Talk:55th Wing

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

Untitled[edit]

This sounds a lot like something taken from a book or other source. -Trump

Insert from Strategic Air Command wings temporarily: Buckshot06 03:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is 55th Medical Group listed as a 'former' rather than a current unit under the 55th Wing? JCSeer 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Touching on above question, why is the 55th ECG listed as a previous component? While located at DMAFB and not Offutt AFB, the 55th ECG still reports to the 55th Wing. Comnavchaos (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

55th Wing[edit]

  • Redesignated in: 1 September 1991.
  • At: Offutt AFB, NE.
  • Assigned to: Second Air Force.
  • Equipment: C-135s, EC-135s, KC-135s, NKC-135s, RC-135s, TC-135s, E-4s
  • Reassigned to: Air Combat Command, Second Air Force on 31 May 1992
  • Responsible for an Atlas missile complex, Aug. 1964-Mar. 1965.
  • Became responsible for SAC's airborne command post and post-attack command and control operations, Aug. 1966. In addition, flew SAC logistic support missions after Sept. 1971. Conducted K/E/RC-135 pilot training as required.
  • Began Airborne Launch Control operations in 1978 using EC-135Cs as flying launch/control platforms for Minuteman, and later, Peacekeeper strategic missile systems.
  • Operated from bases in the U.S., Mediterranean, Europe, and the Pacific.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 55th Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 55th Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 55th Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Units Previously Assigned[edit]

In the Compenents section, there is a pretty good lengthy list of units both past and present. However, only the flying squadrons that were ever assigned to the wing are listed. None of the supporting units that reported directly to the wing are on this list. For instance, when I was stationed as part of the 55th SRW during the early 80s, there were 3 maintenance squadrons that were assigned directly to the wing headquarters; 55th Avionics Maintenance Sq (AMS), 55th Field Maintenance Sq (FMS), and the 55th Organizational Maintenance Sq (OMS). The problem here is, in order to list these on Wikipedia, we must have a "source" to reference in a citation. I've scoured the internet checking fact-sheets and 55th Wing historical sites, and it's as if these maintenance units never existed. Yet, we see from this article that maintenance is (and always has been) at least a major role of the wing. How can we correctly account for these essential units in this article? Is this article still on anyone's Watchlist? TadgStirkland401 (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to spend the time [1] will let you search for abstracts of histories mentioning support units for wings. If you intend to include maintenance squadrons (1952-1991), don't forget that when the tri-deputy system was implemented in the 1970s, other support units were assigned directly to the wing (not to mention the bouncing back and forth of supply squadrons between the Air Base/Combat Support Group and the Wing). --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lineagegeek:, I checked the link you attached above and didn't find anything useful. To be honest, I am having troubke finding any mention of the units I talked about (55th AMS/FMS/OMS) anywhere on the web at all. It's like they never existed, which I find incredibly strange. I suppose at this point, it may be a lost cause... The only potential help might be to contact the Wing Historian's office. But any information he/she provides would be hard to properly cite in the article. TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 03:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TadgStirkland401, no. It would be PD-USGOV, so no copyright problems; just go through the WT:OTRS ticket process. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Buckshot06: Hi again. I think I mighta misstated the problem. I’m not worried about copyright per se. i was worried about how I could reliably cite an email response from the wing. I wrote to the Public Affairs office and they responded today that they forwarded my request to the wing historian. If that person sends me a full list of the units in question via email, how would I properly cite that? My understanding of citing material is that the source should be publicly available, as a book, magazine, newspaper, website, etc.. I think citing an email will be difficult. Thoughts? TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 02:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is specifically what WT:OTRS can be used for. Stick a query in over there, and the e-mail, with your identifying information removed, can be uploaded to Wiki. Haven't used it myself. Can't remember whether it's Wikipedia or Commons, but the OTRS ticket process is how we get around that kind of problem. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Buckshot06: That is not correct. The no original research policy requires all information to come from published, reliable sources. For this reason, we cannot cite emails if they have not been published by a reliable source. OTRS is primarily for responding to questions/concerns about Wikipedia raised by readers who don't know how to edit. Additionally, if you have received permission to upload an image or other file to the Wikimedia Commons under a free copyright license, we also use OTRS to document that permission on file description pages. However, we cannot cite OTRS tickets for actual article content, unfortunately. Mz7 (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7:, thanks for the quick response. I also got the email response from you. I'll contact the Wing Historian and let him know I can't use his information. He stated because of the way the info is stored, it would take him a while to compile it, so better to know now than later. TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 01:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:55th_Wing&oldid=1197064637"