User talk:W. B. Wilson

Archives:
#1 1/07 - 2/08,
#2 2/08 - 12/09,
#3 1/10 - 12/10,
#4 1/11 - 12/11

US WWII Graphics Control

If you would be so kind to check the graphics of the WWII divisions I made at:

thanks, noclador (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all corrections done, done are also the 1940 triangular Div., the motorized Div, and the Marine Div. noclador (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1st Cavalry

actually the first of the historic graphics I did was the 1st Cav. with the structure as it ship out in 1942 - with your information I can do now a graphic as the division was organized later :-) cheers, noclador (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

other WWII nations divisons

I am done with the two Cavalry units: 1st Cavalry Division 1944-45 and Cavalry Group (see my talk for finished graphics). What we can/could/should do next - we definitely should do the divisions of the other main participants of WWII (UK/Commonwealth, France, Germany, Italy, Soviet Union, Japan) and later the minor participants (Norway, Finland, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, China, Brazil). Maybe also do the diagrams of some Armies/Corps during major battles (i.e. Battle of the Bulge). As of now I have done already some graphics of other nations divisions:

UK Infantry Div.
UK Armoured Div. 1939
UK Armoured Div. 1940
UK Armoured Div. 1944
Italy Armored Div. 1940
Italy Armored Div. 1942
Italy Folgore August 1942

what also needs to be done: add the created graphics to the respective articles; and if needed adapt the graphics for the articles (i.e. the 4 Marine Div. graphics can go to a general article about the Marine Corps in WWII, but for the articles about each of the Marine Divisions I would do an adaptation of the needed graphics adding the regiments and units names and numbers for that division). Please feel free to choose the best next steps (I will also bring this post to the attention of Buckshot). cheers, noclador (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great initiative Noclador and I thank you for it. First, please allow me to emphasise strongly again the need for WP:Reliable Sources. Thus, the first thing that you should do is double-check that every diagram has a source clearly marked upon it. Second, in general for your charts, I believe they should all have a title at the top, clearly indicating what they describe -- this makes them much more widely usable beyond Wikipedia in terms of our free-content licence. It also means that if anyone clicks through to them for any reason from Commons rather than Wikipedia they know what they are looking at. Finally it makes them look more professional.

In terms of subjects, I would focus on ones that are not well covered due to Wikipedia's systematic bias. Thus focus on the Eastern Front and possibly Japan. Could we have an orbat chart for the three critical confrontations on the Eastern Front maybe - Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk? These would be to army/corps level only, I think. You could just have a note under the symbol saying '5 infantry divisions, 2 armoured divisions' or whatever.

Those are my thoughts; hope they're worthy of consideration. Thanks for asking my advice. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French structures are also important in terms of making some headway against systematic bias. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In same vein, Italy and Japan. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Div. I can work on (will do Alpini next - have done already some corps for them and will split that now in a graphic that fits with the design of the other OrBats). French and Japanese - if you guys have some info (btw. Super-great work you do Wilson with finding and bringing all that info to my talkpage! Makes my work easy and wonderful :-) thanks!!) Kursk I can do tomorrow - thanks to this article Battle of Kursk order of battle, Moscow - I did not find much info about the units involved there. As for Stalingrad: I found like half a dozen OrBats that are 90% identical and vary massively in the remaining 10%. Especially that the German LI Corps had 9 divisions strikes me as wrong, as to my knowledge German Corps had a maximum of 4 (seldom 5) divisions. (but as the LI was holding the front inside Stalingrad this might even be true, but even then the 14 and 24 Panzerdivisions were definitely not part of the Corps as they were facing the other direction). If any of you can find a reliable source for Moscow and Stalingrad I will do a graphic - for now I will do just Kursk. Also we could look for relief maps (i.e. Normandy) and I can insert the units position there to illustrate the strategic plans before the major battles of WWII. I will add titles to the graphic over the next few days as you mentioned Buckshot, and the sources should all be there (and were missing I will add them along with the titles). any other thoughts? cheers, noclador (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Inf. Div. question

Missing battalion sized command for Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (maintenance troops)
Missing battalion sized command for Royal Army Ordnance Corps

wasn't the REME founded to take over from the RAOC the maintenance task?? are you sure the two units were in existence at the same time? noclador (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kursk

