text:
Talk:Top 10 (comics)

Disambiguate?
Should this be disamibiguated? Top Ten (comic), maybe? RickK 20:10, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * But it's not called Top Ten, it's called Top 10. —Paul A 06:53, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Was this comics series discontinued after issue 12? Mortene 11:40, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, though there have been a few spin-offs since (Smax and the as-of-yet unreleased The '49ers). -Sean Curtin 11:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * When the first series ended, there was talk about this being simply the "off season" between "seasons one and two", as if it's a television series. Alan Moore's apparently reluctance to continue working with DC Comics throws a wrench into these plans, though. -mhr 14:57, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Season 2 has started if someone wants to add it. It's on the DC main site as well as some comic DB sites.  http://dccomics.com/comics/?cm=10417 --Morbid-o (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something should be added about the very large number of visual references to other works, everything from Doctor Who, to Sluggy Freelance, some very obscure. 15:59, 15 Jun 2005

I think Top 10, Beyond All Limits is being written by another writer. As for annotations, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/7160/annos.html would be a lot more in depth. It also reminded me that no one mentioned Deadfellas in this.

Merge proposal
I feel it's necessary that the Top 10 spinoffs/sequels be incorporated into the article proper; it'd cut down on redundancies & related confusion. (To wit: two entries extant for The Forty Niners/The 49ers.) Comments? Fastbak77 23:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need to have separate entries. It's something I think happens too often on Wikipedia, having separate articles for things that would be more informatively kept together, as well as duplicate articles based on variant spellings - if the 49ers are to have their own page it should at least be spelled the same way as on the book cover (whichever way that is). But a single article covering the original series and its spin-offs (including Deadfellas, Smax and Beyond the Farthest Precinct) would, I think, be a better way of organising it than endlessly subdividing - God forbid we end up with separate pages for all the individual characters. Same goes for Tom Strong and Tom Strong's Terrific Tales. --Nicknack009 19:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I already merged Tom Strong and ...Terrific Tales. :) (Also, Greyshirt and Greyshirt: Indigo Sunset, which I intend to come back to...) I didn't mention the Smax page, though, as it's fairly extensive and stands well on its own. Fastbak77 00:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the Smax series is different enough from Top 10 to warrant its own page. I don't think of 'Deadfellas' and 'Beyond...' as spin offs, but just further Top 10 stories.  So keeping them all on the same entry makes sense.  --emb021

 * The ABC comics are a little different than regular comics as they often have very short runs. If it was likely that would be more spin-offs in the upcoming years, then I'd say it's best left merged. However since each 'spin-off' is usually extremely different from the parent series (often featuring almost completely different characters) I feel they would be better served as separate entities (like separate films featuring the same characters). Like I said if it seemed likely there would be a slew of new titles, then I'd agree, however ABC has nearly finished for good.

 * Unlike the endless issues of Batman or Superman or X-Men, the entire ABC line is more akin to Neil Gaiman's The Sandman which has a separate page for each and every book and spin-off.
 * Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think, not unsuprisingly, that you're kinda missing the point... Look, for one thing, there's two entries for The Forty-Niners (or however the heck it's spelt), ergo the need for them to be rewritten/merged post-haste. More importantly, just because *every* Sandman spin-off has its own page, doesn't mean the ABC stuff has to. Look at the Smax page - it acts as a character profile, and details the events of his miniseries. Greyshirt should do the same (and by the way, I really resent your undermining what I did in that regard - I had to go back and fix it up again!). Put simply, Wikipedia doesn't need two entries on Greyshirt/Indigo Sunset, or three (or four!) related articles on Top 10, The Forty-Niners and Beyond the Farthest Precinct. Just put 'em all in one place & simplify things. Fastbak77 00:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * If you want to talk about RESENTMENT you should consider the fact that I've worked hard on these pages (not always logged in) only to have YOU change things around.

 * What, you think I enjoy cleaning up other people's mess? You're mad. Fastbak77 04:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * A rational argument for keeping the pages separate is that it might encourage people to add to empty pages, something they may not do if a page already looks busy from combining many items. Also, I fail to see how confusion might be garnered from having separate pages, except perhaps from the odd oversight you mentioned (which is easily corrected), it should makes things easier, if anything, for a reader. Where did you get this structure you are trying to impose, FastBak77? Is it something Wikipedia itself is trying to promote or just something you personally feel is necessary?

 * It's a bit of both, although the work that's gone on regarding The Forty Niners since I raised the issue has allayed whatever concerns I had. (That said, it still needs a cleanup.) Fastbak77 07:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest (in the friendliest possible way) that you spend more of your time adding new content and cleaning up old content (which are both the most important things that need doing at the moment) instead of re-arranging other people's work?
 * Check out my user page, Anonymous. Is answer question? Fastbak77 04:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Since it seems we've 'decided' to include the new Top 10 series in the main article, can we start updating it? Like adding the new officers (some of which I'm still not sure of their names, etc). ---emb021

Spoiler Tags
Some sections of the article, notably the officers section, do seriously need spoiler tags. (Is anyone qualified to add those? If so, where can I find the tag?) AK-17 15:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Summaries added
So, I put up summaries of the two main series. They cut out a lot of the subplots of the series, largely because that helps keep them small, and because I didn't want to give away every great minor detail of the story. Of course, if any can improve them, please do. Cybertooth85 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
I say so on the basis of comments like "that add colour to every situation", "as bizarre as the citizens might be". Article should be in NPOV, citations should be added to explain each conclusion (even if it may seem obvious that this is a "superhero" version of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). Written largely in terms of a fan's viewpoint, not an editor's. If you require more clear suggestions and help then put the article up to be peer-reviewed. Zuracech lordum 17:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a neutrality dispute; this is an editorial standards issue. Neutrality refers to personal opinions being added to an article like "this is bad" or "he's an idiot". The comments you refer to are more fact-based than you think; the whole idea is that the city of Neopolis is "bizarre" (by the very definition of the word "bizarre"). It is not "normal" or "every day", is it? Dispute removed. 82.71.7.96 23:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TopTencover1.jpg
Image:TopTencover1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TopTencover2.jpg
Image:TopTencover2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Top Ten Season Two, penned by Zander Cannon.
The intro mentions "Top Ten Season Two, penned by Zander Cannon." Could someone who knows please clarify whether that means "written by" or "inked by"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.143.170 (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Top 10 (comics)


text:
Right On

Right On may refer to:

Albums

 * Right On! (Jenny Lee Lindberg album), 2015
 * Right On (The Supremes album), 1970
 * Right On (Wilson Pickett album), 1970

Songs

 * "Right On" (song), by Lil Baby
 * "Right On", by Marvin Gaye from his album What's Going On, (1971)
 * "Right On", by Boogaloo Joe Jones from Right On Brother, 1970
 * "Right On", by Gotthard from Firebirth, 2012
 * "Right On", by Ike Turner, 1972
 * "Right On", by OMC, 1996
 * "Right On", by The Rascals from Search and Nearness, 1970
 * "Right On!", by Silicone Soul

Other uses

 * Right On (TV series), a Canadian youth television series
 * "Right On" (Beavis and Butt-head), an episode of Beavis and Butt-head
 * Right On! (magazine), an American teen magazine catering to African-American readers

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Right On


text:
Worshipful Company of Furniture Makers

The Worshipful Company of Furniture Makers referred to as The Furniture Makers' Company, is one of the Livery Companies of the City of London. The organisation was formed in 1952, and was granted Livery status by the City in 1963 being the 83rd in order of precedence. Its church is St Mary-le-Bow

The Furniture Makers' Company is the British furnishing industry's central organisation, charity and patron.

History
The Furniture Makers' Company was formed originally as a guild in 1952 before being established as the 83rd livery company of the City of London in 1963. Their charity however was established over 100 years ago as the Furnishing Trades Benevolent Association (FTBA), later known as the Furnishing Industry Trust (FIT), dedicated to helping people in the furnishing industry in times of hardship. The Furniture Makers’ Company merged with FIT in 2013.

In 2007 the company acquired the freehold of 12 Austin Friars - Furniture Makers' Hall. Austin Friar has subsequently become the name of their main publication. The Furniture Makers' Hall was built in 1882 and still has many of the original Victorian features from when it was built, as well as bespoke wood furniture and fittings, including an ornate oak staircase running through the centre of the building. The Hall was purchased outright in 2007 and has been refurbished to create a venue for membership events.

The Role of the Company
Members of the Company, liverymen and freemen, come from many disciplines and professions, but all have a common link by being currently or previously engaged in or with the furniture and furnishings industry. This gives the Company “closed” status and ensures its activities are relevant to, and supportive of, the industry.

The Company is active in three main areas - education, excellence and welfare.

In education the Company works with schools, colleges, universities and commercial training providers to offer a range of training to potential and current industry participants.

The Company’s various award schemes recognize excellence in design, innovation, and sustainable production in the industry.

The Company’s welfare initiatives support current and past employees in the furniture and furnishings industry, offering both financial aid and pastoral care.

Additionally the Company works closely with the wider Livery movement in support of the Lord Mayor and the City of London and provides a range of charitable and social events to its members.

title: Worshipful Company of Furniture Makers


text:
M21 Sniper Weapon System

The M21 Sniper Weapon System (SWS) in the US Army is a national match grade M14 rifle, selected for accuracy, and renamed the M21 rifle. The M21 uses a commercially procured 3–9× variable power telescopic sight, modified for use with the sniper rifle. It is chambered for the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge.

Overview

The use of "sharpshooters" (or snipers) can be traced in U.S. military history from the time of the Revolutionary War of 1775–1781. Every U.S. military action since that time has required the special talent of such men. From 1955 to 1956, the United States Army Marksmanship Training Unit undertook a program to "reiterate the lessons learned" from past wars. However, this program was short-lived. The prevailing military attitude then envisioned any future conflict as nuclear with defeat or victory decided in hours.

