Talk:330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing

Military history: North America / United States

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

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

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

Permission

This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT).

Issues identified are: Permission is given for use of materials from the website http://www.330th.org/ under the license CC-BY
The VRTS ticket number is 2009020410051373.

Please discuss these issues here, being mindful of the policies on biographies of living persons.

Zureks (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion closed and archived - No clear consensus, and no new discussion for over 2 weeks. - BilCat (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these should be merged at all. WWII should be treated separately from the rest of these groups. --B29bomber (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're the same unit. The history and honors of the 330th Bombardment Group are held by the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing, so I support merging them. If the history is sufficiently long for a 'History of the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing' page to exist I'd support that, but as is I think a mission-by-mission blow is a bit much for an encyclopedia. Just my two cents anyway.--Ndunruh (talk) 01:02, 9 July

2009 (UTC)

If the units have the same lineage, then retain it as one article. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mission info is valuable data, but maybe not for this site. Should it be shrunk down to just briefly describe the mission, aircraft involved and tonnage dropped. Still think it should be separate. The group now is but a shadow of what this group once was and its significance will be lost on the Sustainment Wing page.--B29bomber (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit unfair to the current mission. During WWII it was one of how many bombardment groups? Certainly it made a contribution to the allied success of the war, but today it is the sole unit responsible for the depot level maintenance for 17 different airframes including the entire strategic airlift fleet and most of the special operations and reconnaissance fleet. With the limited size of the aircraft fleet compared to World War II its role today is absolutely critical. True it's not winning fame by driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan, but if it wasn't doing its job planes would literally be falling out of the sky. In short, please don't discount the importance of logistics to a war effort (and no, I'm not a loggie myself, but that doesn't mean I don't respect their contribution).--Ndunruh (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not discounting them at all. Said no such thing. Please re-read what was written. You may require reading something several times, before it sinks in. There were dozens and dozens of bombardment groups with thousands and thousands of men and machine. There story needs to be told and not subjected to the sidelines. If anything, the Sustainment Wing should be merged with the Bombardment Group as it is, name only, a direct descendent.--98.116.179.148 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.