Talk:United States Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Army article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

This article should be temporaarily protected due to frequent vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.244.28 (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Commands

The new Africa Command should be added to the box at top right.RIVA02906 16:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the listed regional commands are broader than the US Army. Central Command, for example, encompasses all four branches of DOD -- it's Army sub-component is Third Army.

[edit] Question

Why is there no stats in the intro, like on the USAF page?

There are; they're just different stats. --ScreaminEagle 19:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find the total enlistment numbers from 2000 to present broken down into per month totals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micfri (talk • contribs)

[edit] Branches of the Army

There should be a section, or a link to its own page at the very least, concerning the different branches within the US Army.Shawn 03:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M11 Pistol and CID

The M11 Pistol is, in fact, the standard issue sidearm for CID Special Agents. See http://www.cid.army.mil/agenttraining.htm (2nd picture down, SA firing a M11 in training), http://www.wood.army.mil/MPBULLETIN/pdfs/April%2006/Miklos.pdf (1st page, author references agents qualifying with their "assigned M11 pistols"), http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/19483L000.htm (M11 Pistol on CID unit MTOE), http://www.remtek.com/arms/sig/model/228/228.htm (1st paragraph references Army CID and the Sig P228). Mike f 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Signaleer has been repeatedly removing the M11 Pistol from the list of individual weapons, despite the references cited above and multiple reversions by myself and two other editors. In an effort to avoid an "edit war" and resolve the conflicting opinions, I posted the following on his/her talk page, which he/she simply blanked instead of responding. I'll re-post it here:
I noticed you removed the M11 from the list of U.S. Army individual weapons again. Did you see the references I posted on the article's talk page ([[Talk:United_States_Army#M11_Pistol_and_CID])? From your edit summary, I understand you called the CID PAO, who told you that the M11 is not the standard-issue weapon for Special Agents. But have you considered that the person who you spoke with may have been mis-informed or mis-understood your question? Also, a phone call to the PAO isn't easily verifiable as a source, and may constitute WP:NOR. From your name (Signaleer), I think it's a safe assumption that you have some connection (past or present) with the military, and are just trying to ensure the article's accuracy, as am I. So, if not the M11/Sig P228, what do you think is the standard CID sidearm? From my personal experience, every CID Special Agent I've seen or spoken with has always carried a sidearm that looked very much like a M11/Sig P228, or at least was certainly NOT an M9/Beretta 92F. In the interests of accuracy and avoiding an edit war, I think we should resolve this as soon as possible. Thanks, Mike f 16:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So what authority do you think you have? Do you think that because of your personal experience with special agents, that makes it a standard firearm for all CID agents? Have you even tried to contact CID? This is a public domain, contrary to what you may or may not think. Yes, it is quite simple to contact the PAO, here's the website and POC:

http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/

U.S. Army Public Affairs
Media Relations Division
Office of the Chief of Public Affairs
1500 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-1500

Phone: 703.692.2000

If you can not reach these PAO, I suggest you go on your AKO account (since supposedly you are in the US Army) and feel free to contact the chain of command of PAO about it. If you can produce a document that says that the M11 is the standard firearm for CID agents on a proper document or dod.mil/army.mil website or an official letter with proper military heading and signatures, then I'll be more than happy to allow you to add the M11 on the site but if not, I will continue to delete that from the wikipedia's United States Army site. My regards --Signaleer 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Look dude, I'm not trying to contest what the PAO told you, and I'm not claiming any "authority" from my own personal experience (that would be original research). I have cited four reliable and easily verifiable web sources above, including two from "army.mil" domains. If that's not good enough, I don't know what is. Whether it's "a standard firearm for all CID agents" or not is irrelevant--it's issued to at least some U.S. Army soldiers, and that's enough for inclusion on this page. I'm reverting to re-add the M11. And as a side note, you don't have any authority to "allow" me to add or remove anything from this or any other page. As you pointed out, this is a "public domain" encyclopedia that anyone can edit, if they cite reliable sources. Mike f 18:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Let us also be wary of the three revert rule, which if this keeps up, could resort in banning of the person doing it. So let's take a step back, breathe, and think about the rationale of any further moves before this ends in tears. --ScreaminEagle 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I'd appreciate a third-party perspective on this (admittedly minor) issue, either you or anybody else. I'm willing to step back and let a disinterested party or parties help reach some consensus here. Mike f 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
And even as I wrote the above, Signaleer reverts to remove the M11 for the 8th time. A little help, please? Mike f 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Folks:
  1. Please, let's stop with the reverting back-and-forth for the time being. It's not productive, and only aggravates the situation.
  2. The dispute seems to be centered around whether the M1911 is the standard issue sidearm versus merely being a sidearm that happens to be issued/used. Looking at the references collected by Mike f, I don't see anything that really supports the first option that well (although the second option seems well-supported), so looking for better sources is probably appropriate here.
  3. On a side note: this entire issue could be bypassed if we just take out the bulleted list of weapons from this article and replace it with a summary paragraph with a link to the main list. Then, there would be no need to be exhaustive here, and the M1911 entry in the full list could be given with as much annotation as needed.
Kirill Lokshin 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What I've found in the last few hours is that the M11 is indeed used by CID, MI, and possibly select Army special ops forces. However, proof that it is THE standard firearm issued these groups is not obvious from any of these documents or sources (it's possible that no website states exactly what the standard firearm is for the CID, either, since their website certainly doesn't state as much). On the other hand, the article itself here does not state that the weaponry listed is only the standard issued weaponry of the Army, just weaponry used by the Army, which the M11 obviously is. This could be part of the problem here. Indeed, a paragraph versus a list would solve the problem from both sides of the issue, pointing out that the M11 is used by groups like the CID, et al, but is not necessarily the standard issue firearm for said groups or something along those lines. --ScreaminEagle 17:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I also think a prose paragraph instead of a bulleted list would better explain the issue, and improve the article as well. I've actually been working on a re-write to the "Equipment" section in my sandbox. It's still an incomplete rough draft, but I wouldn't mind a disinterested look from anyone interested. For now, I'll refrain from reverting to restore the M11 on this list until 1) we reach a clear consensus, or 2) I find some more explicit sources. Thanks for the comments. Mike f 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you mentioned that, especially since I ran across your sandbox in my research travels. I wasn't sure if you wanted it mentioned just yet since it's your private sandbox and under construction, so I didn't say anything, but what you have there looked pretty good to me and probably what would make the current misunderstanding a little better.
As a side note--and off the record--I contacted CID and spoke with a very helpful PA fellow who said he would research the issue and get back to me. He and I both understand that what he comes up with cannot be used as a source for this issue, but as I told him, it's always nice to be pointed in the right direction to know where to find the reputable published sources we're seeking, especially when we're having difficulty locating them otherwise. --ScreaminEagle 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
CID/PA got back to me and said the M11 (SIG P228) is in fact standard issue for CID agents. The fellow I'm in contact with is currently researching published documents to send to me to confirm this. He also directed me to the SIG/Remtek website that states "The P-228 was recently adopted by the U.S. Army as the M-11, or the concealment pistol for undercover or plain clothes operatives for the military." --ScreaminEagle 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are two refs:

  • [1] "Not only did the Soldiers go through the CID qualification table with their assigned M11 pistols..."
  • [2] APPRENTICE SPECIAL AGENT COURSE: END OF COURSE QUESTIONNAIRE "109. Maintain an M11 Pistol." "110. Operate an M11 Pistol."

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there was ever any question that the CID agents trained with the M11; it was, however, debated whether or not the M11 was standard issue for them in the field or if it was just one of the many weapons they were trained with and thus capable of using. The "assigned M11 pistols" is certainly getting at what we need, though, so thanks. --ScreaminEagle 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The first reference I had already found & listed at the top of this thread--while it seemed to clearly indicate that the M11 was used by CID, it wasn't completely obvious that it was their standard sidearm (hence the controversy). The second reference (the "End of Course Questionnaire") clears that up, I think: "Maintain & Operate an M11 Pistol" are listed as "critical tasks," and there is no mention of any other weapons on the list. Gadget850, thanks for finding that reference. Mike f 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I finished and posted a re-write of the "Equipment" section, which will hopefully lay some of this controversy to rest. I did include the M11 (citing 3 of the 5 references in this thread), but phrased it as "used by" the CID, not necessarily "standard issue to all Special Agents." Mike f 18:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

looks good to me. Parsecboy 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Unsourced" Tag

I'm removing the "Unsourced" tag at the top of the talk page. I'm not sure how long that tag has been there, but that issue seems to be satisfactorily resolved now.Mike f 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debateable WWI contribution

"Millions of US troops were sent to the front and were instrumental in the push that finally broke through the German lines." I think you'll find that the germans broke because of the results of the blockade. They were starving to death due to lack of food from the blockade and also were so short of material that they were forced to dig up lead water pipes to make bullets, and their artillery had barrels so old that they repeatedly undershot the target.

