Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC) [1]].[reply]

Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia edit

Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because its sister list Yugoslav order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia was promoted to FLC in November 2013, and I believe this list is now at the same standard. These two lists have resulted from a significant amount of work and will contribute to comprehensive coverage of the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia on en WP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The level of detail provided on the army units is much less detailed than that on the air units - the article describes the composition of the ground forces only to divisional level, but provides the numbers of aircraft each air unit operated. German armies and corps of this era tended to have large numbers of independent combat units (such as artillery regiments, engineer and other specialist units) directly assigned to them, and I'd suggest that they be included in this order of battle as well. Please note that I'm going to be out of town for a week or so starting tomorrow, so I won't be able to follow up responses to this post in a timely manner - sorry in advance if this causes any problems. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Nick, to what level might that go? Principal combat manoeuvre and fire support regiments of each division, or down to battalion-size? I think battalion-level is really something for the individual division articles rather than an ORBAT for a campaign. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest that you leave the divisions as is without providing detail on their components, but add the independent combat units which reported directly to the corps and army headquarters (and Army group HQ, if appropriate). Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Nick, I've had a look at the detailed 2nd Army ORBAT (to get a sense of what we are looking at), and the direct-command battalion and larger combat units at corps level consisted of significant numbers of motorised artillery battalions, and some pioneer battalions. The Italians also had machine-gun battalions held at corps level. I suggest I add the number of each under each corps rather than listing all the units by full designation. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tend to like lots of detail in OOBs, but that sounds sensible. German corps always seem to have had an extraordinary number of units directly reporting to them. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is obvious that a lot of work and effort went into the preparation of this ORBAT, nevertheless a few glitches caught my eye:
    1. The heading for the German ORBAT includes the Waffen-SS. This implies that the Waffen-SS supplied a substantial portion of either the manpower of the invasion forces or of the Waffen-SS itself. However, we are talking about a division and a reinforced regiment, less then 10 per cent of the total force, either way. More so, the SS units were subordinate to Army command and control. Why are they considered on par with the Army?

Not sure I agree with the implication that including them in the section heading means they are on par with the Army, they are listed second for a reason. They were merely another land force component but as they were not formally part of the Army or even the Wehrmacht (despite being under Army control), I've included them after the Army. They actually performed key tasks in the invasion, Reich (for example) captured Belgrade. I do not see what the issue is. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    1. This said, there was no 2nd SS division in 1941. The SS Division Reich was not numbered until October 1943. In April 1941 it was known as SS-Division Reich. Incidentally, No. 1 division, AKA Leibstandarte, was a brigade-size formation at the time at best.

Good point re: Reich, an oversight. Thanks, will fix. Re: LSSAH, yes, I know, but I believe the designation on the ORBAT for it is correct for that time. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If my sources are correct, LSSAH still used the "traditional" SS-terminology, ie Sturm for COY, Sturmbann for BAT, and Standarte for regiment, in Spring 1941. A 1st Motorized Infantry Regiment LSSAH was not formed until July 1942. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolitely, have changed the name to LSSAH.
    1. Giving exact numbers on the strength of Luftwaffe units and formations asks for similar information on part of the Army. So far I have found no information on overall strength, number of guns or tanks at all.

I don't necessarily see the correlation between aircraft, guns and tanks. Numbers of aircraft assist in clarifying strength across different aircraft formation types (squadrons, wings, groups etc). Tank and gun numbers not so much (in that respect at least). However, I will see what data is available. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added total German major equipment at the top of that section, haven't been able to find any data on the Italian and Hungarian land forces, although they are far less important in the context of the invasion, as they joined the fight late and had very little impact on the result. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have found a figure for total number of Italian troops and added it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Krzak certainly is a valuable addition. Haven't thought of checking JSMS. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I have most of the Luftwaffe-related sources at hand, but was unable to verify the translation of Fliegerführer as Air Command. Where does it come from exactly?

