Talk:United States Air Force: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Acronym competition (AC)) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "air warfare planning" to "air warfare planning") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Air warfare vice air superiority == | == Air warfare vice air superiority == | ||
First, I changed "air superiority" to "air warfare". The former sounds just fine for the fighter mafia saying "not a pound for air to ground", but not in a broader context. See | First, I changed "air superiority" to "air warfare". The former sounds just fine for the fighter mafia saying "not a pound for air to ground", but not in a broader context. See air warfare planning for such a context. | ||
As to United States vs. U.S., given your example with France, History, why abbreviate one and not the other (IK, I grant things like "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Bosnia and Heregovina")? | As to United States vs. U.S., given your example with France, History, why abbreviate one and not the other (IK, I grant things like "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Bosnia and Heregovina")? | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
:::There is style, and there is style. From a number of years of experience, I believe the United States Navy has the edge on acronyms. Even though I was in a vault at a Navy facility at the time, I still did a doubletake when I read COMNAVSECGRUACTPACDET and realized I knew what it meant. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:16, 16 May 2008 (CDT) | :::There is style, and there is style. From a number of years of experience, I believe the United States Navy has the edge on acronyms. Even though I was in a vault at a Navy facility at the time, I still did a doubletake when I read COMNAVSECGRUACTPACDET and realized I knew what it meant. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:16, 16 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
== Organizational question (also to forum and mailing list) == | |||
Does anyone know if PACAF and USAFE report directly to USAF headquarters, or if they are intermediate levels below ACC? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:26, 5 August 2008 (CDT) | |||
== Out of date numbers--anyone want to help? == | |||
I removed a table that had nothing later than five year old personnel figures. All the numbers on personnel and equipment need updating. | |||
Several changes may be worth mentioning, variously as due to arms control agreements or mission changes. I will try to move aircraft types to a table format, with counts in service where available. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:06, 28 April 2024
Title suggestions
I suggest that for this (and similar articles) we use for the title U.S. instead of United States.
Also for spinoff article, I suggest we use USAF in the title, as in USAF, history
Note that policy for all history article is to have titles like "France, history" Richard Jensen 11:08, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
Air warfare vice air superiority
First, I changed "air superiority" to "air warfare". The former sounds just fine for the fighter mafia saying "not a pound for air to ground", but not in a broader context. See air warfare planning for such a context.
As to United States vs. U.S., given your example with France, History, why abbreviate one and not the other (IK, I grant things like "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Bosnia and Heregovina")?
Howard C. Berkowitz 14:22, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
- ok how about U.S. Air Force, history -- but also USAF when it's ana djective (USAF Academy). Richard Jensen 14:25, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
- What do you see as the problem of spelling out "United States"?
"United Kingdom" is longer. Will that be UK?
- Where should the line be drawn between abbreviating and not? A colleague does tell me that they do use FYRBH in the Balkans. If they didn't, they'd have to have extra-long business cards. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:44, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
- Oh it's a matter of style. It's done by the U.S. Congress for example, And yes, UK is better than United Kingdom, I think; compare USA, USSR, GDR, FRG, ROK, etc. (I strongly dislike the use of "United States" as an adjective but will accept "U.S." as an adjective) The Air Force in fact tried to never call itself the ARMY Air Forces--always the AAF. People adverse to acronyms wash out of the military on day 1. :) (No I have never been in uniform, but I was a civlian professor at USMA (ie West Point) Richard Jensen 16:32, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
- There is style, and there is style. From a number of years of experience, I believe the United States Navy has the edge on acronyms. Even though I was in a vault at a Navy facility at the time, I still did a doubletake when I read COMNAVSECGRUACTPACDET and realized I knew what it meant. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:16, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Organizational question (also to forum and mailing list)
Does anyone know if PACAF and USAFE report directly to USAF headquarters, or if they are intermediate levels below ACC? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:26, 5 August 2008 (CDT)
Out of date numbers--anyone want to help?
I removed a table that had nothing later than five year old personnel figures. All the numbers on personnel and equipment need updating.
Several changes may be worth mentioning, variously as due to arms control agreements or mission changes. I will try to move aircraft types to a table format, with counts in service where available. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)