The situation among the German troops was desperate, they were running low on food, so the chief reason for them to attack allied positions was the food stored there. The German artillery had been fired a bit too much by now without replacement and with the arrival of the US fabricats and forces they were outgunned 10:1 by state of the art equipment. On the other hand the German troops had resorted to increased used of more efficient small mortars, etc. relying strongly on their well trained infantry and even launched a final offensive. Another important issue was the air supremacy that until the arrival of US forces hadn't been achieved by either side (although the German Empire had the largest European air force). Like all European soldiers involved in this war(several mutinies among allied troops had been brutally suppressed) they wanted to leave behind this hell of an industrial battlefield. Now millions of fresh American soldiers were preparing themselves to join this carnage and the German military command simply calculated that they had to win before these new guys arrived in sufficient numbers to crush them by sheer numbers. Wandalstouring 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pay grade

In the section of the article where the ranks and their insignia are listed the lieutenants listed as having the same pay grade (OF-1). The box at the bottom of various articles, however, lists the two lieutenants as having two different pay grades (OF-1 for second lieutenants, and OF-2 for first lieutenants). Which is correct? --Chaz 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The box doesn't list pay grades, but the NATO officer codes, which are essentially equate the various officer ranks in NATO countries. In the US Army, 2LT and 1LT have different pay grades, of O-1 and O-2 respectively. Parsecboy 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

Shouldn't there be a criticism section? [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lixy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Um, I don't think David Duke is a good source for anything, really. Parsecboy 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, me either. Plus, you can find criticism of the US Army on every news website and anti-war blog in the world. WHy chose that one? - BillCJ 23:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Even the US army is not above criticism. It has taken part in a number of operations which have been criticizable, and they can not simply put the responsibility for all of this on the politicians. I think, there should be a criticism section. In the usual Wikipedia NPOV, of course :-) --80.201.72.198 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No one is saying that they are above criticism, but there are plenty of articles regarding alleged and actual atrocities of the Army. IMHO, this is a factual sheet about an entity, not its actions. — BQZip01 — talk 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


In terms of the Army itself, there is much criticism over the (supposed)lack of training and preperation that the Army gives soldiers, as opposed to the Marines, who have a more demanding boot camp opposed to the Army's basic training. However, that is debatable and does not really need a section. Just type "Army vs. Marines" in google if you want to see controvery and crticicism.24.15.64.119 (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)jake

[edit] my edit on 22 march 07

I partially reverted the 21st century section because: the word "pretext" implies duplicity, which doesn't apply to Afghanistan, as there was wide support to attack those harboring terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Also, more than just Army members are dying in Iraq. The Army did not execute Saddam, to include it in the article here implies that they did. For the removal of the last line in that section, I know plenty of soldiers, myself included, who do not believe our sacrifices in Iraq are noble, worthwhile, or anything of the sort. To state arbitrarily that we do is patently false and unresponsible partisanship. Parsecboy 12:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The original edit was done by an anonymous... I simply reverted back to noble because I thought it was a portion of the established article. --D 14:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just wanted to explain my edits before someone came along and reverted them. Parsecboy 16:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what does DAO stand for?

well?Mace Windu 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that the letters "DAO" are not in the article, what the heck are you talking about?? - BillCJ 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
My Appologies. Found the term in the article Operation Babylift and i assumed i would get a quick correct answer from the experts here. I understand that DOA is the Department of the army, so perhaps DAO was a typo...Mace Windu 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If you are a christian, have a little grace:)Mace Windu 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't meaning to be rude, just very perplexed. I think you are right tho that it is a typo. I'll look at the article, and see if the context bears it out, and correct it. "Heck" is as strong a word as I ever use, and I don't use it that often. I just had know idea what you were talking about, but your point is taken. - BillCJ 01:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, i wasnt offended or anything and i understand your perplexity. Any info regarding the typo is appreciated. if it is a typo, fix it or let me know and i'll fix it. I'm a fellow believer as well.-Mace Windu 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Air Force, DAO stands for Director of Air Operations. My guess is that the editor who added that acronym thought it meant Department of Air Operations, which does not exist to my knowledge. --D 09:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Found the answer: DAO = Defence Attache's Office. Found it in Fall of Saigon under Evacuation.Mace Windu 18:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please correct the rank

Not sure who created the rank, but the picture is done well, but is inaccurate. There should not be an angle to the shoulderboard until it flares to reah the button. Please correct it. — BQZip01 — talk 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Delete Line above Officer Rank Diagram

Right above the officers rank diagram, theres a line that I cant seem to find on the editing page. Im not sure how to delete this, could someone do it?

Thanks for noting that. It was in Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/United States. (I removed it from your post so as not to give the vandalism more life.) - BillCJ 00:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total dead in Iraq

There are 3500 us soldiers + 900 contractors dead. I wonder, would you agree or disagree suicide due to psychological pressure, should that be allowed in the final/total number killed? If you are wounded in battle but die one year later, that is still considered war's casualty.

I don't think so. Legally using indirect actions opens up all types of far fetched ideas. Who's to say that every single death isn't a result of war? Someone goes to war, comes back unharmed but learns his girlfriend has left him and kills himself from the emotional pain. Who is to say she would not have left him if he did not go and who is to say that he would not have killed himself for other reasons?Arnabdas 18:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criticism

Integrity - Do what's right, legally and morally.

It's funny, because numerous reports from Iraq claim that the US Army has been somewhat lax in following this bit of the code. I'll add it in to here later.

Cam 04:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

SPecific information, proof and sources, please? 69.69.87.183 23:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Bellahdoll

Um...Abu Ghraib? Not to mention other incidents of soldiers' misconduct. Then there's the Mahmudiyah incident, which is a war crime. There are also others, such as the Ishaqi incident, and the Wedding party massacre. There have also been incidents in Afghanistan, if I'm not mistaken. Not exactly full of integrity, wouldn't you agree? Parsecboy 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Those incidents have nothing to do with Army policy, but rather members whom committed alleged and/or proven crimes. Unless if there was a specific OPORDR or certain policy that calls for that, the argument does not hold.Arnabdas 18:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Well said Arnabdas--Dwarf Kirlston 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are pretty stupid if you think these rare incendent some how makes it the policy ofiicial or unofficial. Go spout your crap somewhere else. The US Army is unprecedented in terms of moral conduct throughout its history. Especially today, there has been a couple million U.S soldiers in Iraq and how many incidents can you name? Go make a section on that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.29.213 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MBT's

Howmany Main Battle tanks does te US military have in serbive ??? Gon4z 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they have any MBTs in Serbia. - BillCJ 03:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Think he means "in service". Although the answer to that question I do not know. Parsecboy 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Duh. - BillCJ 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for being a smart ass. That's very constructive. Parsecboy 13:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think around 4-5000, I saw a around 2 documentrys that state that of like the 8000 Abrams made around 5000 are still in service.(ForeverDEAD 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Army Officer Ranks

Just an FYI from a Soldier.

There is no longer a 5-star General (General of the Army) And the officer rank structure is as follows (using your OD-* type grade designators, in the Army we just use O-1, O-2, ect.)

OD-1 2nd Lieutenant (Single Gold Bar) OD-2 1st Lieutenant (Single Silver Bar) OD-3 Captain (Two Silver Bars) OD-4 Major (Gold Leaf) OD-5 Lieutenant Colonel (Silver Leaf) OD-6 Colonel (Eagle) OD-7 Brigadier General (1 Star) OD-8 Major General (2 Stars) OD-9 Lieutenant General (3 Stars) OD-10 General (4 Stars)

My primary reason for posting this is that you have the lieutenant ranks shown as one pay grade which is incorrect. They are two seperate pay grades.

SGT Johnathon Jobson Public Affairs Non-Commissioned Officer 416th Engineer Command Army Reserve

You're right, thanks for pointing that out. That's very strange that someone did that, especially when it's correct on the more indepth article about officer ranks in the US Army. It's been corrected. --ScreaminEagle 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought General of the Army is used when war is declared? Arnabdas 18:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It is. He meant there are no active five-stars and no prospects for one in the future. I think it's not included in the list in the article because it is not a standard rank and is only activated by Congress during wartime, and under very specific circumstances at that. Otherwise, a four-star will never reach a five-star, regardless of his qualifications. --ScreaminEagle 22:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I cannot help but share the not-implausible theory that there was a reason to have the most senior US officers in WWII equivalent in rank to their counterparts, typically Marshals of one sort or another. The normally unemotional George Catlett Marshall unbent sufficiently to make it abundantly clear that he would not accept being called Marshal Marshall.
For the off-topic record, IIRC, one of the Air Force planners for Son Tay was a LTC Thomas Minor. Assuming normal promotion patterns, he must have had an interesting time as Major Minor. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

Is there a convention about when to capitalize ranks? I'm sure they should be when used as a proper name, e.g. "He saw General Lee." But otherwise I would abstain. e.g. "He attained the rank of major." But I see no consistency in Wikipedia. Anyone care to shed some light on this?--Appraiser 12:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would think that when referring to a specific person, like General Lee, it would be capitalized, but otherwise it should be lowercase. We don't always capitalize other titles, such as principal or president. Military rank should follow the same grammar rules. Parsecboy 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what Parsecboy in reference to this topic, especially with the analogy about the principal or president. Although I would note that many times people will capitalize: Soldier, Marine, Sailor, Airman, Coast Guardsman although it is still grammatically correct to spell it out lowercase: soldier, marine, sailor, airman, coast guardsman. -Signaleer 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it just depends on the context in which the words are being used. This isn't the Army Times, so "soldier" shouldn't always be capitalized. "Marines" should, if it's referring specifically to the U.S. Marines, but not in general usage, for example "the British landed marines at Sword Beach". Parsecboy 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I would have to disagree, I've seen it used both refering directly to the subject matter and in general, regardless of what context it is. -Signaleer 04:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that the bit about capitalizing soldier, sailor, airman, marine, etc. was pushed heavily by Gen. Abizaid. He claimed that capitalizing those nouns in particular afforded our troops that much more respect. Personally, I think such a reason is ridiculous, as people will or will not respect our troops regardless of whether their job title is capitalized or not. Given the silly reasoning produced for the change, I don't believe they should be capitalized. --ScreaminEagle 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
That, and Wikipedia is not a DOD publication, so we don't have to adhere to their non-standard grammar rules. Parsecboy 20:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backwards stars and stripes on U.S military uniforms

this ithis has been bugging me. The U.S army and marines have the american flag on their sleeves, however the flag is backwards. ie. the stars are at the top right corner, instead of the top left. WHY? Willy turner 18:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this has been addressed before, but the reason is that the flag appears to be moving forward (i.e., advancing, not retreating) when placed on the right sleeve "backwards". Parsecboy 18:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI - Marines (and attached Navy personnel) do not wear the American flag on their sleeves... only the U.S. Army does so. That's one way to tell the difference b/t USA and USMC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.228.95 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


True. Marines you see in Iraq will also have desert digital camo, whereas the Army has it's funky green/grey digital camo that serves as all-purpose camo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.64.119 (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous Soldiers

I'm trying to get a list together of famous soldiers. Someone help me out as there is no list on wikipedia for famous soldiers yet.