I did quickly the German side of the Battle of Kursk this morning. The source is the article Battle of Kursk order of battle; however it bothers me to have the 2nd Panzer Army in the Army Group Center diagram as this Army was not earmarked for Operation Zitadelle and actually was hit in its static position by the Soviet counteroffensive (Operation Kutuzov) only a month later... if we look at the Battle of Kursk map we can see that the entire 2nd Panzer Army was north of the acutal area of combat... if it is ok with you I would remove the 2nd from the diagram and add the following title to both diagrams: Battle of Kursk - German Army Group (name) Attack formations. Please also note that the symbol used for the PzGr. Div. Großdeutschland and the four SS divisions is that of Armored formation, as these five divisions were Panzergrenadier formations only in name and were actually equipped with more and heavier Armored vehicles and tanks than the average Panzerdivision. If you agree that the choice of symbol is ok I will leave it as it is. cheers, noclador (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noclador. Good quick job on these diagrams. Did you notice that I suggested we stick to corps level only, with mere notations of how many and what type of divisions per corps? I believe the whole German side of the battle should be on one chart; for a battle involving two Army Groups corps level is low enough. But it's your work, of course: just wanting to simply clarify whether you actually noticed my suggestion or just decided against it. Cheers and best regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buckshot, I noticed your suggestions and plan to do charts - one chart with the division level for the Order of Battle article and one chart with the Corps level of both the Army Groups and the same two charts for the Soviet side for the main article. I hope this is ok with you. noclador (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just fine. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fulda Gap

Completely agree - most of the discussion is 'pre-Glantz.' But embedded within the pages and pages of German generals' discussions is the scenario planning of an active duty U.S. Army general with service with V Corps to defend the Fulda Gap. If I remember rightly he was Asst Deputy Chief of Staff for Ops for the Army, so it indicates how the U.S. Army would have done it -- best thing we can get I think until the GDP is declassified ! Maybe I should clarify the page reference; you'll see the edit I made. Cheers and hope your New Year is going well. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think they both have value, given that there's so little in public about the actual GDP. What I would ask is that you read the 'US approach' section in the German generals' document before writing it off entirely. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THankyou; sure, following Sokolovski (and 'Suvorov'), with large-scale use of TNW in the initial phase, my impression was that both CENTAG and NORTHAG would have been fragments of atomised toast. But it seems both sides were scared of going nuclear in reality - take a look at this -> http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?id=46280&lng=en which I've just found. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Szczecin swamps

Actually you'd have to be a tad more specific. There's plenty of swamps in that area, from the tiny "Bagna Pilchowskie" (Pilchów Swamps; ca. 200x300 m) to "Bagna Krępskie" (ca. 400 ha nowadays, probably more in the past). Just let me know the name of the nearest river or town or village or anything. //Halibu tt 21:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found something else, rsp. at Halibutt's. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Międzyodrze thing found by JV Peters above translates literally as "Between the Odra" and is a marshland area between various forks of the Oder river delta rather than a proper swamp (this is precisely the area your GMap points to). Randow might be a better bet, though in fact there are hundreds of swampy areas there. Just consider local toponyms: Rzędziny's German name is Nassenheide - literally Wet Heath. There are hundreds of similar villages in the vicinity of Szczecin. As to Randow, it seems correct as the 1st Belarussian Front did not assault Stettin and instead crossed the Oder to the south of the city and continued to push westwards - that is towards Randow river, Prenzlau and so on. I'm not sure if swamps along the Randow have a proper name though. //Halibu tt 20:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6th SS Panzer Army

Thankyou very much for that note; that should definitely go into the article. Dietrich did unquestionably make the 'six tanks' remark, so I think both bits of information should be in there. Would you mind adding the vehicle strength returns, and wordsmithing a bit so we present both data points but also provide appropriate context ? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Also, I know I do it too, but please provide full citations at 3rd Panzer Army; in addition, a full list of units at the surrender, and who they surrendered to, in the main text, might read better. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment

Our standing procedure is that battalions of British and American infantry regiments do not get separate articles beyond their regimental articles. Given your work on the 121st, do you want to take a crack at merging 2-121 INF? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delay