With the adoption of the M14 service rifle, no provision was made for an M14 sniper rifle, [and] the designation of a sniper in the rifle squad was discontinued. The conflict in Vietnam revived the need for snipers. Snipers became optional and no table of organization and equipment (TOE) authorized sniper organizations [units]." However, units could train and deploy snipers on a limited basis depending upon...requirements. As a result, U.S. Army snipers were trained in country in South Vietnam at Division. During the Vietnam War, U.S. Marines snipers were issued bolt-action hunting rifles, U.S. Army snipers were issued XM21 rifles.  The Rock Island Arsenal converted 1,435 National Match (target grade) M14s by adding a 3-9x Redfield Adjustable Ranging Telescope (ART) and provided National Match grade (7.62 Lake City Long Range XM-118) ammunition. The ART scope, designed by 2nd Lieutenant James Leatherwood (U.S. Army), combined rangefinding and bullet drop compensation. The innovation came just in time as the U.S. military found itself losing servicemen to Viet Cong snipers who had the home field advantage in terrain that was, to say the least, difficult.

This version, designated as the XM21, had a specially selected walnut stock and was first fielded in the second half of 1969. An improved version with a fiberglass stock was designated the M21 in 1972. The M21 remained the Army's primary sniper rifle until 1988, when it was replaced by the M24 Sniper Weapon System; some M21s were later re-issued and used in the Iraq War.

In standard military use, the M21 uses a 20-round box magazine as the other members of the M14 family and weighs 11 pounds (5.27 kg) without the scope. The U.S. military never officially authorized or purchased magazines in any other capacity, although 5- and 10-round magazines are available.

The M21 was criticized by an internal Fort Benning publication in 1989 warning that "The M21...cannot be maintained under field conditions, and its inflexible design makes it highly susceptible to malfunctions" due to the scope not being easily removable if needed and the glass bedded action that made disassembly in the field problematic.

Service
The XM21 Sniper Weapon System was issued to U.S. Army snipers during the Vietnam War, along with a commercially available sniper scope for day use, and a PVS-2 starlight scope for night operations. These men were trained at Army Division Base Camps; if a unit in country was a Brigade, Battalion, or smaller, and that unit requested snipers for their units, the requesting unit could send their sniper applicant to the next closest Division, such as Camp Eagle, 101st (Airmobile) Airborne Division, if that requesting unit was located in I Corps (Military Region 1), Republic of South Vietnam. The newly designated M21 saw limited actions during military operations after the Vietnam War ended in 1975. It was used by the U.S. Army Rangers during the Invasion of Grenada in 1983. There are limited numbers in some Army National Guard units and in a few specialized active units such as the OPFOR units of the Joint Readiness Training Center.

The XM21 served from 1969 to 1975, and the M21 officially served as the main Army sniper rifle from 1975 to 1988 until the introduction of the M24, which had supplanted the M21 in Ranger Battalions by 1990. However, many M14 and M21 variants came back into favor in the Iraq and Afghan wars in the 2000s.

Users

 * 🇸🇻 El Salvador
 * 🇮🇱 Israel
 * 🇵🇭 Philippines Philippine Army - Standard issue sniper rifle for regular infantry units. Being refurbished by Government Arsenal, while replacing key parts including installing new optics.
 * 🇹🇳 Tunisia
 * 🇺🇸 United States: Former primary sniper rifle of United States Army; replaced as a sniper rifle by the M24 Sniper Weapon System in 1988 with limited usage in other roles persisting throughout the Global War on Terror.

Former

 * 🇵🇦 Panama: Formerly used by the defunct Panama Defense Forces

title: M21 Sniper Weapon System


text:
Long rifle

The long rifle, also known as the Kentucky rifle, Pennsylvania rifle, or American long rifle, is a muzzle-loading firearm used for hunting and warfare. It was one of the first commonly-used rifles. The American rifle was characterized by a very long barrel of relatively small caliber, uncommon in European rifles of the period.

The long rifle is an early example of a firearm using rifling (spiral grooves in the bore), which caused the projectile, commonly a round lead ball in the early firearm, to spin around the axis of its motion. This increased the stability of its trajectory and dramatically improved accuracy over contemporary smooth-bore muskets, which were cheaper and more common. Rifled firearms were first used in major combat in the American colonies in the eighteenth century during the French and Indian War, and later the American Revolution, with increasing use in the War of 1812, Texan Revolution, and American Civil War.

The main disadvantages of muzzle-loading rifles compared to muskets were higher cost, a slower reload time due to the use of a tighter-fitting lead ball, and greater susceptibility to fouling of the bore after prolonged use, which would ultimately prevent loading and make the weapon useless until cleaned. The invention of the Minié ball in 1847 resolved the technical disadvantages and allowed the rifle to replace the musket.

The long rifle was made popular by German gunsmiths who immigrated to America, bringing with them the technology of rifling from where it originated. The accuracy achieved by the long rifle made it an ideal tool for hunting wildlife for food.

Origins
"From a flat bar of soft iron, hand forged into a gun barrel; laboriously bored and rifled with crude tools; fitted with a stock hewn from a maple tree in the neighboring forest; and supplied with a lock hammered to shape on the anvil; an unknown smith, in a shop long since silent, fashioned a rifle which changed the whole course of world history; made possible the settlement of a continent; and ultimately freed our country of foreign domination.

Light in weight; graceful in line; economical in consumption of powder and lead; fatally precise; distinctly American; it sprang into immediate popularity; and for a hundred years was a model often slightly varied but never radically changed."

- Captain John G. W. Dillin

The long rifle was developed on the American frontier in southeastern Pennsylvania, in the early 1700s. It continued to be developed technically and artistically until it passed out of fashion in the 19th century. The long rifle was the product of German gunsmiths who immigrated to new settlements in southeastern Pennsylvania in the early 1700s, and later in Virginia and other territories, reproducing early Jäger rifles (meaning "hunter" and sometimes anglicized Jaeger), which were used for hunting in Germany in the 17th and early 18th century. Tax records from these locales indicate the dates these gunsmiths were in business. Strong pockets of long rifle use and manufacture continued in the Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina well into the 20th century as a practical and efficient firearm for those rural segments of the nation. Long rifles could be made entirely by hand and hand-operated tooling, in a frontier setting.

Initially, the long firearm of choice on the frontier was the smoothbore musket, or trade gun, built in factories in England and France and shipped to the colonies for purchase. Gradually, long rifles became more popular due to their longer effective range. While the smooth bore musket had an effective range of less than 100 yards, a rifleman could hit a man-sized target at a range of 200 yards or more. The price for this accuracy was that the long rifle took significantly longer to reload than the approximately 20 seconds of the musket.

In Pennsylvania, the earliest gunsmiths that can be documented are Robert Baker and the Martin Meylins, father and son. Robert Baker formed a partnership with his son Caleb, and on August 15, 1719, erected a gun boring mill on Pequea Creek. In the tax records of Berks County, Pennsylvania, there were several gunsmiths plying their trade along the banks of the Wyomissing Creek.

Martin Meylin's Gunshop was built in 1719, and it is here that the Mennonite gunsmiths of Swiss-German heritage crafted some of the earliest, and possibly the first, Pennsylvania Rifles. No rifle signed by Martin Meylin has been found; although two have been attributed to him, one in the Lancaster Historical Society has been found to be a European musket of a later date, and one with a date of 1705 is a forgery, as the Meylins arrived in America in 1710. The Martin Meylin Gunshop still stands today in Willow Street, Pennsylvania, on Long Rifle Road. An archaeological dig performed in 2005 by Millersville University around the so-called Meylin gunshop found thousands of artifacts, but only for blacksmithing, with no evidence of gun-making. The Lancaster County Historical Society has an original Pennsylvania Long Rifle thought to have been smithed by Meylin that was passed down within the family for seven generations, then donated to the society in the middle of the twentieth century. It was analyzed and the barrel removed during the Lancaster Long Rifle Exhibit at Landis Valley Farm Museum, Lancaster, Pennsylvania in 2005. The barrel was found to be European, and the stock dated from later than 1710-1750. The initials on the barrel, "MM", were found to have been added later than any other part of the gun, so it could not have been made by either Martin Meylin.

Some historians have written that the role of Martin Meylin as one of the earliest gunsmiths in Lancaster is not clear. The argument is that the will of Martin Meylin Sr. makes no mention of gunsmith items, while the will of Martin Meylin Jr. is replete with them, so that the reference to Meylin as a gunsmith is more properly placed on the son. In any case, no rifle has been found to be positively attributed to any Meylin.

There is documentation stating that the first high-quality long rifles were from a gunsmith named Jacob Dickert, who moved with his family from Germany to Berks County, Pennsylvania in 1740. The name 'Dickert Rifle' was considered a 'brand name' and the name 'Kentucky rifle' was not coined until much later in history (circa 1820s) and became the "nickname" of this rifle. This is primarily because Dickert made rifles for the Continental Army, and later had a contract dated 1792 to furnish rifles to the United States Army. The rifle is sometimes referred to as the "Deckard / Deckhard" rifle, as descendants of Jacob Dickert used these variations, as shown by census documents, marriage, and death certificates. Nearly all descendants of Jacob Dickert go by the surname "Deckard", and mostly live in Indiana and Missouri.