Bpingon 17:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the Wikipedia category, "United States Army soldiers". Equazcion 07:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article: United States Army Basic Training

Please contribute if you can to the new article, United States Army Basic Training. It has just been split off from Recruit training and needs a lot of work. Thanks. Equazcion 08:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to this added in the intro template. Publicus 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rank Structure templates need standardization

Can whoever fixed the Officer Ranks template do the same for the Warrant Officer and Enlisted templates? The Warrant Officer template still has the silly stylized shoulder boards for background (the plain green rectangle is better, and actually NO background would be best), and both WO and Enlisted templates should match the Officer format: US DoD Pay Grade at the top, followed by Insignia, Title, Abbreviation, and NATO code LAST.

Also, the images for 2LT, 1LT, and CPT should be rotated 90 degrees in order to match the format of the MAJ through GEN images ("upright" instead of "lying on their sides"). Thanks, Mike f 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I "fixed" the officer ranks by deleting the screwy version someone else had put in there and replacing it with the set from the main article on US officer ranks. Otherwise, I don't have the resources to fix the ones laying down or the other two. This is something I would bring up directly with the MilHistWP and see if anyone there is more capable than I. --ScreaminEagle 01:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's done. Took a little trial and error, but I think the rank tables look better now. Now, to re-format the paragraphs that precede each table ... Mike f 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info box needs to be corrected

In the info box, the "Regular Army" is not properly linked to the United States Regular Army page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_Army_%28United_States%29 This needs to be corrected. -TabooTikiGod 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bermuda square

When did the Army go from square to triangluar divisions? Why? Trekphiler 22:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to having four Brigade Combat Teams? That's happened gradually over the past couple of years; part of the "modularity transformation" that's supposed to make the Army more deployable. Like how the Corps have divested their divisions, who now fall directly under Forscom. Parsecboy 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not. This is c1920, a shift (IIRC) from 4 rgt to 3. I came across a ref in a paper encyclopedia once & I'd never heard of it. Trekphiler 18:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The recommendation came right after the first world war, but the actual reorganization was done during about 1940-42. IIRC some National Guard divisions were still 'square' when nationalized for WW2, but were made triangular quickly. The whole process had to be done by 1943 becasue no new Infantry Divisions were raised after that. DMorpheus 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist Organization

Is it worth including in this article that the US Army was recently designated as a "terrorist organization" by the Govt of Iran? Iran gov't backs parliament's 'terrorist' label for US army, CIA Bstone 14:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's barely notable, and it's not relevant to this article. Make a Perceptions of the United States Army article, and stick it there, if you like. Parsecboy 12:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The information that the US declared the IRGC is included in the IRGC page and this information you deleted that was here is included in the CIA page so why can't it be included here? You say it is an opinion of the Iranian parlement but the IRGC being a terrorist organisation is an opinion of the US parlement so why shouldn't it be included here? An other reason of that argument not being good is that it doesn't say the US army is a terrorist organisation but it says Iran recognizes it as a terrorist organisation. So I'll be re-adding it. The Honorable Kermanshahi 15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant in either of those places either. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not for governments to label each other as terrorists. Also, if we include Iran's opinion of the US Army, we have to include every other opinion of it, none of which are notable. Like I said above, create a Perceptions of the United States Army and go crazy. But it's not relevant or notable here. Parsecboy 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we both agree that neither the IRGC or the U.S. Army are terrorist organisations but it is relevant to add and no you don't need to add all Irans opinions about the US army or all the US's opinions about Iran but this is an official law and that is different than an opinion. This also means if Iran ever gets their hands on US soldiers they will be classified as terrorists and not as POWs and so trialed for terrorism and if found guilty of being U.S. soldiers they will be death sentenced just like real terrorists of the Mujahedin or Jundullah. The Honorable Kermanshahi 15:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant at all. The law the Iranians passed (and possibly the American one as well, but I haven't looked at it yet) was only a non-binding resolution. It's not a binding law that mandates anything other than "From now on, we're going to call you terrorists". Nothing more. This whole issue is just like two little kids calling names on the playground. It's also about as significant, and should be treated as such. Parsecboy 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking clarification on use of "Regiment" in naming of regiments

For disclosure, I have been named in a dispute that has been accepted for mediation recently. It is my understanding that mediation proceeds best when parties seek reasonable support for their position in order to reach an acceptable compromise, and I am hoping to avoid having the matter classified as "stale" due to lack of progress toward resolution.

I notice that several regiments mentioned in this article are named with the word "Regiment" at the end of the names in the section Combat maneuver organizations. AR 220-1 Unit Status Reporting does follow this process of naming units with an ordinal number (First, Second, Third...), followed by a branch or type (Cavalry, Infantry...), and ended with the level of organization (Division, Battalion...), and refers the reader to AR 220-5 Designation, Classification, and Change in Status of Units, which states under that AR's paragraph 2-3, subparagraph (3): "The word 'regiment' is understood and is not included in a unit's official designation."

It appears the tradition and history of all regiments under CARS to name themselves to non-military institutions to which they do not report (such as Wikipedia) in the standard number, type, and level format used for any other level of command for the sake of consistency with AR 220-1, especially when there is a question of ambiguity in naming by levels of organization (as in this Wikipedia article's listing of various combat maneuver organizations), so as an example for illustration purposes only, the full name of the 1st Rock-filled Snowballer is properly rendered as either First Rock-filled Snowballer Regiment or 1st Rock-filled Snowballer Regiment. I believe this is the standard command interpretation of AR 600-82 with respect to reporting a regiment's full name to non-military publications, in compliance with the plain language of that Army Regulation which states in part, located in paragraph 5-5: "It is not the intent of HQDA to change the tactical organization of the brigades, battalions, squadrons, or armored cavalry and ranger regiments. Regiments (with the exception of armored cavalry and ranger) are nontactical organizations intended to perpetuate the history and traditions of regiments for soldiers." In any case, the listing of regiments in the CARS article appears unambiguous in leaving out the word "Regiment" after each unit listed since each list in that article is a list of regiments, containing units of no other level of organization that might cause confusion to soldiers or even civilians.

Is the above reasoning a reasonable summary of your use of "Regiment" in the naming of regiments in this article, which as part of a non-military web site is not in any unit's chain of command for official reporting purposes, or are there other reasons attributable to published, verifiable sources for the regimental naming practices in this article? Hotfeba 03:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you give some examples from this article? I could only find 2CR, 3ACR, 11ACR, and 160SOAR, but these are all their offical names, not like, for example, 2nd of the 13th Inf. Regt. (my old basic training unit, the first example I could think of), where the regiment is ceremonial. If you provide the instances of usage in question, I (and other editors as well) can reply more specifically. Thanks. Parsecboy 12:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The regiments you just cited are sufficient to illustrate. Under paragraph 2-3 of AR 220-5, all unit names formally originate from the office of the Chief of Military History when a unit is first "constituted" before being activated under that name or re-activated under another name by re-flagging with different colors; even the non-tactical ceremonial ones are "official" under the Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS) and are listed by the military history center (CMH) at HQDA. Every active regular component (RC) infantry battalion is associated with a CARS infantry regiment (the same can be said for armor, artillery, and other combat arms battalion-sized units for their regimental affiliations) in accordance to the AR 600-82 quote from paragraph 5-5 above.
  • I served with the Old Guard in DC, which is the first battalion of the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment (or the recruiting brochure I still have from the 1970s and the current website at www.army.mil are both in error, and not just because "3rd" is often officially rendered as "3d"!) Even the special designation of "Old Guard" is official, according to the CMH website at www.army.mil, and it just appears highly illogical in a most un-military way to have an official nickname of a unit that is not official itself.
  • Your assignment to the 2nd of the 13th Infantry Regiment was official, even if the 13th was non-tactical or merely ceremonial, because every morning, your training unit's adjutant was responsible for transmitting the commander's official report of that unit's status up the chain of command, and at some point during your weeks of training, you did get paid by the United States Army, even if was a cash disbursement after saluting the paymaster.
  • A rather famous one is the 509th Infantry Regiment, which has had at least one airborne battalion assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division; if I dared to argue that the 509th was merely an "unofficial" name in any bar anywhere near Ft. Bragg or Ft. Richardson, this disabled veteran would rightly expect to have his front teeth kindly handed to him at the door after picking himself off the floor.
As far as I can tell, the only "unofficial" parts of any unit are any honorary or distinguished members of the unit who do not actively serve with the unit, and even they are covered by some sort of AR. There does not appear to be any official US Army publication which defines the non-existence of a regimental headquarters as rendering that unit as not official; the plain text of AR 220-5 states that a unit having no assigned personnel or equipment is still officially on the active rolls until it is de-activated, and even on de-activation, it is still officially a constituted unit. Hotfeba 19:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green service uniform

