Talk:Long Range Desert Group

message: From the paragraph Formation and equipment:
The troops carried Thompson submachine guns and other standard British infantry weapons.
First of all, the Thompson is american, not british. Second, why would soldiers from New Zealand, under british command, carry american weapons? Are there any references backing this claim?
Lstor (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is copious evidence supporting the use of Thompson sub-machine guns. Brendan O'Carroll's books for one, this site: http://blindkat.hegewisch.net/lrdg/lrdgweapons.html for another. British and Commonwealth troops were supplied with several different types of American weapons during the Desert Campaign and later.Minorhistorian (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The Thompson SMG was bought from the US by the British in the early war period - as were numerous Colt .38 revolvers, etc., but the Thompson was extremely expensive to buy - around £90 per-gun IIRC, and because it was also only available in limited numbers, the British developed the much cheaper Sten. The first Stens were issued to UK-based home units initially and the Thompsons, having been in service longer, were more likely to be available to the forces overseas in the Western Desert. Generally the availability or otherwise of equipment was governed by the difficulty of getting convoys through via Gibraltar in the west. These convoys had to be arranged for certain times when the merchant ships were available and the forces necessary to protect them able to be gathered together for the purpose. So ground and air forces in the theatre (and others) often had to make do with older equipment until convoys could get through with newer supplies. First line units closer to GHQ tended to get first choice from new supplies, and 'funny' units like the LRDG may well have had to take what was left. The Thompson was however very popular and so many users such as the LRDG may have preferred it to the Sten.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.139 (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armament 

message: Some one added "being later reformed as the Territorial Army 63 (SAS) Signals Squadron" to the paragraph saying the LRDG was disbanded after the war.  Does anyone have a refernece on this as it is the first I've heard of it and I can't find any other mentions online?  Cjrother 17:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that now.  Cjrother 16:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformed? 

message: A very nice start, and a good length overall. But each individual section is quite short; I wonder if there's anything to be done about this? LordAmeth 10:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I invite you to be bold and help out in improving it. Plus you might find it handy to first of all register a new account to use. Mathmo Talk 13:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see you have made some edits... Mazel Tov. Mathmo Talk 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MILHIST Assessment

message: According to his official web site (www.stevenpressfield.com), Steven Pressfield's next work will be on a unit of the LRDG. Steven Pressfield is well known for his fictionalized military histories, the most popular of which is "Gates of Fire" which describes the Spartan defense at the Battle of Thermopylae as the Persian army invaded ancient Greek territory. As a fan of both Rat Patrol and Pressfield's works, I look forward to his account of some aspect of the LRDG. 72.83.150.246 03:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Book on LRDG in Work 

message: I've added a bibliography section; one of the most important authors of recent times specialising in the LRDG is New Zealander Brendan O'Carroll http://mcwarr.orcon.net.nz/genealogy/leslie/kiwi.html http://www.ngaiopress.com/br_home.htm  http://mcwarr.orcon.net.nz/genealogy/leslie/brigands.html Minorhistorian (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brendan O' Carroll 

message: This section just peters out--we get the attackers as far as a grove of trees and issuing assignments, and then the article lurches into a new topic without ever resolving what happened during the attack, how the attackers returned to base, or what were the attack's consequences.  As one who was simply reading the article to learn about a subject that was new to me, I am utterly unqualified to address this issue, but someone who knows something about the LRDG should probably do so. Drhoehl (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Cough* My fault...part way through I ran out of time with other, more important, committments (work, life etc) and left the LRDG patrols hanging around the grove planning the attack. A couple of months later, when I finally had some spare time again, other articles intervened and I plain forgot to finish this one. I can only offer 'umble apologies and will endevour to complete the task in the next day or so. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm--based on the stirrings of a completion so far, maybe they would have been happier to continue their arboreal sojourn.  Anyhow, thanks, and I'll be looking forward to the complete story.  This is an uncommonly interesting article. Drhoehl (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Hyacinth; The attack on Barce 

message: This article is about the LRDG and not the chevy truck or list of standard British Army weapons. LInks should be used for those articles and this article should concentrate only on the LRDG. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  LRDG 