Among documented working rifle makers are Adam Haymaker, who had a thriving trade in the northern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, the Moravian gunshops at Christian's Spring in Pennsylvania, John Frederick Klette of Stevensburg, Virginia, and in the Salem area of North Carolina. All three areas were busy and productive centers of rifle making by the 1750s. Another prominent rifle maker was Isaac Haines of the Lancaster school, known for the elaborate Rococo woodcarving decorations on his rifles, who was taxed as a gunsmith in Lampeter Twp., Lancaster Co., from 1772 to 1792. The Great Wagon Road was a bustling frontier thoroughfare, and rifle shops traced this same route, from eastern Pennsylvania, down the Shenandoah Valley,and spilling into both the Cumberland Gap into Kentucky and the Yadkin River (Salem) area of North Carolina.

The settlers of western Virginia (Kentucky), Tennessee, and North Carolina soon gained a reputation for hardy independence and rifle marksmanship as a way of life, further reinforced by the performance of riflemen in the American Revolution, especially Morgan's Riflemen, who were pivotal in the Battles of Saratoga and Cowpens, as well as the War of 1812. In that war, the long rifle gained its nickname "Kentucky Rifle", after a popular song "The Hunters of Kentucky," about Andrew Jackson and his victory at the Battle of New Orleans. The long rifle also was used by the Texans in their War for Independence from Mexico.

The reason for the long rifle's characteristic long barrel is a matter of adaptation to the new world by the German immigrant gunsmiths. The German gunsmiths working in America were very familiar with German rifles, which seldom had barrels longer than 30 in., and were large-caliber rifles using large amounts of lead. Hunters in the vast and sparsely populated new world forests had to carry more of their supplies with them. The smaller caliber required less heavy lead per shot, reducing the weight they had to carry; the longer barrel gave the black powder more time to burn, increasing the muzzle velocity and accuracy. A rule of thumb used by some gunsmiths was to make the rifle no longer than the height of a customer's chin because of the necessity of seeing the muzzle while loading. The longer barrel also allowed finer sighting. By the 1750s it was common to see frontiersmen carrying the new and distinctive style of rifle.

Evolution

In 1792 the US Army began to modify the long rifle, shortening the barrel length to 42 inches in their 1792 contract rifle. The Lewis and Clark expedition carried an even shorter 33-36 inch barrelled rifle, similar to the Harpers Ferry Model 1803 which began production six months after Lewis visited the arsenal. The Model 1803 resembles what became the 'plains rifle'.

The "plains rifle" or "Hawken rifle" was a shorter rifle more suitable for carrying on horseback. It was popular among mountain men and North American fur trappers in the 19th century. The Hawken brothers (Samuel and Jacob) were one of a number of famous gunsmiths active in St. Louis in the 1830s-1860s. Many renowned gunsmiths such as Horace (H.E.) Dimick and J. P. Gemmer produced powerful and portable "short" rifles for the Rocky Mountain fur trade, overland exploration, and the transcontinental immigrant trains. The plains rifle combined accuracy with portability in a more compact package than the extreme long guns from which it had evolved. The Hawken rifle evolved from the long rifle for use against larger, more dangerous game encountered in the American West. For firing heavier and larger diameter bullets with heavier powder loads, the barrel wall thickness was necessarily increased for strength, and the barrel of the Hawken was shortened to keep the weight manageable, making the rifle heavier and less slim than the long rifle. However, many plains rifles were bored around the smaller .40 calibre range for medium-game hunting.

Characteristics
Artistically, the long rifle is known for its graceful stock, often made of curly maple, and its ornate decoration, decorative inlays, and an integral, well-made patch box that was built into the stock. The decorative arts of furniture making, painting, silver smithing, gunsmithing, etc. all took their style cues from the prevailing trends of the day, and as in most things the fashion was set in Paris. Baroque and later rococo motifs found their way into all the decorative arts, and can be seen in the acanthus leaf scroll work so common on 18th century furniture and silver.

Originally rather plain, by the 1770s every surface of the rifle could have applied artwork. An accomplished gunsmith had to be a skilled blacksmith, whitesmith, wood carver, brass and silver founder, engraver, and wood finisher. European shops at the time had significant specialization of the trades, leading to separate tradesmen building different parts of each rifle. The American frontier had no such luxury, and quite often a single gunmaker would make the entire rifle, a process almost unheard of in 18th-century trade practice. The flintlock action, with its spring mechanism, and single-action trigger, though, was often purchased in bulk from England by gunsmiths, and then fabricated with skill into an elaborate rifle. Early locks were imported, but domestic manufacturing of locks increased in America among the more skilled gunsmiths in later years.

To conserve lead on the frontier, smaller calibers were often preferred, ranging often from about .32 to .45 cal. As a rifle's bore increased with use due to wear and corrosion from firing black powder, it was not uncommon to see rifles re-bored and re-rifled to larger calibers to maintain accuracy. Many copies of historical long rifles are seen with a bore of around .50 caliber.

The long rifle is said by modern experts to have a range of 80 to 100 yards for the average user. An expert shooter can extend the median range of the long rifle to 200-300 yards.

Although less commonly owned or seen on the frontier, the long rifle style was also used on flintlock pistols during the same era. These pistols were often matched in caliber to a long rifle owned by the same user, to enable firing a common-sized and common-patched round lead ball. With the same graceful stock lines and barrel style, and craftsmanship, they were noticeably slimmer and had a longer rifled barrel with better sights than had been seen on the earlier Colonial style flintlock pistols. Dueling pistol sets in the long rifle style were also made, sometimes in a cased set, for wealthy gentlemen.

Decline and rebirth
By the 20th century, there was little traditional long rifle making left except in isolated pockets in the Appalachian mountains. Popular interest in shooting as a sport as well as the sesquicentennial of the United States' independence from Britain in 1925-33 spurred interest in the origins of the long rifle. This renewed interest was described in the 1924 book by Capt. John G.W. Dillin The Kentucky Rifle. Early 20th century pioneers of long rifle culture were Walter Cline, Horace Kephart, Ned Roberts, Red Farris, Hacker Martin, Bill Large, Jack Weichold, Ben Hawkins, D.C. Addicks, L.M. Wolf, Dave Taylor, Win Woods, and Alvin Wagner.

Many men throughout the remainder of the 20th century worked to expand the knowledge of the long rifle and how to recreate it in the 18th and 19th century manner. In 1965, Wallace Gusler, as the first master of the Gunsmith shop in Colonial Williamsburg, was the first to recreate a long rifle in modern times using 18th-century tools and techniques. The 1968 film "Gunsmith of Williamsburg" documented the production of his second, all handmade, long rifle. By 2003, makers trained at the Gunsmith Shop in Colonial Williamsburg and others produced an all-handmade rifles. In addition to his influence in his popular series of articles for Rifle Magazine and his involvement with the Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts (MESDA), John Bivins trained the recognized gunmakers Jim Chambers and Mark Silver.

In 1996, the Contemporary Longrifle Association (CLA) was founded for people hand-making recreations of long rifles and associated arms and crafts of pre-1840 America. Later, internet forums about building traditional muzzleloading arms grew to over 3,000 members by 2010.

In popular culture

 * The 1955 western Kentucky Rifle gravitates around a trail wagon containing one hundred long rifles. The gun, which is actually the main star of that movie, is displayed under every angle and is even the object of lyric descriptive monologues by veteran actor Chill Wills.
 * On the show Antiques Roadshow an 1810 Kentucky rifle was appraised at $20,000.
 * The 1826 novel by James Fenimore Cooper The Last of the Mohicans (and the films based on it) features a long rifle-wielding character, Nathan Hawkeye (played in the 1992 film by Daniel Day-Lewis), who is nicknamed by the allies of the French army as La Longue Carabine ("Long rifle").
 * The Kentucky long rifle was featured in the fifth episode of History Channel's reality television show Top Shot.
 * The rifle was used by George Washington's forces in the first episode of the third season Deadliest Warrior.
 * Leonardo DiCaprio portrays Hugh Glass in the film The Revenant and uses a Bucks County long rifle built by modern American gunmaker Ron Luckenbill until it is stolen by Hugh's nemesis Fitzgerald.
 * The rifle makes an appearance in Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition as a technology unique to the United States' selection of Shipment Cards. Sending Long Rifles in the Commerce Age enhances the ranges at which Marines, State Militia, the game's representation of the United States Volunteers, and Minutemen both detect and attack enemy soldiers.

title: Long rifle


text:
Semi-automatic firearm

A semi-automatic firearm, also called a self-loading or autoloading firearm (fully automatic and selective fire firearms are also variations on self-loading firearms), is a repeating firearm whose action mechanism automatically loads a following round of cartridge into the chamber and prepares it for subsequent firing, but requires the shooter to manually actuate the trigger in order to discharge each shot. Typically, this involves the weapon's action utilizing the excess energy released during the preceding shot (in the form of recoil or high-pressure gas expanding within the bore) to unlock and move the bolt, extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber, all without input from the user. To fire again, however, the user must actively release the trigger, and allow it to "reset", before pulling the trigger again to fire off the next round. As a result, each trigger pull only discharges a single round from a semi-automatic weapon, as opposed to a fully automatic weapon, which will shoot continuously as long as the ammunition is replete and the trigger is kept depressed.

Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher produced the first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle in 1885, and by the early 20th century, many manufacturers had introduced semi-automatic shotguns, rifles and pistols.

In military use, the semi-automatic M1911 handgun was adopted by the United States Army in 1911, and subsequently by many other nations. Semi-automatic rifles did not see widespread military adoption until just prior to World War II, the M1 Garand being a notable example. Modern service rifles such as the M4 carbine are often selective-fire, capable of semi-automatic and automatic or burst-fire operation. Civilian variants such as the AR-15 are generally semi-automatic only.

Early history (1885–1945)
The first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle is attributed to Austria-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher, who unveiled the design in 1885. The Model 85 was followed by the equally innovative Mannlicher Models 91, 93 and 95 semi-automatic rifles. Although Mannlicher earned his reputation with his bolt-action rifle designs, he also produced a few semi-automatic pistols, including the Steyr Mannlicher M1894, which employed an unusual blow-forward action and held five rounds of 6.5mm ammunition that were fed into the M1894 by a stripper clip.