Can someone please write an entry for United States Army green service uniform? granted it will be discontinued in 2011, but that's all the more reason to create an entry for it. --Steve, Sm8900 20:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So you want a seperate article for it rather than a sub-heading on this one? Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs 21:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
yes. actually, there is not currently a specific sub-heading for this, as far as I know. what we do have is a sub-heading for Army uniforms in general. --Steve, Sm8900 21:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Would it not be able to be placed in the section you have just mentioned? I could add a line or two but you seem to know what you are talking about.. Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs 08:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Army's MySpace

Why was my adding of the Army's official MySpace reverted and scolded with threats of banning? It is an official site, which means it should be included as stated by the very first rule Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked and adding it does not constitute spam or vandalism, as the incompetent admin who warned me falsely stated. Furthermore, it used Template:MySpace, and what's the point of having an external link template if its use is considered vandalism? An explanation from anyone who can provide one would be appreciated. 69.234.151.19 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided specifically says linking to Myspace should be avoided. I believe that applies here, since that particular link does not add to the context of the article. · AndonicO Talk 13:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons

I think its the time to change the article regarding M16 and M4...the Army is no longer use M16 , the M4 is now the standard indivisual weapon .--Blain Toddi 07:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no it's not. Plenty of soldiers still use the M16. Provide an Army source stating that the M4 has replaced the M16, and we'll change it. Until then, it'll remain as it is. Parsecboy 14:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding ask any soldier in the US Army about his weapon !!!!!!!!!!!--Blain Toddi 19:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Or we could just see what the Army itself has to say about the matter: http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/individual/index.html Mike f (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought wikipedia is a site of trust but I was wrong --Blain Toddi (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A "site of trust"? What does that mean? If it means that we trust what anyone says regardless of a lack of citable sources, then no, it's not a site of trust in the least. If such a weapon has been changed officially, then you need an official statement somewhere online or in print from the Army saying just that. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Army shifted to M4 since 1994 and the M16 was rolled out gratually . The National Guard and Reserve were the last to see the change , its a fact every soldier know it --Blain Toddi (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I served in the US Army from March 2004 until this past October, and I never layed hands on an M4. Yes, most infantry might use the M4, but everyone else gets the M16. And there's far more support soldiers than infantry. This discussion is irrelevant anyways, with the .mil source provided by Mike f. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The recent edit by AzureCitizen adds a little clarity to the matter, I think. Mike f (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

well the M4 is the weapon used now in combat while the M16 is used by non-combat support units so I think its unlogical to put M16 as the primary weapon ..!!!--Max Mayr (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, the article does not list the M16 as the primary weapon. It lists the M16 and M4 as the primary weapons (together), which is accurate. This need not be an either/or situation; listing them both as the "primary individual weapons" is logical. --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that the M4 is slowly replaycing selected M16 series from some units . Well thats not true , the active service combat units is now fully shifted to M4 , not sure about Guards and Reserve but I know some guards units are completed their shift .--Max Mayr (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Max. Could you please elaborate on why you feel it's "not true" that the M4 is "slowly replacing" selected M16 series rifles from "some units?" My arms vault is full of M16A2s, and I'm told it will likely be many years before these weapons will be replaced by M4s, if ever. You might want to give this article a read. Do you have any sources or references that indicate the Army intends to replace everyone M16 with an M4? The noted reference in the article from the army.mil site infers that it will be some M16 series rifles but not all. --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello , well I said every combat unit ...I dont know about your unit if its combat or support unit , besides I never seen a combat active duty army unit to use M16 in Iraq.--Max Mayr (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the article which by the way I read before ... Its the sourse Ive looking for ,it mentions the M4 as the primary weapon of combat army units not M16 which is ( M16A4 ) is the primary weapon of USMC--Max Mayr (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why this discussion is still continuing. Blain and Max have consistently failed to provide reliable sources to back up their claims, while sources that disprove their claims have been supplied. There's really nothing left to argue about. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the article supplied by AzureCitizen is clearly stating the M4 as the primary infantry weapon of the US Army --Max Mayr (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the US Army wasn't entirely composed of infantry. Some units is therefore appropriate. Like I said, nothing left to argue about. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy you said the M16 is used by support units and M4 with the Infantry and there are more support soldiers than Infantry ..ok thats true but the logic thing that the army duty is to fight and it fights with M4 . so its unlogical to say the support unit's weapon as the primary weapon , or we can just say the M9 Berreta as the primary weapon !!!! --Blain Toddi (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As it stands right now, the article states that the "the primary individual weapons of the Army are the M16A2 assault rifle and its compact variant, the M4 carbine, which is slowly replacing selected M16 series rifles in some units." It goes on to say that "the most common sidearm in the U.S. Army is the 9 mm M9 Pistol." Can't we all that this is accurate? Why must we state that only one is a primary weapon, to the exclusion of the other? Arguing that since combat units use the M4 and the Army's "duty" is to fight so we should declare the M4 primary and ignore the M16 makes as much sense as saying that there are more combat support and combat service support soldiers than there are combat arms soldiers and should therefore call the M16 primary and ignore the M4. Both arguments are flawed and ignore the reality that when it comes to rifles in the United States Army today, both the M16 and M4 are mainstream primary individual weapons for soldiers. --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not changing (and I say this as a US Army combat infantryman). The M16 is still the primary unit of the army. Blain Toddi, you need to read WP:V to support your changes. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To the best of the article I think it should be put as follow : The M4 is currently used by comat infantry units and M16A2 are used by support units and both serving as the primary indivisual weapons of the US Army soldiers --Max Mayr (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to go into that level of detail. The way the article stands now is fine. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester in your personel page you are saying you were using M4 !!!!--Blain Toddi (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, please see proposal below. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M16/M4 proposed edit

We've seen a lot of discussion and confusion stemming from the issue of the M4 being used primarily by combat arms units and the M16 series being used primarily by combat support units. Arguments over which one is more "primary" are fruitless as they are both common primary individual weapons for soldiers. However, the fact that this issue has come up and obviously caused misunderstandings leads me to believe it might be constructive to insert a single sentence in the weapons section. I propose the following edit (indicated by italicized text) and suggest that anyone interested post a "support" or "oppose" comment to see if there is consensus. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

“

The primary individual weapons of the Army are the M16A2/A4 assault rifle[1] and its compact variant, the M4 carbine, which is slowly replacing selected M16 series rifles in some units.[2] At present, M16 series rifles are primarily used by support units while the M4 has been fielded to combat units. Optionally, the M9 bayonet can be attached to either variant for close-quarters fighting.[3]

 ”

I Agree--Blain Toddi (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea it makes sense now--Max Mayr (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that such an edit is needed. It's not clear-cut between combat and cs/css troops. While I was in Iraq in 2005-2006 with the XVIII Airborne Corps, several of the NCOs had M4s, the rest of us had 16s (we were all combat support troops). I've seen plenty of infantry or other combat arms soldiers carrying 16s over in Iraq. Take a look at the latest Newsweek magazine. Turn to page 31, and you'll see two Regular Army combat arms soldiers taking a break. One's armed with an M4, the other has a plain old M16. It's not clear cut at all, and we shouldn't imply that it is. It's better to leave them both as just the "primary infantry weapons". Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may point out... it's not clear-cut between CA and CS/CSS troops... but the suggested edit is not implying a distinction between individual troops, but by units, and by using the phrase "primarily used" near the start of the sentence, it helps the reader get a fairly accurate impression of where the split is. --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Parsecboy and SwatJester are correct here ... there is no need at this time to draw any distinction between maneuver units and support units and what specific rifle each one may or may not be "primarily" issued. Why? Not because such a level of detail is beyond the scope of this article—it's not—but simply because no source has been provided for such a statement other than "it's common knowledge." Well, it's NOT common knowledge. Mainly because it's not true, but that's entirely beside the point—a change to the reliably sourced status quo requires a source to back it up. No such source has been provided, therefore the status quo must stand. Mike f (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mike! I read your post and agree, it's not outside the article scope but a source is key and essential, otherwise it's just another unsourced edit that is open to challenge. I did a quick google check to see if there was anything on a CS/CA division for the M16/M4 and didn't find anything; I will leave it to Blain and Max to dig further if they'd like to look. I did come across this 29 Mar 2007 army.mil press release, however, which says "The M4 Carbine is the Army's primary individual combat rifle for Infantry, Ranger, and Special Operations forces." Food for thought. --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK I found this article about guns used by US Army : http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyweapons/l/blguns.htm Where is the M16 ?--Blain Toddi (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Blain, About.com is not a reliable source. That doesn't cut the mustard. Parsecboy (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(This message is primarily directed to Blaine and Max) After having slept on it, I do not think you are going to find a reference anywhere which supports the notion that the M16 has been relegated to CS and CSS units while the M4 has been specifically fielded to all CA units. I haven't thoroughly looked yet, but I'm starting to think that notion goes against common sense and what the Army has been doing all along with the M4A1 program after a conversation I had with Mike the other day. I also noted that since the Army has only introduced 225,000 M4s to the inventory, there are far more M16s in existence. However, rather than abandon the idea entirely, I think a simpler edit could address the issue both of you have been wanting to resolve. I will post it here shortly for all involved in this discussion. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M16/M4 simplified edit

Okay, per the above, I think we should abandon the flawed CA/CS/CSS edit split and instead resolve the issue with a simpler solution which adheres strictly to solid credible army.mil sources and says nothing further. As before, changes to the mainspace article are indicated by italicized text, and I would ask everyone still interested please post a "support" or "oppose" comment to see where consensus lies: --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

“

The primary individual weapons of the Army are the M16 series assault rifle[4] and its compact variant, the M4 carbine[5], which is slowly replacing selected M16 series rifles in some units and is primarily used by Infantry, Ranger, and Special Operations forces.[6] Optionally, the M9 bayonet can be attached to either variant for close-quarters fighting.[7]

