User talk:RobDuch/Archive 4

Got one you might have some insight on.

IMS Simon Lake’s last (slightly goofy) project may have used what was left of the USRC Levi Woodbury as a tender/surface platform. Ring any bells? Qwirkle (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read a good bio of Simon Lake yet, and don't know much about his projects. Sorry I haven't heard of his experiment with the amazingly long-lived revenue cutter. Certainly one of the more interesting submarine people. I did a little bit with his article, but not much as I had little to go on. I see a book of his from 1918 is now free full-text. "Slightly goofy" applies to most of his career, such as putting wheels on his own boats and the "level diving" theory. Of course he also had to work around EB's patents at every turn. I think he really did himself in by building R-boats that were basically a repeat in size of his O-boats; EB's version was 10-15% larger (surf vs submerged) and had the first USN submarine 21-inch torpedo tubes. Got to wonder who sent different specs (esp the torpedo size!) to EB and Lake, and if it was a machination of EB. Apparently he was allowed to die b/c his yard couldn't build "cruiser submarines" and the Navy was taking things in-house at Portsmouth. Haven't heard if the size restriction also applied to Gato-sized boats such as USS Dolphin (SS-169); if so letting his yard go makes more sense. RobDuch (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwirkle: I've done a fair amount on Fort Monroe, including as-built features, Endicott, and outline of WWI-WWII. Going to look at Fort Schuyler next, I did Endicott there a while back but now have more info on the 3rd System fort to add. Fort Wool should be after that. Somebody found a source for who built it and how, but little description of the 3rd System product, esp as-built state. RobDuch (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That should be interesting. The article and the articles it links to as it now stands confuses the (mostly USanian) Bernard-influenced ideas with the later German, Belgian, and French stuff. Qwirkle (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody else worked on bastion fort and decided to merge star fort into it, leaving little said about the latter. I don't have enough base knowledge to immediately improve on the result, though. I took the liberty of changing Ft Monroe's description from star to bastion, as I think star forts are pointier. RobDuch (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spiffed up Fort Schuyler. Couldn't unsnarl some of the cites to SUNY's reorganized website, though. I noted that it was already assessed as C-class, would ask for re-assess if I could get better referencing. Should do Wool tomorrow or the next day. RobDuch (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwirkle: You will enjoy the four-volume series on US Army OOB 1919-41 at this link. Scroll down to find the PDF links. There's also a Google Books version but the scans are so-so. Vol. 2 has the Coast Artillery. Info I haven't found elsewhere is detailed service for the Organized Reserve CA units between the wars, as well as detailed service with a photo of each mine planter during this period. There are also details on many of the harbor defense commands, including periods of caretaker status. Lots of stuff to put into WP. RobDuch (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. Apparently was used, dunno by Lake or a later owner, as a movie prop. Here. Qwirkle (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwirkle: My reply was delayed by a Viking river cruise in Russia that went surprisingly well. Mahoning/Woodbury's eventual successor as USCGC ship at Portland was USCGC Duane, which ended a nearly 50-year career there (well, and elsewhere) in the early 80s. Duane was said to be the oldest vessel in US gov't service as of her final years. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Coasties get their money’s worth out of their vessels, don’t they? Qwirkle (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Caswell Historic District

I'm in the process of creating a separate page for the historic district and will ensure that your suggested readings are included. FAB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:F4D1:F900:4DBF:5D2A:B050:EB00 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take it the historic district will include the fort article. I agree with the idea of separating the fort's current use from the fort article, especially as the article's title is about its current use. At the rate things are going I've no idea when I'll get around to working on Fort Caswell. RobDuch (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the Fort Caswell redirect to point to the historic district, as noted on your talk page. I also created a talk page for the historic district. RobDuch (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

m (Heitman ref for future use)

...hey, you coulda just put that as “Further Reading”.... Qwirkle (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah, RIGHT! As you can tell I've done work on some Union ACW OBs. I took the liberty of putting "Cavalry" in the names of all the Cav regiments. I looked up the Official Records source, and sure enough it depends on you to look at the top of the page to tell you're looking at the Cavalry Corps. So, since we're SERIOUSLY not required to follow every US military style convention, I decided to make it easier on readers. I did consult with the guy who made all those Regular artillery battery articles with "Light" in the regiment name before fixing that situation. After I get to the 7th ADA I may get back to forts. Not sure if I'm up for "HD Chesapeake Bay" once I get Story and John Custis done, but as always doing the forts is more than 3/4 of the work. And Chesapeake Bay has nowhere near the amount of early forts and activity that NYC and Del River had. It is mildly disturbing to me that I am bowing to the forces of decapitation and making redirects for the ports of embarkation in that regard, but hey, I can only swim upstream for so long. RobDuch (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Something I noticed: Many Union CW regiment articles are stubby and lack the Dyer's Compendium info that is copyright-free online. Another massive possibility for improvement... Of course the bigger gap is info on Confederate units. RobDuch (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old coast artillery articles

