Talk:New Guinea Air Warning Wireless/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about New Guinea Air Warning Wireless. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
What's left for A-Class?
As above, what's left before A-Class assessment? Enderwigginau (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Legacy
Should I add a Legacy section for the current 301st & 126th Signals Sqns who trace their role and tactics back to the NGAWW? Or a mention of this role subsequently being performed as a core skill by Special Forces units (SAS/SASR/US Navy SEALs/Marine Recon) the world over?Enderwigginau (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Howdy, I guess it depends on if there are reliable sources that mention this (like one of the books or journal articles listed in the references section). If they do then I think it would be relevant so I would say go for it. If your source for the information is more general knowledge / personal experience then it shouldn't be included (as we don't want to fall afoul of issues with original research which isn't allowed here by policy). I hope that helps. Anotherclown (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- "The requirement for long range communications can be traced back to WW2 and to such units as Coast Watchers, New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company and the "M" and "Z" Special Units. In early 1958 the idea of Special Communications was raised in the Australian Army and on the 30th April 1958 the Chief of General Staff, LTGEN Sir Ragnor Garret KBE CB saw the proposal 007/1958 titled "Administrative Support By the Australian Armed Services for the Joint Clandestine Organisation (JCO) in Limited War" - (Personnel ) and agreed to raising of No 1 Independent Signals Squadron. January 1960 saw No 1 Independent Signals Squadron renamed to 301 Signal Squadron (Home Defence) at Lidcombe NSW, the Squadron's role being to provide long range communications for Commando "type" operations." from the 301st Sig Sqn page appears to indicate this......is it too much of a stretch to reference this for that? Hmmm, I might need to enquire of certain gentlemen to make a statement supporting the "known" idea that surveillance behind enemy lines which is SAS/SASR doctrine traces back to the sort of work NGAWW performed. Enderwigginau (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure about this. From what I've read, the signals squadron personnel in the commando regiments always operate as part of groups mainly made up of personnel from the fighting companies and have the role of providing communications for these groups. I think that a strong reference is needed to support the current implication that they operate separately in the special reconnaissance role (which is part of the role of the Special Air Service Regiment, and not something which I think that the commando regiments do - though I could easily be mistaken). The formation of the SASR and commando regiments seems to have owed a lot to British doctrine, and tracing them back to only Australian World War II-era units is a difficult process - though obviously the success of the independent companies and other special forces was relevant. Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes AFAIK strategic reconnaissance is a role conducted by the SASR (not Commandos) and signallers operate as part of SF force elements, not separately. Anotherclown (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just revisiting this last comment.....the Spotters often worked with units as forward comms.....a good example is the Battle of Kokoda, where the spotting station was changed over and then the attack began soon after, with the spotters providing Line Commsfor the whole battle, moving with the defensive formation until their radio was shot out from under them. Enderwigginau (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes AFAIK strategic reconnaissance is a role conducted by the SASR (not Commandos) and signallers operate as part of SF force elements, not separately. Anotherclown (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure about this. From what I've read, the signals squadron personnel in the commando regiments always operate as part of groups mainly made up of personnel from the fighting companies and have the role of providing communications for these groups. I think that a strong reference is needed to support the current implication that they operate separately in the special reconnaissance role (which is part of the role of the Special Air Service Regiment, and not something which I think that the commando regiments do - though I could easily be mistaken). The formation of the SASR and commando regiments seems to have owed a lot to British doctrine, and tracing them back to only Australian World War II-era units is a difficult process - though obviously the success of the independent companies and other special forces was relevant. Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- "The requirement for long range communications can be traced back to WW2 and to such units as Coast Watchers, New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company and the "M" and "Z" Special Units. In early 1958 the idea of Special Communications was raised in the Australian Army and on the 30th April 1958 the Chief of General Staff, LTGEN Sir Ragnor Garret KBE CB saw the proposal 007/1958 titled "Administrative Support By the Australian Armed Services for the Joint Clandestine Organisation (JCO) in Limited War" - (Personnel ) and agreed to raising of No 1 Independent Signals Squadron. January 1960 saw No 1 Independent Signals Squadron renamed to 301 Signal Squadron (Home Defence) at Lidcombe NSW, the Squadron's role being to provide long range communications for Commando "type" operations." from the 301st Sig Sqn page appears to indicate this......is it too much of a stretch to reference this for that? Hmmm, I might need to enquire of certain gentlemen to make a statement supporting the "known" idea that surveillance behind enemy lines which is SAS/SASR doctrine traces back to the sort of work NGAWW performed. Enderwigginau (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou
Thankyou Anotherclown & AustralianRupert for making the required adjustments and suggestions that I'm too much of a newb to notice. Cheers, Enderwigginau (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks from me for creating this article. I thought I knew a lot about the Australian Army in the New Guinea campaign, but I'd never once heard of this unit! Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Likewise, thanks for your efforts! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Unit colour Patch