message: The Chicago style of formatting for the bibliography is well recognised, it provides good, accurate information to pinpoint publications and there was no good reason to completely overturn it; as it is I reluctantly spent a great deal of time adding/correcting information on publishers etc to ensure the accuracy of the information. Also note: the book originally used for reference 38 was from the Public Record Office; the information on the publisher, ISBN etc was taken directly from the title page of the book and NOT from a website (now in "external links") so, unless there is a really good reason to alter it,  please don't. Also note Lulu.com has been blacklisted as a Spam address by Wikipedia, so using that link, instead of the publisher itself is unwise. Unless JS or anyone else has a very good reason why the format HAS to be the less succinct "cite book" template kindly leave well enough alone or take it up with an admin.
BTW the ISBN number has to be the ISBN-10 not the ISBN-13 if it is to function as a link.
Minorhistorian (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Every peer, A class, GA review I have seen has required the cite book template to be used, as previously  stated the intention is to progress this article above start class. I fail to comprehend your reluctance to achieve this.  Why would we have a cite book template at all if it was not desired. This talk of  take it to an admin is not needed just put the article in for a peer-review as stated above. Can I suggest if you can not work to improve the article you leave it and I will do that when its ready. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I wonder, then how Rolls-Royce Merlin achieved FA and Supermarine Spitfire achieved GA without this demand? BTW This sort of statement from you "It seems you have no intention of trying to improving the article" "Can I suggest if you can not work to improve the article you leave it" is completely out of order; I suggest you drop the superior attitude you have taken and learn to co-operate yourself.  Minorhistorian (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: If you think you are right put the article in for a peer or GA review. For someone who had not contributed to the article for some months and was happy to see it stay in its previous state, I find your reluctance to progress it strange. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: You appear now to be involved in an edit war and have broken the three revert rule. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting for a response --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: If you insist on not using the cite book template can you remove the {} and () you have left in the article. If no response I will revert to the previous condition. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  having watched you at work Mr Sweeney on several pages that you have butchered, I suggest you take a good look at WP:OWNTangoSixZero (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your suggestion, where do you stand on the improvements to the article ? or lack of any since here   I would like a second opinion      if you were happy for it to have remained as before or would you like to see it improved.  If you would like to discuss these butchered pages on my talk I would be happy to respond.  --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So far Jim Sweeney hasn't answered my question about why it is that two articles I helped bring up to FA and GA status respectively didn't need the cite book template; nor has he yet apologised for comments I regard as inflammatory and OT. The only one threatening an edit war "If no response I will revert to the previous condition" is Jim Sweeney. Minorhistorian (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Having combed through the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) I can find no reason for this insistence on a template; neither of these articles refers to a template; in the latter MOS the section Bibliographies - Books in English states, in part: "For works created and first published in English, vital information is the title and year of first publication. Provide the subtitle too, unless it is painfully longwinded....These should be supplemented with publication details where helpful. (The standard form is "Place: Publisher, Year.")" ie: Chicago Style, which is exactly what I have done, so if there is an insistence on using a template, the assessors are wrong. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: That is all well and good but I still keep coming back to do you want the article to progress up the scale to even B class never mind FA? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me but where, pray tell, did this need for a cite book template crop up here  British Army During WW I Peer review? Same here UK During WW 1 A Class review So, lemme get this straight, Jim Sweeney says that a peer review or A class review or a Ga class review insists that a cite book template MUST be used but there's no sign of that in the Peer or A Class reviews for articles he worked on. Then he tries to bully another editor into complying with this? And he has the gall to question my integrity? Minorhistorian (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: This pointless bickering does not improve the article, both the above use the cite book template. There is no attempt to BULLY anyone which is clear by the edit history. If anything it shows your displeasure at any attempt to change. My question still stands what was you intention for the article after months of allowing it to remain in the sorry state it was? Of course that does not presume ownership.  --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography et al 