@Qwirkle: I've started "wikifying" Pgrig's early articles on the CAC, starting with the CA FCS. Due to his frequent use of footnotes that sometimes include embedded references, at first glance some articles appeared to be unsourced. I figured out how to put the footnotes in one group and the cites in the other. Longer term I'd like to weave in material from Berhow's ref guide, as these articles seem to be masterpieces of OR and SYNTH (such dirty words) or drawn largely from uncited sources. I can't figure out why referring the reader to an illustration is wrong, but maybe I can rework it. I once bought somebody else's extensive collection of CDSG journals and should be able to look up the cited articles. One nice thing is that more and more old Army manuals are coming online, and I found a full-text copy of FM 4-15, Seacoast artillery fire control (the previous link only had appendices). Also found TM 2160-20, Submarine Mining (boo-yah). The latter is held online by the USACAC (LOL), the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth. RobDuch (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: Plotting board was templated for no sources. There are actually several in the footnotes. I fixed it. BTW, these articles are close to a large walled garden, and I'm discovering more as I dig more. The only merges I'm immediately thinking of are plotting room and corrected firing data with CA FCS, but more may occur to me. I may leave plotting room as a stub with naval and international use mentioned. RobDuch (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In case somebody wants to build one... Qwirkle (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking they built one for Columbia River (which is much restored) or one of the other well-restored locations and put out an ad hoping to make some money on the deal. RobDuch (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another merger: Depression range finder and depression position finder. First device is a British one, apparently similar, developed circa 10 years before ours. I'm leaning towards naming the result after the British device, since it came first. RobDuch (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ref found in Depression range finder: Coast Arty in the British Army, now to decide on getting it and working on the other major worldwide CA organisation. I'll probably do other things long before getting it, I noticed that Submarines in the United States Navy is stubby prior to the 1980s, and I've already put a lot into various other articles that needs to be in it. RobDuch (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwirkle: Completed merging depression position finder into depression range finder; tell me what you think. I learned to beware of what I thought I knew; this page and the PDFs linked from it set me straight about British developments (such as that some of their devices were also called DPFs), though the info is still not complete. Now I've got to read everything about fire control in Berhow to prepare for reworking Coast Artillery fire control system and merging some stuff into it. RobDuch (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected firing data merged mostly verbatim into CA FCS. Plotting room will be next, and/or infusion of info from Berhow's ref guide (the CA FCS article is surprisingly skimpy). Not sure when as gaming has taken over my life again. RobDuch (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwirkle: Most of plotting room merged with CA FCS, did an international version of the former. Berhow info will happen later, again not sure of when. RobDuch (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done with CA FCS. RobDuch (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleased to find that Snowdawg created 3-inch anti-aircraft gun M3 last year. RobDuch (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ran across this one? (No hurry; for post-Wikibreak

[Handbook of US field ordnance from early 20S.] Includes obsolescent and non-standard stuff held in reserve, and a bunch of stuff on supporting vehicles and equipment. IMS, I ran across this 37 years ago or so, but haven't seen it since. Qwirkle (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a wealth of info there. Separating the M1917 3-inch AA gun from the M1918 article seems like a good project (if you find a ref on the M1 and/or M3 3-inch AA guns let me know). Plus there should be info to add on the 4.7-inch gun M1906, 9.2-inch howitzer, 60-pounder, 7-inch tracked mount, and some others. RobDuch (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looked over the weapons mentioned above (except AA), added material from the 1920 handbook (already linked and quoted in some articles), plus Williford where needed. Have unsnarled the notes and cites in most of Pgrig's articles. Probably merging the DRF/DPF articles next (looks like mostly straight concatenation, as does CA FC/Corrected Firing Data). RobDuch (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad enough they can metamorphosize...

Self-propelled caterpillar artillery. Qwirkle (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An SP 240 mm howitzer is a WWI dream weapon. The Schneider 240 was really semi-mobile, completely off the wheels when set up for firing; moving it was more than just limbering up. IIRC the APG collection had one of these with a 155 GPF on it, I hope it's at Fort Lee or Fort Sill. A cool WWII weapon that was being readied for use when Japan surrendered was the T92 Howitzer Motor Carriage, a 240 mm howitzer, with the similar T93 for the 8-inch gun. Yes, gun. RobDuch (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and the misuse of the word embrasure. In the article, too, of course. “The encyclopedia that [just] anyone can edit”.

The good news is, I think I’ve learned a borderline false friend in Hungarian. Qwirkle (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's an opening, embrasure is at least understandable in this context. My pet peeve in this area is the use of "casement" for "casemate", though it's also understandable. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 07:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yupper. There are sorta two basic patterns here: too plain and too fancy. One group won’t accept that there are specialized term that are useful, but not part of their vocabulary; the other will never stoop to speaking day-to-day English if they can find a specialized term, whether it is accurate or not. Now on top of this, we got the tyranny of the spill chucker.