 ”
I have to admit that the M4 is used only in these units plus the Air Borne and by the way I never meant the M16 to be fully replayced by the M4 and the reader now can realize that the M4 not the M16 is the weapon used in combat since these units are the fighting units on ground ...after all I thank you all for serving our country and help this article to be better--Blain Toddi (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I see no one edit the article so far ?! --Max Mayr (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we've seen two (from what I interpret) supports, and it's been more than 24 hours. Still, I would have liked to have heard from the others before any edit on this issue is inserted. Parsecboy, Mike, SwatJester, did you want to register your two cents on this, or were you going to abstain and simply not oppose it? I'm going to wait at least another 24 hours before concluding it's no longer an issue. --AzureCitizen (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I say leave the text of that sentence as-is, and add a footnote link at the end to the effect of: "The M4 has completely replaced the M16 as the primary individual weapon of Infantry, Ranger, and Special Forces units [insert PAO reference link here]." Although even that may be of questionable accuracy (despite what the PAO press release says), because some SF units have replaced their M4s with other weapons (like the HK416). But good luck finding a reliable, verifiable source for that. But I digress ... I say just add a footnote. Mike f (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for posting Mike, I was starting to worry no one cared anymore. When you say footnote link however, I'm getting confused. Are there other footnotes in the article? I didn't see any. I saw the reference links section, but it isn't being used in the way you might see footnotes in a professional journal or scholarly article, it just links direct URL references. Am I looking in the wrong place? --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the verbage about Infantry/SF/Rangers and the M4, along with the PAO link, as a footnote (much easier to just DO it than try to explain it...). I think that adds sufficient clarity while satisfying all parties. If anyone has strong objections, go ahead and revert and continue the discussion. Otherwise, thank you and good night. Mike f (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Everything seems fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sincere thanks to Mike for deciding to just BRD the edit in order to try to just settle issue. However, it's apparent to me that the footnote concept used here is not in keeping with article consistency and downplays the significance compared with the rest of the paragraph. I'll try to make that clear in two points:

  • Although the reference links in the article function something like a footnote, there are no other footnotes, they are all references. Out of 41 such reference links, this is the only one to "use" it in such fashion. Why adopt something non-consistent?
  • There are other similar items in the paragraph as it is currently written that are arguably less significant than the fact that the infantry, Rangers, and Special Operations Forces have abandoned the M16 in favor of the M4 and HK416. For example (pasted from the text as it is written now but emphasis added in italics):
  1. "...less commonly issued sidearms include the M11, used by Special Agents of the CID, and the MK23, used by some Army Special Forces units."
  2. "the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) light machine-gun, to provide suppressive fire at the fire-team level"
  3. "the M1014 Joint Service Combat Shotgun or the Mossberg 590 Shotgun for door-breaching and close-quarters combat"
  4. "the M14 Rifle for long-range marksmen, and the M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle, the M24 Sniper Weapon System, or the M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper Rifle for snipers"
  5. "...M67 fragmentation grenade and M18 smoke grenade, are also commonly used by combat troops."
... As a result, the article has already made specific distinctions for other categories and groups, such as CID agents, special forces, fire teams, CQB, snipers, and combat troops. Why is the fact that the infantry, Rangers, and Special Operations units have stopped using the M16 and adopted the M4A1 and HK416 so "minor" a detail as to not belong in the weapons paragraph with these other items, but instead deliberately downplayed to the bottom as a "footnote" where there are no other footnotes? Arguably, if we're going to state that the M14, M107, M24, and M110 are used by Army snipers, why aren't we including the HK416 (see Army Times article) in this section as well? On a personal note, I'd love to get my hands on one of those and find out more about whether the HK416 is so much better than the carbon-fouling legacy design of the M4.

More food for thought. I'll let anyone who is still interested think that over; Mike, I understand you're off for the night and may or may not care to reply tomorrow. I will not disturb the edit as is, however, and will wait another 24 hours for anyone who wants to respond. --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think including HK416 which has only limited use by Special Forces ( only 500 pieces purchased by Army Delta and 84 by Okinawa based Green Beret ) and not including 225,000 M4 used by Infantry , Rangers and Special Forces nothing rather than personal opinions , I mean what possible source is better than that provided by AzureCitizen ?!!!!.--Blain Toddi (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The HK416 is in EXTREMELY limited issue, and only by units that have discretionary procurement, i.e. CAG/Delta. I agree with the proposed simplified edit, though I do think the M249 SAW should be mentioned. As for the M1014 and the M14 they are so limited in number (i.e. usually 1 per squad) they're not really a primary issue weapon. The M67 is not a primary weapon. The M11 and Mk.23 are not primary weapons, and I'd like to see a source that CID uses the M11. Simpler is better: lets just use the simplified edit.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, 24 hours have passed since my last posting asking for comments. We appear to have four supporting or still in favor of the proposed edit (Blaine, Max Mayr, SwatJester, myself). Can't speak for Parsecboy or Mike, but I'm getting the feeling that lack of responses may indicate the issue is getting tiresome and folks just want to move on. I'm going to insert the edit exactly as proposed, let everyone take a look at it on the mainpage, and then if anyone still thinks this is a mistake, we can pick it up again here in the talk section for further discussion and reconsideration if necessary. --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of weapons, why is the 240B not mentioned? It's widely used, from infantry units to being mounted on Humvees, etc. That seems to be an oversight. Any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Or the TOW-2B? Or M2? MK 19? We have a list of weapons used, there's no need to add them all here.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Good point; you're right, we don't need everything used to be listed here. Parsecboy (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The 240B (and C), M2, and MK19 are all mentioned ... but in the next section down—Crew-served weapons—not in the Individual weapons section for reasons that I assume are obvious. :-) Mike f (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Grow the Army" Initiative

The Grow The Army initiative announced this week creates a 74,200 Soldier increase by 2013, with the activation of a bunch of new combat and support brigades. Does anyone know which units will be reactivated, or if another Division command is being reactivated? The Army page does not specufy. -Ed! (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-class comments

Your list of formations definitely should include field army. You could identify it as historical as a combat formation, but it does remain as an administrative headquarters. Army group should also be there, but historical only -- I can conceive of needing a field army, but not an army group. Theater army is probably too obscure for the article, although that gives me interesting ideas for army support (communications zone, theater army, etc.).

In crew-served weapons, consider the lightweight variations of MLRS, air defense, cannon/mortar/N-LOS.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Army Ships

The Army also operates ships. Such as Spearhead-class High Speed Logistics Ship, Three classes of landing craft,A stalwart-class Missile Range Instrument Ship (the Worthy), and 6 MGen. Nathanael Greene class large coastal tugs. I think this should be included in the Equiptment section of the article as it provides more information (and insight) to what the Army is capable of. Not to mention we already have the other types of equiptment and vehicles listed.

Source for this information is below: http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/army.htm

And can be found (well at least a few of them) in any Army Almanac and Basic Trainee guidebook (at least mine had it). I would put it in myself but i'm afraid i'll mess it up. Besides most of you do a better job anyway. All US Army Vessels carry the prefiex (USAV) in their names. Designations are assigned but not present on the ship's hull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.198.83 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5 STAR GENERAL ranking and pay grade

this is my first time on here hopefully it's done right. currently stationed at ft. riley kansas just wanted to comment on a few things I understand at one time 5 star generals have occured but it is not an official rank in AR670-1 Wear and appearance of Army uniforms and insignia their is no 5 star rank, and certainly no O-11 or O-12 pay grade General Omar Bradley the last person to achieve this rank and many others only held this rank mostly for ceremonial purposes. General Pershing never wore more than 4 stars on active duty upon his retirement Congress bestowed General of the Armies upon him as sign of appreciation for his service. Understandably in the past with navy marines and army working together only one can be truly in charge, but now with our regional commands, such as General Petraeus in Iraq there will more than likely never be another need for 5 star generals, I would recommend maybe a historical section for previous ranks and you can even include older ranks like Spec-5, and others. 74.204.130.244 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)16mar08

It's pretty close, but you accidentally signed twice, so I removed one, and placed it at the end of your comment, which is the usual place for it. You are correct that the 5 and 6 star ranks are essentially ceremonial, although Pershing was promoted to General of the Armies in 1919, before he retired. He also wore 4 gold stars, as opposed to silver (i.e., the same kind of disambiguation as 1LT and 2LT, etc.) The one difference between O-11 and Spec-5/6/7/8/9 is that technically, Congress can authorize the General rank if they saw fit; the Specs have been retired permanently. Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not neutral

This article is not neutral, nearly all of the references are from the US Army's official website.

In an effort to reach NPOV I have added a war crimes section, similar to the one on Waffen-SS.

--RucasHost (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There is abundant reason to criticize the Army, and, not least, the internal arguments about roles, structure and mission, and the conflicts between the Army (military in genera) and politicians. There are generally accepted, in hindsight, criticisms for inappropriate domestic use, using the Bonus March and domestic surveillance of anti-Vietnam protesters. There is the sometimes scathing internal attempts to fix the breakdowns caused by Vietnam policy.

As far as war crimes, without consulting references, I can reasonably name a number of well-established ones (e.g., My Lai, the means of suppression of Filipino insurgents around the turn of the 20th century, and many incidents in the Indian Wars). I can also name ones that may have had extenuating circumstances, such as killing, without trial, some concentration camp guards of the same Schutzstaffel you cite. All of these are easily sourced.