I'd like to break that out into a separate info box, so it can maybe be a little bigger?? Enderwigginau (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the UCP? Standard is for them to be included inside the infobox, if any more detail is req'd the reader can click on the image. Anotherclown (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to put this back in as a separate section. It's one of the most important historical features of the unit, as there is not another one like it.....A "commando" patch with an insert denoting an "un-commando" corps........ Enderwigginau (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- G'day, I'm inclined to think that the current level of coverage is sufficient, with the note being employed to convey the extra information. As AC points out on his talk page, all unit colour patches are unique and the topic is pretty obscure, so placing too much weight on it detracts from other aspects that are possibly more significant to the casual reader. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's degrees of uniqueness. I think every unit page should show their colour patch a) as it is part of the unit identity, and b) it is a point of ID between units.......that is, if unidentified images emerge, it may assist in ID'ing the members/location etc I think it's something that requires a wider discussion as I believe ALL unit pages should specifically bring note to the corresponding colourpatch. Enderwigginau (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder if you have an interest in expanding the Unit Colour Patch article? As you have highlighted there is probably a lack of coverage about such patches on Wikipedia and the possibility you mention of assisting to ID pers etc is a valid one. That said I don't think that would be achieved by providing in-depth info about a single UCP on that unit's article (which we do here currently anyway - but just in a footnote). I think this would actually be best achieved by updating the main article that covers this particular accoutrement (i.e. the Unit Colour Patch article) which could be expanded to cover a description of the meaning of the different shapes, colours, and other symbols, and even provide examples. This could be broken down into WWI, WWII and then the present (they were discarded in 1949 and reintroduced in 1987). Anyway just a thought.
- Moving back to this discussion - per my talkpage a possible way forward with this article is rather than providing all of the info about the UCP in a note or in a separate section (i.e. our opposing view points) how about a compromise and moving it into the narrative itself (an example is per 2/3rd Battalion (Australia) which is rated as a Good Article having been through a formal review so is probably a good example of what we should aim for)? I'd see the logical place for this being right at the point where the UCP is currently mentioned in the text, i.e. after this "...They were subsequently authorised to wear the commando "double diamond" colour patch..." Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've now gone ahead a done this here [1]. Are there comments about this? Anotherclown (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, not going to argue now hehehe I'll have a look at the general UCP article. Enderwigginau (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Its not much but there is some interesting info about the UCP at the Digger History website here - [2]. Anotherclown (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, not going to argue now hehehe I'll have a look at the general UCP article. Enderwigginau (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've now gone ahead a done this here [1]. Are there comments about this? Anotherclown (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's degrees of uniqueness. I think every unit page should show their colour patch a) as it is part of the unit identity, and b) it is a point of ID between units.......that is, if unidentified images emerge, it may assist in ID'ing the members/location etc I think it's something that requires a wider discussion as I believe ALL unit pages should specifically bring note to the corresponding colourpatch. Enderwigginau (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- G'day, I'm inclined to think that the current level of coverage is sufficient, with the note being employed to convey the extra information. As AC points out on his talk page, all unit colour patches are unique and the topic is pretty obscure, so placing too much weight on it detracts from other aspects that are possibly more significant to the casual reader. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to put this back in as a separate section. It's one of the most important historical features of the unit, as there is not another one like it.....A "commando" patch with an insert denoting an "un-commando" corps........ Enderwigginau (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Leigh Vial
The article mentions Leigh Vial but I'm wondering if he actually was posted to NGAWWC. Is this confirmed by the sources? His Australian Dictionary of Biography entry [3] doesn't mention anything about the unit that I could see, and seems to imply he was at least working with personnel from No. 24 Squadron RAAF at the time. That said there are numerous sources which support the fact that there were NGAWWC personnel involved in setting up OPs near Salamaua then so it may well be that they were one and the same. At any rate can this pls be checked? Anotherclown (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Perrin mention Flying Boats supporting the unit so I'm assuming this is where the RAAF personnel come in? Anotherclown (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- The original members were volunteers who were "nearby" at the time of formation. This is why there is not alot known as most members are only ever listed under there substantive unit, and went back to their original units when the company was disbanded. Later members came from the Corps of Signals (and referred to as Signaller as opposed to an infantry, etc rank) and were "returned" to Line-of-Signals for demobilisation.........I will have a harder look for his info. Enderwigginau (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have the Nominal Roll, I just can't find it....I will check to see if Vial is on it, or contact the Colonel..... Enderwigginau (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've amended the text for now to reflect that he was working as part of the Coastwatcher organisation at that time IAW his ADB entry and the RAAF official history - Gillison pp. 674-675 [4]. I'm only guessing but I'd say he would have been working with NGAWWC signalers at Salamaua but he himself would not have been attached to the unit (but I could be wrong). It would be good to be able to be clear on this though and to include something in the text about how his actions were linked to NGAWWC if he is going to be mentioned in this article. Anotherclown (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have the Nominal Roll, I just can't find it....I will check to see if Vial is on it, or contact the Colonel..... Enderwigginau (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
From The Golden Voices of New Guinea, an article in Signals: the story of Australian Signals Corp http://www.thespotters.org/Shared%20Documents/The%20Golden%20Voices%20Of%20New%20Guinea.pdf
On the 7th of March, the Japanese made large-scale landings at Lae and Salamaua.
