Talk:1st Cavalry Division (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

The description of the First Cavalry Division in the Korean War says nothing about the importance of its actions in that War. The conquest of Pyongyang and the Korean War decisive battle of Chipyong Ni are entirely ignored. On the other hand, a great deal of information is given about the less important Vietnam War. Moreover, the famous battles of the Fifth Cavalry in the Civil War and the Fifth (With Buffalo Bill) and the Seventh in the Indian Wars are passed over. Truly its regiments are among the most famous and honored in the United States Army.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.114.255.90 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 23 November 2004.

Korea--what a travesty that it only gets a couple lines. I'll add to it although maybe someone else can arrange the headers since I don't know how. P1340 17:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)P1340

Thanks for bringing up this deficiency. Please feel free to add to the article with your knowledge. All Wikipedia articles are "works in progress", some far more so than others. ;-} -Rholton 17:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Concision 2 lineage of the First Cav Div 3 Merge tags 4 Cav Motto?

[edit] Concision

Pretend you're new to the concept of the 1st Cavalry. "Huh, cavalry? In the 21st century? Do they still ride horses into battle?" Now read through the article and try to extract that information. Your eyes will cross.

Evidently they did something different in World War II, and then flew helicopters in Vietnam, and then were "heavy armor" in later wars.

[edit] lineage of the First Cav Div

I kn ow that the phrase about the 1855 date is found in the official history, but it is technically accurate only because the Cavalr Brigades were subsumed into the division. The Regiments retain their own history, and the two sets of time lines are technically separate. 20:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The four Brigades in the 1st CD have a much longer history than the Division. Indeed, they were the senior organizations before the introduction of permanent Divisions around the time of World War I.. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge tags

I added merge tags to the various brigade articles. If you read the articles, there is really not much there. "XX Brigade went to NTC" - no kidding, most every unit does. "XX brigade was on DRB in 1999" - once again, wow, what insight. "So-and-so brigade spent the early years training hard" - yup. Or my favorite - "In October 1999, the brigade returned to Ft Hood. Black Jack Brigade was called upon once again to be America's Vanguard as it maintained 7 month's of DRB status for the 1st Cavalry Division." (exact quote). America's Vanguard? OMG, the army must have wrote this. Really, once you strip away the non-notable "every unit in the army does it" stuff, the campaign/battle info already in the main article, and the borderline jingoistic language, you don't have much. These can all be a paragraph in the main article. Nobunaga24 00:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree totally with Cyane. I'm doing some mergers now but I really don't know enough about the military to do these. Can one of you? If not, I'll just have to do some pretty gratuitous cut and paste and add some redirects and hope later people edit the sections, still, would be better than it is now.Avraham 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm slowly getting around to doing it, but it's kind of low on my list right now. The 1st Cav spent I believe 5 years in Vietnam. Vietnam gets 2 sentences in the 1st Brigade article, and meanwhile the Iraq War had half the article. It was detailing the raid on one house. Lots of work here... --Nobunaga24 00:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cav Motto?

"Motto Move in on em and kill em {em=Them}" I have never heard this motto. Is it historical? Made up? Searched for confirmation but couldn't find it. --Basherrr 11:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember two "unflattering" mottos from my Army days. "The pitter patter of little feet, First Cav's in full retreat" and "The horse that never was, the color they were, and the line that couldn't be crossed". I don't know for sure, but I recollect they both had to do with a battle in Vietnam. wbfergus 19:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just did a little searching on Google. "The pitter patter of little feet" actually goes back to the Korean War, from a tune called "The Bug-Out Ballad". wbfergus 19:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So I found a reference for that motto, but unsure what to make of the page. http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/lineage/cc/001cd.htm --Basherrr 11:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)