message: I have submitted the article for a peer review, here is the link Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Long Range Desert Group any editors welcome to contribute.  --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: I have just read an excellent academic treament of British Special Forces in the Desert War and believe this page could benefit from a citation/reference. It is:
Hargreaves, Andrew L., ‘The Advent, Evolution and Value of British Specialist Formations in the Desert War, 1940-43’, in Global War Studies, Vol. 7, No.2, (2010), pp.7-62
From what I understand Dr. Hargreaves wrote a PhD on WWII Special Forces, but am not sure if he has written any books.
This could be useful to other pages dealing with similar units.
Best,
David Trill  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.118.20 (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source on LRDG 

message: A good book is Killing Rommal if you need a genral idea of how the LRDG operated.It is historical fiction. Nhog (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genral info 

message: Elements of the Sudan Defence Force were involved in the LRDG because of their knowledge of Arabic to be able to communicate with the Arab and Berber tribesmen. Their involvement was post 1941 after Orde Wingate relieved of his duties and the Gideon Force was disbanded.Pop goes the we (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: References must be verifiable, which a brief vague mention of records does not achieve. Please wait until a specific identifiable source is available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sudan Defence Force and the Gideon Defence Force involvement

message: The spelling in numerous places is "Wyndom". Maybe that was the trademark name of an antenna as marketed by a company and is what is intended. If not, the spelling should be changed to "Windom" which is the name for the type of antenna. Descriptions of the Windom antenna can be found in, for example, amateur radio literature. Akld guy (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite a specific ref? - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The ARRL Antenna Book, published by The American Radio Relay League, 17th Edition Second printing 1994, page 7-20. The antenna is described and credit is given to the developer, Loren G. Windom, W8GZ, who published details about it "in September 1929 QST [magazine]". Another ref: The Radio Amateur's Handbook, published by The American Radio Relay League, Fortieth Edition, 1963, page 371. I own a copy of both books. The Windom antenna apparently fell out of favour decades ago and may not be listed in more recent publications. Both references state that the antenna was popular in the 1930's, with the Antenna Book adding "and into the 1940's.", implying that it is only of historical interest as of 1994 publication date. Akld guy (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds pretty convincing. I would say please go a head and change it based on that! - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No dissenting comments, so I've changed the spelling in 3 places Akld guy (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wyndom (sic) antenna 

message: I have removed this part out of the lead. In fact, Rommel was referring to the SAS, not to the LRDG. See for example: Eamon Gearon, William Seymour], Amanda Ferguson. The Banner talk 13:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "caused us more damage than any other British unit of equal strength" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Long Range Desert Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090829221533/http://www2.armynet.mod.uk:80/museums/royalsignals/wirelesssetno11.htm to http://www2.armynet.mod.uk/museums/royalsignals/wirelesssetno11.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why does the article now claim that the LRDG uses PIATs - when the PIAT didn't enter service until Sicily?
Also the claims for sticky bombs and Lewes bombs sound much more like Stirling's SAS than the LRDG. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  PIAT 

message: In the section titled "History", the claim "The daytime temperatures could reach 60 °C (140 °F)" seems unlikely, as the highest recorded surface temperature on earth is only 56.7 °C (Formerly 57.8 °C) according to this page: Highest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.166.81 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Official temperature readings, as noted in the Highest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth page, are recorded "shielded from direct sunlight".  In the areas in which the LRDG routinely operated there is no shade and thus, as the same page notes, ground temperatures can be considerably higher. Mr Larrington (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The daytime temperatures could reach 60 °C (140 °F) " 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Long Range Desert Group. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524232651/http://mcwarr.orconhosting.net.nz/lrdg/lrdgmain.html to http://mcwarr.orconhosting.net.nz/lrdg/lrdgmain.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I would like to know why my addition of a comic book series (by a famous author!) about the LRDG was reverted and thus removed from the "Popular culture" section... Comic books about a military unit are the perfect example of a popular culture depiction of said military unit! The removal is particularly ridiculous when «two of the entries in that "popular culture" section are about historical documentaries. So, comic books are not popular culture but historical documentaries are?! Carry on... Gazilion (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained in my edit summary, we have no article on the comic book and you provided no third party ref (or any ref) that shows this is a notable use or even that it actually exists. If the comic book is notable then someone will have written a review, or other description, that shows notability. Basically anyone can write a comic book, novel, song, video game or anything else that mentions the LRDG, we aren't going to mention all of them here unless they are notable. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Popular culture": changes reverted