Hathitrust, and, maybe, Goo-Goo books itself, now have Mercur’s revision of Mahan’s Permanent Fortifications online. As usual, though, the plates at the back are mis-scanned. Qwirkle (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard of Mahan's book, should be great for me some day. App. I by Goethals. For some time "casemate" was redlined in my WP editor as misspelled (explains next sentence). Took me a while before I realized my Wiki editor's spelling dictionary was local and easy to add words to. I do plan to return to full-time Wiki, sometime next year at the rate things are going. World of Warcraft has been getting a relative torrent of new content, and I've been going over a lot of older content too. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Driggs-Schroeder book online

@Qwirkle: Serendipity: one of my ref links at Driggs-Schroeder went dead, bot couldn't fix, so I found a full-text version here. I should put in at least a couple of cites in the next few days. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Even has a page on the Accles. Accles (& Shelvoke, come to think of it) deserve an article; Accles was a big part of China’s industry in the 19th century, did a bit at BSA, and pretty much invented the captive bolt stunner, aside from his notable improvements to gatlings. Wiki, of course, just mentions him in passing for bicycle frame tubes... Qwirkle (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
based on your lead here, I dug up this. Qwirkle (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found the stub: Accles & Shelvoke. It's really stubby. Spiffed up Driggs-Schroeder a bit. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the copy of Driggs-Schroeder scanned for Archive.org is ONI's copy acquired in 1896, later donated as a duplicate to the Smithsonian Library. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwirkle: Did a little work on the Accles articles, at least made them refer to each other. Put a sentence on the Accles MG in Gatling gun. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 18:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more gooderer, as me old First Sergeant used to say. Color me cynical, though, but I can’t help the feeling that good research and writing here merely acts as bodyguards of truths to precious lies. Watching Obvious Sock Being Obvious on their way to an admin slot has done little to improve that; the PTB might as well rename the process ‘’’Request for Argyleship’’’’. Wouldn’t even need to change the abbreviation...

Ran into the wartime...WWI time, that is...West Point permanent fortifications text at Hathitrust. Worth a look. Qwirkle (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got to give the West Point text a good look soon. I attempted to email you via "Email this user" on WP a few weeks ago with no reply. Got to agree that NPOV can't be achieved if one POV is the only one with readily available references (in English esp.). World of Warcraft continues to delay my return to full-time editing. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ran across a brief article in Automobile Quarterly (AKA “Horizon for Gearheads”) Vol 29 no 2, March 1991 with a nice little piece on New England cars, with an advert for a Driggs Ordnance sedan on page 30. Lots of obscure yankee metal covered; even had a full article on Frisbie, all six(?) cars.

Only ran across your email well after the fact; given my level of spleen at this place at the time, that was probably just as well, unless you want to read obscene doggerel about some of the locals... Qwirkle (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obscene doggerel isn't so bad; I have my own rants in prose (in my head). Of course, discussion would not be limited to WP. And it's OK if you don't take up my offer. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified artillery

Thanks for the suggestion. I had a look but I'm afraid rather too difficult for me :( I identified one though - a Krupp C64 in a Plevna diorama - and left a note on the discussion page. No idea who watchlists those pages but they can do what they will with the info. Monstrelet (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just change the picture's caption, description, and categori(es) and move on. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
An appropriate Barnstar for showing kindness in a rather hard-nosed environment! Thank you for your help - I think the editing worked! Arbil44 (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Cannons in Romania"

On Commons, do we really want Commons:Category:Cannons in Romania on a diorama in Romania that represents (inter alia) a cannon in Bulgaria, but does not represent Romania at all? File:Plevna diorama 1.jpg, File:Plevna diorama 2.jpg. Not what I'd expect (and I'm an admin there) but I don't work much on military museum exhibits.

I am contacting you on en-wiki at your request, but if you reply please ping me, because I do not maintain an active watchlist on en-wiki. - Jmabel | Talk 17:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Categories like "Cannons in Romania" are primarily used for museum or memorial cannons, and I think it's needed here because the cannon is physically in Romania. I wouldn't object to adding "Cannons in Bulgaria" in this case, though. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 21:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's more that it isn't really a cannon; if I remember right (after 14 years) it's a model, maybe the size of your arm, maybe smaller. The diorama wasn't very big. - Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: It sure fooled me :). I'll add that it's a model in the desc. Since it isn't real, I think it doesn't need a "cannons" category. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hard to remember in detail after 14 years, but I believe the dioramas weren't all that big. The museum has quite few of them. I'll be in Bucharest again later this year, and if I get a chance I'll try to sort it out. - Jmabel | Talk 23:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ran across this while searching for the object in the foreground....

