" to be used in the "role" field instead of your approach which would use the more broad "combat arms".

I personally don't see why it is necessary to mention that the unit is a combat arms unit; very, very few other unit articles do this and there is no reason why the 38th should be distinct in this regard. So, my own vote is not to include the info. But, you have a different opinion. So, may I suggest a compromise that places the "combat arms" info somewhere in the body of the article instead of the infobox. What do you think? (PS-note that you can sign your comments automatically by adding four ~ at the end.) Ocalafla (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You are correct! The Template:Infobox military unit is more specific in its description for the role category.

"role – optional – typical strategic or tactical use of unit, e.g., shock troop, special operations, mechanized infantry, ceremonial guard, etc."

Air Defense Artillery refers to a combat arm that specializes in anti-aircraft weapons (such as surface to air missiles).

The tactical use of Air Defense Artillery units is to participate in direct land combat. In other words its role in wartime is a combat arm. Not to be confused with ceremonial guards, shock troop, special operations or mechanized infantry--(which role is also combat arms)

The examples given (e.g): shock troop, special operations, mechanized infantry, ceremonial guard, etc. does not specify Air Defense Artillery units. A full list would be exhaustive. That is why 'etc' was included.

You are also correct in stating that few (if not none) other units use this optional entry 'role'. Nonetheless, I prefer to not follow the crowd and include this in that infobox. The 38th ADA's ought to be distinct in this regard!

StephenTS42 15:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"The 38th ADA's ought to be distinct in this regard!" Would you articulate your reason for this? Also, could you respond to my proposed compromise? Ocalafla (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain. If were to articulate anything, how would you be able to hear my voice? Maybe you meant to use the word 'elucidate'. In which case my reason is that I am disagreeing with your position that there is no reason the 38th ADA should be distinct in this regard. Also, I believe I have already responded to your proposal.

StephenTS42 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I want to keep an open mind. If you have something written and would post it here on this talk page I will consider it.

StephenTS42 22:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No need to open the debate over the appropriateness of the verb "articulate" for written vs. spoken communication; I am aware of reliable sources on both sides of that issue. Focusing on the debate at hand, I have made an edit in an attempt to reach a resolution to the "combat arms" issue. While I see no need to have a mention of that in the article at all, I have placed it in the body of the article. I admit that my wording is not perfect and welcome any improvement to the phrasing.Ocalafla (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you've significantly improved on my combat arms language.Ocalafla (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to read that!

StephenTS42 18:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If we have now reached an accord I would like to clear this talk page to facilitate further discussions.

StephenTS42 09:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally, text from talk pages on wikipedia is not deleted. If a talk page grows too cumbersome or a topic is no longer discussed then archiving might be acceptable. See WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. I certainly have no objection to this.Ocalafla (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have finished my editing session.

StephenTS42 16:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Reversion

StephenTS42, I'm not sure what your concerns are about my edit that you reverted. The only thing that would seem to be at issue would be my change of "Successful in accomplishing its mission despite repeated North Korean threats and working within a demanding multi-service environment, the 38th ADA has fully justified its motto and has brought outstanding credit to its members and the United States Army. " to "The brigade accomplished its mission despite repeated North Korean threats and worked within a multi-service environment."

The reason for my edit was that the previous language was what WP calls "peacock language" or "puffery". Here's a link to the info: WP:PEA. I've redone the other edits but not that one yet. Do you want to have a go at some non-puffery language? Ocalafla (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Such 'language' is necessary to convey the flavor of the text used by the US military of the time and is not intended to be puffery or peacock. (The text comes from the Inactivation Brochure) Please use this talk page to discuss your concerns before making such radical changes again. I am open to discuss what you would like to do but this article needs to retain its originality. Thank you again. StephenTS42 17:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenTS42 (talk • contribs)

StephenTS42, I understand that the language came from the brochure. However, it is important to understand that what is perfectly appropriate for a ceremony conducted by a unit may not have a place in a Wikipedia article about that unit. May I suggest you review wikipedia's guidance on what it calls peacock language at WP:PEA. I do not think you'll find exceptions for preserving the flavor of the language of the military at that time. In any case, that aim is accomplished by the graphics of the brochure already on the article. The originality I think you were referring to is preserved there., also.