Semi-automatic shotgun

In 1902, American gunsmith John Moses Browning developed the first successful semi-automatic shotgun, the Browning Auto-5, which was first manufactured by Fabrique Nationale de Herstal and sold in America under the Browning name. The Auto-5 relied on long recoil operation; this design remained the dominant form in semi-automatic shotguns for approximately 50 years. Production of the Auto-5 ended in 1998.

Blowback semi-automatic
In 1903 and 1905, the Winchester Repeating Arms Company introduced the first semi-automatic rimfire and centerfire rifles designed especially for the civilian market. The Winchester Model 1903 and Winchester Model 1905 operated on the principle of blowback in order to function semi-automatically. Designed entirely by T. C. Johnson, the Model 1903 achieved commercial success and continued to be manufactured until 1932 when the Winchester Model 63 replaced it.

By the early 20th century, several manufacturers had introduced semi-automatic .22 sporting rifles, including Winchester, Remington, Fabrique Nationale and Savage Arms, all using the direct blow-back system of operation. Winchester introduced a medium caliber semi-automatic sporting rifle, the Model 1907 as an upgrade to the Model 1905, utilizing a blowback system of operation, in calibers such as .351 Winchester. Both the Models of 1905 and 1907 saw limited military and police use.

Notable early semi-automatic rifles
In 1906, Remington Arms introduced the Remington Auto-loading Repeating Rifle. Remington advertised this rifle, renamed the "Model 8" in 1911, as a sporting rifle. This is a locked-breech, long recoil action designed by John Browning. The rifle was offered in .25, .30, .32, and .35 caliber models, and gained popularity among civilians as well as some law enforcement officials who appreciated the combination of a semi-automatic action and relatively powerful rifle cartridges. The Model 81 superseded the Model 8 in 1936 and was offered in .300 Savage as well as the original Remington calibers.

The first semi-automatic rifle adopted and widely issued by a major military power (France) was the Fusil Automatique Modele 1917. This is a locked-breech, gas-operated action that is very similar in its mechanical principles to the future M1 Garand in the United States. The M1917 was fielded during the latter stages of World War I but it did not receive a favorable reception. However, its shortened and improved version, the Model 1918, was much more favourably received during the Moroccan Rif War from 1920 to 1926. The Lebel bolt-action rifle remained the standard French infantry rifle until replaced in 1936 by the MAS-36 despite the various semi-automatic rifles designed between 1918 and 1935.

Other nations experimented with self-loading rifles between the two World Wars, including the United Kingdom, which had intended to replace the bolt-action Lee–Enfield with a self-loader, possibly chambered for sub-caliber ammunition, but discarded that plan as the imminence of the Second World War and the emphasis shifted from replacing every rifle with a new design to speeding-up re-armament with existing weapons. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany would both issue successful self-loading and selective-fire rifles on a large scale during the course of the war, but not in sufficient numbers to replace their standard bolt-action rifles.

Notable gas-operated rifles

In 1937, the American M1 Garand was the first semi-automatic rifle to replace its nation's bolt-action rifle as the standard-issue infantry weapon. The gas-operated M1 Garand was developed by Canadian-born John Garand for the U.S. government at the Springfield Armory in Springfield, Massachusetts. After years of research and testing, the first production model of the M1 Garand was unveiled in 1937. During World War II, the M1 Garand gave American infantrymen an advantage over their opponents, most of whom were issued slower firing bolt-action rifles.

The Soviet AVS-36, SVT-38 and SVT-40 (originally intended to replace the Mosin-Nagant as their standard service rifle), as well as the German Gewehr 43, were semi-automatic gas-operated rifles issued during World War II. In practice, they did not replace the bolt-action rifle as a standard infantry weapon.

Another gas-operated semi-automatic rifle developed toward the end of World War II was the SKS. Designed by Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov in 1945, it came equipped with a bayonet and could be loaded with ten rounds, using a stripper clip. However, the SKS was quickly replaced by the AK-47, produced at around the same time, but with a 30-round magazine, and select fire capability. The SKS was the first widely issued weapon to use the 7.62×39mm cartridge.

Types

There are semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns designed and made as semi-automatic only. Selective-fire firearms are capable of both full automatic and semi-automatic modes.

Semi-automatic refers to a firearm that uses the force of recoil or gas to eject the empty case and load a fresh cartridge into the firing chamber for the next shot and which allows repeat shots solely through the action of pulling the trigger. A double-action revolver also requires only a trigger pull for each round that is fired but is not considered semi-automatic since the manual action of pulling the trigger is what advances the cylinder, not the energy of the preceding shot.

Fully automatic compared to semi-automatic

The usage of the term automatic may vary according to context. Gun specialists point out that the word automatic is sometimes misunderstood to mean fully automatic fire when used to refer to a self-loading, semi-automatic firearm not capable of fully automatic fire. In this case, automatic refers to the loading mechanism, not the firing capability. To avoid confusion, it is common to refer to such firearms as an "autoloader" in reference to their loading mechanism.

The term "automatic pistol" almost exclusively refers to a semi-automatic (i.e. not fully automatic) pistol (fully automatic pistols are usually referred to as machine pistols). With handguns, the term "automatic" is commonly used to distinguish semi-automatic pistols from revolvers. The term "auto-loader" may also be used to describe a semi-automatic handgun. However, to avoid confusion, the term "automatic rifle" is generally, conventionally, and best restricted to a rifle capable of fully automatic fire. Both uses of the term "automatic" can be found; the exact meaning must be determined from context.

Auto-loading
The mechanism of semi-automatic (or autoloading) firearms is usually what is known as a closed-bolt firing system. In a closed-bolt system, a round must first be chambered manually before the weapon can fire. When the trigger is pulled, only the hammer and firing pin move, striking and firing the cartridge. The bolt then recoils far enough rearward to extract and load a new cartridge from the magazine into the firearm's chamber, ready to fire again once the trigger is pulled.

An open-bolt mechanism is a common characteristic of fully automatic firearms. With this system, pulling the trigger releases the bolt from a cocked, rearward position, pushing a cartridge from the magazine into the chamber, firing the gun. The bolt retracts to the rearward position, ready to strip the next cartridge from the magazine. The open-bolt system is often used in submachine guns and other weapons with a high rate of fire. It is rarely used in semi-automatic-only firearms, which can fire only one shot with each pull of the trigger. The closed-bolt system is generally more accurate, as the centre of gravity changes relatively little at the moment the trigger is pulled.

With fully automatic weapons, the open-bolt operation allows air to circulate, cooling the barrel. With semi-automatic firearms, the closed-bolt operation is preferred, as overheating is not as critical, and accuracy is preferred. Some select-fire military weapons use an open bolt in fully automatic mode and a closed bolt when semi-automatic is selected.

Legal status
Many jurisdictions regulate some or all semi-automatic firearms differently than other types.

Various types of semi-automatic weapons were restricted for civilian use in New Zealand after the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings, in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre, in Norway after the 2011 Utøya shooting. In the United States, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited semi-automatic weapons with certain additional characteristics, from 1994 to 2004. As of 2023, several U.S. states still restrict similar types of semi-automatic weapons.

Examples
• Borchardt C-93

• Dragunov (SVD-63) sniper rifle

• Fusil Automatique Modele 1917

• Gewehr 43

• CZ-75

• Glock 17

• L1A1 SLR

• Luger pistol

• M1 Carbine

• M1 Garand

• M1911 pistol

• MAS-49 rifle

• Meunier rifle

• Mondragón rifle

• SKS

• Smith & Wesson M&P15-22

• SVT-40

• TEC-9

title: Semi-automatic firearm


text:
Tabaré Vázquez

Tabaré Ramón Vázquez Rosas (17 January 1940 –6 December 2020) was a Uruguayan politician and oncologist who served as the 39th and 41st President of Uruguay from 2005 to 2010 and from 2015 to 2020. During his political career, Vázquez was a member of the Broad Front coalition. Before his first presidential term, Vázquez was president of the Club Progreso team and made two unsuccessful presidential bids in 1994 and 1999. He served as Intendant of Montevideo between 1990 and 1994 shortly before his first presidential campaign.

Vázquez was first elected president on 31 October 2004 and took office on 1 March 2005. He was the first socialist president of the country. His first presidency was remembered for his diplomatic relationships with Brazil and Argentina while being criticized by his party over his anti-abortion views. After leaving the presidency in 2010, Vázquez successfully ran for a second term in 2014. After leaving office for a second time in March 2020, he later died of lung cancer in December of that year at the age of 80.

Early life
Vázquez was born in the neighbourhood of La Teja, Montevideo on 17 January 1940, the fourth child of Héctor Vázquez, a worker of ANCAP, and Elena Rosas. He had Galician ancestry; his grandparents were originally from Ourense and Santiago de Compostela. He studied medicine at the Universidad de la República Medical School, graduating as an oncologist in 1972. In 1976, he received a grant from the French government, allowing him to obtain additional training at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Paris.

Early career and Intendant of Montevideo
Vázquez, an avid football fan, was president of the Club Progreso team from 1979 to 1989.

From 1990 to 1995, Vázquez was the Frente Amplio coalition's first Intendant of Montevideo. In that post, he carried out the functions of both the mayor of the city and governor of the department.

In 1994, he made an unsuccessful run for president as the Frente Amplio candidate. He actually finished with the most votes of the candidates in the field, more than 120,000 votes ahead of the next-highest vote-getter, former president Julio Maria Sanguinetti of the Colorado Party. However, under the multi-candidate Ley de Lemas system then in effect, Sanguinetti won the election, since he was the highest-finishing candidate of the party winning the most votes. Still, Vázquez turned in the best showing of a third-party candidate since the restoration of the presidential system in 1967; he only had 12,100 fewer votes than the combined vote of the second-place National Party.