The Lae landing was flashed back to Wall by Sgt Mitchell of the N.G.V.R. from a hill known as Sugarloaf, seven miles from the township. Mitchell remained in the area until the 17th of March when he was forced to withdraw. Flight-Lieut. Vial, a former patrol officer with a thorough knowledge of the country, reported the Salamaua landing back to the R.A.A.F. at Moresby from the hills behind the town. Vial remained at his post for six months despite all enemy attempts to locate him and earned the original title of "Golden Voice". He was later awarded the American
Distinguished Service Cross by General MacArthur.
Also it mentions Kirkwood 300yds from the Salamaua Airstrip. Enderwigginau (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. BTW I checked the Mansfield source today and he makes it clear that Vial was not part of NGAWW but was part of a joint-msn with NGAWW personnel. I've amended the text to reflect this and added a reference. Anotherclown (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Article name
I suspect that this article should be moved to New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company. This is the name used in the unit history on the Australian War Memorial website [5] and all of the books it references, the plaque marking the unit's history in the grounds of the AWM [6] (which would have been paid for by the veterans association or similar), and this relatively recent Australian Army Journal article. Googling "New Guinea Air Warning Wireless" [7] also suggests that this is the common name. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- The "common" name does not reference "company", as they were formed before they were an official company, even the Assoc banner for the Sydney Anzac parade doesn't say Company. Company is used on "Official" items as it is realistically the most official and correct name, but they are more commonly known as NGAWW not NGAWW Coy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderwigginau (talk • contribs) 10:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Can you please provide references which demonstrate that "New Guinea Air Warning Wireless" is the most common name? Wikipedia names articles according to what the topic is most commonly called in reliable sources - please see WP:COMMONNAME. My search indicates that "New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company" is more common. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think we might be talking at cross purposes here. I'd say it would likely have been common during the war and amongst former members afterwards to call it "New Guinea Air Warning Wireless" but that is not really what is meant by WP:COMMONNAME (which I'd say probably does lean towards New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company to be honest). That said I have seen some instances in RS in the last few days where "company" is omitted also (although they are in the minority and seem to be reflecting the original usage). At the risk of making things less clear though the Army official history, The New Guinea Offensives by Dexter, uses "New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Unit through out - see index page 826 [8] and "New Guinea Air Wireless Warning Signals" in the list of abbreviations on page 819 [9]. Anotherclown (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Can you please provide references which demonstrate that "New Guinea Air Warning Wireless" is the most common name? Wikipedia names articles according to what the topic is most commonly called in reliable sources - please see WP:COMMONNAME. My search indicates that "New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company" is more common. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
2nd/1st Independent Cavalry Commando Squadron
The 2nd/1st Independent Cavalry Commando Squadron reference in Lord and Tennant as part of the FULL NAME of the NGAWW is an ass up. The 2/1 Ind Cav Cdo Sqn was the revised name of 1 Ind Coy in the July changeover turning all Ind Units into Cav Cdo units with the addition of the further units 6-onward. NGAWW and 2/1 Ind Cav Cdo are totally separate units and NGAWW was NEVER referred to as a Cdo unit. They were signallers only, and were not meant to engage the enemy unless it was to protect their OPs. 1 and 2 Ind Coys were independent of the new regimental structure. Enderwigginau (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Howdy, this is a difficult one. Lord and Tennant is seemingly a reliable source and I (to date) have no reason to doubt its accuracy; however, I admit that I cannot find any other reliable source that also uses the term "2nd/1st Independent Cavalry Commando Squadron, New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company AIF" to back it up. By any chance do you have a source which states that this is wrong though? Despite the name I don't believe there is any implication that NGAWW actually were commando trained though and certainly I'm not disputing your comment regarding their role. That said you are not correct in your assertion that the 1st Independent Company was ever called the 2nd/1st Independent Cavalry Commando Squadron. To the best of my knowledge the 1st Independent Company was disbanded in 1942 due to the heavy losses it sustained which was well before these changes occurred (mid-1943). Given your concerns though we could re-word the text to provide in-text attribution for the statement though (e.g. "according to Lord and Tennant" or "Lord and Tennant state"... etc. ). Anotherclown (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- 1 Ind Coy ceased to exist so the 2/1 Ind Cav Cdo Coy name was never used. 2 Ind Coy made sucha name for themselves that no one wanted the task of telling them to change their name to 2/2 Ind Cav Cdo Coy lest they be lynched!! I'll finish reading the new doc from Lt White and I can be certain it won't mention this at all..... Enderwigginau (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- This link http://www.thespotters.org/Shared%20Documents/No.4%20Coy%20N.G.