Merely to drop in a drive-by mention of the Waffen SS, however, without any further details, seems just as NPOV as what you claim. Nazi references, especially without context, tend to be inflammatory. Given that half an hour of work could have produced substantive material, I do not see what you did as, in the slightest, improving NPOV. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's going to be comment about AUS abuses (& balance suggests there must be), mention of Abu Ghraib is essential; so is mention (as reported on the TV news) of listing anti-Iraq War (Bush's lie) protesters as "terrorist suspects". Trekphiler (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No disagreement at all. That's a lot more specific, even in just bringing up the name of that hellhole, than a vague mention of the Waffen-SS.
I would distinguish, however, between things that the Army reasonably can control, such as their own people at Abu Ghraib, plus not controlling contractors and CIA people there. The Taguba Report is rather scathing, and a little-known thing that bothers me a lot is that the report appeared to end Taguba's career, rather abruptly. There are other concerns about tolerating dissent (the Marines are much better at that), such as why HR McMaster has been twice passed over.
The Army can't control Bush lying, which isn't hard to detect -- his lips move. :-) Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
My thinking was Army-only; I'll accept CIA/Blackwater &c are outside the chain of command. As for protest, I was thinking of a reported Army PIO or something listing protest groups on a DHS "terror watchlist" of some kind. It was done by Army, so should be included. (Unless I've gotten my services really screwed up, & it was the AF or Corps. =]) Trekphiler (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC) (Read my lips, it wasn't CIA's fault.)
I was referring to CIA only in the context of Abu Ghraib, where the in-prison MP company commander and First Sergeant should have been reporting out-of-control "OGA" interrogators, some of whom were contractors, to the MP Bn CO and Sgt Maj. There were several things that should have gone to MI Bde, and, had that failed, into IG channels. The MPs were being asked to "soften up" prisoners for MI (and CIA) in a manner specifically forbidden to MPs -- MPs are not interrogators, at least for HUMINT/CI rather than criminal investigation.
It's never been explained, to my satisfaction, of what orders came down from Gen. Fast (MNC-I G-2) to the MP and MI brigade commanders, and if those orders violated ARs about MI and MP responsibilities.
As a separate matter, as I understand, most of the abusive guards were in one company. Where was the 1/Sgt? IIRC, the highest ranking guard charged with direct abuse was a SSG. Were there no NCOs between him and the 1/Sgt and CO? There seems to have been a massive lack of supervision I'd expect from senior NCOs. Did MI/CIA intimidate them into "I see nothing?", or was it lack of activity on their part?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RucasHost, if you're going to use a laughable source such as the Teheran TImes, I do hope you'll be adding a "War crimes" to the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, and all the other armies of the world too, to be fair. And when you're done, I think you'll find that the US military is pretty tame compared to many in the rest of the world, if you're honest. But that fact that you compare the US Army to the Waffen SS, which was not the German Army of WWII, but a branch of the SS, gives me little hope. - BillCJ (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
More to the point, I'd support a properly-cited criticisms section which would include war crimes. However, please don't use Iranian propoganda as your source. As written, there is nothing supportable in the section. Second, an Army as a whole doesn't generally commit war crimes, but individuals, as discussed above. Please refrain from using a broad brush. - BillCJ (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
About Abu Ghraib, FWIH ("Frontline"?), it wasn't limited to a handful of JOs, despite what DoD would have you believe, it came down the chain, if not explicitly, "This is OK to do.", & that's all it took. Trekphiler (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There's more explicit material in the Taguba Report than inferences, so just hving a news report that "this is OK to do" may not be enough, or need to be enough, to meet WP:V. I personally believe that there was some whitewashing, quite likely going into the White House or Office of the Secretary of Defense, but I also believe that some of it was inadequate supervision, at various places from major general (and possibly lieutenant general) to (not knowing MP organization in detail) first sergeant. While it was a reaction to Abu Ghraib rather than something that probably should have been done to begin with, the senior commander then in Iraq (LTG Sanchez, commanding Multinational Corps Iraq) may well have had too many tactical matters on his hands to track what went on in the rear areas; one of the changes resulting from the scandal was to create a four-star commander of Multinational Force Iraq). The MNF-I commander definitely has responsibility for the non-combat operations.
If there is a need for such a section, is there not a need for it in every article about a national army? There's nothing about crimes in British Army. Red Army (i.e., Soviet) has a section on purges of the Army, but nothing on war crimes. French Army has a brief section on values, but nothing on war crimes. People's Liberation Army (People's Republic of China) doesn't have one on war crimes. Most serious military historians, amateur or professional, can come up with individual examples of war crimes by these and other forces, but in most, not all, there is no overall pattern of them. Putting such a section in U.S. Army suggests WP:UNDUE or WP:POV, if there's no comparable effort to such a section for other militaries.
Even if one is concentrating on the U.S., why is Abu Ghraib the focus, rather than My Lai, Wounded Knee, or the various WWII incidents where individuals decided, variously, to gun down concentration camp guards or ordinary soldier POWs? There's a serious discussion about certain strategies that may or may not have been militarily legitimate. Sherman's March to the Sea? Strategic Hamlets and free-fire zones?
Especially for scorched-earth strategies like Sherman or the retreat of the Red Army leaving nothing for the Germans, those may be very legitimate articles. There's quite a bit of military and civilian serious analysis. Do those things belong in every national army article, at least more than a link?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I won't argue for keeping it in as is, necessarily, but leaving it out (in any of your cited cases) is a whitewash we should not only avoid, but actively counteract. Maybe this is a start. Or maybe it needs a page of its own? Trekphiler (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Separate pages seem a better idea to me, since they can reflect policies of specific times and wars. Here's a start-class article, which certainly attempts to be NPOV, in a related area: U.S. Intelligence involvement with German and Japanese War Criminals after World War II. It looks at these acts under the belief systems prevalent at the time. Since the CIA had not yet been founded, most of these came out of U.S. Army intelligence. Note that this addresses a reasonably specific time period.
Some militaries, of course, are more known for war crimes than others. When there is a systematic pattern, especially when that can be traced to high command levels (e.g., Rape of Nanking, punitive measures against China for sheltering airmen from the Doolittle Raid), discussion may be appropriate. Even so, this sort of thing tends to be specific to a war, rather than to a military. In WWI, and even the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese took good care of wounded prisoners.
It becomes more complex when the systematic pattern was from a parallel organization to the national army, such as the SS or NKVD. Again, these tend to be specific to wars. To what extent should the main Red Army be held accountable for Katyn Forest? Even more so, the penal battalions used by the regular military, although often under NKVD control? What about the Wehrmacht knowledge of the Einsatzgruppen?
I happen to believe that the nuclear attacks on Japan were justified, given, for example, that the Designated Ground Zero (well, offset a little for better target recognition) for the first attack was Hiroshima Castle, HQ for the Second General Army, commanding the defense for southern Japan -- where the first invasion was planned. Still, I tend to think of Marshal of the RAF Sir Arthur Tedder as much closer to war crimes, with the deliberate dehousing strategy -- yet Harris could make an argument that his aircraft were not precise enough to do more. Some of his reluctance to attack industry may come from a decision, that, in hindsight, was unwise: he was not briefed into ULTRA SIGINT. As a consequence, Portal only could "suggest" Bomber Command focus on POL, when Portal knew the German POL industry was almost knocked out.
Except for the most extreme cases, however, I believe it is more appropriate to have separate pages on war crimes.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

<--My main concern with that approach is it dilutes the impact. If I understand you correctly, you'd put all "war crimes" on one page. By doing that, you're effectively equating them (regardless of your intent, I suspect it'd be perceived that way), which gives you a "they did it, so it was OK we did it" effect (again, regardless of original intent). Outside that, tho, I agree, a dedicated page looking at the issue has merit, if only to publicize the issue & puncture the fictions: the Wehrmacht knew nothing about massacres (when it routinely slaughtered POWs), U.S. Army was humane & IJA butchers (both committed atrocities fairly regularly in PTO), so on. Your point on Tedder & Harris is especially interesting, in light of the recent controversy here over the Canadian War Museum being hided by veterans groups & a lapdog Parliamentary committee for its treatment of bombing. I'd agree, Tedder could've stood in the dock at Nuremberg, along with Portal, Lindeman, & Winston; Harris, too, probably, 'cause I'm less convinced his ignorance of Ultra wasn't balanced by a determination to carry out the expressed policy, consequences be damned. Neither do I think "incapacity" was a defense; by the time the Mossie was introduced, it was possible to hit powerstations with sufficient accuracy to seriously inhibit production significantly. More to the point, minelaying was possible from 1940, with substantial results, at nearly zero losses (if Saward's bio of Harris, & Terraine's Right of the Line, are to be believed. (Ask me about the morality of continuing to bombing cities in the face of that, sometime. And recall Haig.) Trekphiler (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haig vs. Haig

Given this article is about the U.S. Army, I thought, at first, you were referring to Alexander "I am in control at the White House" Haig, where you were presumably referring to General Sir Douglas "The machine gun is a much overrated weapon" Haig.

No, I was not suggesting putting all war crimes of all armies on one page. What I was proposing is that each national army would have a link to a war crimes article. As an aside in the US PTO, there were things, not necessarily Army, where "military necessity" was claimed, but were fairly clear war crimes, such as submarines surfacing after sinking transports and machine-gunning the survivors, if they were within swimming distance of land. Some things, such as not accepting Japanese surrenders since they often were ruses, were actually discouraged by commanders because they wanted prisoners for questioning -- and Japanese prisoners, whose commanders never dreamed they would be in captivity, talked freely.

I wonder if there is a place for a "war anti-crime" article, when there is something to put there? Another aside that should go somewhere, and may be true for multiple militaries, is when someone took the initiative to prevent civilian harm, and even unnecessary harm to soldiers. Guy Gabaldon is one such for the US PTO. I'm embarrassed to say I forget the name of the German U-boat commander that after sinking a transport, admittedly one that he discovered was also carrying Italian POWs, that broadcast an appeal for a local truce for rescue, but was attacked by a U.S. ASW aircraft. Doenitz made it very clear, after that incident, that mercy was not an option.