..Gruson(?) turret. Qwirkle (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks like it! Good job spotting it. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check this critter out. Consolidates multiple sources of digitized rare works. Appears to often have copies of the oversize plates. Has English rather than Romansch. Here, somebody’d sue over that.... Qwirkle (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any English translation available? "Panzerstand fur 21 cm Morser" seems cool, there's a 21 cm Morser in Fall River. I suppose you've heard of what's probably Gruson's biggest turret, with twin 45 cm (17.7-inch) guns for coast defense at La Spezia, Italy. Yes, two weapons similar to the Malta and Gib 100-ton guns, but later breechloading versions. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just grab it and babylon it. I can sometimes, but not often get the gist of some Continental stuff looking at it, but I can miss little things like “not”, and get it 180 degrees off. German is the worst for me, since so much of the shared vocabulary for things military got nuked with Prussian dominance. (Russian is even worse, but I can’t even begin to skim it. Cyrillic trips me up from the get-go.) This came (again) on a totally unrelated search. Dunno if it is of any use, but it is damned cool looking. Qwirkle (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the many articles in "The Engineer" were you referring to? Cupola battleship? I did notice the 12-inch Krupp gun firing. I found Russian-made guns in the Suomenlinna/Sveaborg fortress in Helsinki harbor; they had sliding breeches so could be Krupp-based. I tentatively ID'd 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch weapons, with muzzle photos including my hand so someday I can measure them. I photographed some of the Russian markings and keep meaning to check them out closely. Before I did my Russia trip last year I brushed up on the Russian alphabet via the Wiki article and it was essential. In Russia only a few signs on the interstate and at the airport are not in the Russian alphabet. It is amazing how many of their nouns are the same as in English. The Wiki article notes the five letters the Commies exiled to Siberia. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’d missed the Russian battleship; was thinking about the Krupp projectile captured in flight, but also liked the Columbus ship stuff. (p 286, IMS.) Qwirkle (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back on the wiki full-time

@Qwirkle: After nearly a year of reduced activity, I'm reorienting myself away from my MMO and back to Wikipedia. Experience has shown that I can't do both at the same time. I've taken a look at my last 4 issues of Coast Defense Journal and have found material I want to add in each of them. This includes an article on 19th-C forts in Mass designed by Major Charles Edward Blunt of the USACE. There's also an article on Salisbury Beach Military Reservation, which I previously worked on. It had a fire control cottage for the 16-inchers at Portsmouth, and to keep things confused was transferred from HD Boston to HD Portsmouth at some point. After warming up, I plan to resume my work where I left off with HD Chesapeake Bay. For something bigger, I'm looking at Submarines in the United States Navy and Allied submarines in the Pacific War, both of which are not what they ought to be. Fortunately, my previous work provides most of what I'd like to add to the former article. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This will be good. Obviously, I’m useless with the sub stuff, but there may be something I can winkle out for the forts. Good to see you back. Qwirkle (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea what/if anything should be done with a Wikidata infobox in a Commons category? Unrelated to that, now reading a recent CDSG Journal article (by the indefatigable and omniscient BW Smith) on the 3-inch gun M1898 and associated masking parapet mount. To complicate my life, it appears these were made by Driggs-Seabury in Derby, CT, had numerous mfg delays, and became a POS when fired beginning in 1913. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox stuff I have no idea on. I occasionally learn how the more technical stuff works on wiki...and then I promptly forget it again.

Re Driggs, they showed up in the 1934(?) Munitions hearings as a going concern, Driggs Ordnance & Engineering which had exported and licensed production overseas. Louis L Driggs seems to have been one of the receivers of the old company, so he was essentially buying himself out. Qwirkle (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just had an annoying experience on Wikidata's Driggs page, which the infobox is pulling from w/o ANY code on the EnWiki page. Very annoying that multiple HQ locations etc. seemingly can't be in the Wikidata box, which apparently got updated as part of German Wiki's article on "Driggs Ord & Mfg.". Of course, now I've messed up the DeWiki page. I would disengage from Wikidata but idk how. Edit: Saw how to turn off Wikidata usage from the Wikidata page, so I restored DeWiki's info. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see why its ultimate fate is unclear from references. They went, to use an anachronism, virtual. They had sales people and designers, but they jobbed out actual production to subs. From the look of it, they got a lot of ‘tween-war anti-aircraft business. Small potatoes compared to what came later, of course. Qwirkle (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, seeing your info from 1935 and why they went out of business in 1925. Since the 3-inch gun M1918 had a (heavily) modified barrel from the M1898, I'm guessing Driggs' prolific foreign sales were a derivative of this. So much to put in! Haven't run into them in WWII for some reason, guess they didn't quite survive the Depression. Electric Boat may have pioneered subbing out (lol) mfg.; until 1932 all their subs were made by subs. The reference to a 105 mm AA gun is not a typo; 12 of these were deployed in Panama (only) as the M3 gun on the fixed barbette mount (you guessed it) M1. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of info added to 3-inch gun M1898 with a little bit on masking parapet mounts at disappearing gun, courtesy of BW Smith's CDSG article. Tomorrow I'll start on various ACW-era forts in N. Mass., mostly 1865 armament updates. Turns out I need to make an article for Stage Fort/Fort Conant in Gloucester; I had it confused with another fort on the first pass. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a twofer, IMS, the old governor’s house was right by there. Qwirkle (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are several related articles that each need a little work; Roger Conant (colonist), Great House (Cape Ann), moved to Salem after about two years (this article is persistent in confusing Cape Ann and Gloucester, I see from the relevant articles that this is OK), Stage Fort Park, and a painting Stage Fort across Gloucester Harbor. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 21:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me of something I ran across, and then lost again. There were a bunch of old jetted buildings in Salem that were “remodeled” by filling in the area under the jetty, and made over Georgian in the 1700s with walls that ran uninterrupted two stories up. They began taking them down just as photography got going, so there is some visual record. Damned if I can remember the source. Qwirkle (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least it’s something Rhodeislandinian