In 1996, he was elected leader of the Frente Amplio, replacing the historic leader of the left-wing coalition, Líber Seregni. He ran again unsuccessfully for president in 1999. In the first election held after Uruguay scrapped the Ley de Lemas system, he led the field in the first round, with 40.1 percent of the vote. He lost to Colorado candidate Jorge Batlle, taking 45.9 percent of the vote.

First presidency of Uruguay (2005–2010)
In the 2004 elections, he won 50.45% of the valid votes, enough to win the presidency in a single round. He became the country's first president from a left-wing party, and thus the first one since the 1830s who was not a member of the National (Blanco) or Colorado parties. He also had the support of the President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, likewise a centre-left democratic socialist.

Among the most complex issues that dominated his administration was an ongoing conflict with Argentina over potential contamination from pulp mills being built on the Uruguayan side of the Uruguay River. He even asked Bush for help in the event of an armed conflict with Argentina.

Vázquez was the first President of Uruguay to visit New Zealand and South Korea, and he established contacts with other countries in Southeast Asia. While he maintained cordial relations with the United States, hosting U.S. President George W. Bush, Vázquez did not sign Bush's failed Free Trade Area of the Americas.

This visit attracted a measure of censure from the opposition, from Pedro Bordaberry and others, who were critical of Vázquez for having chosen to be in Cuba during a commemoration – which Vázquez himself initiated – for the victims of the 1973–1985 dictatorship; Bordaberry's father, Juan María Bordaberry, established the dictatorship with a 1973 decree dissolving Congress.

In 2007 the loading of Iranian arms onto a Uruguayan Navy vessel visiting Venezuela, in contravention of a UN-sponsored arms embargo, provoked international comment. The domestic controversy regarding this event was centred on protests against Vázquez's Government by the opposition National Party.

In June 2008 President Vázquez visited Cuba. While in Cuba, Vázquez and the Presidential party engaged in a number of high-profile events, including a summit with President Raúl Castro.

In June 2009 President Vázquez, who had been courting diplomatically the Bolivian President Evo Morales, announced his support for the delisting of coca leaves from the category of a "dangerous drug".

In February 2010 the Vázquez Government was cooperating with an investigation to explain how two Northrop F-5E jet engines valued at many millions of U.S. dollars had surfaced in Uruguay.

Tabaré Vázquez and his government have pursued a centre-left economic policy. Between 2005 and 2008, the minimum wage rose from 1,350 pesos to 4,150 pesos ($70 to $200), while poverty fell from 30.9 per cent to 12.7 per cent of the population and unemployment from 11.3 per cent to 7 per cent.

Popularity
According to an Equipos/MORI opinion poll his approval had fallen to 44% by April 2007, a level below the electoral support he received in the 2004 elections. His approval later recovered, however, reaching 80% by his last term in office.

In October 2006, President Vázquez was still personally more popular than his government with a 62% approval rating. However, a considerable drop in the government's popularity was registered by an Equipos/MORI poll in late April 2007, showing that 44% of Uruguayans approved of his administration. A new poll by Factum showed a 57% approval by June 2008, however, indicating a significant recovery from a year earlier.

2009 presidential election
The Constitution of Uruguay does not allow presidents to run for immediate reelection. With this in mind, in January 2008, members of the ruling coalition made proposals to amend the document in order to allow Vázquez to run again in 2009, however Vázquez ruled out a 2009 run. José Mujica was elected in November 2009 as president and Vázquez was offered to resume the presidency of the Frente Amplio but he declined. Vázquez went on to be the Frente Amplio candidate for presidency in 2014.

On 4 December 2008, Vázquez resigned his leadership posts at the Socialist Party due to controversy over his opposition to abortion rights.

Second presidency of Uruguay (2015–2020)
In February 2010, a poll showed that he would finish the term ended on 1 March 2010 with an historic 61% of the approval. Vázquez finally left office with an 80% approval rating. He formally accepted his candidacy for the 2014 election in February 2013.

Renominated by the Broad Front for the presidency with running mate Raúl Fernando Sendic on 1 June, he came up just a few thousand votes short of winning the presidency outright in 26 October election. He was returned to office in the 30 November runoff, defeating right-wing candidate Luis Lacalle Pou of the National Party by 53% to 41% in the second round. Vázquez took office on 1 March 2015, succeeding José Mujica.

After assuming the position, he also became the President pro tempore of UNASUR until 23 April 2016, as he succeeded at the same time José Mujica who was holding the presidency of this international organization.

On 9 September 2017, his running mate and Vice President Raúl Fernando Sendic resigned after he was accused allegedly of misusing public funds while heading state oil company Ancap. Sendic's bad image began with a scandal over his non-existent degree in Human Genetics in 2016, and deeply damaged the image of Vázquez and his government which already suffered from historically low approval.

Personal life and death

Vázquez married María Auxiliadora Delgado on 23 October 1964 in the Montevideo parish of Los Vascos. She died of a heart attack on 31 July 2019. They had three biological children together and an adopted son.

On 20 August 2019, President Vázquez revealed that he suffered from a lung nodule with malignant appearance. Nevertheless, he announced his intention of finishing his presidential term on 1 March 2020 as planned. At mid-November, it was confirmed by authorities of the Public Health Ministry that his lung cancer was cured. On 27 November 2020, the rumor spread of his worsening state of health and a Republica journalist announced that his cancer had metastasized to the pancreas. That day, his son reported that his father was in home hospitalization after suffering an acute thrombosis in his left leg, but was recovering.

He died of his lung cancer in Montevideo on 6 December 2020, at age 80. President Luis Lacalle Pou declared three days of national mourning following his death and said that Uruguay "lost a prominent scientist and a citizen defender of human rights". His funeral was held in "intimacy" due to the COVID-19 pandemic and he was buried at Cementerio de La Teja in Montevideo alongside his wife. During the funeral procession, thousands of people took to the streets to see him off to applause and cheers. The night before a national applause was called from the balconies.

WHO recognition
Vázquez was awarded the World Health Organization Director-General's Award in 2006 in recognition of his leadership on tobacco control in Uruguay, which has implemented some of the most stringent tobacco control measures in the world.

title: Tabaré Vázquez


text:
Overland

Overland or Øverland or variants may refer to:

Places

 * Overland, Missouri, a city in the United States
 * Overland Park, Kansas, a city in the United States
 * Overland Corner, South Australia, a settlement in Australia
 * Overland Lake (Nevada), a glacial lake in the United States
 * Øverland, Bærum, an area in Norway

People

 * Øverland (surname), a Norwegian surname
 * Amanda Overland (born 1981), Canadian short track speed skater
 * Kevin Overland (born 1974), Canadian speedskater
 * Simon Overland (born 1962), Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police (Australia) since March 2009
 * Steve Overland, British singer and musician
 * Volkert Overlander (1570–1630), Dutch noble and merchant

Transport

 * Overland Trail, stagecoach line
 * Overland train, oversized off-road vehicle
 * Overland Track, Australian hiking trail

Companies

 * Overland Automobile, the original name of the American company Willys-Overland
 * Overland Custom Coach, Canadian custom vehicle manufacturer
 * Overland Airways, Nigerian airline

Trains

 * The Overland Limited, a named train that traversed the United States along the original route of the first transcontinental railroad
 * The Overland, the name used since 1926 for the inter-capital passenger train service that runs between Melbourne and Adelaide in Australia
 * The Overlander, a former train service that ran between Auckland and Wellington, New Zealand
 * The Overland Flyer, one of the named passenger trains of the Union Pacific Railroad

Events

 * Overland Campaign, U.S. Civil War campaign
 * Overland (Italian expedition), a series of expeditions and documentaries
 * Overland Relief Expedition, whaler rescue operation
 * The Oxford and Cambridge Far Eastern Expedition, a 1955-6 journey undertaken in two Land Rovers from London to Singapore

Entertainment

 * Land and Overland fictional universe
 * Overland (magazine), an Australian literary and cultural magazine
 * Overland Monthly, a defunct U.S. magazine
 * Overland with Kit Carson, a Western film serial from the United States
 * Overland (video game), a strategy video game

Other

 * Overland Storage, a robotic tape library manufacturer, formerly known as Overland Data
 * Overland Telegraph Company, U.S. telegraph company
 * Overland High School in Aurora, Colorado
 * Overland, American clothing brand

title: Overland


text:
Talk:Pareto efficiency

'Corollary'
I removed the text:
 * A corollary of a Pareto efficient economy that is desirable is that all workers make the same wage and all firms operate with the same profit margins.