Further, the additional changes you have reverted were mostly typographic edits. Do you have a rationale for this reversion?, or was it inadvertent? Ocalafla (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redone the edits that, as best I can tell, should be non-controversial since they are in line with WP:MOS and other guidelines. See, for example MOS:HEAD and WP:MILSTYLE. I left the peacock language untouched for now in case anyone else has a better idea on how to address it. Ocalafla (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

References/notes

I've tweaked the references and notes a bit. I removed the link to "THE U.S. ARMY IN THE OCCUPATION OF GERMANY" since it dealt more with civil affairs/military government. I replaced it with a link to wikipedia info on the campaign. I also added language to the notes for the other Center of Military History references to make it clear that these are "explanatory footnotes" and are not "citation notes" that support the statement to which they are attached. And, I changed the title of the references/notes section from "References" to "Notes" per wp:FNNR since the two types of notes are combined in the list. Ocalafla (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

StephenTS42, a minor point, but was there any reason for changing "Notes" back to References"? Ocalafla (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

StephenTS42, in looking at the "Vigilant and Invincible" source, I didn't see anywhere where it supported the statement "in May 1960, a small cadre of officers and men activated the Eighth US Army Air Defense Command (Provisional)". Could you point me to where this is?

Also in the "Cold War" section, the "led to the ultimate transfer of four battalions of the brigade to the Republic of Korea Army" wording makes it sound like the battalions themselves were transferred when it appears form the source that it was the battalions' equipment that was transferred. Can you confirm that it is the latter? Thanks!

All US battalions were deactivated simutaneously with the 38th hardware was given to South Korea. StephenTS42

Regarding the "Active dates", it appears from the inactivation ceremony history you've cited that the 38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade was a later incarnation of the 38th Anti-Aircraft Brigade and the 38th Artillery Brigade (Air Defense). The 38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade bears the campaign streamers it earned as the 38th Anti-Aircraft Brigade. So, it would seem to make sense to list active dates regardless of what the unit was called. Many other Wikipedia articles do the same thing under similar circumstances. Ocalafla (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_streamer

StephenTS42

StephenTS42, I hope you don't mind, but I've added colons in front of your comments. This indents them and helps folks follow who's responding to what and who said what. Also, typing four ~ in a row after your comments will automatically insert your name and DTG of your edit.

Per your request, I read the article on Campaign streamers. Is there anything in particular you are pointing me to? Thanks! Ocalafla (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Latest reversions

StephenTS42, I note that you have reverted my recent edit. Would you mind explaining your reasoning? You will note that all my edits are based on accurate and relevant info and/or are intended to better conform the article to the MOS and/or the infobox template. Ocalafla (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of my edits:

Change to years per MOS:YEAR

Change to "type" because the infobox template does not call for the U.S. Army branch but instead "the general type of unit, e.g., cavalry, infantry, artillery, etc. More specific types (airborne infantry, light cavalry, etc.) may be given as appropriate." The two are obviously related but are distinct, hence my minor change.

Change to "role" because the infobox template suggests role is much more specific than the broad "Combat arms": "typical strategic or tactical use of unit, e.g., shock troop, special operations, mechanized infantry, ceremonial guard, etc."

Added info on coast artillery history to opening paragraph to make it clear to reader that the unit was a coast artillery unit for much of its history. It immediately assets a reader looking for info on the coast artillery unit that he/she is in the right place.

Moved wikilink on Coast Artillery Corps to a more appropriate and less obtrusive place in same sentence.

Ocalafla (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see that you have very quickly reverted the edits I made for which I gave clear reasoning for each change above. In your edit summary you note "peacock language see combat arms etc..". This sort of edit summary would be perfectly adequate for many edits. However, as I pointed out to you on your user talk page WP:RV states "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion, " "revert a good faith edit only after careful consideration," and "if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert is a useful guideline. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider making a partial revert by modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit."

I regret that I am unable to determine which Wikipedia principle justifies your reversion. I am also unable to understand how "peacock language" is a valid explanation in this case for the reversion you made.