Another perfectly good armory bites the dust. Qwirkle (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC it bit the dust in the early 90s as an armory, the 1111th MP Co. was disbanded and RIARNG on the island moved to a nondescript brick building at the island's small airport. At least they're keeping the building, that's the important thing. I think none of RI's classic armories remain in NG hands, could be wrong about Armory of Mounted Commands and Benefit Street. RI armories info here. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1896 West Point Ordnance & Gunnery Textbook

@Qwirkle: Here. Includes the unsuccessful Gordon carriage, which I may add to the article, and the short-lived 5-inch and 7-inch siege guns. Free online. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Gordon shows up under the maker, Morgan, also in some sources. It’s an interesting example of the Goldilocks Principle. The Gordon was just a little too simplistic, the Brit DCs a little too bleeding edge. The Buffington-Crozier was just in the right spot in between...at least until hydropneumatics got better, and aircraft (literally and figuratively) took off. A bunch of the Sp-Am war scare temporary emplacements were for the siege guns...more emplacements than guns, IMS, but that’s why God gave us the railroad. Qwirkle (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder if anybody will get ticked that I'm mass-deleting basically irrelevant Further Reading from CAC regiment articles? It's stuff that another editor put in all his articles and I just copied the refs. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nahh. I don’t think there’s a Cult of Further Readers to balance out the Bookspam Bashers Brotherhood. Qwirkle (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gloucester: 3 forts, 11 names. Even Roberts lumps them all under "Fort Gloucester". Should have it straight tomorrow. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some clown will come along and claim it’s “original research”... Qwirkle (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cut through it as best I could. Reduced the number of names bc some were alt versions only appearing unsourced at Stage Fort Park, which I updated. Now presenting Stage Fort. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now looking at Fort at Salisbury Point and Fort Nichols (Massachusetts). Could've been the same location, but there are 3 candidates. Leaning towards the one recommended as Fort Nichols by Ktr101, which a USGS map shows is named Salisbury Point, and is also in Amesbury vice Salisbury, which some sources indicate was Fort Nichols' town. It's right where Rte. 95 crosses the Merrimack. Other candidates in my thinking are Coffin Point, directly opposite downtown Newburyport, and of course the actual mouth of the river on or opposite Plum Island. The CDSG article has nothing on the CW fort beyond crediting Major C.E. Blunt with its design. Unusually, Roberts also has nothing beyond a little on Fort Nichols, and FortWiki has nothing at all. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just found List of United States War Department Forms, with Hathitrust and other links to all those 1890-1920 tech manuals. Linked a bunch of ordnance there and will link more tomorrow with luck. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 07:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive

@Qwirkle: If you regularly look at the Village Pump I'm sure you've seen this, but it's definitely a concern for those of us who value accessible online books with expired copyrights. Behind this discussion is a lawsuit against Internet Archive by 5 publishers, including 3 big ones. They're accusing the archive of copyvio. I really hope this doesn't extend to the pre-1924 (or is it 1928?) pubs we enjoy, or to US Gov't pubs. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, I think that authors gotta eat, too, and that IA has been playing Robin Hood just a bit too much here. On the other hand, I’ve been noticing that Goo-Goo Books is now preferentially displaying new reprints with minor changes...i.e. copywrite stuff, although I doubt some of it would stand up to a court challenge. Either way, though, Dover books is in trouble... Qwirkle (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little known Jane's fact

@Qwirkle:: I've been resisting the temptation to add to the current Army sourcing dispute that Jane's Fighting Ships was originally compiled as a wargaming database, and early editions had an appendix with the rules for "Jane's Naval War Game". RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Fort Sill has taken down CAJ/AAJ/etc. They have the current issue of ADAJ, and the file structure seems to support more, but that's all I could find. HathiTrust only allows viewing of CAJ pre-1924 due to "copyright restrictions". Argh! On the bright side, Archive.org has them, but for how long? RobDuch (talk·contribs) 21:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the archive.org stuff is from copies that have been then destroyed or archived without easy access. (IMS, “washed” is the term for it, but M might not S. It often don’t these days.) In that case, they’ve a solid case for keeping a circulating electronic copy for each vanished work, and there’s no need to tighten up access beyond that. Of course, they might do a Googlesque panic, and do a kneejerk pull on everything after ‘24. Hope not. Qwirkle (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re template

