Talk:353rd Special Operations Wing

WP:MILHIST Assessment

A nice start, for details and length. Needs some reformatting though. Firstly, there should be an introduction, at least two sentences. "The 353d Special Operations Group is..." When were they formed? Which conflicts did they take part in? Why are they significant or notable? Secondly, the prose paragraph sections should come above the detail lists. Just looks better, reads better, that way. Third, a lot of these detail lists should be converted into proper prose text. Right now, very little of the article is written out in full, proper sentences. This goes for the Operations section, and particularly for the Lineage and Assignments sections. LordAmeth 13:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not even clear until half way down the article that they are american!! Even then I won't completely rule out the possibility I might have made a mistake, though I doubt it. Mathmo ^Talk 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

notability?

This article doesn't explain why this organization is notable. I'm not sure it is, outside of a smal specialty group.--Vidkun 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Having been assigned to the 353rd Special Operations Group I can tell you that they play a large role in the war on terrorism around Asia and provide protection against an attack from North Korea. (NucPhy7 23:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

Unit Lineage issues

This article talks about the time period when the 353rd was consolidated with the 553rd Recon Wing, but lists units under the recon wing as having been under the SOG. In fact, if you look up the 553rd recon wing on wikipedia, it's redirected to this page. According to this site the 353rd was disestablished in 1948, the 553rd was activated in 1967, deactivated in 1970; with 3rd ACG being activated and consolidated with the re-established 55rd in 1985, and was immediately reflagged as the 353rd Recon Wing. This article makes it look like the 353rd has an unbroken lineage that includes the 553rd and 554th Spec Ops Sqdns, when those never existed. revising and extending remarks I've done a little more research, and it seems that the USAF uses two digit unit designations as a "parent" or lineage place holder, as this shows that the 54th Airlift Flight (a unit smaller than a squadron) traces its lineage to a couple of X54th units. So, now the question is, how do we show units as having been subordinate to a historical predecessor of a current unit?--Vidkun (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about this at the MilHistory-Aviation Task force page here.--Vidkun (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)