Ocalafla (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit to CBO source

I corrected the citation to accurately reflect the title of the CBO document. Further, I added some explanatory language in the source. This is needed because the CBO report doesn't actually say anywhere that Congressional decisions led to the transfer of four battalions. But, it does certainly provide useful information on what Congress may have considered when making such a decision.Ocalafla (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of roles in Wikipedia military unit infoboxes

Template:Infobox military unit

The question of what role a specific unit in the US Army is answered by the definition of the word.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/role

Can the role of an ADA unit be described as 'air defense warfare? Such an answer would be redundant. No, the role of an Air Defense Artillery unit can be defined in the following:

"The Army groups its force structure into three general categories: combat, combat support (CS), and combat service support (CSS). Each category incorporates diverse capabilities of varying degrees of lethality, deployability, sustainability, and survivability."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-90/appa.htm

At the time of its existence the 38th ADA was classified as a combat arms unit. This was the definition of is role it fufilled within US Army at the time.

U.S. Army Combat Arms Regimental System

StephenTS42 21:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

StephenTS42, the usage of the "role" field is informed by the specific explanation given on the infobox page itself. If you click on the link you included above, you find the explanation for role to be "role – optional – typical strategic or tactical use of unit, e.g., shock troop, special operations, mechanized infantry, ceremonial guard, etc." This contemplates a more specific entry than the broad categories into which the Army once divided its branches. If, instead, the infobox tempate advocated your position, it would have used "combat arms" instead of "shock troops" or "mechanized infantry" in its examples.

I do think you are correct that "air defense warfare" would be redundant. Since the infobox format says that "role" is optional, I'd suggest that not using it would be preferable to including "air defense warfare." If, however, there was a more specific type of air defense you wanted to include, that might make sense to include in the "role" field. For example, some AD is missile while some is gun. It might make sense to note that in "role". Of course, that is made clear in other parts of the article info box. Ocalafla (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

---

The questions that need to be answered are: What roles do military units have that distinguish one from another? And, what choices are open to the article's author? Does Wikipedia limit choices to the examples they suggest? Yes, Wikipedia leaves the option of choice open, but that choice is intended for the author to make. Otherwise it would not be optional! The examples given are just that: examples. They are not intended to limit the choices to the examples given. Otherwise the problem needs to be addressed to Wikipedia for clarification. StephenTS42 00:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that the examples given are just examples. And, you are correct that the choice is for the editors to make. Editors are free to edit the page to list a "role" as "mechanized infantry," "air defense artillery," "combat arms," "basketball player," "duck", and so on in increasing levels of absurdity. And, other editors are free to edit the page to try to keep the article closer to the spirit of the examples. Ocalafla (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Let's try to work with; not against, each other, then. StephenTS42 17:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

All for that. Perhaps if you tell me what your goal is in including "combat arms" and we can put our heads together and find a solution. Ocalafla (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

---

The goal is to provide for the reader of the article what the unit was expected to do, or not do. For example: an ADA unit would not be expected to cover for a medical unit in a crisis. Such is the same for the selection and training for those designated to serve in such units.

Also, the 38th ADA Brigade was not involved with operations like infantry, or on the other side of the spectrum, support.

"Combat arms are units and soldiers who close with and destroy enemy forces or provide firepower and destructive capabilities on the battlefield. Combat branches of the US Army include Air Defense Artillery, Armor, Aviation, Engineers, Field Artillery, Infantry, and Special Forces (SOF). Figure A-1 lists some types of units that deploy to support operations. The Army classifies combat arms units as heavy, light, or special operations forces. However, the Army is currently developing a medium weight force capable of increased strategic responsiveness in full spectrum operations."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-90/appa.htm

StephenTS42 00:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, if the goal is to provide the reader with an idea of what the unit was expected to do, then we've already got that covered:"provided an air defense umbrella." This existing language is clearer and more specific than "combat arms". And, you note that you want to convey that an ADA unit is different from an infantry unit. The term "combat arms" doesn't do this, since both branches were combat arms. Ocalafla (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

PS-You may find WP:THREAD helpful in continuing this discussion. Ocalafla (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

You are correct in recoqnizing the specific function or role 38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade held under the Combat Arms organizational and force structure design of the U.S. Army, especially so when the unit was active. I hope the average reader of this article will also understand this!

StephenTS42 12:56, 19 May 2013

OK. Change made. Ocalafla (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

StephenTS42, you've added the "elucidate" tag to my comment above. This tag is normally used only in articles, and it is highly recommended that the editor who places the tag follow up with further explanation on the articles talk page. I take your intent here is to ask me to explain my brief comment which I am glad to do. My I suggest the best approach in the future would be simply to ask for what specifically you would like clarified here without using article tags. No big deal at all.