Hi Wilson, sorry for the silence and the slow graphics production - I am swamped with work and will come back to wikipedia when the work level subsides a bit. thanks for your understanding, noclador (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US Army tanks and artillery designations on Wiki

Dear Wilson, I have not had to request you knowledge in ages, but I have discovered a problem on Wiki with designations for US Army armored vehicles and artillery on Wiki. Could you check the message at the bottom of my talk page and comment. Also ask someone who has the knowledge and pay grade on the subject to comment. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12th Panzer Division

"Das Heer stellte als weitere Reaktion 1975 die noch fehlenden dritten Brigaden der 7. , 10. und 12. Panzerdivision auf." This quote from de:Heer (Bundeswehr) seems to indicate that as part of 'Reaction 75' the Heer added third brigades to the 7th, 10th, and 12th, implying of course that the divisions already existed as panzer divisions. These three brigades may have been reflaggings of the three corps-level panzer regiments. I'm sorry to say that Armies of NATO's Central Front merely provides a bare OB without any detail on the history of the divisions. 'The Armies of Europe Today' c.1974 may have some more data, but I cannot access it at the moment. You might consider posting a request for translation to de:wiki:Milhist on the WT:MILHIST page, or contacting the main authors of the dewiki articles. Thanks also for the Keegan quote; it almost ought to go straight into the Heer article. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark: thanks for that. Can you see a way to work it into the relevant articles? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would you mind adding Category:Divisions of the Bundeswehr to each new division article you create? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 12th Panzer Division (Bundeswehr), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armoured (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Air Force bombardment groups assigned to Strategic Air Command

Hi Mr Wilson. I am concerned about this old, inaccurate, unreferenced article, which now appears to be duplicative of all our now updated and expanded bomb group articles, thanks to (among others) User:Bwmoll3. A referenced list of the first 13->10 groups of SAC is now in the main Strategic Air Command article. Thus I would like to list the list-of-first-10-groups article for deletion. Would you support me doing so ? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Air Force bombardment groups assigned to Strategic Air Command. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the North Korean map. You might consider other areas Google/WP is systemically biased against - Tibet? Central Africa? interior of Indonesia? for other potential maps. Keep it up!! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for all your Bundeswehr Heer additions too. Those divisions have waited years to have pages of their own. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HELP - Can you remember that Wiki Link On Contributing and RELAXING

Dear Wilson, Can you go over to my talk page and read the User talk:Jackehammond#Hi Jack last section. And editor from Italy has gotten himself all worked up with dispute between him and Dave and a few other editors. It has gotten out of hand. You sent me a link to a page on Wiki with advice to editors. Sort of Zen or Buddha Wiki. I need it to try and get the contributor from Italy to climb back down before the administrators step in. He is very knowledgeable but can't stand it if something he contributes is reverted or deleted. I mean he take it really "personal." His main problem is his understanding or misunderstanding of the English language. Also, please don't reply on my Talk page. I will check your talk page. It is probably to late, but I am going to give it one more try. He did help me out before with info and he came to me. So I feel obligated. No luck so far. Jack E. Hammond