%20Force%20Sigs%20-%2012%20Oct%201943.PDF shows them as originally 4 Coy, 18 LofC Sigs.....most members were demobbed out of 18 Line of Command Sigs, so I'm pretty sure this is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderwigginau (talk • contribs) 22:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- On 24 Aug 43 Lt-Gen Oxley requested that NGAWW, 4 Coy/8LofSigs be removed from 8LofSigs to operate independently. The provisional War Establishment does not show anythong other than NGAWW. http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ListingReports/ItemsListing.aspx Enderwigginau (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- G'day to add to this I was able to access Perrin, Mansfield and Barker today and couldn't see the unit ever referred to as "2nd/1st Independent Cavalry Commando Squadron". I've changed the text now to "qualify" the statement from Lord and Tennant somewhat. Potentially we might have to confine the info from Lord and Tennant to a footnote to reduce its weight in light of the lack of any corroboration. One other possible place to check though would be the Unit War Diary. Are they available? Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell the Unit War Diary isn't available electronically through the AWM website. I checked both Signals and Lines of Communications units and they don't have it seems (relevant area of the AWM site is here [10]). Makes it hard to confirm names as it seems the unit did indeed go through a few which aren't closely documented in the sources we have available (for instance you mention 18 Line of Command Sigs) - indeed Perrin 1990 p. 270 refers to them as "No. 4 Company (NGAWW Company)" 18 L of C Signals here when referring to the command changes that occurred at the unit but without giving a date for this change. This is confusing to say the least and to be honest I'm unsure how to handle it as I think it would be good to include a list of all the names of the unit in some form if possible. This information would be available in the archives, CARO, or possibly in the 2nd AIF equivalent of the Staff and Regimental / Army List etc but those are pretty difficult to get a hold of and we risk heading down the road of original research. Any ideas? Anotherclown (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- G'day to add to this I was able to access Perrin, Mansfield and Barker today and couldn't see the unit ever referred to as "2nd/1st Independent Cavalry Commando Squadron". I've changed the text now to "qualify" the statement from Lord and Tennant somewhat. Potentially we might have to confine the info from Lord and Tennant to a footnote to reduce its weight in light of the lack of any corroboration. One other possible place to check though would be the Unit War Diary. Are they available? Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- On 24 Aug 43 Lt-Gen Oxley requested that NGAWW, 4 Coy/8LofSigs be removed from 8LofSigs to operate independently. The provisional War Establishment does not show anythong other than NGAWW. http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ListingReports/ItemsListing.aspx Enderwigginau (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- This link http://www.thespotters.org/Shared%20Documents/No.4%20Coy%20N.G.%20Force%20Sigs%20-%2012%20Oct%201943.PDF shows them as originally 4 Coy, 18 LofC Sigs.....most members were demobbed out of 18 Line of Command Sigs, so I'm pretty sure this is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderwigginau (talk • contribs) 22:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- 1 Ind Coy ceased to exist so the 2/1 Ind Cav Cdo Coy name was never used. 2 Ind Coy made sucha name for themselves that no one wanted the task of telling them to change their name to 2/2 Ind Cav Cdo Coy lest they be lynched!! I'll finish reading the new doc from Lt White and I can be certain it won't mention this at all..... Enderwigginau (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- So according to the wikipedia rules, if you have three (semi-)consistent sources that disagree with another, the other non-consistent source is ignored?? I need to read through White fully, but as the Sigs official history it doesn't mention 2/1st once. I think White is going to be the first case source to confirm most else...... Enderwigginau (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh and a war diary doesn't exist (at least fully, I believe) as the unit wasn't a real unit until after it had been operational for over six months. No records were kept specifically about the operations, except by NGF and ANGAU who were receiving transmissions. Enderwigginau (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is not really with Wikipedia rules but more that we cannot prove information is wrong purely by its absence in other sources (a supposition not a statement of fact or even a deduction). Consider that what we have is a seemingly reliable source (Lord and Tennant) which states something in black and white and can be verified (i.e. that NGAWW was renamed 2nd/1st Independent Cavalry Commando Squadron, New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company AIF) but that this seems unlikely given the fact that it is not supported by any other source. I completely agree with you that it is not supported by the other sources and