My short "OK. Change made" comment above was meant to make it clear to you that pursuant to our discussion here I made the change to the article page. Please let me know if this needs further clarification and I am happy to provide it. Ocalafla (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you have again added "combat arms" to the "role" field. This tells me that I seem to have misunderstood our discussion above. I read your comment to be in agreement with me. Very sorry for the confusion. Perhaps in the future you might find it more helpful to explain your reason for reversion here.

Let's continue our discussion, then. Help me further understand your goals and maybe I can help find a way to implement them within the guidelines. Infobox, etc. Ocalafla (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Cold War" section source

I added a "Failed verification" tag to a source in this section since I couldn't find where the source supported the statement. However, I don't think a source is really necessary for this statement since it is contained in a quote which cites to a reliable source. Ocalafla (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Citation was for Combined Forces Command; not to the entire sentence. (Citation was moved and template removed.)StephenTS42 17:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Is Combined Forces Command the/a successor to US/ROK Combined Field Army?

PS- I inserted a colon in front of your comments. If you do this it helps readers follow a conversations thread. WP:THREAD has more info. Ocalafla (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct!

"In April 1990, the United States Department of Defense announced a program to shift gradually the United States military presence in South Korea to a smaller and more supportive role as international political conditions and strengthened South Korean defense capabilities permitted. As part of this program, the United States and South Korea also agreed to disband the United States- Republic of Korea Combined Field Army and to separate the Ground Component Command from the Combined Forces Command during the 1991-1993 period. The two countries further agreed to appoint a South Korean senior officer as commander of the Ground Component Command.

In the joint statement issued after the close of the twenty-third United States Republic of Korea Security Consultative Meeting in November 1991, both countries declared that they had "agreed to postpone the second stage reduction of United States forces in Korea until such time as the North Korean threat and uncertainties of developing nuclear weapons have disappeared and the security in this region is fully guaranteed." This fact meant that withdrawals would stop once United States forces were drawn down to the 36,000 target for stage one. It was also confirmed at the meeting that the United States Republic of Korea Combined Field Army would be dissolved and that a Korean general would be made Combined Forces Command ground component commander in 1992, further decreasing the United States Profile."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/usfk.htm

The citation used was chosen because it represented a better overview.

StephenTS42 20:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've edited the footnote to clarify that the source does not support the statement "The only surviving battalion was reassigned to Combined Field Army (ROK/US)" Ocalafla (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind if I requested a Wikipedia:Third opinion here?StephenTS42 00:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You are kind to ask and I certainly have no objection. However, I would expect that any third party would remind us that WP:3 says "be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." It didn't seem to me that we were at a standstill on the issue of this citation. I am quite wiling and ready to hear any concerns you have with where things stand now. Ocalafla (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I propose the following edit to the same paragraph for improved clarity.

“The 38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, the air defense umbrella for Eighth Army since 1961 and a major

subordinate command was inactivated in July [1981], along with one of the remaining HAWK battalions. The only surviving

battalion was reassigned to Combined Field Army (ROK/US) [note:the United States- Republic of Korea Combined Field Army was disbanded in 1990 ]

Weapons and equipment held by the US units were transferred cost-free to the ROK Army, who assumed primary responsibility for the air defense mission.”--StephenTS42 12:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

--StephenTS42 15:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing this language. My brain is having trouble visualizing exactly what this would look like in the article, so forgive me if I make any mistakes as a result. My thoughts:

- One concern regards the existing language. I am concerned that it simply lifts a quote from a source with little context. It would be preferable, I think, to shorten these quotes and incorporate them into a broader paragraph.

- I can't discern what source supports what statement. I'd recommend we find some way to clarify this.

- SInce this article uses footnotes rather than inline citation, I think the parenthetical note fits better in a footnote instead of inline.

I'm not sure I have explained my concerns clearly, so please let me know if I need to clarify.If it is helpful to you, I am also happy to draft revised language. Ocalafla (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the work you've done since your last comments here on the talk page. I've added/shuffled quotation marks to clarify to readers what language is taken verbatim from the original source. However, as I mentioned above, I still am concerned that this section relies too much on quotations and would be improved with original language. I also attempted to clarify the references and the explanatory note. Ocalafla (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Good! I'll work on a rewrite (without the peacocks) over the weekend. Thanks! --StephenTS42 19:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Have a good weekend.Ocalafla (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

End of archive 1

——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)