Jack, can't remember exactly which one it was, but Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass has some "see also" links that may prove useful for your situation. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson I went to some of the link and and after a couple of hours under See Also I found it: Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. Appreciate the help. I don't hold much hope for Stephano. He is going to have Dave's scalp or he is going down in flames. I think we know the results of that. When I first came on Wiki I decided really soon I was not doing something right. Only I could not figure out what? Until Jonathan and you came along. When Dave figures out that I was just Wiki-stupid and not a vandal he backed off and cut me some slack. But I can understand his view then. I mean reverting a revert five times in a day! Unintentionally I was acting like a vandal. And I was even acting like Stephano, getting upset and throwing out my credentials, like they would slap someone in the face in the 18th and 19th century when challenging some on to a duel. Only problem was Dave was an armored knight (and you know what their gloves were constructed of) and all I had was leather gloves. And pretty thin gloves at that. Then you at last send me that link and I cooled off. And as I stated. I get reverted once a week. I got reverted on an external link by a pretty well known doctor on the Polio page. I thought it was a pretty good link. When I got reverted, I just said "Ok." and moved on. Sort of surprised that doctor I think. And one thing I do that you always taught me which even some of my friends on Wiki make this mistake: I am not the guardian or owner of any of the Wiki pages. Except semi-owner of the front page of my Wiki page, but the talk page is public -- ie and like some other's who had to, I have not had to have any protection level on my talk page. The talk page belongs to Wiki. Again, thanks Wilson for that valuable help the first year. Wish I could have helped Stephano save himself from himself, but I think he is going to get the second part of his wish: crash and burn. Jack E. Hammond--Jackehammond (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson I did not start archiving my talk page till someone told me about it. From time so time I would just delete the content -- I told you then I was Wiki-Stupid. I thought it was lost. Then I remembered "View History" and just clicked earliest. You can tell that in my early days I had an immediate effect on Dave's blood pressure. And I kept innocently pushing him the salt shaker. <GRIN> Also, I remember when you sent me that Wiki essay link. I was really upset about a revert and left you a message on your talk page. That was when you left the link on your talk page. Gawd, I don't see how I stayed on Wiki -- ie I was grossly breaking policy every other day. Jack E. Hammond--Jackehammond (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)--Jackehammond (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Maybe I am tilting at windmills. But I went to the talk page of the administrator who put a delete notification on Stephano's Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force page. It was my suggesting he might consider that instead of dumping all on the Hunter page. I made it clear that it was probably an article for deletion but letting stay where it was for a couple of months would not hurt anything and maybe in that time I could find the reliable references that it needs -- ie I remember them it is just my touch-and-find filing system is a b*tch. But my English editing skills as you know are just a point of two above Stephano's. Warning: Read all before you decide! Could you take a look at the article and give you opinion of whether it is worth trying to save, and two could you help with the editing? But having said that, some people are not to happy I felt sorry for Stephano and tried to help him. For what ever reason he saw enemies who were trying to humiliate him where there were none, but now because of his over reactions he does have them. It may be a swamp you might not want to walk in. If you don't reply I know the answer. And I understand fully. Thanks. Jack E. Hammond --Jackehammond (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson I feel really bad about dragging you into this feud that is like a whirlpool that sucks in anyone that gets near it. I think all we can do is just become spectators driving pass a multi-car wreak. Again, my apology for dragging you into this whole affair. From now on I will leave it to the administrators with the pay-grade required to sort these messes out. I have learned a hard lesson in the last week. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, no sweat on my part. Enjoy your Sunday! Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Boy have I messed up in the last month. If you ever again see me trying to become a Saint on Wikipedia again. You have my permission to just shoot me and put me and everyone else out of their misery. As they say "More Harm has been done in the world by actions based on good intentions." Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some falafel for you!

Hi !

I don't understand yet how I can reach you in Wikipedia, I only found this... [EDIT: Now I understood, but I'll let the falafel...] As I'm wondering which part of the American Army did Wernher von Braun and his team of scientists encounter on May 2th 1945, I wanted to know more about the map you've made about the positions of the Allied army on May 10th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Allied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png), and about this number 7, which is located near Oberammergau, Bayern where they were "hidden". I didn't see any links explaining how this map has been made. If you can, send me an email to [EDIT: just answer me here...] ! Thanks !

2nd EDIT : OK, so it appears that I found a source that maybe helped you to create this map : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Final_Operations_-_19_April-7_Mai_1945.jpg It seems that you did a small mistake with the number "7", because it was the 6th Army in this part of Germany, according to the map.

3rd EDIT: Now I'm not sure, because I read that the 7th army did indeed go to the south after going northeastward. I wait for your answer!

L14B (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wilson, I'd have a question which is related to this subject, could you maybe help me ? I'm wondering if the decision of Eisenhower on April 15 to order "Patton's entire 3rd army to drive southeast down to the Danube River valley to Linz, and south to Salzburg and central Austria, he also instructed the 6th U.S. Army Group to make a similar turn into southern Germany and western Austria." had something to do with the discovery of Mittelwerk (Dora camp near Nordhausen) on April 11 (by theCombat Command B (CCB) of the U.S. Third Armored I think). So did they knew that Von Braun was located in the german Alps, that's why they decided to go southeast ? This doesn't seem to go in this direction, but what do you think : "Major Robert Staver from the Rocket Section of the Research and Development branch of the Ordinance Office was tasked in directing the effort to find and interrogate the German rocket specialists who had built the V-2. Since April 30 he had been in the Nordhausen area searching the smaller laboratories for V-2 technicians. On May 12, Staver located his first V-2 engineer, Karl Otto Fleisher, who began to put him in touch with other Mittelwerk engineers who had not been part of von Braun’s caravan to Bavaria. On May 14, Staver found Walther Riedel, head of the Peenemünde rocket motor and structural design section, who urged the Americans to import perhaps 40 of the top V-2 engineers to America. " Luis, 09:03, 31 March 2012