Bloody good question, a brainfart by the look of it. Will fix. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    1. I'm no expert, neither on the Hungarians nor the Italians but the same seems to apply there.
  • Have corrected the Italian one to Air Force.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments
  • The lede mentions three motorized infantry regiments. This refers to LSSAH, Großdeutschland, and Herman Göring, I believe (125 IR was a 3rd line territorial outfit). However, Herman Göring is a) listed as a "Panzer" regiment in the ORBAT and b) was still a AA regiment at the time - at least according to my books (Müller-Hillerbrand II, Tessin XIV).
  • Absolutely, the source I used for this information appears to be a bit sloppy on some nomenclature. My understanding from looking at other sources is that the formal name of the regiment at the time was the "General Göring" Regiment, and that it was a motorised flak regiment of the Luftwaffe at that time. I will fix, thanks.
  • The ORBAT lists several "Panzer corps". According to Tessin, they were still called "Armeekorps (mot.)" in 1941. The change of name did not occur until July 1942.
  • Again, right on the money. It appears that the US Army source has used later designations for a number of formations. I will source and fix these issues. Thanks.
  • Subtractive notation is used on German corps throughout. As it is used consistently there is no problem with this. However, most academic sources I have checked, follow the German practice of using non-subtractive notation for the 40-49 range.
  • I know non-subtractive Roman numerals is the German pattern, but I have consistently used the English one given this is en WP. Native English speakers that read XXXXV Corps will automatically question it in my experience.
  • I miss 60th Motorized Division from the ORBAT. The division should come under XIV corps of the 12th Army.
  • Again, thanks. I misread the source. I checked some other sources and the 60th drove through Kosovo.
  • May I suggest renaming the chapter "German Army and Waffen-SS" to "German ground forces"? When discussing operations, Waffen-SS units are usually subsumized under "Feldheer", ie the active army. If mentioned in captions, Waffen-SS is usually set in brackets. Apart from that, why not mention the Luftwaffe (Regiment Göring plus several AA units) or - in the Italian section - the MSVN?
  • All good points, I'll rename the section heading.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ÄDA - DÄP: Think all the above are done. Let me know what you think and if you have any other comments. It has been great to have someone with the knowledge to identify the flaws. I am going to go through and corroborate formation names used by the US Army source, as it is clearly a bit off in that respect. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good to me now. Great job. I am glad, I was of assistance. Only one question remains: Under German Air Force, it says “Fliegerführer Graz was commanded by Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant Colonel) Karl Christ, commander of the 3rd Dive Bomber Wing (German: Sturzkampfgeschwader 3, StG 3).” It is my understanding, that Fliegerführer was no command position as such, but just another hat of Col. Christ's, much like Geschwaderkommodore. Maybe you could find a way to express that more clearly. No big deal, though. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shores and Cull state that both the Fliegerfuhrer's were under command of the respective Kommodore StG. They were both the ranking officers in the dive bomber wings, makes sense that they would be put in charge to ensure they had proper fighter cover. It was an intermediate grouping, much like a kampfgruppe, so just designating the senior officer as commander makes sense. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I have not been clear on this. What I was trying to say was: As the Kommodore StG was at the same time the Fliegerführer, he would have to order himself around. But that is just my German point of view. If English-language sources consider Fliegerführer to be the formation, rather than the person, then all is fine. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good work. The only thing that may, emphasis on may, require checking if some of the tables require row scope to be fully WP:ACCESS compliant. I enjoyed the read MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Not at all sure that I regard Nafziger as a RS. I bought some of his self-published material back before he donated it to CARL and found that it didn't always match the material in Tessin, which is pretty much the gold standard for German OB material. That said I suspect that its probably OK for divisional-level units here, but some of the non-divisional stuff may be wrong. I'd suggest referencing Leo Niehorster's OB website [2] which does show some differences, especially in the engineer units. Forex, there were three bridging battalions, plus a road battalion under the 677. Pionier Rgt., assigned directly to the 2nd Army itself; not two bridging battalions. And XL Corps (mot.) doesn't have a bridging battalion, but rather six separate bridging columns. Niehorster is RS having published extensively on German OBs. Using Tessin, if you have access, would be best, of course.
  • I wish I had access to Tessin, but sadly it isn't easy to track down. I have found Nafziger slightly lumpy at times, but don't necessarily consider him non-RS. One of the key issues is the date of the ORBAT, because a flick of the pen could allocate a battalion or regiment from here to there as deployments progressed and tasks were allocated. Nafziger's ORBAT is 1 April, Niehorster's is 5 April. Getting ready for this invasion was a very rushed job, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if both ORBATs were correct on their respective dates. Granted, Niehorster's is closer to D-Day than Nafziger, and that would be a reason to re-look at the sourcing or make some notes about re-allocation of troops. Having looked at Niehorster's website, I'm a bit confused about the idea that the three bridging battalions were "under" Headquarters 677th Pioneer Regiment, if that is what you mean. In my experience of military wire diagrams, if they were "under" the regimental HQ, the wire diagram would connect them to the regimental HQ, not directly to 2nd Army. My reading of that page of Niehorster is that the supporting "engineer" elements of 2nd Army were Headquarters 677th Motorised Pioneer Regiment, and the 7th, 548th and 577th Bridging Battalions, ie a Regimental HQ and three battalions. The relationship between the regimental HQ and the three battalions is not a command one (so far as the wire diagram indicates, at least). Nafziger has HQ 677th under LI Corps and 548th Bridging Battalion under XLVI Corps, and it is quite possible they were re-allocated between 1 and 5 April. Thoughts? Peacemaker67