Rename old complete template MAMilhist, or something like that, edit out the current stuff? Qwirkle (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you have already done that. Qwirkle (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it, got to do Maine also, but there are few active installations in Maine with articles. I got a response on the talk page that the inactive navbox is "much, much too big". May do a forts-only navbox, and he suggested a list article. Looks like a forts/mil res/maybe camps navbox plus a listicle. And many additions to Category:Military facilities in Massachusetts. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwirkle: With no response from the other guy yet, will implement Maine and work on the Mass listicle. Category question: Mass currently has a sparse "Category:Military installations in Massachusetts" and a fat "Category:Military facilities in Massachusetts". I'm planning to initially just put everything that isn't already in one of these into the "facilities" category bc it's already well-populated; I can always request a cat merge if I really want one. Other suggestions? And I'm planning to link the Nike sites to List of Nike missile sites and group them IAW that article, bc it has a little info on most of them. My reconstructed "former" template for Mass is at User:RobDuch/sandbox/template if you want to look at it. Listicle is mostly done except those pesky references at User:RobDuch/sandbox/list. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maine is implemented, not looking forward to Mass. Nike sites done. Started reffing the Mass listicle. (later) Current installations, forts, and Nike sites all reffed. Once Mass is done I may mass-create stubs for the current Maine inst navbox; amazingly, I've found refs for all of them. I also got WP:BOLD with the latest name for Natick Labs. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The otherwise indefatigable author of tons of Mass military stubs somehow missed all the current armories. I found a source. OMG. In going over the numerous camps I've taken the liberty of redirecting a number of stubs to collocated facilities. I've taken some of these redirects off the list but left others on it, can't make up my mind. @Qwirkle: I'm leaning towards categorizing the redirects (my latest idea is to move the redirects to "Inst of the US Army in Mass" etc where appropriate) but leaving them off the list and the navbox, what do you think? RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I strongly suspect this is something you are a lot more experienced with than I am.

My only strong feelings on lists is that I wish there were less of them, and better ability to search by keyword categories. Given that wiki doesn’t really have that, the lists are quite valuable, but I think the broader the category, the more unwieldy they get. For instance, many former military facilities in New England precede the US, as do a fair number of military units. Do they go in, too? Qwirkle (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a number of mergers due to stubby articles, an obvious merge target, and lack of independent notability. Thinking that redirects don't generally belong in the navbox. I was working on a forts/MR/camps navbox, may not put the camps in there. The list is mainly to replace lost navbox functionality. I'm not bothering with the armories for now, and I'm keeping referenced redirects on the list so far. Surprisingly, very few Mass military articles are pre-1775, not that I've been looking. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've discovered a now-inactive user who actually tag-bombed himself extensively, as well as others. Took a while to figure that out. For better or worse, "Rings of Supersonic Steel" came in the mail. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone I might have run into? I remember there were a few who set up sockpuppets to attack themselves in a play for sympathy. Qwirkle (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
30 SW, not active since 2014. Liked to do Cold War stuff, seemed to be tagging every info gap he couldn't fill. Analysis for him is a bit unclear, as he apparently incubated in user space and inserted very large edits. He also felt the need to attach extensive quotes to cites, so the reader could immediately see what text his info came from. At the tail end of Fort Heath#Battery Theodore Winthrop, he actually included a comment (that is only visible in "Edit") on a "failed verification" tag that he'd re-analyzed a map of the fort and proved that it was over 300 feet between Gun 1 and Gun 3, instead of the 270 feet stated by the also-obsessive Pgrig. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 21:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. You know, I like that. Tells others what needs fixing, tells the reader not to get carried away with a “fact” that might not pan out, do it yourself rather than palm it off on the next guy. Having seen so many wikiteurs who take obvious accurate criticism of “their” articles as a personal affront, that’s kinda refreshing. Qwirkle (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have Butler's The Guns of Boston Harbor? P. 240-241 should have a statement of what the 1938 experimental Navy-MIT fire control system at Fort Heath was, probably radar. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t. It has been a while since I’ve bought any books, come to think of it, outside of friends-of-the-library sales. That’s too new for that. (Now watch some loon show up to “fix” the hyphen...) Qwirkle (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwirkle: I've taken the plunge and published List of military installations in Massachusetts and Template:FmrMAForts. I've populated the list to all the existing installations so far, and taken the liberty of changing categories from "Mil Fac" to "Mil Inst". Next will be the past installations. I'm thinking pretty much only the Civil War camps should remain in Mil Fac. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done with populating List of mil inst in MA, the template, all that stuff to both existing and former mil inst. I'm surprised that the number of stubs changed to redirects by myself and other users in this effort haven't caused ENWP to fall below 6 million articles LOL. Planning to switch gears to Submarines in the United States Navy; much of the groundwork is already laid. However, bringing Allied submarines in the Pacific War up to snuff seems daunting, though I bought Silent Victory with a view to that. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”Wikipedia: 2 million articles in 6 million places!” Qwirkle (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to go ahead with HD Chesapeake Bay since the strawman is in my sandbox (or the scarecrow is in the play area). The general lack of sourcing in articles on the early history of Virginia is disturbing, probably they originated in WP's early years. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review John Neal article?

