# Talk:149th Armored Regiment

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

As the page has been moved as requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/149th Armor Regiment I am transcluding the GA review here.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:149th Armor Regiment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Lede is supposed to summarize the entire article so say which disasters, border, riots, etc. It's also too short so add some more details, enough for at least two paragraphs and preferably three.
as a valid regiment in the United States Army Regimental System, albeit inactive replace "valid" with "inactive"
Be sure to link town names on first use.
Strictly speaking, the National Guard wasn't formed until 1903, so was Troop C a state militia unit?
Explain why the unit was mobilized for border service in 1916 and why it was mobilized in 1917. Did it go overseas as part of the 40th Division?
Where was the longshoremen's strike?
Explain what a M2A2 was. Always tell what a particular piece of equipment is on first mention so he doesn't have to click through find out that it's an armored car or a heavy tank. Same kind of thing with Model-Ts.
first U.S. armored units to serve overseas. Pretty sure that there were US tank units in France in WWI.
Down to WWII, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: I have begun to make a series of changes, but am not through yet, with the above requested changes.
On the question of Armor being deployed overseas; if memory serves me before the Great War the United States did not have any armor units. When the United States entered the war and went to France, Americans began to learn and be trained in armored warfare, and took up tanks already within France. Therefore, it did not deploy from the United States. I think this source would back me up on this. The source says that the first tanks at Camp Colt, Pennsylvania did not arrive until June 1918, and formed a separate Tank Corps than that which saw action as part of the American Expeditionary Force. I don't at this time see any sources which indicate that tanks that were sent to the United States for Tank Corps, National Army were deployed overseas. Ultimately, after the Great War the Tank Corps was disbanded, and was not reestablished until July 1940.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Great, lemme know whenever you're done with these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: here are the results of the work requested so far.
Expansion of the lead section can be found in these diffs.
Fixed sentence regarding USARS here.
Made clarification about the national guard statement here.
Modified regarding longshoreman strike.
Added short equipment description.
Modified content regarding the deployment question.
If there is anything else that needs to be done with these sections, please let me know.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Better, but there shouldn't be any cites in the lede as everything in it will be covered in better detail in the main body. I combined the first two para in the lede to cut out some of the redundancies and moved the deactivation to the last para. See if it suits.
The second and third paragraphs use "it" too many times. Break up the monotony by using "the unit", "the company", "the battalion", etc.
due to events surrounding the Pancho Villa Expedition While linking to the expedition, I'm pretty sure that it was deployed to Nogales to defend the border against further incursions and you should say something like that. Don't get too elaborate though, you'll be explaining it in more detail in the main body.
activated due to World War I WWI was ongoing; it was activated because we declared war on the Central Powers that year. So give a little more detail here.
What state is Fort Lewis in?
in September 1941, it was deployed Try something like "and was then deployed to the Philippines in September. You don't need to restate the year all the time.
We tend to think of it as World War II, but really its the Pacific War in that theater.
Don't capitalize southern, prisoners of war, soldiers, attacks,
Not sure what you mean by dispersed.
When was the unit redesignated?
I think that the transition to the USARS isn't important enough to make the lede, but should be covered in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: I have made the modifications requested in this most recent round of edit request. Stylistically, in my past GAs I have kept citations in the lead section of the article. While I know that the content in the lead is only a summarization of the body of the article, it is still subject to BURDEN and anyone could delete the content without inline citation verifying it; therefore, for good measure I have kept the inline citations for the lead.
Let me know if there are any other changes.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You're overthinking BURDEN. Since everything in the lede is supposed to be covered by cites in the main body (since it's a summary of the whole article), BURDEN doesn't apply. You are still required though to cite any superlative statements, like the first, last, biggest, etc., but that's it for cites. Check out any dozen or so Feature Articles and you'll see that there are very few cites in any of their lede's.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: requested change completed.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for taking so long to finish this, but I've been having a lot going on recently.
Initially organized as Troop C of cavalry at Salinas on 5 August 1895, being the first national guard unit formed in the Central Coast region;[6] it was a unit of the National Guard of California, a state militia. This is a busy sentence with some redundancies. Your subject is buried deep in the middle of this, move it to the front. You mention twice that it was a national guard unit and these need to be combined. The fact that it was the first unit in the central coast is really different than the rest of what the sentence is about and should be moved to the end. So something like "The unit was initially organized... as part of the NG of CA, a state militia, and was the first militia unit formed..."