even went to the trouble of verifying that neither of the Perrin sources or Mansfield mentioned it (so pls don't think I'm ignoring your concern). My issue is that we don't have a source that explicitly states Lord and Tennant is wrong so I don't think getting rid of that statement is a valid solution to the concern (and we don't know what source they used so cannot go back and verify it which is what I have been attempting to do - some of their information sounds like it comes from Jacoby but it doesn't mention it either). What we do have though is the fact that all the other reliable sources that cover the topic don't mention the name change. This doesn't categorically mean Lord and Tennant is wrong, it may be an omission on the part of Barker, Perrin and Mansfield. As such I have reworded the text to include the fact that no other source mentions this name change (which is the only fact that we have here in my opinion). Anyway I'm open to suggestions about how to word this differently if this approach is not considered helpful. Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I say ignore the (Lord and Tennant) reference and use the most common reference. Again, I need to go through (White) as it is the definitive information written in 1944 BY the unit and checked and rechecked as noted by Cumpston in the foreword. So we change it to state they were 4Coy/18LofSig/NGF then became NGAWW(I)Coy as per the request in (damn, I've forgotten, but its the unit details...Found it, as per my note above 21/Aug - Lt-Gen Oxley requested they be Independent in the prov. War Establishment). Enderwigginau (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Respectfully I'm going to have to disagree with you. I skimmed through White and don't even see "No. 4 Company" mentioned (unless I missed it) so I'm not prepared to say it actually is definitive on more mundane administrative issues like this. He seems to refer to the unit as "New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company" through out. As I stated above at this stage I don't think we can chose to ignore the Lord and Tennant merely on the basis of what is an educated guess. By all means if there was something which stated in black and white that it was wrong (or even if there was a definitive list of unit names provided by a source we have overlooked so far) then yes I would but so far we are assuming its wrong because it isn't stated anywhere else. All we can do in that instance is tell our readers what is written in the sources and highlight that certain information doesn't appear anywhere else and let them decide. I am prepared to move the information to a footnote though to reduce its weight given that it is not supported by other sources. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Re your search of the National Archives - that looks promising (although I can't seem to replicate the result - I've never used the site so am a bit of numpty it seems). From your post above you wrote: "On 24 Aug 43 Lt-Gen Oxley requested that NGAWW, 4 Coy/8LofSigs be removed from 8LofSigs". Can you pls confirm it said 8LofSigs not 18? Perrin clearly writes "18 L of C" so this seems to be a discrepency. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Yes, it's 18LofCSigs.....perpetuated error. Yes, I think the best plan is relegating (Lord and Tennant) to a note and relying on the multiple sources that agree. Enderwigginau (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/SearchScreens/BasicSearch.aspx just search New Guinea Air Warning Wireless. There is a diary listed but as it hasn't been requested it's not open in a PDF. The Establishment docs are open halfway down the page. Enderwigginau (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking re 18 L of C and for the crash cse on using the NAA site! Quite interesting - I'd never really thought to look closely at their website before. Anotherclown (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- The only issue with Nat Arch is that if no one has paid to view a doc, it won't have been saved as an open access pdf. Even a personal record for a soldier isn't open to view unless you request a copy.....I need to do that for a couple.... Enderwigginau (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking re 18 L of C and for the crash cse on using the NAA site! Quite interesting - I'd never really thought to look closely at their website before. Anotherclown (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/SearchScreens/BasicSearch.aspx just search New Guinea Air Warning Wireless. There is a diary listed but as it hasn't been requested it's not open in a PDF. The Establishment docs are open halfway down the page. Enderwigginau (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Yes, it's 18LofCSigs.....perpetuated error. Yes, I think the best plan is relegating (Lord and Tennant) to a note and relying on the multiple sources that agree. Enderwigginau (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Re your search of the National Archives - that looks promising (although I can't seem to replicate the result - I've never used the site so am a bit of numpty it seems). From your post above you wrote: "On 24 Aug 43 Lt-Gen Oxley requested that NGAWW, 4 Coy/8LofSigs be removed from 8LofSigs". Can you pls confirm it said 8LofSigs not 18? Perrin clearly writes "18 L of C" so this seems to be a discrepency. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Respectfully I'm going to have to disagree with you. I skimmed through White and don't even see "No. 4 Company" mentioned (unless I missed it) so I'm not prepared to say it actually is definitive on more mundane administrative issues like this. He seems to refer to the unit as "New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company" through out. As I stated above at this stage I don't think we can chose to ignore the Lord and Tennant merely on the basis of what is an educated guess. By all means if there was something which stated in black and white that it was wrong (or even if there was a definitive list of unit names provided by a source we have overlooked so far) then yes I would but so far we are assuming its wrong because it isn't stated anywhere else. All we can do in that instance is tell our readers what is written in the sources and highlight that certain information doesn't appear anywhere else and let them decide. I am prepared to move the information to a footnote though to reduce its weight given that it is not supported by other sources. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I say ignore the (Lord and Tennant) reference and use the most common reference. Again, I need to go through (White) as it is the definitive information written in 1944 BY the unit and checked and rechecked as noted by Cumpston in the foreword. So we change it to state they were 4Coy/18LofSig/NGF then became NGAWW(I)Coy as per the request in (damn, I've forgotten, but its the unit details...Found it, as per my note above 21/Aug - Lt-Gen Oxley requested they be Independent in the prov. War Establishment). Enderwigginau (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is not really with Wikipedia rules but more that we cannot prove information is wrong purely by its absence in other sources (a supposition not a statement of fact or even a deduction). Consider that what we have is a seemingly reliable source (Lord and Tennant) which states something in black and white and can be verified (i.e. that NGAWW was renamed 2nd/1st Independent Cavalry Commando Squadron, New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company AIF) but that this seems unlikely given the fact that it is not supported by any other source. I completely agree with you that it is not supported by the other sources and even went to the trouble of verifying that neither of the Perrin sources or Mansfield mentioned it (so pls don't think I'm ignoring your concern). My issue is that we don't have a source that explicitly states Lord and Tennant is wrong so I don't think getting rid of that statement is a valid solution to the concern (and we don't know what source they used so cannot go back and verify it which is what I have been attempting to do - some of their information sounds like it comes from Jacoby but it doesn't mention it either). What we do have though is the fact that all the other reliable sources that cover the topic don't mention the name change. This doesn't categorically mean Lord and Tennant is wrong, it may be an omission on the part of Barker, Perrin and Mansfield. As such I have reworded the text to include the fact that no other source mentions this name change (which is the only fact that we have here in my opinion). Anyway I'm open to suggestions about how to word this differently if this approach is not considered helpful. Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh and a war diary doesn't exist (at least fully, I believe) as the unit wasn't a real unit until after it had been operational for over six months. No records were kept specifically about the operations, except by NGF and ANGAU who were receiving transmissions. Enderwigginau (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
NGAWW War Establishment
http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ViewImage.aspx?B=7764560 Enderwigginau (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Another source written at the time - Lt White 1944
I need to fully read this, but it explains a bit more about how the forces were named at various times Enderwigginau (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, THIS, written "in-the-field" in 44 is where Barker and Jacoby get most of their facts. It is the official Corp of Sigs history of the unit. Enderwigginau (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- This document is a rough-scanned version of the original 1944 document, hence can't cut and paste info, but need to type out every point. I'll fid a chance to go through this fully, but it is definitely the #1 resource, and obviously where a number of the other articles/books have got their info/plagiarised......can someone have a look and help with how to reference it. I'm not sure how to sort it out. Enderwigginau (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've now included this in the reference list so all you need to do to provide a citation for any information you add to the article from this source is to type the code {{sfn|White|1944|p=}} (and include the page number in the "p=" field). FYI it appears there is a copy of White's monograph in the AWM [11] which I imagine this electronic copy was probably scanned from. That said I think some caution is needed not to go in to too much detail using White, as some of the lists provided in it (for example the equipment of a spotting station) would probably be considered trivia and not suited to inclusion in an encyclopedia. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- This document is a rough-scanned version of the original 1944 document, hence can't cut and paste info, but need to type out every point. I'll fid a chance to go through this fully, but it is definitely the #1 resource, and obviously where a number of the other articles/books have got their info/plagiarised......can someone have a look and help with how to reference it. I'm not sure how to sort it out. Enderwigginau (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Notes from White 1944