I tend to think that this is value judgement. If the writer meant this in general, then they are saying that a coal miner (a dangerous, dirty job) should recieve the same wage as a librarian in a small town. Since the jobs are different, having the same wage would be unfair. Even Twin Oaks provides slightly different benefits to workers who do different jobs. Profit margins in industries are also likely to be different for reasons such as different risk and different capital startup costs. I have no objection to the idea in general that equality is good, but I would hesitate to call it a corollary, and inso much as it is mentioned in an article on Pareto efficientcy, it should probably be mentioned that it is trying for a different idea. Jrincayc 16:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reply by 69.107.96.61 5 Jan 2005. Hi Mr. Jrincayc. I am not a professional economist (like you?) but I believe that the corollary is not a value judgement but in fact a consequence of a pareto efficient economy (one that is at the boundary of the production possibility curve). This I recall from memory, years ago, from my Econ 101 class. I could be mistaken, but I think that once you reach the boundary, by definition all wage differentials, at the margin, will equal zero. That is, suppose that a wage differential exists for rocket scientists. A bunch of people will 'retool' and become rocket scientists, which will drive down the wage differential to zero. (In fact, in the aerospace industry, that's exactly what happened! Too many smart people in aeronautics, that's why I switched majors and became a lawyer). So, in a 'steady-state', long-term, quisscent 'Pareto optimal' economy, everybody makes the same amount of money (kinda like Communism and Sweden, but different). Anyhoo, I could be mistaken so I will let your revision stand. PS--I see we share some similar interests: IP and programming. Try C#.NET for a cool, easy to learn OOP language.--Cheers, User:69.107.96.61

 * Well, assuming that everyone was alike, there would still be differences in the amount that different jobs payed since the jobs themselves are different. A dangerous, dirty job that required lots of education would pay better than an safe easy job that required no education because if the jobs payed the same, then a person in the hard job would switch to the easy job.  What would happen if everyone was the same is that the wages would hit a point so that people would be indifferent between the jobs, because the wage difference would exactly compensate for the differences in danger, effort and education...  So the benefit of each job would be the same, but the monetary wage would be different.  Since people are different, not even this happens completely, but there are effects to even out the overall benefits of different jobs.  Jrincayc 13:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Not to beat a dead horse, but I think confusion is with transient versus steady-state effects. "You" are thinking more transient, while "I" am thinking equilibrium (end-point) steady state.  At the "steady state" time is infinity, so while people are different, and some jobs take more time to learn, and are more dangerous than others, and should and do initially yield more than safe, easy to learn jobs, at the limit (t = infinity) the wage differential goes to zero regardless of the job (so crab fisherman in Alaska, the world's most dangerous job next to conflict diamond mining in Angola, make the same as a desk receptionist in Peoria).  Of course in the 'real world' this would never happen, but keep in mind Pareto optimal is a mathematical construct, not necessarily a real-world event (kinda like Adam Smith's 'perfect competition' where nobody has market power).  Another corollary of Pareto optimal efficiency, as I recall, was that all investments and all corporations returned and earned an equal amount of money.  The same principle applied:  risky investment prices were 'bid up' by eager investors, until the return was the same as what the bank gives you.  In fact, in a book called "Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns" by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh, Mike Staunton (good book if you can find a copy), it has been shown, on rather sketchy data, that in fact over the last 100 years, world wide, risky investments yielded about the same as riskless investments (I can relate to that--since the mid 90s my investments are running at about 3% a year compounded!  Dang dot-com crash!).  But let's agree to disagree on this one.  For one thing, I support Wikipedia (have given money to them) but I think long-term it is best to keep the explanation of topics simple, for high-school kids and for quick rough outlines of topics rather than get into grad level discourse, which tends to confuse in an abbreviated format such as here.  Cheers,   69.107.96.61 6 Jan 2005

 * I think that we may be in violent agreement. Let me try and define what I am talking about for the wages.  First of all for a given job you have benefits you recieve such as money, health care, retirement and so forth.  For a given job you also have costs such as your time, risk of death and dismemberment, physical effort, mental effort and so forth.  You also have effort to get the job which includes things such as education, security clearences, licences and so forth.  Lets call these benefit, cost, and obtain respectively.  First, assuming that obtain is the same for two jobs, I would expect that under the long run people are the same assumetions (LRPS) for any two jobs a and b with the same obtain, benfit_a - cost_a = benfit_b - cost_b.  I am pretty sure that this is the invariant, since if say benefit_a - cost_a > benefit_b - cost_b, then more people would want to work at job a than at job b.  Since there are extra people trying for job a, and too few people trying for job b, supply and demand would tend to raise the benefits for job b and lower the benefits for job a.  So, in the long run, I expect that benefit_a - cost_a = benefit_b - cost_b for all jobs a and b where obtain is the same.  Note that this says that benefit_a = benefit_b only if cost_a = cost_b, and I am pretty sure that cost_a and cost_b will be different for many jobs (risk of death, physical effort and so forth vary for jobs).  Now, how to deal with obtain.  I hope we can agree that being a grocery clerk and being a professor of physics have different obtaining costs.  One requires around a month or so of training, and the other requires around a 6-10 years of training (beyond high school).   So, there is a different obtaining cost for each.  Now,  in the LRPS equilibrium, you will only choose a job with a higher obtain if you get greater net benefits later on.  So, I think the equilibrium equation is: lifetime(benefits_a - costs_a) - obtain_a = lifetime(benefits_b - costs_b) - obtain_b.  Lifetime is a rather complicated intergral that incorperates things like discounting and so forth (that I lack the interest to really calculate), but taking it as the sum of yearly benifits - cost for every working year is a reasonable aproximation. Now, if this is higher for job a than job b, then again, you would expect that there would be supply and demand mismatch issues, so benefits would be raised and lowered to fix that problem.  So, as long as the obtain cost and the regular cost are different for different jobs, the benefits of each job will be different in the long run people same assumptions.   However,  each person will be indifferent to which job that they get (I think this is what you are remembering from your economics class).

 * As for businesses, I agree that in the long run, each business sector should be earning the same economics profits (but very different accounting profits).  I hope this makes sense.  If it doesn't tell me where so I can try and figure out if I made a mistake or I am being unclear.  Jrincayc 16:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

GRAPH IS WRONG
Something's wrong with this graph, right? Only ONE point on the frontier is Pareto efficient. E.g.: Suppose your production is totally focused on the production of A and you produce 0 B. Yet all your citizens prefer B to A.  Obviously moving production toward B is a PE move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.5 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

---

There is something wrong with the plot, but I don't think it's what the user stated above. There can be infinitely many points on the Pareto front, so long as each point is not dominated by another, i.e. you cannot improve all the objective simultaneously. The user's point about population preferences speaks to weighting the objectives and is one method to select the preferred solution from among the set of Pareto optimal solutions. There is however a problem with the plot. As shown, State N is Pareto optimal. It dominates states A-D in terms of Item 1, and dominates states E-H in terms of Item 2. State N is therefore a non-dominated (or non-inferior) solution and is part of the Pareto front.

Gcranston (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the plot. I thought so too, but if you read the caption, it describes the image as "a Pareto-efficient frontier, where the frontier and the area left and below it is a continuous room of choices." So, the points in the image are not the only possible points, but rather examples of points in the space. N is not optimal, because there is a point on the line between D and E that has more of item 1 and of item 2. The image is fine, and should not be changed Mattster3517 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

4.16.194.230 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC) If is N not on the frontier, but then in the other plot the points immediately left of A and right of B are on the the frontier, what's going on? Doesn't seem that both plots can be right. My $0.02 is that point N in the first plot is not dominated by neighboring points and should be on the frontier.

---

The graph is wrong. It is true that N & K are not PE. But A-H are only POSSIBLY PE. This depends on the MRSs of consumers. As the first person, above, said: If consumers have no taste at all for good 2, then obviously point A is not PE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.163.185.230 (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If is N not on the frontier, but then in the other plot the points immediately left of A and right of B are on the the frontier, what's going on? Doesn't seem that both plots can be right. My $0.02 is that point N in the first plot is not dominated by neighboring points and should be on the frontier. 4.16.194.230 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Please note: comments generally should be added at the bottom of a discussion. And should be signed by adding the "four tildes" ("") at the end of your comment. Also: discussions of what is "right" (or wrong) generally require reference(s) to a source. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

 * The graph in question is the production possibilities frontier, and hence is not about preferences but rather is about possible combinations of products produced. I’ve moved the graph to a more appropriate section to avoid confusion. Loraof (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Quotes and wordsaswords
I won't edit, since not my area, but I would suggest changing the use of double quotes to italics in the cases where terminology is being introduced and discussed. Please see MOS:WORDSASWORDS. "Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the use–mention distinction). Examples: Deuce means "two". The term panning is derived from panorama, which was coined in 1787. The most common letter in English is e." David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 09:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Warning - Problems
The formal basis of the article is problematic, since it works with sets (which are identical under permutations of elements) instead of with n-tuples. The German version of the article is much better and the reader might want to check that. Here, in the english version, the formalism is simply and plainly: Wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.167.213 (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pareto optimality and the Prisoner's dilemma
In the Prisoner's dilemma, are three out of the four possible outcomes Pareto optimal?

It looks that way to me, but I'm no expert on Pareto efficiency:
 * From (cooperate, defect), a change to (cooperate, cooperate) makes the second player worse off while making the first better.
 * The same is true from (defect, cooperate), as a change to (cooperate, cooperate makes the first player worse off but the second better.
 * Only (defect, defect) is NOT Pareto efficient, because changing to (cooperate, cooperate) makes both better off.

Is this correct? If yes, this example would be made more useful by saying that (cooperate, defect) and (defect, cooperate) are also Pareto efficient, but (defect, defect) is not.

If this is NOT correct, then it seems to me that something is wrong with the definition. ??? Thanks for your work in maintaining this Wikipedia article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pareto efficiency


text:
United States Seventh Fleet

The Seventh Fleet is a numbered fleet of the United States Navy. It is headquartered at U.S. Fleet Activities Yokosuka, in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. It is part of the United States Pacific Fleet. At present, it is the largest of the forward-deployed U.S. fleets, with 50 to 70 ships, 150 aircraft and 27,000 Sailors and Marines. Its principal responsibilities are to provide joint command in natural disaster or military operations and operational command of all U.S. naval forces in the region.

World War II
The Seventh Fleet was formed on 15 March 1943 in Brisbane, Australia, during World War II, under the command of Admiral Arthur S. "Chips" Carpender. It served in the South West Pacific Area (SWPA) under General Douglas MacArthur. The Seventh Fleet commander also served as commander of Allied naval forces in the SWPA.