Hi, RobDuch! Could I interest you in participating in a peer review of John Neal (writer)? I recently overhauled the whole thing, replacing the article I wrote in 2006 and that you, among others, have helped to slowly improve over the last 14 years. I think the new article is a major improvement and hopefully worth getting the article's status upgraded, but before I request that upgrade, I put out a request for peer review.

I am asking you since you made a helpful edit in 2016 about Neal's gym at Fort Sumner (Maine).

The peer review request is linked at the top of talk:John Neal (writer).

Thanks in advance for the help!

-Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy: Despite my being a bit prolific on WP, I'm not well-acquainted with many WP: policies. I'll give your article a read-through in the next couple of days. My immediate impression is that the lead section needs some citations, at least one per paragraph, though I don't know what the WP: policy is. I'm pleased that Neal was one of the few to recognize Poe early on. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RobDuch: - Your question about citations in the lead is a valid one. Thanks for bringing it up! When I was writing the article, I was operating on something I read about how the lead needs citations only for quotes or information that is not included elsewhere in the article. Looking it up now, I see conflicting information. Wikipedia:Citing sources#When not to cite validates what I just said, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations says I should cite anything that looks challengeable. I think the latter is probably what I should do, which would be easy given my familiarity with the rest of the article. I look forward to hearing any other feedback you might have! -Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy: I've read most of the article. I think overall it's exceptionally well-written and well-organized. I've just made a few edits, mostly linking various items and fixing what I thought were a couple of awkward phrases. There are alternate approaches in those cases where I "fixed" the grammar. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RobDuch: Wonderful. Thank you for taking the time to read through the article and making those changes. It is very much appreciated. -Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fort at Salisbury Point

@Qwirkle: The CDSG Journal published more info on the elusive subject fort. I've added it to the article, you might want to have a look. Has an official document naming it "Fort at Salisbury Beach", but who am I to put effort into overturning 150 years of error, esp error enshrined in Heitman? I just made a redirect and put the alt name in the article. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. A lot of these things really weren’t consistently formally named, you ask me. I was really impressed by the number of names the works on Alcatraz had; you got different names used by the same people more or less contemporaneously...or maybe you saw descriptives mixed with names, which has about the same effect. Either way, the only real change would be to switch what was the official name in the lead; like you say, there is no point in eliminating usage from authoritative sources. Qwirkle (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Pay State

Check out the one for Fort Warren Qwirkle (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The glory days of Watertown Arsenal for sure. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 18:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s got the vanishingly rare “Pneumatic Gun Carriage and Projectile Company” carriage a few pics down, too, which all but stole some of the B-C design, but missed out on the elliptical recoil path, probably the most important feature.

This thing has got real possibilities...I tried to see if I could find pictures of the actual first US trackless trolley (as opposed to the LA Laurel Canyon cheap imitation), but found instead a bunch of pics of the old “Nancy” aground. My father saw that as a kid. Qwirkle (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't for the caption I would've thought it was B-C. I see the "10" Mortar" is really a 12" Mortar. Good luck with trolley pix. Noank, CT had the hulk of a large, wrecked sailing ship in the 70s. It was falling apart, looked like a whale carcass being cut up, and was removed in the 80s. Wiscasset, ME had a pair of sailing ships that had been abandoned in place in the early part of the 20th century. Sadly, preservation efforts were limited and they were wrecked by a storm in the 80s, then removed. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the leftcoast, there’s a great example of that up in Anacortes, WSW of the ferry terminal. Old lumber schooner, IMS, used as a breakwater. It has a tree growing in it.... Qwirkle (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looked it up, an SO tanker, La Merced, actually. Really overgrown now. Qwirkle (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vanishingly rare 105 ack-ack

Follow the money...

While the Driggs ancestry is a confused mess when you look for it as genealogy, from the cold-eyed, grasping viewpoint of the lawyer, it gets more straightforward. Qwirkle (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L.L. was W.H.'s brother! Thanks for this, should get it in there soon. Also the earlier post-1925 info about Driggs becoming a design agent only. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 18:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
L.L. was curiously long-lived if born soon after W.H. In 1930 he would've been circa 80 years old, based on W.H.'s grave at Arlington (wherein the person writing it up for the web misread the middle initial on the tombstone). Of course, he may have been much younger or a half-brother. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
August, 1868....so he was born more or less as his older brother was graduating the Academy. Qwirkle (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checking on the spelling of “Labadie”, I discovered that the fellow the name came from, LL’s great-grandfather, had 33 children by three wives- two French, and one Chippewa. I had wondered whether the obscure genealogy was because of Métis ancestry, which people then tended to downplay, but he was from the 16 all-French group. Still, on the Labadie side of the family he apparently might have been Pontiac’s distant cousin. Qwirkle (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the “taxi fiasco”, it’s pretty amazing just how nasty the taxi wars got. IMS, Hertz (i.e. Yellow Cab) got his stables, with racehorses included, burned down. Before you get feeling too sorry for him, Checker’s Mar... Markin...had look that up...lost his house the same way. Again, IMS, the cab company that Driggs built for was an outgrowth of a speakeasy empire. Dangerous folk, yer nicklechasers. Qwirkle (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: If you're heavily into the Philippines forts, here's a new book by a CDSG member. I refer frequently to his previous work, "American Breechloading Mobile Artillery". $49.95 from B&N, or I have the author's email for a signed copy at $45.00. May lead to a lot of changes to the articles I expanded on WP. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For many, many years, the Belote brothers were pretty much the only unified source in print.