(send... over) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's certainly possible; only archival data or unit histories on these units would say if they'd transferred between commands between the 1st and 5th. I looked through my copy of Tessin at these non-divisional units and was unpleasantly reminded how lacking it was regarding these low-level, non-combat arms units. It's been years since I needed to use it and I'd forgotten how it really only focused on divisions and above, other than formation dates for the smaller units. The command relationship between the engineer regiments/staffs is often unclear in the OB diagrams I've seen from the captured records. Typically they're all listed under a higher HQ without specifying exact command relationships, presumably to give the higher commander flexibility in controlling them as he saw fit. If you want to list the battalions, that would be fine. I can give you the Army structures as of 5 April from Tessin if you'd like as a cross-check, but that only goes down to the divisional level. I'd still replace Nafziger, though, across the board, if only for the difference in dates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm much more relaxed about using Niehorster in preference to Nafziger based on using a consistent date (ie the air ORBATs in Shores et al are as at 5 April too) than because of issues with the reliability of Nafziger. I'll start adjusting them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Shores, et al, should allow you to replace all of Nafziger's air OBs.
  • Again, not sure it is necessary, but I will look to compare the two to make sure there aren't any discrepancies, and will thin out Nafziger as much as possible.

Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are using him mostly as a reinforcing cite and is less than critical to your sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the only place where he's irreplaceable is the Italian Army OBs. If there's a volume of the Italian Offical History that cover the invasion, that would probably be the only thing that would trump him that I can think of off hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the German non-divisional units were independent, but would fall under higher-level HQs like regiments for specific operations and/or tasks. If one of these regiments is present, I'd suggest not tracking the battalions.
  • See my point about regimental HQ and battalions, but I will start checking Niehorster. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really don't like the term "direct command". How about something like "Y Corps was supported by three motorised artillery battalions and an engineer regiment". Alternatively I'd add another column to the tables, list them there, and bypass the whole issue.
  • Link to 1st Panzer Group in the lede.
  • Fliegerführers, from what I understand, coordinated/commanded the activities of their type of aircraft across multiple units in a given area. Depending on the situation, they were not necessarily Gruppenkommandeur, but did command entire Geschwader if deployed in their area. IIRC, Luftflotte 2 and 3 each had a single Jagdfliegerführer in charge of all of their fighter units during the Battle of Britain.
  • My understanding was that a Fliegerführer was essentially a designated commander for a groups of air units operating from one area performing a specific task, not just one type of aircraft. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that depended on the situation. On the Eastern Front they were often more of a geographical commander, usually below the Fliegerkorps level, but sometimes they were type commanders like I mentioned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that here they were specific task oriented regional groupings below Fliegerkorps level, so I don't see the issue with how they are currently identified. Can you clarify what the issue is? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have put this under ÄDA - DÄP VA's point above about the Fliegerführers. No other reason, really.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got pictures of pretty airplanes, but how about some of troops, tanks, ships or artillery pieces involved?
  • I'd delete Scutts, Luftwaffe OB research has come a long way since the '70s, especially since you're only using it once as a reinforcing cite.
  • I have the squadron IDs for the Hungarian AF, with their types of aircraft, available, although numbers are not given in my source.
  • AFAIK, the He 112s were never assigned to a combat unit as they were bought for evaluation purposes. Link Ca.135. You missed some Heinkel He 70 recon aircraft, and the Re 2000s weren't yet operational.
    • I thought my source was a bit more than it actually was, so disregard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd hesitate to call the Z.506 a naval bomber; it was a long-range reconnaissance aircraft that could carry bombs.
  • Make sure that you're linking aircraft on first use.