In 1911 the troop was, was redesignated as being part of 1st Squadron of Cavalry. Aside from fixing the typo, I'd suggest saying that it was incorporated rather than redesignated.
These tensions came to a head in March 1916, with the attack on Columbus, New Mexico by Mexicans under Pancho Villa, leading to a punitive expedition by the United States Army into Mexico, and activation of National Guard units in neighboring border states for federal service. Awkward, split this big sentence in half.
Don't capitalize border and you don't need to specify United States.
In June 1916, the unit was activated for federal service on the Mexican border near Nogales, Arizona;[6][7] it was deactivated that same year. Say instead that it was deactivated later that year after the crisis passed.
Activated into federal service in August 1917 at Camp Kearny in San Diego, it was redesignated as Company B of the 145th Machine Gun Battalion, as an element of the 40th Division.[6][12] The reason for the During this period the battalion was past of the 80th Infantry Brigade of the 40th Division.[13] The reason for the activation was that the unit was to fight in France during World War I. Rework this entire para and move the reason why it was activated to the beginning
Don't capitalize "Soldier" anywhere in this article except at the beginning of a sentence.
Explain how Hopps and his compadres were already in France. Was he still assigned to Troop C or had he been transferred to another unit.
departed to France "for" France
Did the machine-gun battalion actually see combat? And why was it transferred to these places?
40th Division begins "the" 40th Division "began"
The unit's heritage as an armor unit dates back to 1924 when it was reorganized as the 40th Tank Company for the 40th Division being equipped with eight French Renault light tanks. "The unit was reorganized as ... in 1924 and it was equipped..."
Its first activation was due to the 1934 West Coast waterfront strike of longshoremen "The company was first activated in response..."
In 1937 the company received the M2A2;[17] they were light tanks, and replaced the Renaults. You're a little too fond of semi-colons and this sentence is more complicated than it needs to be. Something like "M2A2 light tanks replaced the Renaults in 1937"
Why are the other passengers aboard the Coolidge important and why is its escorting cruiser important. Don't put details in just because you've found them in your sources. They need to be relevant.
You need to tell the reader what the 192nd is on first mention. You and I know what it is, but ordinary readers don't.
Link high explosive and convert the metric measurement to English units using this template code: convert|37|mm|adj=on|sp=us which will output like 37-millimeter (1.5 in) once you enclose the code in double curly brackets
More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: I have made the changes requested above, see this diff here. Regarding Hopps, I have two sources (one which is utilized in the article), that contradict each other. The Hutson, 1920 says that the unit did not depart for France until August 1918. Albanese, 2015 claims that the Machine Gun Battalion was in France around late-May to Mid-June 2018. Thus, I don't have a clear answer regarding the Hoff situation at the moment.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
On 23 December 1941, General MacArthur initially having confidence in being able to defend the entire archipelago under war plan Rainbow Five, and with the advances of Japanese forces after landing at Lingayen Gulf dashing his confidence, he ordered a reversion to War Plan Orange and ordered USAFFE forces to withdraw to the Bataan Peninsula. Rework this sentence, possibly splitting it in half.
Can you get a semi-detailed map of the area(s) where the company fought?
Infantry Regiment premature 's after Regiment
messenger of the Company "from" Company C
immediately made contact with the unit, and Cut all this
Deciding to go ahead and conduct reconnaissance, using a halftrack from Company C, he and the halftrack crew "He decided to conduct a reconnaissance himself, using a halftrack from Company C and they..."
The first time you use a rank you need to give the abbreviation. BG, SSG, etc.
however by the time action was taken on the recommendation (April 1946), the awarding was reduced "by the time action... the awards were downgraded"
What unit was Rumbold with?
Link Piis,
this was little consultation as the lack of those supplies, that were either destroyed or left behind, led to immediate rationing which reduced the fighting ability of those on Bataan later on. This doesn't make sense because you've switched from talking about the supplies that the company moved from Manila to the supplies that were left behind.
forces into Bataan south of town awkward
was caught by the 194th in an open field. All the Japanese tanks were destroyed Combine these "was caught and destroyed..."
Please give exact pages when citing all sources. It took me 5 minutes or more sometimes to hunt through some of your cites when validating them.
For example, you use Dooley 6 times, each with the same cite of pp 14-19. I sincerely doubt that each cite used information from each of those pages. So maybe the first cite used pp. 14 and 17, the second cite, p. 15, etc. Use the exact pages that refer to whatever you're talking about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
tankers detonated the bridge detonated isn't the proper word here.
