Talk:Numbered Air Force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Numbered Air Force article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

It is more of an article with a list than just a list. --Pmsyyz 02:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering of subordinate units

I don't understand this sentence: "Units directly subordinate to a NAF are generally numbered 6XX (where XX is the NAF number)." So if a NAF has two units directly subordinate to it, then they would both have the same number (6XX)? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me. The cited source no longer exists, so I can't verify this statement. Anyone have any idea? 74.71.93.111 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O-G

I tried to translate "operationally-gained" into standard English. This looks like a technical term, which would be unknown to readers not versed in the bureaucratic nuances of the United Sates Air Force. If it is important enough to be in this article, then its definition should be used here. I made a stab at doing that. Nick Beeson (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]