  • It seems kinda redundant to specify bombers, etc. being assigned to a bomber unit, but that's a minor point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is quite a bit of work to convert from Nafziger to Neihorster (which I've started), and there are some things that will need to be compared and contrasted in the text (the command status of G-H Reinhardt's corps, for example differs between Niehorster and other sources). I'll be working on these changes over the weekend, but ANZAC Day is beckoning, so not much will get done tonight or tomorrow my time. I plan to get it sorted out in the next few days though. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take whatever time you need. According to Tessin, XXXXI Corps (mot.) belongs to 1st Panzer Group and does not control XI Corps. 60th ID (mot.) is controlled by XIV Corps (mot.) XI Corps is controlled by 12th Army with 76th and 198th IDs. I have unit histories of a couple of these divisions and dig further if you want me to. 12th Army also controls 1st Panzer Group.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking for some corroboration, I've struck a bit of a conflict between Neihorster and Schreiber, Stegemann and Vogel (Vol 3 of Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg), p. 491 with respect to the 2nd Army ORBAT. Schreiber et al explicitly states that the 169th and 197th Infantry Divisions (and a number of other formations) were planned as reserves, but their transport to the Balkans was stopped on 12 April. It is clear neither division actually participated in the invasion, so I'm not going to list them. I will add a note to that effect. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tessin lists 79th, 168th, and 197th as z. Vfg. which basically means arriving or scheduled to do so. A note is fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck another glitch with Neihorster on the Italian VI Corps. The divisions listed are completely different from all other sources, and the 18th Infantry Division Messina is listed as part of both the VI Corps of the 2nd Army (Italy) and the XVII Corps of the 9th Army (Albania). Have emailed Neihorster to see if it can be clarified. For the moment, I'm going to stay with Nafziger on the VI Corps divisions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another with the 32nd Division Marche listed under both XIV Corps and XVII Corps (both in Albania). Again, I'm sticking with Nafziger on the divisional allocations. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd contact Leo and ask him about the discrepancy. He's very good about correcting things if he's messed something up, in my experience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did, and he's now uploaded the corrected version, it was apparently an oversight. I've now replaced Nafziger completely, and have been able to removed quite a few of the older refs as well. I still have a little tidying up to do, and a couple of notes to add, will probably be done in a day or so. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I think I'm done. Let me know if there are any further points that need clarifications etc. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hate to tell you this, but a single generic link to Niehorster is insufficient. Link to the actual page used as a reference. I'll add the more detailed info on the Hungarian AF.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You translate "Luftwaffe" at least twice - the second is redundant.
  • Why are some terms given in German/Italian and translated to English and others are in the opposite order? Especially for relatively common German words like Luftwaffe. It reads very oddly for things like "commander of the German Army (German: Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres) Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal)"
    • Yep, a bit of that crept in. Unnecessary really. The trick is deciding which are common words and which need explication, which varies a lot in my experience. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lately I've opted to translate everything, because even though it might be obvious to me that (in my context) Vizeadmiral means Vice Admiral, the average reader might not know that. It's an editorial judgement, really, but I would prefer using the native language first (especially for things like the Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres, since readers might have run into acronyms like OKH or OKW elsewhere before, and it could be useful to have - for instance, I've frequently used this construction in my articles: "Reichsmarineamt (RMA—Imperial Navy Office)" since the office is commonly abbreviated as the RMA in English sources). It's of course up to your discretion, but I'd prefer if the formatting is standardized (so either "English (German)" or "German (English)"), if that makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information on specifics for the Hungarian Air Force? Or what specific naval units supported the invasion (either the specific names of the 3 destroyers or the other naval forces)? Or the X Air Corps? Having just a couple of lines for each section without a box gives the reader the impression that the list is incomplete/under construction, and that's not the impression we should be giving with featured content.
    • Well, there are several things at play here. I had a list of aircraft for the Hungarian Air Force, but pulled it because it was for the whole air force, there were a couple of accuracy issues, and there were no figures available for just those formations that flew in support of the invasion. In fact, Shores, Cull and Malizia don't even list the Hungarian air assets, and barely mention what aircraft they operated in support of the invasion. I will add what detail they do provide though. The naval aspects are almost irrelevant. There were no naval actions, nearly every Yugoslav ship of all sizes was captured at anchor. I have not been able to locate a source for the names of the three destroyers that were apparently used, but there is no mention of any action by them during the invasion, which probably explains why. Likewise with the Hungarians, we do know the designations of some Fliegerkorps X units that actually flew sorties, but listing all their units would give the wrong impression, as they were still heavily committed to Malta convoy work in Sicily, and most of their assets were sent back in the first few days of the invasion.

Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Have added the Hungarian Air Force information from Shores et al. Still have the hunt down the refs to the FkX units. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added what I could find that definitely were involved. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand the information is spotty. I had hoped Chronology of the War at Sea might reference the three destroyers (it's usually pretty good for that sort of thing), but no luck. It did mention a couple of Italian submarines that were involved in operations in the Adriatic - see page 67 - Salpa, Medusa, and Jalea. I'll dig some more and see what I can come up with.
          • As for FkX, could you make it clearer that they didn't play much of a role in the invasion? I'd include basically what you told me here, that most of their assets were still committed to convoy operations in the central Med. And for the two fighter units, you could add them to a table.
            • I've searched for any more on the FkX units, nada. I think given there are only two identified units, I'll leave it as prose. Have added info about Malta and a citation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-158-0094-33, Balkan, Spähpanzer der Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler.jpg might be a good addition to the "12th Army" section.
    • Added. I've also added a couple to the Hungarians. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately we need a source for the Ca. 135bis photo - you might consider replacing it with one of the nice photos in the article Fiat CR.42. That reminds me - an image review is needed here. See below.
  • Speaking of images, why is the Regia Aeronautica section the only one with a gallery of equipment types used? And it struck me as rather odd that the photo of the Ju87 is in the Italian section and not the German. I'd say either add them for all or remove the Italian one.
  • Perhaps I'm a little OCD but I'd rather that all of the tables in a category be identical (mainly, I'm talking about how some include staging location but others don't - one can merge all of the boxes in a table if all units staged out of a single area so they're not repeated. And the others that have duplicates can be merged as well - for example, the locations for the last two rows of the 2nd Army table can be combined.
    • I don't think the identical tables thing is necessary. The tables are like that because that's all they need to include. I've kept the boxes separate so it is clear, for example, which aircraft belonged to which Group or Wing. I can't think of a good reason to make them all the same unless they had the same content.
  • A minor point, but I'd redlink the names for commanders who don't yet have articles. Flag officers are almost always notable and these men will more than likely have articles at some point. Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images, in addition to the problem I mentioned above about the Ca. 135bis photo:

Everything else checks out. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I've made a couple of brief copy-edits to this article. Overall, it looks very good and has been greatly improved since it was first nominated. Good job. 23 editor (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Axis_order_of_battle_for_the_invasion_of_Yugoslavia/archive1&oldid=1076192784"