Talk:Cobasna ammunition depot

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / Russian & Soviet This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Moldova High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoldovaWikipedia:WikiProject MoldovaTemplate:WikiProject MoldovaMoldova articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bullet points 7 and 8 use Western Alliance weasel words and sources to describe what happened.

7 "Moldova's separatist Transdniester claims 'drones seen, shots fired' near huge ammo depot". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 27 April 2022.

8 "Possible 'false flag' attacks in separatist Moldovan region of Transnistria raises concerns Russia plans to expand conflict". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 27 April 2022.

Unsubstantiated speculative western military propaganda generated by US Funded propaganda outfit in the first case and an alarmist 5 Eyes military alliance partner's MSM media stenographer in the second. 216.113.203.123 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaric fake false westoid anglo-saxon propaganda!!! This azov nazi ukronazi homoglobo jew elite always ruining everything!!! Super Ψ Dro 23:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I do not understand when you mean the move of the ammunition depot from Voznesensk to Cobasna took four years. Wouldn't it then have required to be located in Voznesensk in the first place? When would this have happened then? Super Ψ Dro 08:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Super Dromaeosaurus:(1) War ends. Tens or hundreds of thousands of tonnes of ammunition collected at various field sites. (2) Field sites consolidated - one of them probably the 1411 ACB at Voznesensk. There is nothing in the article or REGNUM to rule out the possibility that the last field camp of the 1411 ACB before 9 May 1945 was at Voznesensk. Tens or hundreds of thousands of tonnes of ammunition at Voznesensk. (3) General Staff looks at its invasion plans for Italy, Yugoslavia, and Turkey. Transport planners decide that a forward site is required. (4) 1411 ACB receives the order to move to Cobasna, without augmentation of personnel, with postwar reconstruction and demobilization demanding huge resources and tying up huge amounts of transport resources (with much more transport, US Armed Forces were using surplus bombers etc to try to get ppl home). So, very large amounts of ammunition at Voznesensk. Few resources. With limited resources, moving the ammunition took four years.[reply]

Does this explain the possibility that the last field camp of the 1411 ACB when it was following the frontline troops was at Voznesensk, but the move of all the ammunition took four years? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article, referring to a military unit, the 1411 ACB, is *not* at its proper unit designation. Correctly, this page should be at 1411th Artillery Ammunition Depot. But the whole world knows it as the Cobasna ammunition depot. Having the Mil Units category at the redirect means the correct unit designation is in the Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet Union; otherwise, we'd have the 'Cobasna ammunition depot' which is not correct - it has a number, and it was not always at Cobasna. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cobasna ammunition depot" and "1411th Artillery Ammunition Depot" are the same thing. The article currently uses the first title because it is the

WP:COMMONNAME, this is the primary policy for deciding the titles of articles. However, this article should also cover the periods of the ammunition depot before it was hosted in Cobasna. It is pointless to have the redirect categorized because the current designation is "not correct" when the article using it is anyways included in that category (a more specific one actually) anyway. Right now we're showing two separate entries for the same entity. Super Ψ Dro 08:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

None of the categories *this* article is in are subcategories of Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet Union. Installations, fixed sites; yes; moving formations; no. For the entire period of the Second World War, in addition, COMMONNAME for the 1411 ACB would have been 1411 ACB. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Super Dromaeosaurus, you are the more native to the region and *you* reminded us in your edit summary that of course many of the OGRF personnel are Transnistrian natives. Can you explain why you think I would have an easier time identifying a suitable reference when *you* can access the local sources better, eg in Romanian? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could still find sources easily, likely in English, if you looked for them. I might add it myself later if I feel like it. I just don't feel enthutiastic of having to add bits of information that are not relevant (almost trivia) to the main topic of the article several times, with the alternative being that the article I wrote gets added information with grammar mistakes and unproper format, and tags. I try to maintain the articles I write but it's really tiring. Super Ψ Dro 15:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice, re trying to maintain the articles *I* have started, and whether it's tiring? For my part I have (mostly) learnt to let them go. I've had FAs delisted, for that matter. Eventually one dies.. and the articles will go where they will.. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I recognize I have

WP:OWNERSHIP problems and I am not sure how to deal with them. I have let go some articles on certain topic areas I am simply not interested in anymore (this is not one of them). Wikipedia being able to be edited by everyone is both an amazing thing and a terrible one. Super Ψ Dro 22:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]