There were also the commanders that variously could not function because they were too concerned about the safety of their men (e.g., George B. McClellan in the American Civil War). I don't know where to put the commanders that would take necessary risk, but would not subject any of their soldiers to more risk than was justified. I tend to think of Arthur Currie in that category). Again as an aside. you might find the section in Geophysical MASINT#Counterbattery and Countersniper Location and Ranging, which gives credit to Canadian innovations.

Apropos of Portal and Harris, while I have the physical book in storage, there's an interesting book, Hitler's Oil, that details exchanges of messages from Portal to Harris, begging him to attack POL at a time when ULTRA made it very clear that could knock out the Germans. Harris was determined on his "dehousing", threatening to resign if he didn't have his way, and also alluding to his direct access to Churchill. Much as I admire Churchill, he could be bloody-minded to the atrocity point. Churchill entered into quite serious planning to attack a German invasion with chemical weapons, while FDR personally vetoed the JCS proposal to use CW before the landings at the Battle of Iwo Jima.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"War crime by military of Country X"? That makes sense. Or more specifically, "War crime of military service X of Country Y"? Either way, much better. For AFUS PTO, I'd include much of what I saw in Dower's War Without Mercy, for a start.
Harris is a case. (Might almost say "headcase".) He was fanatically focused on dehousing, but I think there was some vanity in it, to prove BC could do the job; it wasn't just anti-POL, as Terraine points out (with a great phrase: it wasn't BC was irrelevant to the war, it was the war was irrelevant to BC.)
I've seen the claim on Winston & CW elsewhere, too; IIRC, it was a national survival issue, & in that case, I can't say I'd blame him. Against the Japanese it was a "no first use"; IIRC, there was concern of retaliation. (We can argue if flamethrowers were more humane some other time.)
On strafing troops in the water, I haven't read Mush's patrol report; from what O'Kane says (Wahoo?), Morton was wrecking the lifeboats, not firing into the troops. (Would've made more sense to kill the ship's crew, if he wanted to shorten the war; crews were harder to replace.)
On Haig, my point wasn't risking the men, it was excessive risk. Harris was throwing his crews at targets that weren't going anywhere, the Germans knew he'd be back, & the defenses got steadily better. If you hammer Haig for it (I linked him in case anybody didn't know him; I frankly never thought of Captain Control Freak =]), you've got to hammer Harris, too. Aside the morality of bombing civilians (which I'd say isn't an issue; there have been no "innocent civilians" since 1860, at the latest), there's the morality of expending his own men to so little benefit. (Maybe this discussion should be here? Or here?) I take the attitude of Sherman, or the Soviets, or, yes, Al Qaeda: if the objective is breaking the will of the government to fight, anybody is a legitimate target. (Winston, Portal, Harris, et al. took exactly the wrong approach. Might argue AQ did, too.)
Would I strafe men in the water? No. Fly planes into the WTC? No. Blow up mailboxes in Montreal? No. Bomb civilians in a declared war? Yes. (Guess I'm old-fashioned.)
You raise an interesting issue of "defending". Maybe a "morality of war" page? "Morality of command"? Could cover Harris' actions, or after Laconia (& I'm ashamed to say I can't recall his name, either), or Christie's treatment of his submariners in Oz (treating them like chessmen), the right/wrong of killing the crews of merchantmen... Dönitz' order was a clear, sensible response to his boats getting strafed; frankly, Hartenstein (OK, I looked...) picking them up in the first place astonished me, it's so contrary to usual practise & plain good sense. (It's a submarine, for heaven's sake; where do you put them? Which makes nonsense of this...) And it should've surprised nobody bombers attacked them; the U.S. approach seemed to be, treat every submarine as hostile. (Several USN boats were attacked, & Seawolf sunk, by friendly fire; Seawolf to a friendly DD, tho, since the bombers never actually managed to hit anything. =]) Trekphiler (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (BTW, Pokipsy76 {here} would probably have a conniption to see this exchange... =])
You do bring up several of Murphy's Laws of Combat, one of which emphatically is "Friendly fire isn't." I've always liked the variant, "When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend."
More seriously, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Surveys for both the ETO and PTO found that WWII-level population bombing did not break civilian morale. Some of this should have been inferred from the Battle of Britain, and, while there was no significant HUMINT out of Japan, there was a good deal of reporting about Germany. Sherman could, I believe, make more of a connection to impacting government will than could Harris.
Interestingly, the kamikaze, which only attacked military targets, had some significant psychological effects on naval crews, but that just made for more intense defense. One of the picket destroyer escorts at Okinawa did hang out a large banner with an arrow, saying "CARRIERS THIS WAY".
There are more modern incidents of "defending". In Desert Storm, H.R. McMaster is best known for the Battle of 73 Easting, in which his reinforced company took out an Iraqi armored brigade. Less publicized, however, is an incident a day or so later, when his unit spotted Republican Guards digging in, clearly intending to fight to the death. I doubt anyone would have criticized him for backing off and calling in air and artillery. Instead, he called for an interpreter and loudspeaker team, and convinced the enemy that they were brave soldiers, had fought honorably, and Iraq of the future needed them. They eventually surrendered, with no casualties on either side.
By the time of Iwo, the Japanese had no retaliatory CW capability.
I'll have to dig out the references, but I specifically remember both submarines and aircraft aiming at troop transport survivors. There were some cases where Phillipines were in range of a strong swimmer, and there, the subs alerted the Filipino resistance. A bullet would have been more merciful than a guerilla with a kris and time. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the sub guys said it, "No friend of ours." They rightly treated all aircraft as hostile. (Excuse me for the burn about Seawolf, but she was in a declared safety lane at the time. Barnard, CO Richard Rowell, was an idiot.)
Winston et al. should've known bombing alone wouldn't work; it hadn't in Spain, or China (& China, as "backward" as it was, as prone to panic, in the opinion of your average European at the time, should have broken). There was already in play a calculus: so long as your side could hit back, morale tended to hold, which was 1 reason the bombing campaign had to continue, as early as the Battle of Britain. And a political calculus: if Winston suspended it, he might end up facing a no-confidence motion. More to the point, there was no actual analysis of the effects of bombing on German morale. Astonishing, isn't it? It was all on faith, the "it's never been tried" argument. Meantime, there was no propaganda effort to provoke the German population to revolt, no sense of targeting Nazis, rather than all Germans, which senior Nazis were genuinely worried about & might actually have succeeded. I have a suspicion the Brits recalled the Zep raids, & the chaos in Germany at the end of WWI, & figured bombing could have the same effect this time round. (I also have a suspicion Winston feared it in Britain, especially with the V2, considering the number of British Army troops held at home when Monty was in a tight spot for trained infantry in Normandy.)
"CARRIERS THIS WAY"? Can't blame them... Recall the DDs tended to get hit far more often, contrary to Japanese claims & intentions. (Being sent to your death affects your eyesight?)
I won't say Japan had no CW capacity; I seem to recall there was some. There certainly was fear of it, from what I read.
As for subs, Morton's case is the only 1 I've ever heard. I won't doubt the guerrillas were alerted, but AFAIK, no sub ever actually fired on men in the water, & I've read Silent Victory a few times. (I confess, I haven't read everything in this area, so more recent stuff may say more, but Blair only mentions Morton.) I've heard of a couple of Atlantic cases (nothing specific from memory), & I can't say I know anything about the Brits or Dutch in SWPA. If you can source it, I'd be interested. Trekphiler (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It was very insomniac last night, so I'm not sure I trust my memory on all this. Who was the sub commander, right at the start of the war, that stressed out on a patrol, put himself onto the sick list, and Morton or one of the other greats took over? Said officer was rehabilitated into PT boats, and I definitely remember a machine-gunning incident. I'm also fairly sure there was strafing of survivors after the Battle of the Bismarck Sea.
Apropos the kamikaze, there are enough people that didn't fly their mission, or were escorts, or otherwise had insight into thinking, that there's grounds for some interesting observations. The command was quite worried that their orders might not be carried out for the final defense of the homeland, because they were going to order the special attack forces (all types) to go for troop transports, not warships. Now, were it a modern air campaign with cruise missiles, you'd consciously take out the AAW pickets first. With the kamikaze, it's believed they would rather die with a light warship than just be shot down. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
PTs, huh? With a clue like that, you'd think I could reel off his name. I'm embarrassed to say I can't. Looking in the index of Blair, he doesn't mention a transfer to PTs by anybody. Have you got another hint? Where? Based out of where? A rough date? The boat? (That'd make tracking the CO & any event easy.) Even a guess at the boat & period.
"Stressed out" doesn't narrow it down too much, either, unfortunately, so many got relieved. I do recall a guy cracking up (& I'm even more embarrassed I can't even recall his name, 'cause he turned over to his XO, about the bravest thing a CO can do); IIRC, he was transferred to DDs. No strafing, tho. Nor do I recall his boat going to somebody real famous. (I can safely eliminate Morton. He took over from Pinky Kennedy, who didn't crack; didn't need Blair, who says he went to DD Guest.)
It occurs to me there's confusion about the targets. Shooting up junks & leaving fishermen in the water was pretty common; wouldn't take a big stretch to mistake 1 for another from rusty memory. (Believe me, mine's been rusty enough, I'd know.)
If he was replaced by a big name, let me throw out a few. I don't recall any of them stepping in after a crackup, but... Cutter, Dealey, Beach, Harlfinger, Dornin, Whitaker, Fluckey, Coye, Triebel, Jim Coe, Joe Enright, Benny Bass, Bob Risser, Bub Ward, Chick Clarey, Creed Burlingame, Freddy Warder (who hated being called "Fearless Freddy", BTW), Tom Wogan? Or Howard Gilmore, KIA by strafing? Trekphiler (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't so much of a crackup as the captain deciding he could not command a sub in combat, turning it over to the exec, and, on return to Pearl (it was early in the war), an attempt was made to rehabilitate him in surface warfare. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question on title abbreviations

Hiya, I got a question for y'all. I'm a sales representative for a very small company that does business with the US military (but is not a contractor). I routinely run across the abbreviation "CIV" in reference to people's titles, as in "CIV John Doe", where a "SGT John Doe" would hold a similar position at another installation. According to an abbreviation site I found, CIV means "Civilian."