The first of those for Company C were due to it serving as an advance force of the main line, north of Guagua, there the held for three and a half hours. Awkward
Without contact with Japanese forces, the defense line along the Gumain River was abandoned, and new defenses which involved the entirety of the 1st Provisional Tank Group was formed at Layac Junction, which was the last defensive line before Bataan, which was completed on the morning of 6 January 1942. Rework this to make it clearer
Down to Bataan, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: thanks in advance for going through all this. I understand that this is a lot of content to go through. I have made the changes requested above, see this combined diff. Please let me know if I missed anything, or if there is anything for me to improve upon in this section.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
but later with support of elements of the 26th Cavalry, and a battalion of the Philippines' 72nd Infantry Regiment, the forces were able to reverse the gains of the Japanese Delete "but later" and add "were later able to reverse...
By 26 January, the 194th was the last to withdraw, and began to be attacked by artillery and mortar fire; due to this significant pressure the 194th retreated, being harassed by air attacks along the way. This is like describing the same thing twice. They were withdrawing and then they were forced to retreat?
Company C of the 194th, along with the 45th Infantry Regiment, were assigned to attack northward along Trail 29; commencing the attack on the 7 April, their advance would only be met with it being flanked to the south "was" assigned. And what does the last bit mean? That they were outflanked as they drove north, or were they cut off?
Company C came into contact with elements of the Japanese 7th Tank Regiment, resulting in the destruction of two Japanese Type 89A tanks Simply this and simply say that it destroyed two tanks of that unit on that date.
Do you have a map covering the actions just before the surrender?
By 8 April, Company C was ordered to regroup to the south with the rest of the Provisional Tank Group, who were involved in attempting to provide defense against the Japanese attack along Trail 10; that evening all of the tank battalions were pulled off the line, and on the morning of 9 April, with the Company C tanks finally joining the rest of the group, received orders to destroy, "crash", their equipment. Break this sentence into pieces and simplify things. If "crash" means "destroy" don't use the term; you don't need both of them and crash is awfully jargony.
it revealed that the tanks kept away an invasion across Manila Bay, and that the tanks were feared by the Japanese. What does "it" mean here and how did the tanks keep the Japanese away? Elaborate this a little.
they began to loot the soldiers of anything of value, and began to march them in what became known as the Bataan Death March. Too many "began"s; change the second "began to" to "and then marched them Someplace in what became know etc.
In the post-WW2 section you're using "In date, something happened" format too much; mix things up to keep the reader awake.
Explain why the unit increased in size during the Clinton drawdown.
Add links to the M-60A3 and the M-1IP and delete the bit about the higher costs.
The regiment consisted of the 1st Battalion, with companies in Monterey, Camp Roberts, Santa Cruz, and Madera. This bit should be combined with the one about the size increasing or following it.
All done; it's been a long, strange trip!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: I have made the modifications requested in this most recent round. See this diff. I expanded the size of some parts for additional clarity. Please let me know if there is anything else I should do to continue to improve this article.
Why has this GAR been strange?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

As the link in the wikiproject header is incorrect I am transcending the review here.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

G'day Kirill Lokshin or AustralianRupert. This page has been moved during the ACR and now the links to it and the GAN are broken. I know I should know what we do in this situation, but my mind has gone blank. Something to do with redirects? Help. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

G'day, PM, I've implemented the Article history template, which should fix the link to the GAN. The ACR page could be redirected to the new name, but I'd suggest just page moving the ACR to the new name without leaving a redirect as it is probably a more tidy approach. But that might make Milhistbot misunderstand when it comes time to close. @Hawkeye7: Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hunnicutt's book - Stuart: A History of the American Light Tank, Voume 1 and Pg. 395 clearly mentions that the 192nd Tank Battalion became the first American troops to engage in tank to tank combat. The 192nd and 194th Tank battalions were combined with the 17th Ordnance Company to form the Provisional Tank Group (149th), but, it was specifically 5 M3 tanks of the B-company of the 192nd Battalion, which, engaged with the 4th Tank Regiment of Japanese. ∯WBGconverse 10:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
This happened on 22 December 1941.