WP:SPS

Hi Mr Wilson, hope you had a good Easter too. Please tell me if he continues to be over-rigourous in regard to any military subjects; heaven knows I use enough WP:SPSs because I judge them reliable. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Carrier Strike Group Seven/archive1

Would you consider commenting on this peer review? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NORTHAG

Hi, I thought you might wanna have a look at this: NORTHAG War Time Structure. Sources, CENTAG, Force Rapide, etc. coming in the next days. Any suggestions? cheers, noclador (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! :-) the graphic/map is also up at CENTAG War Time Structure in 1989, cheers, noclador (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This photo in a 1952 PM article is ASTONISHING!!!

Dear Wilson, If you have the time check out User talk:Jackehammond#This 1952 photo is ASTONISHING on my talk page. You will be astonished. It totally changes one chapter of Aviation history as we thought we knew it. I could not believe my eyes when I saw the photo. And you won't either. I will be you have written organization charts and mention this type many times in your work on WW2 in Europe. Best Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Polish Army (1944–1945)

This article is very close to B-class. If you could just add the one-two missing citations, it would be good to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article per WP:LEAD and added citation requests. I hope this makes it clear what is needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Europe Map

Thank you for this map.

Several questions if you don't mind.

Can you provide a higher resolution map of say something like 3000x3000?

Do you have a capability to add at least major cities c.1939-1945 to this map?

Are you able to create a map with a single West Germany/Austria border?

Regards (TG) 220.238.43.188 (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formation structure graphics

Would you be interested in creating structures for the Red Army Fronts?

Would you be interested in creating a structure for the wartime organisation of the Warsaw Pact c.1983?

Regards (TG) 220.238.43.188 (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

replied to at User talk:220.238.43.188 -- W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard or a rule about not using googlebooks for a reference

Dear Wilson, If you find an article in and old publication (like Popular Mechanics, etc) is there a rule again linking to that article by using a googlebooks URL? Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early Chinese communist forces

Hi Mr Wilson, if you notice any text that appears to be copyrighted, please remove it immediately. Don't let it sit in the encyclopedia. There is a template to mark whole pages if necessary, and the main person to ask for help is User:Moonriddengirl. Cheers and thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 1940 Battle of France - The Air War

Dear Wilson,

I came across this little bit of info, I thought you might have need of in a future page. It is sort of surprising and the opposite of what most believe on this side of the pond.

Jack E. Hammond

======================================================================================================

During the terrible weeks following the German offensive on 10 May 1940, the French ground troops bitterly asked: "Where is the Air Force?" Outnumbered and equipped mostly with inferior aircraft, the Armee de l'air in fact performed gallantly and achieved conspicuous successes. Between September 1939 and June 1940, its fighters claimed the destruction of 1,009 enemy aircraft (916 of which were after 10 May 1940) but paid a heavy price: 194 pilots and gunners were killed, 188 wounded, 31 taken POW, and 428 fighter aircraft lost in combat. This 2.35:1 kill-to-loss ratio is indeed remarkable as most French fighters were either obsolete or obsolescent....[the US Hawk 75] Accounting for only 12.6% of single-seat fighter aircraft delivered to the Armee de l'air, between 1938 and June 1940, pilots of H75s obtained a disproportionate number of confirmed kills (310 out of a total of 1,009 credited to French fighters. Notably, H75s were flown by the two top [French] aces in the dark days of 1940, Lt. Marin La Meslee and 2Lt Camille Plubeau. ("Slowing Down Blitzkreig - A Curtiss Fighter Ace in the Battle of France." AIR FAN International/March 1996)

File source problem with File:1 K zone.png

Thank you for uploading File:1 K zone.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]