I frequently use this page as reference to decoding titles, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Is there a place where we can include CIV, maybe in the Ranks section, or would that be inappropriate? Additionally, are my sources even correct in the first place? I don't want to add it unless it's correct and within the bounds of the article. Thanks!

-KH

69.24.114.248 (talk) 04 April 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 19:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In this vein, during and after WWII, there were a handful of social workers who were tasked with resettling the displaced persons of Europe. They wore Army uniforms, had Army drivers for Army vehicles but were civilians who wore a triangle rather than a badge of rank on the uniforms. They worked directly with the Army generals, but possessed a simulated rank just below that of the generals, to retain a proper place in the Chain of Command. They had authority over soldiers of lesser rank.
A similar situation exists today; Because there was a shortage of generals recently, the 'commander' of White Sands Missile Range was actually a civilian with long service at WSMR, with the title of 'director'. I am not certain if there was a change of command ceremony when the previous commander, a general, was re-assigned.
And of course, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense 'outrank' the military. In those cases, there is an abbreviation or initialism which is used when referring to these civilians. (Which brings us to the interesting case of the USAF general who heads the CIA - I guess he chooses to wear the uniform on a workaday basis, but has stated that he could wear civilian clothes if he were required to do so.) (And, in WWII, we have pictures of Churchill and Stalin wearing uniforms, with FDR in civilian clothes during their meetings.)
So to address your question, it would be inappropriate to include CIV in a chain of command. In the case you mention, a civilian is acting in behalf of a function whose job specialty is usually filled by a soldier. What's the difference? -- The Soldier has taken an oath. A civilian can resign or otherwise end service at will. In the case of FDR, he took an oath as well, during his inauguration. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You'll also see, with many civilians, their GS (Government Service) grade. These don't map exactly to military grades, but give an idea of what is called "assimilated" rank. As far as what civilians can do, it's certainly common enough to see them in the direct chain of command for a scientific and technical operation, as with the White Sands example. Still, such a military person is still in some military chain of command as well as the local one. Now, if a colonel at White Sands gave an order to a major in a different branch, it would usually be appropriate for the major to suggest the colonel clear the order with his/her boss. Of course, if it's an emergency situation, when a sergeant yells "Get down, the rocket is about to explode", it's best to kiss the floor and, if necessary, deal with the sergeant later.
In principle, the head of the US military mission to a country is under the Ambassador's direct orders, but usually has a parallel chain of command through the regional combatant command. If the Ambassador wants a transport aircraft the military mission doesn't have, the military person is going to have to ask people in the regional or national organization. There have been special cases, John Paul Vann being the best example that comes to mind, where a civilian, for all practical purposes, has tactical command of a combat force. Vann was unusual in many ways, but he had retired as a lieutenant colonel yet, at the time of his death in a helicopter crash, he was filling a slot that was filled by a major general in the peer organization. He had a brigadier general deputy who technically issued some of the orders.
Very roughly, the correspondence of assimilated rank, with a table that changes periodically, is something like this:
Military Civilian
GEN/ADM ---
--- GS-18
LTG/VADM ---
--- GS-17
MG/RADM (upper half) ---
--- GS-16
BG/RADM (lower half) ---
COL/CAPT GS-15
LTC/CDR GS-14
MAJ/LCDR GS-13

I could go lower, but things get blurrier as you deal with lower ranks, and lower CIV ranks are less likely to be in a chain of command. There still were local exceptions; when I served on a government committee that was under a military organization, I was a GS-13 (promotable to GS-14), and my counterparts were all LTC/CDR. At that installation, I was a courtesy assiminated LTC/CDR. Don't think I ever issued an order, though.

Some very senior civilians were in jobs where military people ignored them at their peril. The Director of NSA is a three-star military type, but the Deputy Director is usually a civilian, with invisible stars. Still, military is military -- I was being escorted at NSA by a colleague who was a courtesy one-star, and he tried to take me into an area where he couldn't escort a less than fully cleared outsider. The Marine corporal guarding the door was extremely polite about explaining that if my escort persisted, he regretfully would shoot both of us. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks guys, that's more information than I ever thought I'd find. I frankly didn't think that adding in the CIV would be appropriate, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. As a Reservist's wife, I am familiar with people doing jobs above their pay grade, so Vann's case comes as no surprise to me. (But how very fascinating! I want to read that book now!) Thanks for your patience with the Wiki-noob and all the info!

-KH

69.24.114.248 (talk)13:24 EST 11 April 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 17:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Vann, as did lots of heroic figures, had some significant flows; A Bright and Shining Lie shows his good and bad sides. Let's put it this way -- something was enough of a problem that he wouldn't have made stars, and probably even colonel, in the Regular Army. Didn't mean that he wasn't a great planner and leader.
There's a whole conversation here about promotion in the military. The current situation is that H. R. McMaster has been passed over twice for brigadier -- yet the buzz a while back was that not if he would go to four stars, but when. It would be tragic if he's forced out. There are some other people that didn't go beyond colonel--not sure if it was health for John Boyd, but it was "not playing nicely with others" for John Warden III. Still, there can be people that are just right for the O-6 level, where they still have significant troop contact, that don't have the personalities for what generals do. I wish there was some way of keeping people at their level of greatest competence, rather than up-or-out. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a question of politics, too. People who make flag rank tend to be political animals, not operators; it's a rare bear to come out of something unusual, even as a line officer. (Which makes nonsense of Chegwidden in "JAG"; the only way a SeAL would make admiral is with pix of the SecDef with a goat, or something.) Trekphiler (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That's really interesting, Howard. I've never seen or heard of anything GS above a GS-15 before. After 15, it moves into the SAS category, doesn't it? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I used GS for convenience. In many cases, you are correct -- it goes to Senior Executive Service grades 5 through 1. In the intelligence community, they use GG, not GS, and they have some other name for SES. The Foreign Service has a system of grade 8 to Career Ambassador; the political advisor/State Department representative to a major military command is apt to have a Career Ambassador or Career Milister grade, although they'd usually be addressed as Ambassador.
Some very senior technical specialists may keep a GS rating. There is also a category that we called "Public Law" as shorthand; I don't remember the actual law but it was a GS-17 equivalent for technical experts, typically brought in from outside. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"In the intelligence community, they use GG, not GS." Huh? When did that happen? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The intelligence community generally uses GG, when I was working in the G2 at XVIII ABC we had several GGs, including the deputy G2 and the guy who ran the HUMINT shop. Can't say when the differentiation between GS and GG was made however. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq casualties revert

Um...why was my edit on the number of Iraq casualties reverted? I directly referenced GlobalSecurity.org, which has been used as a source by major news networks such as CBS, CNN, and NBC. I'm no Wikipedia expert, but if the 5,000 number is correct, doesn't it need a reference, and a stronger one than mine?

I'm going to put my edit back in. I hope that someone isn't just reverting out of political motives. I'm not too crazy about the war myself, but at least let's get the facts straight, folks. Please?

P.S. If one were to look up the Wikipedia article on Iraq casualties, my number is confirmed.

-KH

EDIT: Never mind, the correct numbers are back. Thanks!

69.246.242.145 (talk)18:10 EST 04 April 2008

[edit] Seven uniformed services

  • Marine Corps
  • Army
  • Navy
  • Air Force
  • Coast Guard
  • Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service
  • Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rape

Shouldn't it be noted that the US has a tradition of a rape culture? I mean incidents such as the My Lai massacre and the Mahmoudiya killings are some of the worst scandals ever. They have even raped their own women in the army. How do they stop these kinds of things? How do they make sure the army doesn't do it again? By training? I mean what do they do? LOTRrules (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be better to start a "US military war crimes" article, similar to Soviet war crimes, German war crimes, Japanese war crimes, and Italian war crimes. Mass rape is not unique to the Army (nor is it unique to the US, by any stretch of the imagination), and it would be better for someone who was searching for information about war crimes committed by American military personnel to be able to find it all in one place. Besides, this article is long enough as it is.
Speaking from my own experience in the Army, when a woman is raped, CID will conduct an investigation, but unless there's incontrovertible proof, nothing really happens. There is, afterall, the strong tendency in patriarchal societies to assume the girl is lying, and is just a "barracks ho". As for training, there was the "don't rape anybody" briefing in the beginning of Basic, and that was about it as far as official stuff goes. As an aside, while I was in Iraq, there was some guy running around at night, assaulting women, so we had to escort them back to their hooches after dark, until they caught the guy. Looking back on it, it doesn't make much sense to try to rape a woman carrying an assault rifle, but hey. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That Iraqi women? Or US women that were the victims and who exactly was the perpatrator? And did you see/hear many instances of rape? LOTRrules (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
American women, mostly Army. I don't know that he actually raped anyone, but there were numerous instances of groping and so forth. They never officially stated who the guy was, but there was a lot of rumint floating around; supposedly, it was either an Air Force captain or an Iraqi contractor, but both of those may be wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M113 total replacement?

I read somewhere in Army Times that by 2010, the Army will have replaced all of it's M113A3 APCs with M1126 Stryker ICVs. Can anyone verify this with another source? —Preceding comment added by 4.253.71.236 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)