In contrast, the five Japanese Type 89A tanks were destroyed on 1 January 1942. ∯WBGconverse 10:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I have temporarily restored the content. I am not seeing on google books a clearly readable version of this book mentioned above.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 11:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
You can safely assume that I am not making up stuff and that I'm literate enough. If you need a copy of the scanned page, wikimail me. ∯WBGconverse 11:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hunnicutt writes:-After the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent Japanese landings on Luzon, the Provisional Tank Group moved north to support the United States and Philippine troops and to cover their retreat to the Bataan peninsula. On 21 December. Major (later Lieutenant Colonel) Theodore F. Wickord, commanding the 192nd Tank Battalion, received orders to move the battalion north and to send B Company on ahead for a special mission. During the movement, Captain Donald Hanes, commanding B Company, expected to refuel his tanks at Gerona and again at Bauang. However, fuel was not provided at Gerona and the enemy was rapidly approaching Bauang. The 26th Cavalry (Philippine Scouts) was operating in the area and they had already been under attack by enemy aircraft.When reports reached General Wainwright that an enemy motorized force was approaching Damortis, he directed Captain Hanes to engage them. Since the company was almost out of gasoline. the available fuel supply was combined to provide enough to fill up a single five tank platoon. Once again, the short cruising range of the light tank M3 was a major disadvantage. Led by Lieutenant Ben R. Morin, the fivetanks moved north out of Damonis toward Agoo. Here they ran into elements of the Japanese 4th Tank Regiment becoming the first American troops to engage in tank versus tank action in World War II. The lead M3 left the road to maneuver. but it was hit and set on fire. Lieutenant Morin was wounded and captured along with his crew. The remaining four tanks also were hit by 47mm fire. but they were able to withdrew. Later they were destroyed by enemy aircraft. Despite this tragic start, the 192nd fought skillfully during the remainder of the Withdrawal toward Bataan.The Provisional Tank Group headquarters and the 194th Tank Battalion, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Ernest B. Miller, had moved north on Christmas Day. The 194th operated to the west of highway 3 with the 192nd to the east. Both battalions fought a series of rearguard actions and were the last troops into the Bataan peninsula. The 192nd crossed the bridge over the Culis river into Bataan during the night of 6-7 January 1942 as the last unit before the bridge was blown.
O'Donnell, Maureen (2016-06-24). "Rev. Benjamin 'Ben' R. Morin, soldier who survived Japanese POW camps, dead at 94". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2019-06-20. writes:-Rev. Morin, the first U.S. tank commander to engage enemy forces in World War II ....Lt. Morin was leading five tanks through the jungle to attack the Japanese .... With that, he made history. Morin led “the first U.S. tank engagement of World War II,” said Lt. Col. Brad Leighton, a spokesman for the Illinois National Guard
You might further wish to read:-
Salecker, Gene Eric (2008-04-16). Rolling Thunder Against the Rising Sun: The Combat History of U.S. Army Tank Battalions in the Pacific in World War II. Stackpole Books. p. 9-14. ISBN 9780811743624.
Woolfe, Raymond G., Jr., author. The doomed horse soldiers of Bataan : the incredible stand of the 26th Cavalry. ISBN 9781442245341. OCLC 921236058. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (I too need to read this).∯WBGconverse 12:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Surely, the soldiers of both units want to make the claims of being the first of this, or the the last of that. For instance the claim of the 192nd being the last to go across the bridge contradicts claims by other reliable sources which states it was parts of the 194th that were the last to cross.
The 192nd can continue its claim, and the differing claims can be acknowledged.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 12:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The sources used by you are all less reliable than my ones. Please learn to assess quality of military scholarship. There is not an iota of doubt that your claims (and the hook) were factually incorrect. ∯WBGconverse 12:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
That's an entirely subjective argument. As the source removed is to Armor, and a reprint of an article from that journal. Therefore, if there is doubt, it's because a reliable source was relied on for its accuracy. And as historians don't always agree, there is a reason why there is contradiction from the sources utilized by WBG and at Tanks of the United States. Again the sources at Tanks of the United States are not clearly accessible for verification and thus one must WP:AGF. Thus the argument made at User talk:The Rambling Man#Main page redux is subject to scrutiny; whereas sources removed are clearly readable to all who would want to access them.
Additionally the reversion of a reversion of the content removal contradicts WP:BRD, and is movement towards WP:EW. Moreover, please see WP:AVOIDYOU, as it can be construed that WBG is not discussing a difference of what reliable sources state, but about myself. WBG can say there is "not one iota an iota of doubt", but when different reliable sources state different things, then there is doubt. Thus why we are having this discussion.
I acknowledge that there are claims that the 192nd are what they are. But in removing the content WBG removed what is verified to reliable source. And it's OK for different reliable sources to state different things.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)