Most of the ships of the Royal Australian Navy were also part of the fleet from 1943 to 1945 as part of Task Force 74 (formerly the Anzac Squadron). The Seventh Fleet—under Admiral Thomas C. Kinkaid—formed a large part of the Allied forces at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the largest naval battle in history, in October 1944. The Seventh Fleet fought in two of the Battle of Leyte Gulf's main actions, the Battle of Surigao Strait and the Battle off Samar.

1945–1950
After the end of the war, the 7th Fleet moved its headquarters to Qingdao, China. As laid out in Operation Plan 13–45 of 26 August 1945, Kinkaid established five major task forces to manage operations in the Western Pacific: Task Force 71, the North China Force with 75 ships; Task Force 72, the Fast Carrier Force, directed to provide air cover to the Marines going ashore and discourage with dramatic aerial flyovers any Communist forces that might oppose the operation; Task Force 73, the Yangtze Patrol Force with another 75 combatants; Task Force 74, the South China Force, ordered to protect the transportation of Japanese and Chinese Nationalist troops from that region; and Task Force 78, the Amphibious Force, charged with the movement of the III Marine Amphibious Corps to China.

After the war, on 1 January 1947, the Fleet's name was changed to Naval Forces Western Pacific. In late 1948, the Fleet moved its principal base of operations from Qingdao to the Philippines, where the Navy, following the war, had developed new facilities at Subic Bay and an airfield at Sangley Point. Peacetime operations of the Seventh Fleet were under the control of Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet, Admiral Arthur W. Radford, but standing orders provided that, when operating in Japanese waters or in the event of an emergency, control would pass to Commander, Naval Forces Far East, a component of General Douglas MacArthur's occupation force.

On 19 August 1949 the force was designated as United States Seventh Task Fleet. On 11 February 1950, just prior to the outbreak of the Korean War, the force assumed the name United States Seventh Fleet, which it holds today.

Korean War
Seventh Fleet units participated in all major operations of the Korean and Vietnamese Wars. The first Navy jet aircraft used in combat was launched from a Task Force 77 (TF 77) aircraft carrier on 3 July 1950. The landings at Inchon, Korea were conducted by Seventh Fleet amphibious ships. The battleships USS Iowa (BB-61), USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) all served as flagships for Commander, U.S. Seventh Fleet during the Korean War. During the Korean War, the Seventh Fleet consisted of Task Force 70, a maritime patrol force provided by Fleet Air Wing One and Fleet Air Wing Six, Task Force 72, the Formosa Patrol, Task Force 77, and Task Force 79, a service support squadron.

Over the next decade the Seventh Fleet responded to numerous crisis situations including contingency operations conducted in Laos in 1959 and Thailand in 1962. During September 1959, in the autumn of 1960, and again in January 1961, the Seventh Fleet deployed multiship carrier task forces into the South China Sea. Although the Pathet Lao and North Vietnamese supporting forces withdrew in each crisis, in the spring of 1961 their offensive appeared on the verge of overwhelming the pro-American Royal Lao Army.

Once again the fleet moved into Southeast Asian waters. By the end of April 1961, most of the Seventh Fleet was deployed off the Indochinese Peninsula preparing to initiate operations into Laos. The force consisted of the USS Coral Sea (CVA-43) and USS Midway (CVA-41) carrier battle groups, antisubmarine support carrier USS Kearsarge (CVS-33), one helicopter carrier, three groups of amphibious ships, two submarines, and three Marine battalion landing teams. At the same time, shorebased air patrol squadrons and another three Marine battalion landing teams stood ready in Okinawa and the Philippines to support the afloat force. Although the administration of President John F. Kennedy already had decided against American intervention to rescue the Laotian government, Communist forces halted their advance and agreed to negotiations. The contending Laotian factions concluded a cease-fire on 8 May 1961, but it lasted only a year.

In June 1963 the Seventh Fleet held 'Flagpole '63,' a joint naval exercise with the Republic of Korea.

Seventh Fleet represented the first official entrance of the United States into the Vietnam War, with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Between 1950 and 1970, the U.S. Seventh Fleet was known by the tongue-in-cheek nickname "Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club" since most of the fleet's operations were conducted from the Tonkin Gulf at the time.

On 12 February 1965, USS Salisbury Sound (AV-13) became the first U.S. Navy ship to conduct operations inside Vietnam coastal waters. Salisbury Sound set up a seadrome in Da Nang Bay and conducted seaplane patrols in support of Operation Flaming Dart, the bombing of North Vietnamese army camps.

Operating primarily from Yankee Station off the north coast of Vietnam and the aptly-named Dixie Station off the south coast of Vietnam in the South China Sea, Seventh Fleet was organized into a series of task forces, often known by the acronym CTF (Commander Task Force):
 * Task Force 73 included the fleet's logistics support vessels operating as an underway replenishment group (URG) containing an oiler, an ammunition ship, and other supply tenders.
 * Task Force 75, Surface Combatant Force, contained the fleet's surface combatants and naval gunfire support. These units formed the gun line to bombard enemy forces during Operation Sea Dragon, Operation Custom Tailor, and Operation Lion's Den. The Royal Australian Navy contributed a series of guided missile destroyers to the gun line, including HMAS Hobart (D 39), HMAS Perth (D 38), HMAS Brisbane (D 41), and HMAS Vendetta (D08). The naval gun line concept was made possible with deep waters for larger vessels well away from both the shoals and enemy coastal artillery. Task Group 70.8, a cruiser-destroyer subset of the task force, began shelling Vietnam on 27 May 1965. The cruisers and destroyers mostly used 5-inch and 8-inch guns while USS New Jersey (BB-62) opened fire with her 16-inch guns.
 * Task Force 76 was the Amphibious Force, Seventh Fleet. Marines went ashore at Da Nang in March 1965 and patrolled throughout the I Corps area of responsibility during operations Starlite, Dagger Thrust, Double Eagle, and Jackstay.
 * Task Force 77 was the Carrier Battle Force, Seventh Fleet. It would participate in striking North Vietnamese targets, providing air support to US forces in South Vietnam, and mining Haiphong Harbor.
 * Task Force 78 was the fleet's minesweeper support. After the 1973 cease-fire, it was responsible for Operation End Sweep, removing naval mines dropped in Haiphong harbor only months earlier.
 * Task Forces 116 and 117 were brown-water riverine forces involved in the interdiction efforts Operation Market Time, Operation Game Warden, and Operation Sealords.

In 1975, ships and aircraft of the Fleet evacuated thousands of U.S. citizens and refugees from South Vietnam and Cambodia as those countries fell to opposing forces.

Since the end of the Vietnam War, the Seventh Fleet has participated in a joint/combined exercise called Team Spirit, conducted with the Republic of Korea armed forces. With capability to respond to any contingency, Fleet operations are credited with maintaining security during the Asian Games of 1986 and the Seoul Olympics of 1988. During 1989, Seventh Fleet units participated in a variety of exercises called PACEX, the largest peacetime exercises since World War II.

1971 Indo-Pakistan War
A carrier task force of the Seventh Fleet, Task Force 74 (TF 74), entered the Bay of Bengal at the height of the war in December 1971. Its mission was to support Pakistan during the war. TF 74 comprised the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65); the amphibious assault carrier USS Tripoli (LPH-10); the destroyers USS Decatur (DD-936), USS McKean (DD-784), and USS Orleck (DD-886); the guided-missile escorts USS Waddell (DDG-24), USS King (DDG-41), and USS Parsons (DD-949); the nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Gurnard (SSN-662); and supply ship USS Wichita (AOR-1). On 15 December, a day before the surrender of Pakistan to the joint force of India and Bangladesh, the task force entered the Bay of Bengal, at a distance of some 1760 km from Dhaka.

The Soviet Union, in favor of India, dispatched the 10th Operative Battle Group of its Pacific Fleet under Admiral Vladimir Kruglyakov from Vladivostok to the area. This caused the United States Seventh Fleet to abort its mission and leave the Bay of Bengal. At the same time, the Royal Navy had forces in the Arabian sea with a similar goal as the Seventh Fleet, but that mission was also aborted. India won the war and Bangladesh was liberated amid US and UK's naval support to Pakistan.

Gulf War and 1990s
In response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990, General Norman Schwarzkopf (CINCENT) discussed naval command arrangements in his area of responsibility with Commander-in-Chief, Pacific, Admiral Huntington Hardisty. The result was that Commander, U.S. Seventh Fleet was ordered to assume additional responsibilities as Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command. The Fleet Commander departed Yokosuka, Japan immediately, heading for the Persian Gulf, and joined the remainder of his staff aboard the flagship USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19) on 1 September 1990. During Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm, Naval Forces Central Command exercised command and control of the largest U.S. Navy armada since the Second World War. At the peak of combat operations, over 130 U.S. ships joined more than 50 allied ships to conduct maritime intercept operations, minesweeping and combat strike operations against enemy forces in Iraq and Kuwait.

Naval Forces Central Command included six aircraft carrier battle groups, two battleships (Missouri and Wisconsin), two hospital ships, 31 amphibious assault ships, four minesweeping vessels and numerous combatants in support of allied air and ground forces. After a decisive allied victory in the Gulf War, Commander U.S. Seventh Fleet relinquished control of Naval Forces Central Command to Commander, Middle East Force on 24 April 1991 and returned to Yokosuka, Japan to resume his Asia-Pacific duties.

Following months of tension as well as the death of North Korean leader Kim Il-Sung, in July 1994, the Kitty Hawk battle group was diverted from a Southern Watch deployment to the Persian Gulf and remained in the Western Pacific (the Seventh Fleet's operation area) for the entire deployment. The Independence also conducted operations near the Peninsula during the crisis.

In 1996, two aircraft carrier battle groups were sent to the Taiwan Straits under Seventh Fleet control to demonstrate U.S. support for Taiwan during the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. The Nimitz battle group (CCDG 7) made a high-speed transit from the Persian Gulf, while Carrier Group Five, led by Independence, sortied from its Japanese homeports.