I’d be interested in what new has been dug up on Dewey Brady; IMO he is one of those rare people, like King Albert, whose death actually changed history. Qwirkle (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been over a year, but I finally put the 1935 Driggs info in the article. It seems "all the king's horses and all the king's men/couldn't get Driggs back in business again". Of course who knows what the next ref will have. I took the liberty of giving myself a B-class; the only thing missing was ref/cite, and the darn thing is refbombed. Should I put cites in the infobox? WP:SHIPS doesn't want them there, but they may be the only ones. It's tragic that it took a while, but I did find info on Dewey Brady. He didn't die until 24 Oct 42, as a POW; his DSC citation assumes he was killed in action. Although he presumably got a bunch of enemy aircraft shot down, it's unclear to me how he changed history. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 19:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m reasonably sure he was, in fact KIA, there’s burial reports, multiple eyewitness accounts, and the terrible effects on Denver all attesting to that. If Water Tank Hill had held against the initial assault, it is possible the initial landing might have failed, and the forts may have held out another two-three weeks.

I suspect a good many of those gravestones in Manila are, in fact, cenotaphs. Qwirkle (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe by the time of Ell-Ell’s death, he was the company, and the lack of physical plant was a killer from ‘39 onward. The job shops he would have tried to sub out to were already back in business with other, steadier work. Qwirkle (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arlington has a big collection of cenotaphs, I think they say "in memory of" or something to distinguish them. There are some for the crew of USS Scorpion from 1968, for example. It's even more tragic that "Mil Hall of Honor" has nothing on Dewey's part in the island's final fall on 5 May, nor does his DSC. The DSC seems to assume he died on 24 April 42, 11 days too early to take part in the final assault. The coincidence of 24 April and 24 October is not lost on me. When researching the war in the Philippines, it occurred to me that, with virtually every survivor on our side having endured over three years as a POW, much history would be lost or garbled. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he died before landings...but the battery, as an effective unit, pretty much died with him. He and his company clerk ran the thing even more than usual. One of the problems the CAC always had was ossifers who were strong on analytics, but correspondingly weak on leadership and decisionating. IMO, and worth every cent you paid for it. Qwirkle (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The USN had/has similar problems with nuclear power officers, IMO. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tank and arty articles

@Qwirkle: In pursuing random short-term Wikigoals, I've taken a look at several articles on types of AFVs and artillery. The cure for some of them is obvious but time-consuming; add in-line citations, easy to find for those that are mostly a list of Wikilinked items. Those that are a wall of unsourced text with a couple of books at the bottom... ugh. It's obvious why these articles were created in the project's infancy before refs were required. It's less obvious why nobody has stepped up to the plate more recently. Some authors have added sourced material, but have not sourced the previous material. Articles that are in particularly bad shape and are very short include Self-propelled gun and Jagdpanzer. I'm between games right now, that's why I'm Wikignoming now and may go off-Wiki in the near future. These are just observations, I'm not immediately taking up the AFV/arty mantle and I'm not suggesting anybody else do it. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if “self-propelled gun” shouldn’t just get rolled into SP Artillery as a redirect. Same ground is getting covered twice.

Me, I care a lot less about citations, and a lot more about accuracy; a single-footnote article that accurately reflects expert consensus on the subject is far better than one of those chock-full-o-cites pieces whose cites are misunderstood, or wrong, or merely glurge. Qwirkle (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SPG talk page actually has two proposals for redirect/merge, but they got shot down on the basis that SPG could include SPAA (which is now at Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon), assault guns (also now stand-alone), and SPAT (redirects to tank destroyer). Until 2010 it was mostly a list of related vehicles with WP articles, but in 2010 somebody gutted this for no cites. I think another redirect proposal should be made, I bet we get few replies. Including the articles above in each other's "See also" should be all that's needed. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwirkle: Added links to See also in the SP articles so the major ones link to each other. I'm thinking that Jagdpanzer and Panzerjäger are candidates for merge to Tank destroyer, would be semi-complicated. No talk page acty since 2011 on either (where the apparent artificiality of the distinction was commented on but not acted on), except what is either a troll or a poorly informed enthusiast on Jagdpanzer in 2014. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwirkle: I've proposed redirecting SPG to SPA, not planning much else right now. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination)

You make a nice argument to keep the article. :) BlueD954 (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. IMO the most valid argument against keeping these is that some are poorly sourced (this was discussed intensively on the MILHIST talk page a couple of months ago). Of course, some are arguing that 1989 is an arbitrary year, etc. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 15:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]