Just storing some notes to get back to Enderwigginau (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- * Maj Cumpston took over as C/O Mar 44 during the restructure which saw many stations dropped or returned to ANGAU control, and the disbanding of certain operational areas. Enderwigginau (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- * Many stations pre-official NGAWW, setup by NGVR or non-military ANGAU personnel and taken over by NGAWW spotters.....this is what happened at Kirkwood's tree at Salamaua, built by NGVR but occupied by NGAWW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderwigginau (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- -->Correction, as per White, Kirkwood built this station while a member of NGVR in June of 42.....they wanted a post closer than Vials!! So Vial gets the DSC from the Yanks and we only MID Kirkwood!!! Enderwigginau (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- * Large section on equipment and radios Enderwigginau (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- * NGAWW officially came into existence in Oct 1942 under NGF Sigs -To bring all Spotters under one control unit.....(This is 4 Coy).....All Spotters prior were NGF Sigs from various units. Enderwigginau (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- * NGAWW became a separate unit in Oct 43 under HQ NGF [ NGAWW(I) Coy ] and commanded by Maj Guinoy, who had recently taken charge. Enderwigginau (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- * NGAWW officially came into existence in Oct 1942 under NGF Sigs -To bring all Spotters under one control unit.....(This is 4 Coy).....All Spotters prior were NGF Sigs from various units. Enderwigginau (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Spotting Station Equipment
The constituents of a typical spotting station were as follows:
- Personnel. One a/Sjt in charge, and one or two a/Cpls
- Armament. One Owen gun with 600 rounds and ten magazines for NCO in charge. One rifle with 50 rounds for each other man.
- Accomodation. One tent and fly, if no facilities were available for building a native hut.
- Implements. One axe, one pick, one shovel, one bush knife per man.
- Camp utensils. One dish, one frying pan, one dixie or boiler, four water cans, one bucket.
- Instruments. One watch, one prismatic compass, one pair of binoculars, and, for coast watch stations, one telescope in addition.
- Medical. One complete portable kit. Weight 29 lbs.
- Rations. One month's supply, depending on location.
- P.O.L. Five four-gallon drums of petrol, four gallons of oil and two gallons of kerosene.
- Lighting. One hurricane lamp, one torch and one automobile headlamp bulb for connection to the wireless battery.
- Documents. Cipher and meterological documents, a map of the area, and miscellaneous stationary.
Enderwigginau (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I added a bit on the weapons carried as seemed particularly relevant. Anotherclown (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- it's interesting to note that the Establishment does not include Owen guns, which were one of their main weapons as mentioned in White. Enderwigginau (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Weather reporting
http://www.thespotters.org/Shared%20Documents/THE%20WEATHER%20REPORTING.doc Enderwigginau (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have added something about the unit's other tasks from Barker, include transmitting met data. Anotherclown (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- cheers, just dumping tasks in here when I can't get to them immediately hehehe - Grant.. Enderwigginau (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion due to lack of source for the Simpson quote
I didn't have any luck finding a source for the Simpson quote after checking Perrin, Mansfield and Barker. Simpson wrote a tribute to the unit in 1961 which is reproduced in both Mansfield and Perrin (Jacoby also quotes from it in his 1979 article); however, it is apparently not the same quote. Does anyone have any ideas as to the source of the current quote? As an aside the 1961 tribute (that I do have a source for) actually includes an interesting assessment of the value of the NGAWW's work which might be worth quoting. For example he wrote: "It can be stated that the successful course of the war could have been seriously delayed, if not greatly prolonged, if this signal unit had not operated so efficiently." I wonder whether it might worth just getting rid of the current (unreferenced) quote and replacing it with this one? What are other editors opinions on that? Anotherclown (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Shift the current one to here, and put the new one in. ?How's that sound? Enderwigginau (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I think that is a good solution. Current unreferenced text moved here (for safe keeping) was as fols:
- After the war Australian Signal Officer-in-Chief, Major-General Colin Simpson, described the spotters (perhaps incorrectly as most later members came direct from the Corps of Signals) as: "infantrymen without a typical battlefield, artillerymen without field pieces and tank crews without tanks. Apart from a hard core of very talented personnel, all that most spotters had in common was an abysmal ignorance of anything to do with signals. Yet they won the respect of our Allies and every branch of the Australian forces".[citation needed] Anotherclown (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Gday - I've managed to obtain a copy of "The Private War of the Spotters" on longer term loan and am looking through it now more carefully for more information (as I was previously only able to spend a few hours with it with a notebook make notes at the library last week). Anyway I found the above quote from Simpson on page 11. Sorry my eyes must be painted on. I've put it back in. Anotherclown (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- After the war Australian Signal Officer-in-Chief, Major-General Colin Simpson, described the spotters (perhaps incorrectly as most later members came direct from the Corps of Signals) as: "infantrymen without a typical battlefield, artillerymen without field pieces and tank crews without tanks. Apart from a hard core of very talented personnel, all that most spotters had in common was an abysmal ignorance of anything to do with signals. Yet they won the respect of our Allies and every branch of the Australian forces".[citation needed] Anotherclown (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I think that is a good solution. Current unreferenced text moved here (for safe keeping) was as fols:
AWM Images
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P01035.011 - image of the Port Moresby HQ building https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P01035.013 - Yema Spotting station https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P01035.004 - Kikori Spotting Station https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P01035.003 - AWA Teleradio 3A https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/015364/ - spotters at their radio https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P01035.014 - Alex Perrin https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P01035.021/ - This may solve some of the 2/q1 Cav Cdo issues - it shows reinforcments from the 21st Cav Enderwigginau (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- As a comment, the 21st Cavvalry was an armoured reconnaissance unit (see List of Australian armoured units). Presumably after it was disbanded some of its personnel were posted to this unit. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P01035.002/ -OF NOTE in the caption - Four spotters from the New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company (NGAWW) sitting by their tent. Identified, left to right: R Pardy; S Savage; B P (Spud) Murphy MM, and C Turnbull MM. Note the strain and exhaustion showing on the last two men, this is because they are being relieved at Kokoda after having been through the entire Kokoda campaign. Murphy and Turnbull relieved the spotters at Kokoda only hours before the Japanese overran the location. They remained on duty continuously, often under fire, often without rations for days, passing their own signal traffic [transmitting messages] and that of the 2/21st Infantry Brigade. They needed to move their station on at least six occasions before they finally lost their transmitter to gunfire at Deniki. Both were awarded the Military Medals for ‘Courage and resourcefulness at Kokoda in July 1942’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderwigginau (talk • contribs) 07:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
4 Coy, 18 Line of Com Sigs, NGF
4 Coy is referenced here http://www.thespotters.org/Shared%20Documents/No.4%20Coy%20N.G.%20Force%20Sigs%20-%2012%20Oct%201943.PDF They are an additional Coy above the main 3 sigs Coys in 18LofCSigs. That's the disposition of Sigs within NGF as of 12/OCT/43. That's why I added the CN tag - I then got sent to get Chinese hahahaha That backs up the AWM saying the change to Ind status was Oct, as it was possible a revision of this. Enderwigginau (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Gday - good work (not sure how I missed that going through The Spotters site). Yes my assumption from this would seem to be the same as yours in that I'd say it confirms they were called No. 4 Coy (NGAWW), 18 L of C Sigs prior to getting independent status (because this wire diagram depicts them as a sub-unit of 18 L of C Sigs, as opposed to an independent sub-unit report to NGF Signals if that make sense). The key question then is when did they get that name (i.e. No. 4 Coy), was it from their formation in Oct 42? This doesn't answer that question which just makes it difficult to determine how to work this information into the text. Open to suggestions of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I tweaked the note about this to try and clarify the chronology of the names. Anotherclown (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Captain Gordon King
Hmmm, the assertion that he commanded the NGAWW briefly in 43 doesn't make sense when he was here at Canungra from March-August, after returning with the 6th(?) then heading straight back into action with 2/6CavCdo in August. I'll try and find more on his record. Enderwigginau (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Gday - yes you are correct it was actually a different bloke. It was a Signals Officer, Captain G.C.A. King (not Gordon Grimsley King). As I didn't provide his full name initially I can see how there may have been some confusion. I've clarified this by providing the full names of all the OCs listed in Perrin and cross checked from the World War Two Nominal Roll [12]. Kind regards. Anotherclown (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, gents, I got excited when I thought I recognised the name, having done some work on the 2/6th Ind Coy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's okay, I'm happy you keep coming back......it'll be class A in no time hehehe Enderwigginau (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, gents, I got excited when I thought I recognised the name, having done some work on the 2/6th Ind Coy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)