USS John S. McCain and Alnic MC collision
On 21 August 2017, while on a routine visit to Singapore, Arleigh Burke-class destroyer destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) was involved in a collision with merchant vessel Alnic MC off the coast of Singapore, east of the Strait of Malacca. The incident left 10 Navy sailors missing and five injured. The US Navy announced that Commander of the Seventh Fleet Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin had been dismissed and replaced by Vice Adm. Phillip G. Sawyer, who had already been nominated and confirmed to replace the retiring Aucoin.

Operations
Of the 50–60 ships typically assigned to Seventh Fleet, 18 operate from U.S. facilities in Japan and Guam. These forward-deployed units represent the heart of Seventh Fleet, and the centerpieces of American forward presence in Asia. They are seventeen steaming days closer to locations in Asia than their counterparts based in the continental United States. It would take three to five times the number of rotationally-based ships in the U.S. to equal the same presence and crisis response capability as these 18 forward deployed ships. On any given day, about 50% of Seventh Fleet forces are deployed at sea throughout the area of responsibility.

Following the end of the Cold War, the two major military scenarios in which the Seventh Fleet would be used would be in case of conflict in Korea or a conflict between People's Republic of China and Taiwan (Republic of China) in the Taiwan Strait.

It was reported on 10 May 2012 that USS Freedom (LCS-1) would be dispatched to Singapore in the northern spring of 2013 for a roughly 10-month deployment. On 2 June 2012 the U.S. and Singaporean Defense Ministers announced that Singapore has agreed 'in principle' to the US request 'to forward deploy up to four littoral combat ships to Singapore on a rotational basis.' Officials stressed however that vessels will not be permanently based there and their crews will live aboard during ship visits.

Fleet organization
The Seventh Fleet is organized into specialized task forces.

Task Force 70 – TF 70 is the Battle Force of 7th Fleet and is made up of two distinct components: Surface Combatant Force 7th Fleet, composed of cruisers and destroyers, and Carrier Strike Force 7th Fleet, made up of at least one aircraft carrier and its embarked air wing. The Battle Force is currently centered around Carrier Strike Group Five, the carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) responsible for unit-level training, integrated training, and material readiness for the group's ships and aviation squadrons. As the only continuously forward deployed carrier strike group, the CSG-5 staff does not stand down when the strike group is in Yokosuka, but instead continues to maintain command responsibilities over deploying Carrier Strike Groups and independently deployed cruisers, destroyers, and frigates that operate in the Seventh Fleet operating area. The commander and staff are also responsible for the higher-level Task Force 70 duties throughout the year in addition to the CSG-5 duties. The composition of the strike group in immediate proximity of Ronald Reagan varies throughout the year.

The CSG 5 Commander also serves as Battle Force Seventh Fleet and Commander, Task Force (CTF 70) for 7th Fleet. In these responsibilities, CSG 5 serves as the Commander of all surface forces (carrier strike groups, independently deploying cruisers, destroyers and frigates) in the 7th Fleet area of responsibility. CTF 70 also serves as the Theater Surface Warfare Commander (TSUWC) and Theater Integrated Air Missile Defense Commander (TIAMDC) for Seventh Fleet.

During the Korean War, Captain Charles L. Melson was the commanding officer of the flagship of the Seventh Fleet, the battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62) from 20 October 1952. He also served during that time as Commander, Task Group 70.1.

Task Force 71 – TF 71 includes all Naval Special Warfare (NSW) units and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Units (EODMU) assigned to 7th Fleet. It is based in Guam.

Task Force 72 – TF 72 is the Patrol and Reconnaissance Force, Seventh Fleet. It is located at Naval Air Facility Misawa (Misawa Air Base), Japan. It is mainly composed of anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft and maritime airborne surveillance platforms such as P-3 Orion and Lockheed EP-3 reconnaissance planes operating on land bases. Toward the end of the Korean War, Commander Task Force 72 transferred his flag to USS Pine Island (AV-12) on 7 March and detachments of VP-42 also left USS Salisbury Sound for that seaplane tender. That same day Task Force Seventy-Two was established as the Formosa Patrol Force under Rear Admiral Williamson in Pine Island.

Task Force 73/Commander, Logistics Group Western Pacific – 7th Fleet's Logistics Force composed of supply ships and other fleet support vessels. Headquartered in Singapore.

Task Force 74 – TF 74 was the designation used for the Enterprise battle group in 1971. Today, it is the Fleet Submarine Force responsible for planning and coordinating submarine operations within 7th Fleet's area of operations.

Task Force 75 – Navy Expeditionary Forces Command Pacific is 7th Fleet's primary Expeditionary task force. Located in Camp Covington, Guam, CTF 75 is responsible for the planning and execution of coastal riverine operations, explosive ordnance disposal, diving, engineering and construction, and underwater construction throughout the 7th Fleet area of responsibility.

Task Force 76 – Amphibious assault task force currently headquartered at U.S. Fleet Activities Sasebo, mainly responsible for supporting Marine landing operations. It is composed of units capable of delivering ship-to-shore assault troops, such as America-class amphibious assault ship and Wasp-class amphibious assault ship amphibious assault ships, and landing craft.

Task Force 77 – 7th Fleet Mine Warfare Force composed of mine countermeasure, mine hunter, and mine control ships as well as mine countermeasure helicopters (MH-53). This task force is only activated during specific combat operations and was filled by the Commander of Mine Warfare Command. Mine Warfare Command has now been disestablished and replaced by Navy Mine and Antisubmarine Warfare Command, Naval Base Point Loma, Calif.

Task Force 78 – In 1973, Task Force 78 served as the mine clearance force that cleared Haiphong Harbour in Operation End Sweep. Major elements of the U.S. Navy mine warfare force, including Mobile Mine Command (MOMCOM), Mine Warfare Support Group (MWFSG), and HM-12 were airlifted by C-5A to NAS Cubi Point in the Philippines. These specialists formed the nucleus of Task Force 78, under the command of Rear Admiral Brian McCauley, for Operation End Sweep. Commander, Mine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet had reported to Vice Admiral James L. Holloway III, Commander, Seventh Fleet, in September 1972 as Commander Task Force 78. TF 78 was officially activated in November 1972. However, it became clear more helicopters were needed. Responding to a Navy request for assistance, Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force Pacific (CG FMFPAC) directed that HMH-463 deploy from MCAS Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, to NAS Cubi Point, to join Task Force 78. On 27 November 1972, with the efficient support of Col. Bill Crocker's MAG-24, HM-463 embarked at Pearl Harbor aboard USS Inchon (LPH-12), which was en route from Norfolk to augment Seventh Fleet Amphibious Forces and to participate in End Sweep.

The ceasefire was signed on 23 January 1973, and the day afterwards, major components of TF 78 deployed from Subic Bay to Haiphong. These included four ocean minesweepers (MSO), USS Inchon, and four amphibious ships, including two with docking capabilities to handle the minesweeping sleds towed by the CH-53Ms. During the six months of Operation End Sweep, ten ocean minesweepers, nine amphibious ships, six fleet tugs, three salvage ships, and nineteen destroyers operated in Task Force 78 in the vicinity of Haiphong.'

As of 2010, Commander Naval Forces Korea, an administrative liaison unit between USFK, the ROK Navy, and Seventh Fleet, has been assigned the TF 78 designation. Naval Forces Korea is headquartered at Busan and has a base at Chinhae, Commander Fleet Activities Chinhae.

Task Force 79 – The Marine expeditionary unit or Landing Force assigned to the fleet, consisting of at least a reinforced Marine battalion and its equipment. This unit is separate from the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) normally embarked in USS Bonhomme Richard Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG). Marine units serving in 7th Fleet are normally drawn from III Marine Expeditionary Force based in Okinawa, Japan.

U.S. Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan

 * Carrier Strike Group Five: USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) and USS Robert Smalls (CG-62).
 * Destroyer Squadron 15: USS Benfold (DDG-65), USS Milius (DDG-69), USS Higgins (DDG-76), USS Howard (DDG-83), USS McCampbell (DDG-85), USS Shoup (DDG-86), USS Dewey (DDG-105), USS John Finn (DDG-113), USS Ralph Johnson (DDG-114) and USS Rafael Peralta (DDG-115).
 * USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19) (flagship)

U.S. Fleet Activities Sasebo, Japan

 * USS America (LHA-6)
 * USS New Orleans (LPD-18)
 * USS Green Bay (LPD-20)
 * USS Rushmore (LSD-47)
 * USS Ashland (LSD-48)
 * USS Patriot (MCM-7)
 * USS Pioneer (MCM-9)
 * USS Warrior (MCM-10)
 * USS Chief (MCM-14)

Apra Harbor, Guam

 * USS Emory S. Land (AS-39)
 * USS Frank Cable (AS-40)
 * USS Key West (SSN-722)

Fleet commanders
The Commander of the 7th Fleet is known as COMSEVENTHFLT.

title: United States Seventh Fleet


text:
Pacific Theatre

Pacific Theatre or Pacific Theater may refer to:

World War II

 * Asiatic-Pacific theater, the theatre of operations of US forces in the Pacific War
 * China Burma India theater, the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy designation for the China and Southeast Asian theatres
 * Pacific Ocean theater of World War II
 * Asia-Pacific War, the theatre of World War II that was fought in the Pacific and Asia

Other wars

 * Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I
 * Pacific Ocean theater, a theater of operations during the Spanish–American War

Other uses

 * Pacific Theatres, an American chain of movie theatre in the Los Angeles metropolitan area of California
 * P.T.O. (video game) (Pacific Theatre of Operations), a 1989 video game developed and published by Koei

title: Pacific Theatre